I think the CWS remarks come from a description I was certainly given on the conversion to the "Other Side" which described the manual controls as acting much like CWS on the Boeing, ie you select an attitude with the sidestick and the system holds that until you make another selection. It is a good way of describing what the system does, but bears little resemblance as to how it does it. That's my guess at where this idea has crept in.
As to handling in turbulence I too was surprised at how easy it is to reach the limit on stick deflection (so far only in roll) but as the aircraft clearly remains in control if not - according to one classic definition - under control it seems a relatively normal regime of flight. I thoroughly endorse Micro's remarks about making mayonnaise - ALL the turbulence handling difficulties I've observed in my FOs have been due to gross overcontrolling, whipping the stick around like its a Pitts. All this does is to destabilise the aeroplane and make it more skittish and thus harder to fly. The trick in my opinion - just like then737 - is to consciously slow down control inputs and increase their amplitude, ie bigger and slower movements. This can be surprisingly exaggerated (think stirring treacle instead of whipping mayo) and always results in a more responsive and easier to control flightpath. The idea - I think - is largely to ignore the wiggles and bumps - they tend to self cancel - and just fly out the bigger slower excursions with proportionally bigger, slower inputs. It works for me. The more you let the Airbus fly itself the better it seems to respond which is of course exactly the design philosophy.
Personally in extreme turbulence I'd take the Boing every time but I don't think there's much in it. The Airbus flies just fine in turbulence if you use the right technique and remember it is a big, inertia heavy airliner not a Pitts or F16 and treat it as such.