Slashdot Mirror
Calling Video Professor a Scam
palmerj3 writes in to give some wider attention to a piece on Techcrunch today in which Michael Arrington reacts to Video Professor's desperate attempts to shut him up after he called Video Professor a scam in a piece syndicated by the Washington Post. As described by Arrington, the ways the company's site operates (differently depending on where a visitor comes from) are strongly reminiscent of the practices a Senate committee recently condemned. (Here is a detailed example of another, similar scam, from a not-naive victim. Video Professor's tactics sound even more deceptive.) Video Professor seems to react with belligerence, not to mention legal threats, towards any hint of criticism. Please share any direct experiences you have with this outfit.
Seriously, I know I could just google it but damnit slashdot, this sounds like a typical example of an editor knowing about a subject that a submission happens to be about yet most likely the average slashdot users doesn't have a clue as to what/who the fuck "Video professor" is.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Who cares about the name, they sued their own customers to shut them up about being scammed. That's more than enough evidence of a scam.
Is that gaming market is doing a great job of trying to implode on itself. Seriously, if the way it works is the games that participate in offerbot scams are the successful ones... Well then I don't see it having a long term future. After all, there are TONS of PC games that are not that way, be they web based Flash games or retail games or whatever. There are more games than you can play in a lifetime out there that aren't like this. If this is what the gaming scene on Facebook is, my guess is that it'll implode and disappear in a couple years.
They gave me my money back AND let me keep the course. That really surprised me.
Given their high profile, displaying a desire to avoid criminal prosecution really shouldn't come as a surprise.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It is bigoted to point out that someone believes in imaginary creatures?
Would it be bigoted if I claimed people who believed in unicorns were foolish?
Since when does anyone have the right not to be offended?
A belief in fairy tales does not constitute a protected class. An African-American never chose to have black skin nor can they change that condition. A Christian can apply a modicum of critical thinking to remedy their condition.
In any other discussion, a willful disregard for scientific evidence will be appropriately mocked here on Slashdot. So why should believing that the earth is 6000 years old be any different? And why should believing anything from a book compiled for a purpose ~1700 years ago be any more reasonable that believing the myths of other primitive societies?
I've got nothing against people that believe there is a higher power, but you won't find a lot of Christians that believe just that without believing in all the provably false claims in the Bible. And even then, no one would give a rats ass about that belief too if Christians didn't have a nasty habit of trying to use those spurious beliefs to shape public policy and the annoying habit of trying to spread their critical thinking deficiency virus. I can't speak for the rest of the people who make clear their disdain for Christians, but for my part, they need only stop those two habits for me to stop caring about them entirely. They can go off into their own little corner and enjoy their wacky cult. But as long as people preach their bizarre beliefs and use them to justify insane public policy, it's the duty of every rational person to denounce them.
Because you make much MUCH more money that way, at least until some A.G. shuts you down. Even if they were legit at some point (I don't remember), they are currently riding that edge between scummy and illegal. The money convinced someone it was worth it. It usually does.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
uh, parent is unintentionally NOT OFFTOPIC this time
I don't want to vote for an idiot. (Note personal opinion.. some people don't think of her as an idiot, I chalk that up to the fact that they are probably idiots themselves)
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Because such "learn at home" videos are in fact very difficult to make: they have no feedback with the student, they're easily at far too sophisticated or far too untrained an audience, and because "teaching Photoshop" reequires a great deal of hands-on experience to learn how the workflow really works, and to recover from errors or inappropriate shortcuts. It's far easier to make a very lame and poorly produced document that does not actually teach, but relies on fraud to make its profit.
Such behavior is very common: do not rely on something sounding "perfictly viable" to assure that it has, in fact, any useful quality.
And you are a fucking moron...the Civil Rights act protects your from being discriminated against in finding shelter, a job, etc. It does NOT protect you or your religious beliefs from criticism by others. THAT right is protected in the US Constitution, under the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the "Free Speech" clause.
The UN's declaration of rights includes the rights of Free Speech and belief....this means you should be able to believe whatever you want without fear of oppression by your government, and I have the right to mock you for your beliefs...again without fear of oppression by my government.
You sound like the typical "poor Christians getting oppressed" whiner when the truth is you can't stand the idea that others also get to express their beliefs and opinions which include disdain for your beliefs. Go whine to the ACLJ and see how successful you are in a law suit. I'll talk to the ACLU to assist in defending my 1st Amendment rights against your claims.