Forum
Comments:
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 03:22:04 AM UTC
Sorry Site is www.eLearnAid.com
Yep, forgot to mention the site is http://www.eLearnAid.com
Thanks for reading!
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 03:43:27 AM UTC
Odd Rater
The person who left that comment left the exact same comment on over twenty other websites:
"My family spent over 40K on my brother before they found out it was a scientology front group and that the heavy use of niacin and saunas was dangerous. he wound up with a bad liver and wild hallucinations. do some research before you give them your money."
How he has attained such a high level of trust in the system is beyond me, but looking at your website, it seems perfectly safe.
Rated accordingly, and will be commenting once this thread is complete.
We rate the websites, the WOT staff creates, and advertises the add-on, and together, we make it all happen. -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 06:42:34 AM UTC
Curious connection
I have no idea if this is an actual connection to Scientology, or if it's just a case of a mistaken identity, but . . .
One of the books listed on this site: "The Destiny of Freedom" has a coauthor by the name of "Daniel Leacox".
There is a "Daniel Leacox" who is an avowed scientologist ( http://myreligion.scientologist.net/danielleacox/ ).
However, as I said, this is a dubious and perhaps distant connection, plus this guy's web site ("Daniel Leacox") doesn't say anything about coauthoring this book . . . so I wouldn't propose rating anything on this basis. I'm more curious than anything.
A (dubious) connection to scientology is certainly not sufficient to rate this site down. It just seemed like a strange coincidence since that commenter mentioned "scientology".
Nevertheless, there have been stranger coincidences, and that's all they've been.
Perhaps the OP could clarify.
-
- on Sat 12 Dec 2009
- 04:27:41 PM UTC
Daniel Leacox
This person? (or are there more?)
http://www.gtlaw.com/People/DanielLeacox-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Sat 12 Dec 2009
- 07:22:15 PM UTC
Don't know for sure
I have no idea if the site I linked to for "Daniel Leacox" is the same as the one you linked to. The "Daniel Leacox" site I linked to says "my employer is a law firm" and the one you linked to IS a lawyer, so they may be the same person.
When I just now went to your link again, their server was apparently down so I couldn't look some more.
Bottom line, they may or may not be the same person . . . hard to tell right now.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:22:57 AM UTC
"such a high level of trust in the system"
wehaveitall: "How he has attained such a high level of trust in the system is beyond me.."
I don't think he has much trust. He joined in february, rated 40 sites red the same day, and a week later a single green rate. And then nothing more...
Ratings and comments are different entities. Apparently he was the only person to comment his ratings, but I'm quite sure that many other people have rated red, without comments.
A single new user can NOT rate any site RED by a SINGLE vote.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 09:58:56 AM UTC
Have you googled yourself lately..?
I just tried this combination: elearnaid.com scientology
Bingo! Google offered 190 results. Here are some from page 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_Books
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=31624
http://alexa.com/site/linksin/elearnaid.com
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-dis...Looks like you're selling scientology-books, without knowing it.
Then again scientology is a cult that prefers to cloak itself... -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:49:29 AM UTC
6 scientology books for sale
Actually you are offering scientology books:
http://www.elearnaid.com/smalbusman.html
http://www.elearnaid.com/mansercdrom.html
http://www.elearnaid.com/howtosecland.html
http://www.elearnaid.com/rivera.html
http://www.elearnaid.com/busmanagement.html
http://www.elearnaid.com/elverforpcs.htmlFound by googling: elearnaid.com L. Ron Hubbard management tech
Looks like you're selling scientology-books, and now you know it...
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 08:43:59 PM UTC
I´ve you really don´t know
I´ve you really don´t know what you´re selling,you´re endangering your costumers.In this case i have to rate at least Vendor reliability red.In case you do know what you´re selling i have to rate red more than that!
And i can´t belive that a dealer don´t know that less about his job -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:08:57 AM UTC
1. Is eLearnAid.com
1. Is eLearnAid.com connected with Scientology?
2. Is it a concern if it is connected with Scientology?So, this accusation has been made "Is eLearnAid.com connected with Scientology?" We see that the WHOIS details for the domain is hidden, but before it was it use to be
Administrative Contact:
Littman, Bernard blittman@?????????
Littman
??????????
LOS ANGELES, CA 90039-????
US
(323) 466-???? fax: 999 999 9999I have removed personal details. Put that name and location into Google, "bernard littman" "los angeles" and you will see evidence for yourself, I will not list them here as some involve more personal details.
Of note is http://home.snafu.de/tilman/prolinks/index.html which indicates that Mr Littman is a Scientologist, and his business of eLearnAid.com has been listed in WISE, the official list of Scientologist businesses. This may lead people to believe, correctly or incorrectly, that eLearnAid.com is not entirely independent of Scientology.
Then the second question, "Is it a concern if it is connected with Scientology?"
Remember that WOT ratings are made by independent persons who may view Scientology as being unethical, in Greece it is illegal, in Finland and many other countries it is not recognised as a religion, in Germany it is presumed to be a business. But then there are those who believe that Scientology is a religion and is a force for good. So, you can see that many people would want to score the business down because of these Scientology connections. That is only a fair comment of peoples opinions.Let us perhaps look at the indivual WOT ratings
For "Trustworthiness", there is the matter of the BBB rating to consider too, an A+ rating is impressive. If it was unreliable, it would not be rated A+. But perhaps people do not trust a business that they think is closely aligned with Scientology.For "Vendor Reliability", again we see the A+ BBB rating. Perhaps this is unfair, but it is the way people have voted.
For "Privacy", your site has a clear privacy statement. It seems unfair that you are marked down for this.
For "Child Safety", a look at the site itself, it does sell books by L Ron Hubbard, but these are not illegal. However, there are those who may mark it down for Child Safety because they believe those books to be dangerous.
Because your business has these connections, it is not a surprise to see it marked down in some way. But perhaps not much though has been given to this by the people ranking the site, who I would suppose have strong opinions on Scientology.
You know, my post has been very long! But one thing to think about is that Scientology connected businesses are not so uncommon. Diskeeper Corporation is a famous one, and its products are installed in every Windows XP, 2000 and 2003 machine! Yes, if you have these versions of Windows then you will have given a small amount of licensing money to Diskeeper! And you will note that this company has not been marked down for its connections to Scientology http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/diskeeper.com
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:30:01 AM UTC
"Is eLearnAid.com connected with Scientology?"
It looks so, after some initial digging.
In that case the RED rating is not mysterious at all.
How about a comment from the OP..?
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 04:01:54 PM UTC
BBB, Fraud, and Scientology
"For "Trustworthiness", there is the matter of the BBB rating to consider too, an A+ rating is impressive."
While I agree that indeed an A+ rating from the BBB is impressive, "trustworthiness" as WOT uses the term covers a much broader range than perhaps "trustworthiness" as it may be used relative to the BBB (and I'm not sure if the BBB even uses that term).Correct me if I'm wrong, but BBB ratings are primarily (the BBB has a "proprietary" method of weighting some 17 criteria) related to consumer complaints and the business's promptness in resolving those complaints . . . if they even exist. It makes no judgment on the site's safety.
And another consideration . . . not focusing on the tenets or merits or ethics or pro/con opinions of scientology itself, but rather the OP's site's relation to that movement. It does seem as though there is an effort by the OP and the site to "hide" the connection to scientology. This may be particularly evident not only in your digging of the whois info, but in the original post itself. The OP has apparently edited completely out the reference to the comment that made a connection to scientology (but it still exists quoted in wehavitall's post). While this editing in and of itself does not necessarily indicate poor "trustworthiness", it is nevertheless highly suspicious. Without that included in the post, the flavor is completely changed.
In fact, had that not been mentioned to begin with, I doubt anyone would have investigated the site to this length. The OP may regret that h/she ever brought it up, but it was memorialized permanently by wehaveitall.
So, while not technically fraudulent, the OP's failure to disclose (or rather the inadvertent disclosure considering original post and then the edit), is very suspicious.
Is that suspicion alone sufficient to rate the site poor now? (And perhaps the original poor rating had to do with opinions on scientology, but now it's become a broader question of trust because of potential failure to disclose). I would have been more inclined to consider this inocuous, but when I saw that the OP edited out the comment quote referencing scientology, that made me lean toward a poor rating connected to fraud (NOT scientology).
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 03:33:34 PM UTC
wrong rating
The only people that rate a web sites poor in any part was removed from that site because of rules breaking should be allow to rate a site. WOT has a lot of bad information from people. Anybody thinks I am wrong here is my address freddynumber1@yahoo.com. There people seat there lie about web sites just there was removed. WOT never check out a web site before posting people findings. I have a email from WOT about this.All information is given by users of WOT.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 04:18:14 PM UTC
Huh?
Poor composition . . . can't understand what you're saying.
Example: "There people seat there lie about web sites just there was removed."
I have no idea what that mangled sentence means. (Being an accomplished wordsmith, amishrabbit, can you make sense out of this?)And unrelated to that, it is not wise to leave an unmunged email address in a post. Harvesters will pick it up.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 04:40:25 PM UTC
The "wrongness" of
The "wrongness" of Scientology is subjective, and should not be a cause to rate down websites.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 04:55:59 PM UTC
Concern is NOT scientology
My concern is what appears to be an intentional effort to hide the association. See my post about that.
A pertinent excerpt:
" . . . perhaps the original poor rating had to do with opinions on scientology, but now it's become a broader question of trust because of potential failure to disclose). I would have been more inclined to consider this inocuous, but when I saw that the OP edited out the comment quote referencing scientology, that made me lean toward a poor rating connected to fraud (NOT scientology)." -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 05:17:43 PM UTC
Any opinion is subjective
Destinii Haruya: The "wrongness" of Scientology is subjective,
and should not be a cause to rate down websites.The "wrongness" of any site is subjective.
If one does not have an opinion about a site, how can it be rated at all?
However, opinions without arguments and documentation carry little or no weight.
Look here for previous discussions: www.mywot.com/en/search/node/Scientology -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 09:44:29 PM UTC
By the way..
..i´ve found this site http://www.freeminds.org/ which needs a better reputation(as i believe)
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:12:40 PM UTC
Yeah..
..you´re right. But it was so suitable to the "oh i am selling scientologybooks?" thread.
;)
Well, surching the scientologysites, i´ve discovered someting:
here http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/aps-academy-sand... only one user has rated
and commented. But the site was already red. I thought you would have to be a higher ranked member to have such"power"?Am i right? Or wrong?Or? -
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 10:55:20 PM UTC
Well, close but no cigar...
You are partly right: It is true that "only one user has rated and commented."
But it is also true that many others have rated, without commenting.
Remember that rating are not comments, and comments are not ratings.
-
- on Thu 10 Dec 2009
- 11:20:17 PM UTC
Yes i know. But i think
Yes i know. But i think i´ve misunderstood something different: What does the number on the bar mean?Do you know what i mean? (Sorry,i´m affraid my english is not so good to explain what i want to say..)
-
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 12:04:57 AM UTC
The people icons
Wow, a lot has come from that one post.
So I guess what's happening is this guy is exaggerating the whole lost 40 thousand dollars part of his comments, but is at least directing them towards Scientology websites? So does that make him a spammer, or not?And as for your question,
The bar with the icons of people is just a relative representation of the reliability of the rating. For simplicity's purposes, they are of people, even though it doesn't represent the actual number of people rating it.
WOT goes by the reliability of each person's rating they've earned, not by a regular voting system.It just seemed like a coincidence to me that there was one comment and little reliability in the rating.
We rate the websites, the WOT staff creates, and advertises the add-on, and together, we make it all happen.
-
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 12:19:13 AM UTC
Ah, that means 1=less
Ah, that means 1=less rating, 100=lots of rates????
-
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 12:13:04 AM UTC
You mean...
You mean the number on the rainbow bar, ranging from 1 to 100..?
I'm quite sure that it is not the number of votes;
more an extra help to show you exactly
where you are within the bar.
Maybe Sami could clarify..? -
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 12:21:45 AM UTC
Rainbow bar
Every website has a rating of 0-100.
Like a paper or test, 100 is A+ safe, and 0 is completely unsafe. The number on the rainbow bar tells exactly what the rating is, from 0-100. Notice, for example, that on all red websites, its low, and all green websites, its high.I thought you were referring to the people icon bar, which refers to the reliability of the rating.
We rate the websites, the WOT staff creates, and advertises the add-on, and together, we make it all happen.
-
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 12:25:35 AM UTC
Ah, thanks a lot for the
Ah, thanks a lot for the explanation.
-
- on Fri 11 Dec 2009
- 01:34:48 AM UTC
L Ron Hubbard
Barns and Nobel
Amazon.com
to name but two websites that are green and who also sell L Ron Hubbard books; not all BTW are Scientology, he was a science fiction author as well.IMO a website should be rated for what it is.
I don;t stop watching Tom Cruise or John Trovolta movies because they are into Scientology; their religious beliefs are theirs even though they are not mine.The question concerning WOT about this site is, "Is the site safe for other members to explore?" Personal beliefs result with biased ratings. It's hard sometimes to try and remain unbiased but how else could an honest and fair rating be given? Does this site deserve anything less than good ratings based upon it's content? I have found nothing malicious, infectious, rogue, or otherwise harmful to my PC. I see no violence, no pornography, no hateful discussions, nothing that could be labeled as unethical, or nothing that would merit a warning for a twelve year old viewer.
The whois registrant info is private, but the website, in their page footer offers both postal and email addresses as well as phone numbers. I find nothing odd or wrong about that.
Is this topic about elearnaid.com or is it about Scientology?
I find it to be Useful, informative
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
My site has been wrongly labeled Rd
I am the owner of this site. We have been in business for almost 10 years and have thousands of happy customers. We have an A + (the highest they give) rating with the Better Business Bureau. We have also been verified as a bond-able site by BuySafe and they will bond any purchase. The site software and servers are maintained by Yahoo!
We don't even sell books that recommend Niacin (a B Vitamin) or Sauna! Although, I have found both to be beneficial!
We do sell dictionaries and promote the idea that dictionaries should be used for understanding and competence! We also promote tutors and schools that encourage children to use dictionaries and understand what they are studying so they can be responsible and happy citizens!