Your Baby Can Read Lawsuits

[La Texican]

The hubs just told me he saw it on the news that consumers have sued Your Baby Can Read out of business. Why do you think that is? Can you sue a diet pill if you don't look like the before and after photo? I made the mistake on another forum of saying that using "your baby can read" was like teaching a dog tricks, not like reading instruction with the phonics and the dolche words. I was judging by the commercials only. I never bought the program. I did buy Hooked on Phonics and Reading Eggs and they did the trick in a total of two years. Was that the problem? I'm thinking some parents bought it and expected it to take less than a year or two doing lessons 3x a week. Even the schools take all of two or three years to get kids reading. Were the parents just being impatient? How is that a lawsuit? Is it just because they made SO many sales that's what opened them up to being sued? Some people call their kids reading if they read sentences made out of cvc words. Some people call their children reading when they combine memorization with prediction in the Dr. Seuss rhymes and ez readers. Some people don't call their kids reading until they can read whatever you put in front of them or a third grade chapter book.

[kricau]

That sounds alot like the civil suit that was put against Baby Einstein company, cause the dvd's didn't end up making the babies smarter LOL

[Dustybug]

That sounds alot like the civil suit that was put against Baby Einstein company, cause the dvd's didn't end up making the babies smarter LOL

 

:iagree:

[gardenmom5]

if a company does NOT include a disclaimer stating, basically, not all will have the advertised results - that is an open door for a lawsuit for false advertising. even "one size fits all" labels have changed to "one size fits most". I guarantee diet pills have such a disclaimer in the literature.

 

people can have unreasonable expectations - some want a magic pill they can pop and get advertised results without having to do much of anything.

 

I saw some baby einstein videos and wanted to go running the other way. the woman who owned them thought they were wonderful - but they moved so fast how was a curious child supposed to be able to look at the specific part they were interested in?

[BakersDozen]

Oh good grief...why am I not surprised at what some people/parents do? :glare:

[SKL]

Does anyone know how much that program cost? (I don't.)

 

I think it kinda worked for some people, but they probably would have had early readers anyway.

[Mimm]

Good grief. How ridiculous. The only thing I know about the program is some father swearing by it. It seemed to have worked like a charm for his kids. I thought it was kinda cool, but it was obvious that he put a lot of time and effort into it and his children were interested and engaged in the process from a very young age. The program may have worked for my youngest but not my oldest.

[Jean in Newcastle]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897825/your-baby-can-read-company-going.html

[Danestress]

If the company really believes that 3 month old babies can learn to read, I guess it can present evidence of that. It is a lot less expensive to defend a false advertising lawsuit when there is good, concrete data to back up your claims. Maybe there really is a window of opportunity to teach children to read starting at 3 months. But more likely, there was some creative/false advertising going on. Sort of makes me sad to think of parents buying flash cards for six month old infants.

[newlifemom]

The website had claimed the best time for children to learn to read is when they are infants and toddlers, before they go to school; it said they could start as young as 3 months old. "Seize this small window of opportunity," it urged parents.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897825/your-baby-can-read-company-going.html#storylink=cpy

 

This has me :confused: Isn't their vision still developing at this point?

[Soror]

I think they had it coming, they lied about their product. False advertising, I wouldn't buy such a product but I think they have the right to sue.

[LibraryLover]

When I read the header, I thought i had accidentally opened the Accelerated Learner board. I was thinking, ' No way! Maybe the baby decodes well, but she can't possibly understand what she's reading."

 

This website takes my head to odd places. Like does this lawyer baby go to court in an Ergo or a Bugaboo? Is she

nursing?

[ktgrok]

When I read the header, I thought i had accidentally opened the Accelerated Learner board. I was thinking, ' No way! Maybe the baby decodes well, but she can't possibly understand what she's reading."

 

This website takes my head to odd places. Like does this lawyer baby go to court in an Ergo or a Bugaboo? Is she

nursing?

 

I read it the same way!!!!!

[Dmmetler]

Isn't the video just doing the Doman-type flashcards, but on screen? If so, I was a research assistant for a long-term study on it, and the conclusion the researchers on that team found was that, yes, many babies/toddlers can learn to recognize words by sight, but that

 

a) The "it all evens out by 3rd grade" was exactly true in this case. Most of the children followed were ahead of kids their age in K and 1st, but by 2nd and 3rd, the others had caught up.

 

b) Children who went through this program had a higher rate of LDs than a control group (which, since parents were self-selecting, may just indicate that parents who thought their child might struggle were the ones who bought the books and actually followed through with the program)

 

c) As teens/young adults, children who went through the program had higher rates of depression and anxiety, especially in regards to school performance, and had more difficulty seeing their achievement as satisfactory. (Again, this might be more due to the kind of parents who chose to do early literacy programs with their child, not due to the early literacy program themselves).

 

As a parent with a child who could read before they could walk (with no instruction unless reading the same books every time your 1 yr old demanded "weed it 'gain!" counts), I have to question why parents would want an early reader. I would have MUCH rather had a 1 1/2 yr old who slept through the night and would have given anything to have a 1 1/2 yr old who was potty trained as opposed to one who sat in the shopping cart reading labels and demanding "That sign say COOKIE-go to cookie!"

[garddwr]

snip

 

As a parent with a child who could read before they could walk (with no instruction unless reading the same books every time your 1 yr old demanded "weed it 'gain!" counts), I have to question why parents would want an early reader. I would have MUCH rather had a 1 1/2 yr old who slept through the night and would have given anything to have a 1 1/2 yr old who was potty trained as opposed to one who sat in the shopping cart reading labels and demanding "That sign say COOKIE-go to cookie!"

 

OK, I laughed so hard at the image of your toddler reading the labels and demanding cookies--definitely not something I have experienced (my current toddler was barely saying 3 words at 18 months, let alone reading) but I can see how incredibly frustrating that could be!

 

My response to the "teach your baby to read" type materials has always been "why in the world would I want to do that???"

 

--Sarah

[La Texican]

As a parent with a child who could read before they could walk (with no instruction unless reading the same books every time your 1 yr old demanded "weed it 'gain!" counts), I have to question why parents would want an early reader. I would have MUCH rather had a 1 1/2 yr old who slept through the night and would have given anything to have a 1 1/2 yr old who was potty trained as opposed to one who sat in the shopping cart reading labels and demanding "That sign say COOKIE-go to cookie!"

 

Lol. No you wouldn't have. No kid is truly convienient. Yours matches you better. :)

 

Also. Lol @ the baby lawyers. Sometimes they wish they were as much as they like to argue their rights. Talk to me about "rights" after you start wiping your own butt.

 

Surely a company that big had disclaimers, right? I mean we all know we buy cirriculums that don't fit and sadly many books lack much meat. Are they being sued for what every. single. advertiser does, which is appeal to fear and vanity?

[Scuff]

Isn't the video just doing the Doman-type flashcards, but on screen? If so, I was a research assistant for a long-term study on it, and the conclusion the researchers on that team found was that, yes, many babies/toddlers can learn to recognize words by sight, but that

 

a) The "it all evens out by 3rd grade" was exactly true in this case. Most of the children followed were ahead of kids their age in K and 1st, but by 2nd and 3rd, the others had caught up.

 

b) Children who went through this program had a higher rate of LDs than a control group (which, since parents were self-selecting, may just indicate that parents who thought their child might struggle were the ones who bought the books and actually followed through with the program)

 

c) As teens/young adults, children who went through the program had higher rates of depression and anxiety, especially in regards to school performance, and had more difficulty seeing their achievement as satisfactory. (Again, this might be more due to the kind of parents who chose to do early literacy programs with their child, not due to the early literacy program themselves).

 

As a parent with a child who could read before they could walk (with no instruction unless reading the same books every time your 1 yr old demanded "weed it 'gain!" counts), I have to question why parents would want an early reader. I would have MUCH rather had a 1 1/2 yr old who slept through the night and would have given anything to have a 1 1/2 yr old who was potty trained as opposed to one who sat in the shopping cart reading labels and demanding "That sign say COOKIE-go to cookie!"

 

That's interesting. I can see how B would happen. I used Doman flashcards a little with dd9 when she was about 2-3. :) When it came time to actually teach her to read, I had the hardest time getting her to blend. (which is what I count as being able to read. Once you can blend, you're off.) She would guess at words, instead of trying to put them together. I've since heard that's common with the whole word approach. Oh my, it was such WORK to teach her to read. I have no doubt it would have gone more smoothly had she not had the flashcards. Also, she was good at them. She knew all the presidents, since we did president cards, too. (Well, the first half. With dd7 added in, we didn't keep it up) But today, she doesn't remember any of them that we haven't talked about recently.

[SKL]

I read the linked article. While I'm not a fan of this product, doesn't the government have to be able to provide evidence that (a) a claim is demontrably untrue and (b) the untrue claim was what led consumers to purchase the product? What are the specific claims that are so demonstrably untrue here?

 

I feel this is slippery slope stuff. Will companies be sued for saying that toys will make children happy, which we know is not true? Will clothing companies be sued for implying that their products will make a geeky plain jane look cool or pretty? What about "comfortable" shoes that still hurt like heck because women aren't designed for high heels?

 

Are we now saying that companies have to have solid physical proof for every word they say?

 

Who's to say whether or not an infant recognizes a printed word from one day to the next?

 

It's one thing to say this kind of product is superfluous etc., it's another to say that the person selling it had to have proof that every child exposed to it would learn to read before he was weaned.

[La Texican]

That's what I'm thinking. *I didn't think they did anything wrong. It seems like you'd have to keep up with the reading afterwards for it to stick. *I believe if an infant can be trained to respond to a written symbol then that response is reading a written communication, even if it's forgotten the next day it still happened. *I think the average consumers didn't remember how much time lapses between early reading and fluent reading. *I can't believe you can sue a company out of business. *Don't products have a thirty day refund no liability?

 

I would choose a different program. *I want my kids to work harder at it and have a solid foundation not necessarily a quick start. *Hence the dog training analogy because an animal can respond to a gesture or word but can not duplicate it. *That's where the analogy ends though because the baby will eventually learn communication. *

[WishboneDawn]

I read the linked article. While I'm not a fan of this product, doesn't the government have to be able to provide evidence that (a) a claim is demontrably untrue and (b) the untrue claim was what led consumers to purchase the product? What are the specific claims that are so demonstrably untrue here?

 

That was what the FTC was in the process of investigating. They were at the point where they asking the question you are to see if there was something to the complaints. I think that's completely appropriate.

 

I feel this is slippery slope stuff. Will companies be sued for saying that toys will make children happy, which we know is not true? Will clothing companies be sued for implying that their products will make a geeky plain jane look cool or pretty? What about "comfortable" shoes that still hurt like heck because women aren't designed for high heels?

 

It's not really that slippery. A suit, like the FTC investigation, is a question, not the outcome. Again, filing a suit is about asking the same questions you are. Eventually the parties will come up against a judge where a decision will be made about the questions they, and you, are asking and the decision will be made about whether there's any merit to them.

 

If they're frivolous, like those you're citing, the case will likely be tossed and a party may even be penalized for wasting the time and money of the court and other party.

 

The company's choice to shut down in the face of the investigation and lawsuit was it's own.

 

Are we now saying that companies have to have solid physical proof for every word they say?

 

When they make extraordinary claims, why shouldn't they?

 

Who's to say whether or not an infant recognizes a printed word from one day to the next?

 

Science. Research.

 

It's one thing to say this kind of product is superfluous etc., it's another to say that the person selling it had to have proof that every child exposed to it would learn to read before he was weaned.

 

I think the suit is more about having proof that ANY child exposed to it would learn to read before he was weaned rather then EVERY child.

 

I do want to point out that allowing consumers this recourse, the ability to sue, is ultimately a good thing for business. There are a LOT of businesses out there that are honest and truthful with their advertising. Allowing other companies to get away with lies and false claims erodes publics trust in ALL businesses and takes away the ability of good companies to tell consumers about their products and be believed.

Edited July 21, 2012 by WishboneDawn

[Tidbits of Learning]

Reading the article, it seemed as if an advocacy group (Commercial-Free Childhood) is behind the initial complaint. I do believe that it is highly unlikely that giving children screen time and media younger and younger will elicit children who are smarter and advanced.

I was so grumpy when the original vsmile handheld and the leapster were changed to downloadable games and in the vsmile case to something with a touch screen and qwerty keyboard. I just thought...huh? Yes, it looks like Mom's smart phone or tablet, but Mom can read and write and download from the computer. I was so glad that I had saved my older children's version of these items with the cartridges. My kids didn't get them at 2 and 3 though. My 5 year old really loves his vsmile and leapster (hand-me-downs) and now at his age he is learning from it b/c he has already been exposed to reading and writing in some form. It is also a reward. I don't believe the Leapster Spiderman and the sinister speller will make him a genius.

I am one that believes too much electronics and media young can lead to a shorter attention span and less imaginative play. I think this group is trying to keep companies from foisting on naive parents products that claim instant success with items that use screen time in a child so young. Do I think you should sue for your money back over false claims? I don't think so unless it was detrimental to your child (and you can prove it harmed them).

I for one thought the whole idea was ludicrous from the start. My husband's younger sister (dh is the oldest and still has a sibling in high school) made a big production of having bought this for her dd for her 1st birthday. She is a year younger than my youngest who is 5 so this was a few years ago. I just thought, huh? This poor kid's big gift at her 1st birthday party was a Teach Your Baby to Read set??? Having taught 3 kids to read, I knew that putting your kid in front of a tv with a video was not going to cut it unless your child was just naturally gifted.

I, too, like the pp had one child who just taught themselves to read as a toddler. No instruction whatsoever. She was reading 3rd grade chapter books by the time she went to kindergarten. It was a blessing and a curse. A child who can read what time a movie starts or where and when the parade starts is a lot harder to reason with when you are not planning to attend a movie or go to a parade. Whereas, a toddler that you can "fudge" the truth with is a lot easier to manage and control sometimes. The school can't really teach them anything and they can't send them on to 4th grade at 5.

I don't understand the rush to push our children faster and harder. Why not enjoy childhood? The toys that taught us fine motor control and dexterity are now labelled occupational therapy and only sold for expensive prices as early education and therapy products. What is with that? We are in such a rush (as a society) to have our children using electronics and media younger and younger that we are forgoing toys that generations of toddlers/preschoolers were brought up playing with and learning so much without realizing they were even learning.

[SKL]

The problem with government "investigations" etc. is that they never have to compensate the company for the cost of frivolous or just plain ridiculous claims. This has been a pet peeve of mine since a client had to pay millions of dollars in costs to convince the IRS that its "proposed adjustments" (and penalties) were BS. We worked on it for years, and after two senile agents retired and we got an intelligent agent, they agreed with us and literally apologized. However, they didn't compensate the company for the millions wasted on the government's foolishness. This case sounds similar.

 

I haven't heard any outrageous claims that the company has made. Some babies / tots do learn to read, and obviously they have to be exposed to words in order for that to happen. There was a poster on here a while back who claimed her baby had learned just this way. Who am I to say otherwise?

 

There's also a burden on the consumer to have enough sense to filter what they hear. If the ad says "you'll be amazed" and you're not amazed, do you get your money back? I don't think so. Also, I think it's pretty clear what you get for the $200 so I don't see any deception there.

 

What I glean from the article is that some group has an agenda to get these types of products off the shelves, and the government is allowing itself to be led and trumping up a charge without enough basis. What do you mean, the government is still building its case, while the company has already spent a ton of money defending it? Sounds like if this were a criminal case, it would not have gotten past the Grand Jury.

 

Any small company, truthful or not, could be driven out of business by this sort of government behavior. This is the type of thing that scares people away from entrepreneurship.

Edited July 21, 2012 by SKL

[Caitilin]

I read it the same way!!!!!

 

:lol:Me too!

[ElaineJ]

When I read the header, I thought i had accidentally opened the Accelerated Learner board. I was thinking, ' No way! Maybe the baby decodes well, but she can't possibly understand what she's reading."

 

This website takes my head to odd places. Like does this lawyer baby go to court in an Ergo or a Bugaboo? Is she

nursing?

:lol::lol: I thought the same thing! It made me laugh.

[La Texican]

I love Media. I hate censorship. I agree this isn't my choice, it's between the lawyers and the judge. It just stinks that's all. The general principle, not the program.

 

Plus I think the program's really just competing with Spongebob Squarepants and Word World and Donahue or the Soaps for the existing screen time. And about the Little Einsteins. The show is on tv now. So it's ok for public kids to watch it, just not for the people who made it to make so much money selling it.

Think about it this way, professional teachers disagree on the phonics vs sight words and discovery math vs memorize the times tables. The people who made this product put time and thought into making something and then they marketed their idea.

 

I do have a few (3) media artists in my immediate family so I am looking at this from the unique perspective of having heard their concerns about eeking out a living selling intellectual rights, package, produce, protect, and sell ideas, among other technilogy shifts that are really affecting the business of entertainment. You read about that stuff in music about people not really wanting to take a risk on potential talent that's too original (risky) and different.

Edited July 21, 2012 by La Texican

[La Texican]

I guess I'm just saying I see them as small Indie businesses that made something and made it, especially rare when your product is intellectual rights, which is a program, or a movie, or a set of ideas. They sold their packaged ideas for $. You had 30 days for a refund. Why are they being sued out of business?

[Dmmetler]

I love Media. I hate censorship. I agree this isn't my choice, it's between the lawyers and the judge. It just stinks that's all. The general principle, not the program.

 

Plus I think the program's really just competing with Spongebob Squarepants and Word World and Donahue or the Soaps for the existing screen time. And about the Little Einsteins. The show is on tv now. So it's ok for public kids to watch it, just not for the people who made it to make so much money selling it.

Think about it this way, professional teachers disagree on the phonics vs sight words and discovery math vs memorize the times tables. The people who made this product put time and thought into making something and then they marketed their idea.

 

I do have a few (3) media artists in my immediate family so I am looking at this from the unique perspective of having heard their concerns about eeking out a living selling intellectual rights in the age of Internet piracy, among other technilogy shifts that are really affecting the business of entertainment. You read about that stuff in music about people not really wanting to take a risk on potential talent that's too original (risky) and different.

 

FWIW, Baby Einstein is not the same as the Little Einsteins on Disney Channel. Baby Einstein was brightly colored visual images swirling on screen in combination with classical music, and was built on the Mozart Effect studies that indicated that college students did better on spatial reasoning when they'd listened to classical music while studying and a follow-up study indicating that preschool music activities raised spatial awareness and early math skills more than computer lessons or basic math instruction. which got spun into "Listening to music makes babies smarter", which was not a claim backed up at all by any of the most quoted studies.

 

 

Little Einsteins is snippets of classical music and art taught in a storyline, using the same techniques that generations of college students have used to memorize snippets of music for "Drop the needle" tests-IE, put silly lyrics to it, and you can probably remember it, at least long enough to get through the test, plus some basic music concepts like tempi and instrument sounds. I can't say it's terribly helpful information for the average 4 yr old, but it's not really any different than any other preschool TV program that's trying to teach some basics. It's simply that this one is trying to teach some basic music theory/literature/art appreciation, not counting or the alphabet.

[La Texican]

I guess I never saw baby Einsteins then. I love classical baby on HBO.

Soooo cute! What's that commercial they keep showing that teaches kids to keep time, tap out a beat using phrases, "one, two, three, I , am, a, tree". It seems like it was an after school program in NYC or something.

Edited July 21, 2012 by La Texican

[swellmomma]

When I read the header, I thought i had accidentally opened the Accelerated Learner board. I was thinking, ' No way! Maybe the baby decodes well, but she can't possibly understand what she's reading."

 

This website takes my head to odd places. Like does this lawyer baby go to court in an Ergo or a Bugaboo? Is she

nursing?

 

That's what kept popping into my head. Boy prelaw starts young these days :lol:

[AngelBee]

I guess I'm just saying I see them as small Indie businesses that made something and made it, especially rare when your product is intellectual rights, which is a program, or a movie, or a set of ideas. They sold their packaged ideas for $. You had 30 days for a refund. Why are they being sued out of business?

 

:iagree:

 

I think it is silly. They are also being attacked by a group pushing an agenda of no media for children.

 

I thought all these types of products were a waste of money. And guess what? God gave me children who LOVE Baby Einstein! :lol: Even my ds12 watches with the littles! :)

[AngelBee]

Just realized I have "Baby TV" of some sort playing while I am on here. Ds1 and dd3 watching. :lol:

[thefragile7393]

SO stupid. Baby Einstein of course didn't make kids smarter....I knew that but still bought a lot of their stuff and loved it. Unfortunately lawyers will do anything to make money and there are gullible people who don't use their heads and research things before they buy. I know one family who loved the Your Baby Can Read series....but they also knew that it didn't really promise anything. Very stupid.

[AngelBee]

SO stupid. Baby Einstein of course didn't make kids smarter....I knew that but still bought a lot of their stuff and loved it. Unfortunately lawyers will do anything to make money and there are gullible people who don't use their heads and research things before they buy. I know one family who loved the Your Baby Can Read series....but they also knew that it didn't really promise anything. Very stupid.

 

:iagree:

[La Texican]

I bought the your baby brand Speak Spanish from Walmart *"for the kids" because I live in a bilingual town and I'm not bilingual. *There was more meat to that than the Hooked on Spanish box. *One DVD was the power point flash cards. *One DVD was simple Spanglish music videos. *I also have the CAPs Spanish program. *Both the Speak & the CAPs Spanish look low budget, they lack bling and glamor. *Still as a consumer we watch those as often as we watch the leapfrog Math Circus. *It's just a movie. *It's not the whole body of knowledge you ever need to know on the subject. *I had thought about posting this lawsuit news on the cirriculum board but I thought that's more for choosing and using cirriculum and this is more of a general discussion.

[fraidycat]

When I read the header, I thought i had accidentally opened the Accelerated Learner board. I was thinking, ' No way! Maybe the baby decodes well, but she can't possibly understand what she's reading."

 

This website takes my head to odd places. Like does this lawyer baby go to court in an Ergo or a Bugaboo? Is she

nursing?

 

:lol: I read it this way, too.

 

I loved Baby Einstein, because DD loved Baby Einstein...and I got to have a shower or use the toilet in peace!!

[La Texican]

Sorry. Double post.

Edited July 22, 2012 by La Texican

[justLisa]

I saw my cousin with a line about this on facebook! I was really embarrassed for some reason. She is very young

[justLisa]

Ya gotta feel for people though. There is so much pressure. Before, kindergarten was basically play time and get acquainted with the idea of school. Now it's much more academic. Pre-school has gotten crazier too. I've seen many pre-school preparation workbooks out there. At the rate it's going we will just hand our infants off to schools as soon as they pop out.

 

I know I feel bad for her and people who get persuaded by this junk. I mean, maybe she really does think it's going to help her. And she is uneducated as well as her dh....and so are her parents, etc.

[TracyR]

I'll have to admit, the program worked really well for us as well. It was a good start to starting to learn to read early that's for sure.

I remember seeing the commercials for it for years and never bought it thinking it was a scam. But my 4th child saw the commercials and wanted it more than you could imagine. So for Christmas we bought the cheaper program that had the first four volumes and she LOVED IT! She actually started to learn to read. She is my only one out of the four that has learned to read and is learning to read well. She LOVES books.. even the other day our evaluator loaned us a few of her 1st grade reading books from Abeka and she absolutely adores them, and is reading the for fun because she can read at a much higher level than that.

 

She even has figured out how to phonetically read on her own.

We did try 100 EZ lessons before starting Your Baby Can Read and she just couldn't get reading at all.

She needed to see and hear, not just hear. Once we got the YBCR program the thing is you have to continue to be consistent with continuing to teach reading. It just doesn't stop after that program. The YBCR is just a start off point and I believe many people think that their children are going to be reading a chapter book after doing YBCR. Not so, and if your dumb enough to believe that , well ....

 

I am an advocate for YBCR, Brillkids, Monkisee, and Glenn Doman etc . They do work and it depends on how much time and effort you truly put into teaching your child to read. You can start teaching them at 3 months but they really won't show much until they are able to do simple signs to show you they know what they know. There are tons of videos online especially those who use Brillkids showing young babies signing what they read, or young children reading. So yes, they can learn to read, and yes a 3 month old can focus on large print.

 

 

I will say though that YBCR had very poor customer service. Its a great product , but they had very poor customer service.

The company could have done more to support those families who have children who have completed the program and wanted to continue on.

 

Not to mention aren't the worst critics those that have NEVER ever used the program before. I can say it does truly work and stand behind it.

 

I'll admit I wished I had known of this when I first had my children it would have made teaching reading to my girls soooooo much easier. But , for now, my youngest is and has been my best reader out of my bunch because I have used these programs.

Edited July 22, 2012 by TracyR

[La Texican]

Thanks for sharing Tracy. I'm just imagining these programs are somebody's idea that they thought was good, their mothers thought it was good. Lol. It worked for some people and not for others. Many of us, myself included, thought other programs were much better so we never had a reason to buy it. I guess I just think it's unjust what's happening. Now posting in this thread seems silly because I'm not looking for agreement or insight, just putting my 2c in on my own thread. i googled superfluous and now I'm doing it.