Do you know enough about his business to say that consulting revenue is a significant part of his income? I don't.

Besides, it isn't clearly relevant to me.

Randy has made arguments about loyalty programs, on the whole, doing a good job satisfying their members. I hope I haven't oversimplified or mischaracterized his claims in my original post. (I didn't go back to original sources or quotes.)

I think that I, for one, offered arguments that run counter to Randy's position.

All of that is substantive dialogue. Motives don't play a role in it. And we should be able to judge the arguments on their merits, without respect to hypothesizing about why one might be making a particular argument.

Such hypothesizing about motive can be appropriate in limited circumstances. One that comes to mind is when the claims at issue are ones where a reader is insufficiently expert to distinguish the correct answer on their own. Then they have to judge how likely they are to believe the speaker. But if the arguments can be independently evaluated (as I suspect arguments about redemptions likely can be here on Flyertalk) then motive seems an unlikely way to dispose of an argument.

Earlier in the thread someone referenced Randy being overly tied to the airlines as evidenced by the lack of an Airtran forum (suggesting he was therefore in Delta's pocket). That's kind of a weird claim, since Randy has been very very supportive of the SaveSkyMiles campaign. He is personally the largest donor and has given technical expertise and web support as well -- not to mention featuring the campaign as part of a larger article in InsideFlyer.

Ultimately
- We can judge Randy's arguments (and really all arguments about award redemption, I think) on their merits. I happen to disagree, but that's substantive. Why even speculate about motive?
- When motive discussions do come up, I think they require great care. One doesn't question integrity lightly....

------------------
View from the Wing: A blog about Free Miles and Free Markets