Old Mar 19, 16, 4:28 am
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,112
Originally Posted by Kremmen View Post
If we want to have comparable data, it makes sense to compare to one standard source. xe.com is easy to use and a de facto standard. MC is neither. People commonly use xe.com for comparison to other rates from money changers or banks, therefore it makes sense to use it here.
I'm not saying xe.com isn't good. I'm saying the more tools we have available (including the MC tool), the better. I don't think more tools can hurt us in trying to figure this out.

It's also especially relevant given I've been saying MC publishes lower exchange rates and then tack on a fee that gets passed on to customers. It would not be possible to test that claim without knowing MC's published rates.

I was trying to be civil, but as you wish to try to push the point, the use of "actually" and "now" in the sentence imply that you don't think I was providing data previously. That is way beyond inflammatory.
By definition, communication is inter-subjective. It's a involves both how you interpret things as well as what I meant. It saddens me that that's how you felt about what I said, but that is not what I meant. Also, I think it was still reasonable for me to phrase it that way because I was trying to emphasize that particular post, not the thread as a whole.

None of my data has been interpreted through a lens that is faulty. (Again, just an ad hominem attack from you.) If you don't like me using XE, then make a massive comparison between the site you like and xe.com and apply your fudge factor to all my results. Over a large enough data set, individual data points aren't necessary.
It's not an ad hominem when I'm giving a reason as to why it could be considered faulty.

I was specifically saying if all that you're using is the xe.com rate (which you seem to be; correct me if I'm wrong), then that misses out on the fact that I'm not talking about the xe.com rate. I'm talking about MasterCard's rates, and those don't necessarily follow the xe.com rates. That's what I meant by faulty.

I'm saying that xe.com should be used together with other tools to test out whether MasterCard does tack on a fee.

You say over a large enough data set, individual data points aren't necessary. But that begs the question of what you're examining. If you're just examining the xe.com rate, then yeah, it's completely fine. But that's not the only issue here. The issue is also whether MC has a hidden fee.

Fine. You stated it. No need for pages and pages of follow-up.
I was trying to engage you a conversation, and I made replies to your replies. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with that considering we're all here to try to get more information.

But fine. I'm out. I won't talk about this anymore.
Phantom707 is offline  
Reply With Quote