<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cblaisd:
[B] It's unfortunate that you think we need to point out the flaws in this idea, but here goes:
1. It's likely fraud.
2. Therefore, it's arguably against the FlyerTalk Guidelines which state: Condoning of Illegal Activity -- Posts that condone illegal activity (i.e., buying and selling of awards, direct fraud upon any program) will be removed without notice and accounts subject to deletion! We're not the law, but we know where they are. </font>
if this is fraud, then how is cycling your money through C2IT not fraud? i am also inclined to lean towards this idea of fraud and that's why i wanted to start a discussion on it.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
3. It brings FlyerTalk and Randy Petersen as the "publisher" of this site into disrespect. If that's your intention then that's pretty low; it's clearly the result.
</font>
not my intention at all. it's an academic discussion as far as i'm concerned. i don't think it brings him into disrespect at all. in fact, i believe it brings him greater respect. free discussion of ideas is paramount. allowing such discussion and a thorough examination of loopholes is commendable.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
4. And if you want to argue that it's not legal fraud, it is clearly moral fraud.
</font>
i'm not aruging it's not legal fraud at all. i'm not capable of positing such an argument. i'm interested in how it's "clearly moral fraud".
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
5. Do you have no shame?
</font>
i do not see how this discussion reflects upon me as a person. i have not done it, nor am i condoning it. i brought it up.
this reminds me of peter singer, a famed bioethicist. he advocated that infanticide was ethically permissible. he didn't condone it, of course, but using interesting thought experiments, he provided an interesting perspective. of course, there were those who misunderstood his stance and condemned him.
i'm interested to hear what others say. is it unethical to exploit a loophole if the loophole is legal?
that is the fundamental issue here.
(and now that i've typed that, i've figured out how to edit my original post!)
regards