---

Blair- Much to my surprise, you appear to be far more of a "digital logic" kinda' guy than I ever would have imagined!

I can explain to the best of my ability only and yet I can not necessarily compell anyone to understand! Nor would I want to!

We all make choices everyday, I'd submit. Using your analogy, for example, a yellow light means, to me at least, "warning: slow down since it'll turn red soon."

Yet I'm from NY where many apparently feel a yellow traffic signal means "hurry up: hit the gas since it'll turn red any second!"

We all decide on a kinda "threshold", if you wish, at which time we might apply the brakes. I'm probably in the middle or near it as I see it at least. My wife breaks very early. And so on.

Similarly, any observant traffic officer must, in effect, "decide" at which point the offending driver, literally becomes so, having run the yellow warning light!

And then, if they have, whether or not to then issue a summons/citation/ticket, or perhaps just issue a warning slip, or just a polite "talking to," or even to simply not pull them over. And so on ...and so on....

You make your choices, and I make mine, and life goes on - hopefully happily for all -particularly if we all increasingly consider the consequences, both personally and for the common good - of course as we each see these matters!

Incidentally, I do also believe that your effort to somehow hold me to a "higher standard" is manifestly flawed - altough I naturally very much respect your right to an opinion - of course!

Again, . No "higher" standards, ever. Just clearer. I learn a lot from everyone here, often the folks who have been around here much longer than I have and contibuted so much more. Given your experience here, I look up to you for your opinion on matters, including this one. I guess I just expected it to be more black or white (or red or green). No hard feelings.

Doc, you're held to a higher standard because . . . you're Doc Just another one of your supporters. Even in a virtual community you're attention to FT makes you a role model/authority figure (at least to new members such as myself). Take that for what it's worth. And if it means anything bending/breaking/manipulating/exploiting program rules has definitely created loyalty from myself to my programs. I look to stay at Hiltons whenever I can (despite paying a bit more here and there), and accept paying the small fee that NW always tacks on for the same routing that CO offers.

Absolutely none, naturally.

I'm now headed off to make my regular Red Cross blood donation - I guess a "red area!"

At least when it's oxygenated!

Otherwise it'd probably be a "blue area!"

Have a great day all!

2) On the dive computer example, if the ticket agent doesn't specifically ask you if you have one, do you volunteer it?

3) Would you ever back-to-back ticket using different airlines for personal travel? [/QUOTE]

Honestly speaking, I don't think I would volunteer the information. And I probably would buy back- to - backs if the savings were substantial.

So, at least in answering you I'm trying to be honest .

But I'm not certain that was the issue here.
Does doing something and getting away with it make it correct? That's where my issue is. Posters are trying to justify their actions by this logic as well.

On the corner of my block I saw an accident involving someone running a stop sign at 10 PM and plowing right into someone who had pulled out without their headlights on. It doesn't happen every time, but the law was written to prevent it from happening.
A defense of "I run the stop sign all the time and nothing ever happened before" is a pretty poor defense.

The end result, by the way was that the guy who ran the stop sign was the guilty party. While the lack of head lights was a mitigating factor, stopping at the light (obeying the law) would have prevented the accident.

Thumper, thanks for this post.

_____________________________

Very well said!

Another reason many of us look up to your posts!

So would I. I also agree with you about the $50.00 intentional spill not being right. See, I'm not all bad.

Actually, we're probably similar in our approaches to this sort of thing, assuming you're close to the libertarian model.

It's just that the original poster tried to make this a clear-cut, black-and-white issue. It's not. It's something we will individually have to struggle with on a case-by-case basis. There are simply too many grey areas and varying degrees of harm to consider, otherwise.

Depends. Isn't that how legal precedent is often set?

Granted, though I regard this sort of thing less of a moral issue and more of a risk assessment.

Is it immoral to break the law? It depends. One small town I occasionally drive through still has on the books an archaic law requiring drivers to stop at the edge of town, get out, run ahead, and loudly warn of the imminent arrival of an automobile (presumably to avoid scaring the horses). I must admit to breaking this law with joyous abandon...and without losing sleep over it. And then there are laws of the Nuremburg sort that scream for defiance...


[This message has been edited by taucher (edited 02-14-2002).]

I'm not on a soapbox, I just don't want to be sitting in coach while some guy who's breaking the rules is sipping my free drinks and eating my first class meal. He's breaking the rules; to me, that means he's not entitled to deny me the benefits of my status that I earned within the rules.

As I mentioned in the other thread, people who earned their status within the rules, whether by comp, challenge or some other method are real elites. People who subverted the rules are in effect stealing status. Why should people who subvert the rules get to decrease the value of my rule-abiding elite status?

d

Oh, I'm soooooorry ... I was under the impression that you only considered those who gained status by flying the required number of miles to be "real" elites ... oh, wait, what's this ... gosh, I guess I take back my apology:
______________________________________

Originally posted by Doppy:
... each time his father travels he's taking away from real elites who earned their status by flying the required number of miles.
______________________________________

Are you by any chance related to Richard (is this how you spell it) Riordan?

Bravo! My sentiments exactly.

There's not a whole lot that's been talked about in this thread that's "illegal," no matter how much you stretch the letter of the law. Against airline policies, sure, but not illegal.

In many of these cases, you're not talking about BREAKING THE LAW. If I needed to go somewhere on Tuesday, returning on Thursday, then my "moral dilemma" would come down to: Do I spend $400 of my hard-earned money for a couple of RT tickets on different carriers? Or give them an extra $1,000 on top of that, not because the law says I must, but because someone in the revenue maximization department some years back decided this was a good way to meet their earnings projections for this quarter?

Sorry, but my thoughts on that question are pretty cut and dried. If that makes me an immoral person, well, then so be it.

Certain of you may think FT, and some of its members, are putting our morals on the express train to you-know-where. I, on the other hand, like to think of it as a game. It's a game between large corporations, who want to maximize revenue, and individuals, who want to minimize cost. They hold all the cards. We just have to find the ways to do the best with what we're dealt. And by collaborating, we can bring about better results for a larger group of individuals.

How, exactly, is that immoral?

SP

I think we're both adult enough to understand the gist of my comments. Besides, both the traditional way of earning status and challenges require pax to fly a required number of miles to earn status. So, the only way of getting status that I didn't cover with my above quoted statement was comps. So, as you've already read, I clarified my comments to include those who were legitimately comped by the airline, per the rules and without intent to defraud.

d

I always follow these moral-ethical debates with interest, as FT seems to be a laboratory for how people make decisions in the bigger world. Also, as a criminologist I�m fascinated with how people rationalize decision making.

I think that it�s important to let people know where I�m coming from before giving an opinion: As I own a business, I buy stuff I would use anyway and get miles/points. So, it seems disingenuous of me to criticize someone for, say, buying magazines and selling them on Ebay. My buying and using magazines and Kelloggs and taking (a legitimate) business expense appears to me to be on no higher moral ground then buying and selling the same products; and certainly not higher ethically than giving stuff to charity.

Yet, I�m uncomfortable with the �everyone must decide for themselves� route. As has been pointed out, everyone benefits when everyone plays by the �rules�. Over-exploitation, like over-fishing, leaves everyone worse off.

Some things are plain wrong. Buying and then canceling purchases after the miles have posted cannot be defended.

I believe that we need to recognize (with our buying habits) that Gold Points, etc. are in business to make money. If one takes advantage of a loss leader promotion, it seems good manners to consider becoming a customer. I try to use Goldpoints as a portal, even when the return isn�t epic. Perhaps scoring big off Goldpoints means one should consider Radisson as a possible hotel option. And although Latinpass�s customer service blew, I will use them whenever possible, all other things more of less equal.

It�s hard to say where smart consumer-ship ends and exploitation of an offer starts. But, in general, it�s impolite to make a meal out of what should be a snack. Getting to a party early and eating all the bacon wrapped shrimp before the other guests arrive isn�t illegal, but it is boorish and will lessen future invite opportunities. So maybe it's boorish to buy a huge amount solely for points/miles, though how to define huge is hard to say.

We all know in our hearts that the people who put together the Valuemags promotion never expected that a smallish bunch of people would buy well over a million dollars in magazines simply for the points. That Goldpoints could have or should have known does not seem to be good enough reason to get ticked off at them for not posting �what is owed� immediately. It does not seem unreasonable for them to take two months to deal with the onslaught (and the losses) and then post the points.

Jailer: Once again, you post the words that escape me. Thank you for your eloquence. (P.S. I owe you an e-mail )

I want to say that this topic has turned into a most interesting discussion for me. So many things pose a moral decision and the frank conversion that we are having helps to clear out the cobwebs. There are lots of gray, and it is "them" against "us". How far one goes in playing the game is the question.