My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50, (“It’s not the interest I’m worried about; it’s the principle.”), either by ING not giving it, or by requiring me to spend $50 worth of my time.
Do you now see why arguments that assume ING acceptably comes through are therefore non-responsive? (Because it’s frankly taking a while.)
My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50
Could you elaborate on why? “ING not giving it” is unlikely, “requires >$50 of my time” seems unlikely—the website in question says it will take 5 minutes to sign up, each of the three transactions will take ~5 minutes, donating will take ~5 minutes, spending or transferring the bonus $50 down the line will take ~5 minutes… that’s half an hour. So please, I would like to know why you don’t think you will get the $50.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
With that said, the evidence provided by Rain and Kevin indicate that that is a non-sleazy offer, so the only question is whether this is worth my time. And I think you’ve significantly underestimated the time this will actually take (since you can’t do all of that in a batch) and my time value/hour. Still worth considering though.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
Sure. I figured since the top level post specified in a footnote that it was genuine and not at all sleazy, and both top level posts and Louie have good track records, you must have had some other reason. Of course, if you value your time much higher than I do, you might need comparatively more evidence to be convinced of that.
My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50, (“It’s not the interest I’m worried about; it’s the principle.”), either by ING not giving it, or by requiring me to spend $50 worth of my time.
Do you now see why arguments that assume ING acceptably comes through are therefore non-responsive? (Because it’s frankly taking a while.)
Could you elaborate on why? “ING not giving it” is unlikely, “requires >$50 of my time” seems unlikely—the website in question says it will take 5 minutes to sign up, each of the three transactions will take ~5 minutes, donating will take ~5 minutes, spending or transferring the bonus $50 down the line will take ~5 minutes… that’s half an hour. So please, I would like to know why you don’t think you will get the $50.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
With that said, the evidence provided by Rain and Kevin indicate that that is a non-sleazy offer, so the only question is whether this is worth my time. And I think you’ve significantly underestimated the time this will actually take (since you can’t do all of that in a batch) and my time value/hour. Still worth considering though.
Sure. I figured since the top level post specified in a footnote that it was genuine and not at all sleazy, and both top level posts and Louie have good track records, you must have had some other reason. Of course, if you value your time much higher than I do, you might need comparatively more evidence to be convinced of that.