Cashback Guide for Dummies

grumbler

Silk wrote: »

....some have been savy enough to take legal action to obtain it and others have given up.

IMO, thegoodman's 'guide' was so superficial, that there are many other steps that can be made even before taking the legal action ultimately. Personally, I was able to solve all my problems without taking legal actions or even sending a LBA so far.
My point was that often, even if one does everything correctly, it is far less smooth than thegoodman makes it look like.

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

There is a significant difference between me and you in this case.

Let's say, somebody makes a statement: "All birds can fly" (because all the birds they ever saw were able to fly).

I disagree with them and you disagree with me.

I can prove my point.
You cannot prove yours.

All birds cannot fly - so that is a poor example - NEXT!

Is the Earth flat?

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

IMO, thegoodman's 'guide' was so superficial, that there are many other steps that can be made even before taking the legal action ultimately. Personally, I was able to solve all my problems without taking legal actions or even sending a LBA so far.
My point was that often, even if one does everything correctly, it is far less smooth than thegoodman makes it look like.

Agreed....theres a lot of very competent people who use cashback,covering every angle and they still run into problems
Lynsey would be a prime example of that.

It's certainly not always the plain sailing that Thegoodman would have us believe

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

All birds cannot fly - so that is a poor example - NEXT!

I rest my case.

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

I rest my case.

No you don't. You made an assumption that I would say all birds cannot fly. Just like you made an assumption about thegoodman's comments. If you wanted to you could have said that you believed all birds fly and I believed the opposite - but you wanted to be right - always right, never wrong!

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

No you don't.

OK, if you insist. However I don't think that this thread is the right place for discussing the basic logic questions.

You made an assumption that I would say all birds cannot fly.

It is you making some assumption that I made some assumption.

Just like you made an assumption about thegoodman's comments.

Absolutely not. I have not made any.

If you wanted to you could have said that you believed all birds fly and I believed the opposite - but you wanted to be right - always right, never wrong!

No.
The general statement was
"If you follow the steps above everything will be fine" = "All birds can fly"
Note:
"everything" and "will", not "is likely to";
"All", not "most"/"majority".

I disagree with "everything will" and with "all". I say: "Not all birds can fly" ("some birds cannot fly", "something can be not fine").

You disagree with me, i.e. you say that "all birds can fly".

TBH, I don't understand what you were trying to prove by the more extreme statement "All birds cannot fly".:huh: Is this what you want to say instead of "all birds can fly"?

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

OK, if you insist. However I don't think that this thread is the right place for discussing the basic logic questions.
It is you making some assumption that I made some assumption.
Absolutely not. I have not made any.
No.
The general statement was
"If you follow the steps above everything will be fine" = "All birds can fly"
Note:
"everything" and "will", not "is likely to";
"All", not "most"/"majority".

I disagree with "everything will" and with "all". I say: "Not all birds can fly" ("some birds cannot fly", "something can be not fine").

You disagree with me, i.e. you say that "all birds can fly".

TBH, I don't understand what you were trying to prove by the more extreme statement "All birds cannot fly".:huh: Is this what you want to say instead of "all birds can fly"?

To be honest I can't understand what you are trying to prove with birds flying and wotnot.

As you seem very interested in birds and this "extreme" statement "All birds cannot fly - maybe you should read http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_all_the_birds_who_can%27t_fly

And NO I do not want to say "All birds can fly"? Maybe you think I should say that to prove some inane point arising from your original "extreme" comment relating to someone's opinion of cashbacks and how to operate them.

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

As you seem very interested in birds and this "extreme" statement "All birds cannot fly - maybe you should read http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_all_the_birds_who_can%27t_fly

It's not a secret that English is not my first language and I can be wrong, but for me

"All birds cannot fly" = "No birds can fly" = "There are no any birds that can fly".

Your link says the same as my original statement: "Not all birds can fly" = "There are birds that cannot fly".

OneADay

grumbler wrote: »

It's not a secret that English is not my first language and I can be wrong, but for me

"All birds cannot fly" = "No birds can fly" = "There are no any birds that can fly".

Your link says the same as my original statement: "Not all birds can fly" = "There are birds that cannot fly".

I am lost in the "not this" or "not that".

But going back to original statement

grumbler wrote: »

Let's say, somebody makes a statement: "All birds can fly" (because all the birds they ever saw were able to fly).

I disagree with them and you disagree with me.

You asserted that you disbelieve all birds fly - yes?
But asserted that I might disagree with you - yes?

Why assume that I disagree with you? Other than to try to prove a point that you are right and the other person is wrong. You made another assumption just like you did about thegoodman's comments. Or to be more definitive you were very selective in your "birds can fly" example.

grumbler

OneADay wrote: »

You asserted that you disbelieve all birds fly - yes?

Yes, because some birds cannot.

But asserted that I might disagree with you - yes?

Why assume that I disagree with you?

Because you did disagree with me about another similar general statement. You know well that the 'birds' were just and example to make it more clear.

grumbler wrote: »

"If you follow the steps above everything will be fine" was the general conclusion that I disagree with.

I.e. I think that even if you follow the steps above something can go wrong. And no, I don't mean any natural disasters, a war or even some third parties' (say, banks' or RM's) errors.

OneADay wrote: »

And I disagree with you.

I.e. "everything will be fine" = "nothing can go wrong".

Other than to try to prove a point that you are right

Do you really need proofs that something can go wrong even if you follow all thegoodman's steps? There are many examples in this thread, including mine. And there are many other threads.