NatWest £125 switch incentive

ValiantSon

Herbalus wrote: »

This is a pointless argument. Can I join in?

P.S. I'm with ValiantSon.

Terms say you need to open account by 16 Feb or you have an existing one. To those who think there's no date requirement, what is your opinion on Natwest prescribing part A if they do not wish to determine that non-account holders must open accounts by 16 Feb to be eligible for the offer?

Thanks.

I made the same point earlier up-thread, but it was ignored because it didn't fit with the narrative that Ashen is peddling.

Ashen

ValiantSon wrote: »

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. You are just wrong about all of this. I know exactly what, "or" means, but you appear not to.

If you were interpreting the word 'or' correctly, you wouldn't be talking about how parts of (a) influence (b), when the terms state '(a) or (b)'. And as for 'peddling', I'm not the only one who thinks the wording is bad, but you're just replying to me.

EachPenny

Herbalus wrote: »

This is a pointless argument. Can I join in?

Spring is in the air, the time of year when MSE forum member's thoughts turn to arguing the toss over the wording of bank T&C's. Can it really be nearly a year since Ford Money created so much mayhem?

ValiantSon

Ashen wrote: »

If you were interpreting the word 'or' correctly, you wouldn't be talking about how parts of (a) influence (b), when the terms state '(a) or (b)'.

You are showing a lack of understanding here. Clause 1 has two sections (subsection (a) and subsection (b)). The subsections are not independent of each other: they form the clause as a whole. What is written in subsection (b) is affected by subsection (a), but the two subsections each independently describe a state of being that is required for the payment of the switch incentive. What I have written is perfectly consistent with the terms, but your suggestion above (and that I don't understand what "or" means - as well as being rather silly) is not consistent with Clause 1.

Ashen wrote: »

And as for 'peddling', I'm not the only one who thinks the wording is bad, but you're just replying to me.

You have been the most vociferous in your attempt to argue the point (which has been disproven) and your comments are the most egregious in their insistence that you are right in the face of the evidence to the contrary: others have been a little more circumspect.

The wording is not, "bad", but rather it has been misunderstood by some people: that does not make it bad. As I have already said, you are trying to find error or ambiguity where none exits, and this has led you to seize on the absence of terminal dates in subsection (b) of Clause 1 as evidence to support your argument. Unfortunately for you, there is no need for any terminal dates in subsection (b) because subsection (a) defines new account holders.

The dead horse that you are flogging is really in a sorry state now, so perhaps you would allow it some dignity and let the poor thing be buried!

Ashen

ValiantSon wrote: »

You are showing a lack of understanding here. Clause 1 has two sections (subsection (a) and subsection (b)). The subsections are not independent of each other: they form the clause as a whole. What is written in subsection (b) is affected by subsection (a), but the two subsections each independently describe a state of being that is required for the payment of the switch incentive. What I have written is perfectly consistent with the terms, but your suggestion above (and that I don't understand what "or" means - as well as being rather silly) is not consistent with Clause 1.

Er, OK. I thought the word 'or' simply meant 'or'.

ValiantSon wrote: »

You have been the most vociferous in your attempt to argue the point (which has been disproven) and your comments are the most egregious in their insistence that you are right in the face of the evidence to the contrary: others have been a little more circumspect.

Disproven? You have a rather high opinion of your opinions - so let's be fair here - you've been just as egregious. I'd say approximately half have said the wording is bad, and half have agreed with you.

ValiantSon wrote: »

The wording is not, "bad", but rather it has been misunderstood by some people: that does not make it bad. As I have already said, you are trying to find error or ambiguity where none exits, and this has led you to seize on the absence of terminal dates in subsection (b) of Clause 1 as evidence to support your argument. Unfortunately for you, there is no need for any terminal dates in subsection (b) because subsection (a) defines new account holders.

It does make it bad when they could simply add one sentence to (b) to make it completely clear, considering your first paragraph where you try to justify it by talking of an "entire state of being".

ValiantSon wrote: »

The dead horse that you are flogging is really in a sorry state now, so perhaps you would allow it some dignity and let the poor thing be buried!

I think we've both been flogging that horse.

ValiantSon

Ashen wrote: »

Er, OK. I thought the word 'or' simply meant 'or'.

It does, but like all words they have contextual meaning too.

Ashen wrote: »

Disproven? You have a rather high opinion of your opinions - so let's be fair here - you've been just as egregious.

Yes, disproven. You have been shown to be wrong.

Please explain how I have been egregious in trying to show you where you have misunderstood.

Ashen wrote: »

I'd say approximately half have said the wording is bad, and half have agreed with you.

It isn't X-Factor. Just because a majority, or half of all people, think something doesn't mean that it is true.

Ashen wrote: »

It does make it bad when they could simply add one sentence to (b) to make it completely clear, considering your first paragraph where you try to justify it by talking of an "entire state of being".

They didn't need to add such a sentence. To do so would be superfluous.

I haven't, "tr[ied] to justify it". I have explained how the clause works.

Mannanan

I enjoyed the cabaret but just like a Ken Dodd show, it has just gone on far too long. I guess it’s back to thumb twiddling until April when we all get our £125.

I_am_spartacus

The last page of comments reminds me of the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch!
"Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?"

Herbalus

Mannanan wrote: »

I enjoyed the cabaret but just like a Ken Dodd show, it has just gone on far too long. I guess it’s back to thumb twiddling until April when we all get our £125.

Don't forget MChambers has already got theirs. *rolls eyes*

:rotfl:

Steve_xx

Herbalus wrote: »

Don't forget MChambers has already got theirs.

Which seems bizarre, as the terms state that if you close your eligible account before 13 April, then the switch incentive wont be paid.