🚀 go-pugleaf

>> There's plenty of reason NOT to reply to an offer in a EULA
>> for 'a "consideration" including money'.  Much of the same
>> argument applies to trying to redeem a $0.50 mail-in rebate.
>
>Nope, not one.

You're going to spend $0.39 in the hope of getting a $0.50 rebate?
Even if the merchant is honest, there's the risk of the post office
fouling up, and it takes much more time than it's worth.

>> Second, if they are supposed to send you money,
>> they have to have someplace to send it, so you
>> probably have to give out your postal address.
>> More opportunity for marketing crap.
>
>Unlikely to be the end of civilisation as you know it any time soon.
>
>> If they are going to send it via Paypal, or E-Gold, or
>> some such thing, you probably don't have an account
>> so you have to go to the effort of setting one up.
>
>And its completely trivial to do that.

Does it take more than *ONE* mouse click?  You may think it's worth
your time to deal with this crap.  I don't.

>> Third, the description of what you get was vague and certainly
>> didn't promise $1,000 to everyone who responded.  You are more
>> likely to get a quarter or maybe even a dollar, not much more.
>
>Turns out to be mindlessly suspicious again.

It's mindlessly suspicious to expect that something offered
as "some money" is going to be less than a few dollars?
Hardly, that's the way 99% of all marketing offers work.

>> That may simply be not worth the trouble.
>
>You can always bin it in that case.

It's much easier to not ask for it in the first place.

>> If someone sent you a paper check for $0.01,
>> would you bother to cash or deposit it?
>
>Nope, but its completely trivial to bin it if it isnt.

Yes, but it's already used way more time than it's worth.

>> If someone sent you an old (but not too old to cash it in
>> if it's a winner) Texas State Lottery ticket (cost $2, pays
>> something like $0.45 cents on the dollar in winnings) is
>> it worth your time to look up the winning numbers?
>
>That has happened to me on occasion, mostly when I
>have refused any payment for sending a couple of CDs
>etc to those still stuck on dialup and if you actually have
>a clue, it doesnt take long to check the winning numbers.
>
>> Oh, by the way, assume there's NOT a lot of news
>> about how the jackpot winner still hasn't claimed it yet.
>
>If you actually have a clue, it doesnt
>take long to check the winning numbers. 

If it's more than five milliseconds, that's way too much time wasted.

					Gordon L. Burditt