That's not what happened.
What's not what happened? The first scenario I described, which is clearly not what happened (that was my point), or the second scenario (which is exactly what happens every time this scam is perpetrated)?
you are determined to be hostile
I am determined to disagree with you when you're wrong; if you see that as hostile, that's not my problem.
Oh, good. That sure was constructive.
I didn't resort to sarcasm because I'm a butt-hurt whiner. It actually was constructive--if you (or anyone else) honestly believes there is a circumstance where what you described is legitimate and a good idea, they really shouldn't be allowed to handle money, They'll only lose it, and perpetuate this type of scamming by continuing to make it profitable.
If this is the kind of critical thinking you provide your customers, I feel really sorry for them.
I was saying that some types of unorthodox arrangements may actually be reasonable
No, you were saying this one particular type of extremely unorthodox arrangement might actually be reasonable. Maybe that's not what you meant to say, in which case you really need to work on your clarity, but it most definitely is
what you said.
You incorrectly deduced I was referring to this case, which clearly isn't.
If that's what had happened, it would have been a case of inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. It isn't what happened--you referred specifically back to the case you had outlined--but you're wrong either way. Does it ever get old?
basic etiquette and not being catty has been
Could I have said nothing and accomplished more of use
*accomplished something of more use, perhaps, but certainly not what you wrote. Your English gets bad when you get angry.
On a more substantial level, what I said was useful--you are saying that this pay-forwarding scheme is something people should consider, and I am telling them it's an outright scam, plan and simple. My advice is a hell of a lot more useful than yours (which could actually be extremely counter-productive).