I'm so happy the author is an ethical SEO scammer and will not stoop to these tactics.
replies(2):
Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/07/haggling-about-price.htm...
2. There is a qualitative difference between life-changing money and day-job money.
3. "I won't risk my life any amount" is a dumb ideal, because everything has a risk of death.
2. Is one’s sense of right and wrong for all things driven by the amount of money involved? Are there some things money can’t buy?
3. Would you elaborate on this assertion? I don’t quite understand.
Sleeping with someone isn't exactly in the realm of moral repugnancy. It's not about right and wrong, the implication is that she is a whore. But she's not, because she wouldn't take money for sex as her job.
> Would you elaborate on this assertion? I don’t quite understand.
The article you linked is claiming that "the very real possibility of being killed" should disqualify the job, no matter what the pay. But that's an extremely myopic way of evaluating risk. Would he refuse on principle to commute an extra 15 minutes, even if it adds up to the same risk after 20 years? It doesn't look like it. But to take that risk all at once in exchange for 20 years of pay or even 50 years of pay means you've been "corrupted".
He's decided that some risks to yourself are fine and some risks to yourself are unacceptable based on arbitrary measures and not what actually keeps you safest.
Overly hard stances for risk mitigation lead to a lot of really bad conclusions and contradictions.