One misunderstanding of ethics keeps popping up in any of the discussions about this. That is, that it can't be unethical because the subject agrees to it.

However, the subject of a scam or a ponzi scheme agrees to the terms of the scam, but that doesn't make said scam ethical.

I am not comparing Mr. Schneider to a scam artist, please! I am merely pointing out that the willing participation of the subject, in and of itself, does not confer ethical respectability to the project.

Obviously, the answer is to wear a sandwich board saying "WWW.NEATORAMA.COM" and stand in front of every billboard you see for 30 seconds...

Reminds me of an urban legend from the early eighties. Pimp with a Caddilac convertible guarded by a doberman keeps parking in a neighborhood. People in neighborhood get the pimp to leave by sneaking the dog a whole bar of chocolate X-Lax....

The third-man-on-a-match thing with FDR may not have been a superstition. My dad, who was part of the Army of Occupation in Germany after WWII told me (in my long ago youth) that in basic training they were taught not to use a match to light three cigarettes, because it would give a sniper enough time to accurately target your position. If the story is from the time of the War, FDR may simply have been trying to pass on a 'good habit' to a young man who might be drafted and sent off to Europe or the Pacific.