I just had to point out the poor logic happening in this post.
Again, the main point was about intentionally signing up for the membership with intent to use the member discounts and then canceling the membership for a full refund.
You have cited the out-clause that allows people to try it out and if they're unsatisfied, get out without losing anything. Basically, this is a selling point for the memberships so B&N can encourage you to see the benefits of the membership in a no-risk situation. It is not B&N's wish that you do what Sessa suggested, which is simply an abuse of the rules and the system. And most damning of all, in my opinion, is that it's just so petty and shameless.
So once again, you can attempt to justify it, but you are not following the spirit or the letter of the rules (thanks, Beebs, for illustrating my point precisely by quoting the rules). You aren't deciding later; you're deciding before you even join.
As for behavior like that being a "well-heeled bargain practice," that might be true for people on sites like SlickDeals, where there are no morals or qualms about anything, and the almighty dollar is king. I guess I like to think that DVDTalk is better than that. It seems that "heeled" is a double entendre in this case (for you wrestling fans).

For me, a fair test of something like this is:
If this were literally a "mom & pop" operation, as in YOUR mom and pop, would you do the same thing? If not, then why do you think it's OK to do it to a corporation, or to someone else's mom and pop? They don't owe you anything, and you don't NEED these DVDs. So what's the problem with having some sense of personal values where saving $.75 by lying really isn't worth it?

Yes, I did. The terms of that code were very specifically stated as one use per email address. They could have restricted by name, address, BB membership number, IP address, or possibly some other ways, but they chose to do it by email address. A bizarre choice, seeming to have some ulterior motive. I used my same credit card, name, and address on every order (some people used virtual CC numbers, thinking BB was trying to limit the orders somehow), and other than 2 Criterions (Ran and Kagemusha), all my orders were for new items, not used, so I got no $.01 orders like other people were getting. And by the way, I worked for Blockbuster. Using the code multiple times did not violate the written terms of the code (nor the implied ones, in my opinion). As I said, there seemed to be an ulterior motive to restricting by email address. They must know that MANY (almost all?) people have more than one email address.

I once also used a sale code I stumbled upon for the Disney Movie Club that hadn't been advertised that gave a B1G1+50%-off-additional-items. I used it myself and posted the details in the Clubs forum. I didn't use it to score a Nightmare Before Christmas Collector's Edition for free, like other people did, since I thought that was not what the DMC had intended it for, and it seemed to me to be a glitch in the programming of how the code would work on the site, and I didn't want to abuse a glitch; I used it to get a season of Lost, which was consistent with how other advertised sales from the DMC work.

Should I continue to research my past and confess more "sins?"

I almost took part in the Columbia House B1G4 excitement, but stopped myself once the details of CH's promotion were publicized (that others circumvented, first though normal means, and later by modifying the URL). I refused to take part in the Amazon fiasco a few years ago, and the same for the Borders coupon deal.

I guess I missed the part where any of this means anything to anyone. Did I ever claim to be morally pure? No. Are there things in my life I have done that I am ashamed of? Of course. Are we heading down the road of "He who is without sin, cast the first stone?" Because if we are, you really should check out what that quote means. In the words of the great Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means." There is no such thing as a morally perfect person. That does not mean that no judgments can be made. And it doesn't mean that nobody should question or condemn another person's behavior. It just means that the punishment should fit the crime, which does not apply to this situation at all.

Let's leave the "gotcha" games to the Politics forum, or to Hannity and Colmes (or whatever that show is called now). "You said THIS 5 years and 3 months ago, so now you're saying THAT, so you're a HYPOCRITE, and ALL your opinions are invalid! Gotcha!" If a person does something wrong at some point(s), it does not invalidate all that came before, nor all that came (and comes) after.