Another surprise from Bob Dancer. He steals, and he says half of us would steal also. He's not talking about stealing from a bank.
Read his latest article: http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1119.cfm
Would you steal? Or is this not stealing?
I was just going to post about this, but with the title "Bob Dancer thinks stealing is OK provided you have a backup plan if you get caught".
He knew full well there was a charge for the meal, yet decided to avoid it and eat anyway. I see no difference between this and slipping a gold watch into your pocket when you are at a Jewelers. Theft is theft, regardless of the amount involved or the circumstances.
As for his supposition that somewhere around 50% would do likewise, I beg to differ. Given the exact situation I suspect the number of people who would do the same would be extremely small. Bob's estimate seems to emanate as much from a desire to justify his activity as anything else.
This quote would seem to be in the same vein:
Theft isn't a "shortcoming"; its a complete moral failure. A similar event that might be considered a "shortcoming" would be in taking a few cookies from a buffet that you already paid for, even though you knew the food was meant to be consumed within the dinning hall. Technically against the rules, but I can't imagine anyone that might think it was a big deal, including the vendor. I think a better quote for Bob might have been:
what a freakin' sleazeball. This guy has no shame.
I find it interesting that he would choose to tell this story. What's his purpose? I also wonder what he would do if he saw someone else drop a $100 bill without realizing it. Would he tell them or pick it up and keep it? I saw this happen and I tapped them on the shoulder and pointed it out. I guess in his eyes I am an idiot. But I will do the same thing if it ever happens again.
In retrospect, I may have been unduly harsh in my initial response. In fact, his post has resulted in my being interested in learning more about Bob and since I have never read any of his books this seems like a good time to start.
If anyone has a copy of "Million Dollar Video Poker" and would be willing to scan and email it to me I would be most appreciative. And don't worry; I recognize my shortcomings so if Bob finds out I've read his book without paying for it I'm more than happy to pay him the $5.98 cents the book costs on Kindle.
Seems fair and rational, given Dancer's personal view on low priced theft.Originally Posted by Spock
The moral of the story is that at some time or another everyone engages in this or other similar type activity. And when they do, the best thing to do is to keep it to themselves.
Now I have to start wondering whether public library patrons are thieves since multiple people can read an author's entire work without paying an actual royalty through buying the book.Originally Posted by Spock
I don't recall anything in the copyright laws about limiting the number of readers to a hard copy of a book. Nor have I ever seen a "license" attached to a book indicating the number of readers... unlike software, for example.Originally Posted by Count Room
With Kindles being used...attaching a license to book for a limited number of readers might not be such a far-fetched idea anymore...(interesting, but this is getting off-topic)Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You're right, this is off topic. I wonder how Dancer feels about not returning Library Books on time?Originally Posted by Count Room
Followup column:
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1210.cfm
Well that's quite a defense... but what if you declare those taxable earnings and wins, and what if you don't swipe goodies from a VIP room where you are not invited, and what if you don't swap your Celine tickets for a doctor's treatment (and leave the payment to your insurance)?Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
We are back to where we started. He's saying everyone else is stealing. Are we all doing that?
I read the whole article. The problem is that it's based on two premises:Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1) You have probably done something wrong or dishonest in your life, so you have no right to judge him for doing the same.
2) Under-reporting gambling income to the IRS and taking over-advantage of casino perks is equivalent to what he did to that motel.
These are both wrong.
First off, most weren't saying that Dancer was committing a major crime or was a horrible person because of the theft of one continental breakfast. They were just saying that it was wrong, and people were surprised to read about it, given Dancer's supposed success.
His examples were poor.
Casinos are in the business of taking money from their customers. It's not the same as a store or a restaurant, where you pay a fixed price and receive expected goods in return. Casinos exist to give you the wrong impression that you have a chance to win, when in reality you are a mathematical almost-certainty to lose. Therefore, if you find ways to turn the tables on them (without outright stealing/cheating), that isn't morally reprehensible. Casinos and their customers basically have a "We're trying to get over on you, and you're trying to get over on us" sort of relationship, and that has long been accepted as the case.
He mentioned "stealing" of unopened shampoos in a hotel room as theft. Wrong. Those hotel shampoos are yours to take and use as you want. Yes, they may re-use them if left behind unopened, but that doesn't mean it's morally reprehensible to take them home, as you already paid for them (as part of the cost of your room).
He mentioned tax evasion of gambling winnings or comps received. There are many arguments as to why taxing gambling winnings is wrong and improper. It is technically the law that you must report all gambling winnings, but I don't see it as a moral failure. Gambling is a negative-sum game, where the vast majority of the players lose (and can't write off those losses against other income), and the few winners have to pay taxes on what they won! If they lose it all back next year, they don't get those taxes back! That is not fair at all.
Dancer basically stole $10 from a small business -- likely owned by a family struggling to make a profit. (It's hard to run a profitable hotel where the rate is $60/night!) If he wanted the continental breakfast, he should have paid the $10 for it. Personally, I would have skipped the crap breakfast and just avoided the $10 charge. Dancer wanted the breakfast AND not to pay for it, despite already getting a huge bargain on the room.
I find it a lot more offensive to screw struggling small businesses than to squeeze extras out of large corporations. Large corporations are cold, faceless entities, most of which will gladly screw the consumer if they can get away with it. Small businesses are typically the heart and soul of some small family just barely getting by, and you should think of that before stealing or "running advantage plays" on them.
BTW, it is totally fine to search for the best possible rates at these hotels, or scouring the internet for coupons. In these cases, the hotels chose to give these rates on their own, and you are simply identifying taking their best offer. Dancer just outright stole food.
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
Okay, I take advantage, mercilessly, of every advantage I can squeeze out of corporate America in general and casinos in particular.
I am the guy who takes an extra apple from the university cafeteria. I will try to use a breakfast coupon with an expired date from a Hilton property if I wasn't able to use it on the day I stayed there. I will do these things. But if the rule is to charge an extra ten bucks for breakfast, I will pay the thing or not eat.
My scruples may be too high. I need to work on them.
May your apple be mealy you scoundrel.Originally Posted by redietz
I think Dancer has already made his point. He summed up the article this way: "Many people seem to enjoy looking down their nose at others' shortcomings while ignoring their own." I read that as a challenge as if to say, don't you dare say I did anything wrong because if you do it only means you are ignoring your own problems.
In other words, if you dare criticize him for saying anything about his petit theft he'll just turn around and call you a hypocrite and label you the stone-throwing General Manger of the Glass House Hotel.
As a matter of fact, Dancer is not the first to use this strategy... Rob Singer was pretty good at it.
Something just occurred to me. Rob's tax returns might have been pretty tough to justify, but I wager that Dancer's are worse. If he's taking a hotel for a ten dollar breakfast, imagine what angles he's using for Uncle Sam. Maybe Dancer and Singer have the same tax attorney.
You know, this is an interesting topic because it makes me feel as if I don't push things far enough. I was always uncomfortable trying to talk myself into using ziplocks at buffets to lug some extra food. Never did it, and believe me, I was a bottom-buffet-dwelling boy back in my youth. And I read all of Jean Scott's stuff; she actually recommended it on many occasions. I wonder if Dancer's percentage estimates may be correct. I mean, I've often seen people load up at buffets and jam stuff into bags and purses.
Another way to look at this, I guess, is that the food just gets tossed if it's not eaten.
Dancer's actions are typical of a narcissist. They really do believe everyone else has the same low moral standards as they do. And therefore, anyone who complains is ignoring their own bad behavior. Just like Singer, Dancer lives in his own fantasy world.
bingo!...................Originally Posted by arcimede$
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote