"stealing " with the beverage package

[Alsmez]

You get it!!! :)

 

Thanks Finely! :)

[Waterlily777]

You get it!!! :)

 

And sadly, you do not.

[FinelyCruising]

Not that you should feel any responsibility to alleviate my confusion, but I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your value system as stated here. You've espoused a "Mind Your Own Business" philosophy, yet you continue to "Mind Other People's Business" by making multiple posts telling them to stay out of it. So it's OK for you to defend your belief system (laissez-faire anyone?) but it's not OK for others to defend theirs?

:confused::confused::confused:

 

If you go back and re-read all my posts you will no find that I ever told anyone to do anything at all. What I attempted to convey was that the share of a drink by those inclined is of such a deminimus nature in my book that I couldn't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon for any reason. Different strokes.

 

Now I recognize this topic is filled with morals and doom and gloom about what will happen to the package if by dialog we all don't band together and solve the cruise lines issues for them. I don't take that on as my business any more than I take it on to let the cruise line know that I just saw what I think I saw if I ever did see it.

 

In the grand scheme of life, my tolerances and intentions are more in line with is anyone in a physically dangerous situation by what is occurring, is there a material impact to someone's mind, body or spirit, or will die from what is occurring.

 

I hope that clarifies it.

[Snorkel2Much]

The notion about how its going to cost all of us as justification for being a snitch when the cruise line can certainly take care of themselves is nothing more than being a buttinsky and a tattle tale over an issue that has nothing to do with you. That drink was bought and paid for. The rule is no sharing.

 

What are you going to do to salve your conscience, go to security and say hey mister, I saw that guy over there give her his drink and he's not allowed to share his package with anyone and I'm telling on him!:rolleyes:

 

If you go back and re-read all my posts you will no find that I ever told anyone to do anything at all. What I attempted to convey was that the share of a drink by those inclined is of such a deminimus nature in my book that I couldn't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon for any reason. Different strokes.

 

Now I recognize this topic is filled with morals and doom and gloom about what will happen to the package if by dialog we all don't band together and solve the cruise lines issues for them. I don't take that on as my business any more than I take it on to let the cruise line know that I just saw what I think I saw if I ever did see it.

 

In the grand scheme of life, my tolerances and intentions are more in line with is anyone in a physically dangerous situation by what is occurring, is there a material impact to someone's mind, body or spirit, or will die from what is occurring.

 

I hope that clarifies it.

<emphasis mine>

So I've obviously misinterpreted your post that I've quoted above. Instead of telling them what to do, you were just taking the opportunity to insult them. Understood and thanks for the clarification. I'm all for open civil discussion of topics with people who's opinions may differ from mine, but not if they resort to personal attacks to make a point. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Mr. Luckytoo]

Now for my take on the situation:

 

If the card is worth $60 (I actually have no idea what it is worth!)' date=' and in cabin A, Joe buys a card and drinks the full $60 worth. His neighbour Jim also buys a card and shares it with his wife. Together they drink $60 worth. Now you tell me what is the difference? I am sure if Jim, himself, drinks only $30 worth, Celebrity would not give a hoot that his wife drinks the other $30 worth.[/quote']

 

Can't stop - your take on the situation is merely a 'business' look at the numbers and from a numbers perspective you're probably right.

 

HOWEVER, look at this issue from a moral perspective; Cabin B (neighbor Jim) 'stole' $90 from Celebrity because Jim's wife should have paid for that $30 in drinks.

 

I think that's the interesting thing about this thread. Moral used to be how people conducted their lives and their businesses. Today, in 2010, it seems like business is how people form their values and morals - worshiping the almighy $ and not the Almighty.

[ORV]

ORV - I didn't post my breakdown of the profit margin on drinks to say that I think sharing is okay, I was simply pointing out to another poster who had asked for substantiation of the claim of huge profit margins that it was pretty simple to see how much money the cruise line was making.

 

 

You are right, and I apologize for putting your post with the other one, you are only showing numbers.

 

As we can see it's all too easy on these boards to have the witch hunt mentality and not always be clear on where people stand on an issue.

[Mr. Luckytoo]

I doubt seriously that the cruise line publicizes their vendor information, but any idiot with access to a grocery store circular can see that you can typically get cans of soda for around $.33 a can ($4 for 12, which is a normal, non-sale price around here). The cruiseline sells cans for $2, I believe - so a 500% markup over retail. Given that there's no WAY Celebrity pays retail for cans of soda, it's not unreasonable to think that their markup is closer to 1000%. Granted, they have to pay for storage and cooling of the beverages, but that's still a pretty hefty profit.

 

Alcohol is actually probably somewhat less marked up but still a big profit center for the cruiseline. If you search out some of their bottled wine offerings, you'll see that they're available at retail stores for 1/4 or 1/5 of Celebrity's price - i.e., a 300-400% markup. A liter of Grey Goose is around $40, and contains enough vodka for about 8 generously poured martinis - at $12 per, that's $96, or over a 100% markup OVER RETAIL. Again, X isn't paying retail.

 

Alsmez - for arguments sake let's use your figures a correct and that =X= has a HUGE markup of 500-1000% ok?

 

Does that justify taking/using/drinking something that someone hasn't paid for?

 

Maybe if you're bothered by their huge markup (if in fact their markup is 500% or greater) then shouldn't you not purchase the product until they lower their price?

[FinelyCruising]

<emphasis mine>

So I've obviously misinterpreted your post that I've quoted above. Instead of telling them what to do, you were just taking the opportunity to insult them. Understood and thanks for the clarification. I'm all for open civil discussion of topics with people who's opinions may differ from mine, but not if they resort to personal attacks to make a point. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Yes you misinterpreted. Further, my opinion is that this issue lacks a magnitude sufficient to place any altruistic label to the informant of, what are they being called by those who take exception to their behavior for sharing an imaginary drink... an immoral thief??? I happen to place the behavior of informing the cruise line by anyone who is compelled to behave this way for these circumstances as I indicated. Snitching and tattling, and I don't mind saying so. Ignore away!

[Mr. Luckytoo]

Back to the shoplifting comparison. A store has security for preventing shoplifting, but can't catch everyone. Your position that if you were to catch someone in the act of boosting something, the proper thing to say is, "If the store were that concerned about shoplifting, they'd make more of an effort to prevent this sort of thing. Serves them right for not having enough store security to prevent this. I guess that means they're okay with it." There's a break-even point where the additional security to prevent further losses costs them more than the actual losses, but that doesn't mean any losses should be considered acceptable, by either the store or the customer who ultimately either pays higher prices or sees the store close down, due (in part) from the losses resulting from shoplifting.

 

if you're not part of the solution-- oh, wait, I said that before:o.

 

Just to add to the shoplifting comparison - I remember when you could go into a Department Store and try on clothes in the dressing room...no problem.

 

Now the dressing rooms are locked. You have to find someone to open them, count the number of articles you take into the dressing room. In addition they put tags on the clothes that beep and can't be removed without a special machine...those are additional costs that the business passes on to its customers - those who abide by the rules.

 

So in reality when we observe others breaking rules and not speaking up we in fact hurt ourselves and others who are abiding by the rules just for the sake of 'convenience'....

[FinelyCruising]

Just to add to the shoplifting comparison - I remember when you could go into a Department Store and try on clothes in the dressing room...no problem.

 

Now the dressing rooms are locked. You have to find someone to open them, count the number of articles you take into the dressing room. In addition they put tags on the clothes that beep and can't be removed without a special machine...those are additional costs that the business passes on to its customers - those who abide by the rules.

 

So in reality when we observe others breaking rules and not speaking up we in fact hurt ourselves and others who are abiding by the rules just for the sake of 'convenience'....

 

Breaking this passage down its a good example of businesses protecting themselves against theft. But they do so at the extreme where every item is tagged for theft. If a book store has 200,000 volumes in it, how many people who go into that store would steal a book? They cover for 100% all contingencies and if you think about it to the point of a unlikely reality and extreme, but tear out the page of the book the sensor is on and bingo you are out the door without notice by anyone.

 

All there needs to be in many instances is a deterrent and based on what I read one poster indicate (that post has largely gone overlooked I might add) is that Celebrity is watching and does what they need to do when they see based on timing too many zero's rung in, they know when that occurs that something is probably up. I have to believe the wait staff has been trained what to look for as well.

 

I will continue to leave them to their own business and running it based on their experience levels. They have had beverage packages in some form for a very, very long time and not once that I recall in all these years was there a hue and cry if soda packages were shared. Those packages have been on many if not all of their ships, I think I'll leave it to them to work this new aspect of packages out and I have confidence they can and will.

[Alsmez]

Alsmez - for arguments sake let's use your figures a correct and that =X= has a HUGE markup of 500-1000% ok?

 

Does that justify taking/using/drinking something that someone hasn't paid for?

 

Maybe if you're bothered by their huge markup (if in fact their markup is 500% or greater) then shouldn't you not purchase the product until they lower their price?

 

If you'll notice the post above yours, I've already explained to one poster that I didn't post the breakdown of profit margins to rationalize stealing, I posted it in response to a poster who asked for it. ORV was kind enough to apologize for his erroneous assumption that I was justifying (thanks ORV).

[Mr. Luckytoo]

If you'll notice the post above yours, I've already explained to one poster that I didn't post the breakdown of profit margins to rationalize stealing, I posted it in response to a poster who asked for it. ORV was kind enough to apologize for his erroneous assumption that I was justifying (thanks ORV).

 

Alsmez,

 

I've read you explaination and apologize as well...that post must have come while I was entering my post. I didn't mean to imply that you were rationalize anything except to look at this from a numbers issue. Once again sorry for my erroneous assumption. :o

[Alsmez]

Alsmez,

 

I've read you explaination and apologize as well...that post must have come while I was entering my post. I didn't mean to imply that you were rationalize anything except to look at this from a numbers issue. Once again sorry for my erroneous assumption. :o

 

Thanks! I never thought I would get in so much trouble for being a math geek! ;)

[FinelyCruising]

Thanks! I never thought I would get in so much trouble for being a math geek! ;)

 

That's funny.:D

[maxi1966]

No one in their right mind would deny a travelling partner a drink/sip of their drink and accuse them of being an immoral thief simply because they are thirsty, it is 90 degrees out, and they need a drink of something to tide them over until they can get one of their own.

 

I am sorry....I just don't buy it. And it isn't fraud either. It is giving a thirsty person a drink to tide them over until they get one of their own. There is nothing fraudulent or criminal in either situation...it is just life happening in real time...not on a blog.

[FinelyCruising]

Well the idea is that there are boundaries to what is purchased, and is not uncommon. As an example, many land venues clearly state on their menu offerings that sharing will carry a $5 plate charge.

 

Celebrity is not sharing beverage packages and their rules are clear. No sharing. Thirst is one thing and a condition that anyone can realize but true thirst and the giving of an alcoholic beverage to consume to salve thirst is contraindicated. Give them a water, and it makes sense to me to address a physical dehydration issue.

[cruisestitch]

I hope someone out there is keeping track of all this to use as a case study, or at least a discussion point in an ethics class. It has been fascinating to see how it has evolved from the first post onward......

[maxi1966]

Well the idea is that there are boundaries to what is purchased, and is not uncommon. As an example, many land venues clearly state on their menu offerings that sharing will carry a $5 plate charge.

 

Celebrity is not sharing beverage packages and their rules are clear. No sharing. Thirst is one thing and a condition that anyone can realize but true thirst and the giving of an alcoholic beverage to consume to salve thirst is contraindicated. Give them a water, and it makes sense to me to address a physical dehydration issue.

 

1) Never was it mentionned that there was an alcoholic beverage involved....there are a number of different packages and not all of them include alcohol.

 

2) We all know the rule states no sharing....thus my point "it is just life happening in real time...not on a blog. "

 

3) My thought is that this may be an "alocohol issue" not anything more. I am certain if it was an all you can eat salad bar, there would not be this much fuss.

 

4) Are you really going to tell you companion...."no way, you can't have a drink of my beverage (Sprite, premium bottled water, beer, orange juice, pina colada), get up and go get your own drink of water!!"

 

I really don't think so!!!!

[FinelyCruising]

I can't get what you want to say. It's all over the place. Maybe make your position clear on a point and then it may make sense. Right now its just too random to latch on to. At least to me.

 

This is not really what is considered a blog. Its a message board and there is Q&A and back and forth. Not just a stream of thought by one person.

[maxi1966]

I hope someone out there is keeping track of all this to use as a case study, or at least a discussion point in an ethics class. It has been fascinating to see how it has evolved from the first post onward......

 

It doesn't shock me. Clemm's original post on his own thread here was in response to a post I made on another thread simply stating that it is a little harsh to label someone a thief or call it stealing when simply having a drink of someone elses beverage.

 

I was summarily crucified by a host of posters that questionned my morals, ethics, how I could "live" with myself, questionned my intelligence and my upbringing/parents. Just a little fanatical IMO and easy to do on a blog. Let real life get in the way and I guarantee 99% of those people offer a drink to their thirsty friend......but can't admit to it on this blog because they are way toooo far down the path going the other way to capitulate now.

[FinelyCruising]

It doesn't shock me. Clemm's original post on his own thread here was in response to a post I made on another thread simply stating that it is a little harsh to label someone a thief or call it stealing when simply having a drink of someone elses beverage.

 

I was summarily crucified by a host of posters that questionned my morals, ethics, how I could "live" with myself, questionned my intelligence and my upbringing/parents. Just a little fanatical IMO and easy to do on a blog. Let real life get in the way and I guarantee 99% of those people offer a drink to their thirsty friend......but can't admit to it on this blog because they are way toooo far down the path going the other way to capitulate now.

 

Ohhhhh.....

[FinelyCruising]

Summarily crucified by a host of posters. Yes, I get that. Now you're talking my language!:D

[mikedw]

I had the soda package on Carnival and more then once when I ordered a coke at the bar, I was asked how many I wanted. They did not care oneway or the other.

[FinelyCruising]

I had the soda package on Carnival and more then once when I ordered a coke at the bar, I was asked how many I wanted. They did not care oneway or the other.

 

How much for that package and when???

[maxi1966]

Summarily crucified by a host of posters. Yes, I get that. Now you're talking my language!:D

 

Yes...and they have all gone eerily quiet :eek: