thanksgiving gift!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eshort]

Last September I shipped one of my beloved notebooks to Compaq Inc in Tennessee for warranty service. Per Compaq's direction-shipment done via Aurborne express in a carton supplied by compaq.

The notebook never returned to meerries to Airborne and Compaq revealed it had been shipped back to me at the correct address.

Telephone calls to airborne revealed it had been received and signatured at my office. I checked the manifest and the signatory was noone in my agency--thus--i assumed my comput had been stolen by a person signing a false name.

so i filed an insurance claim (homeowners) and insurance sent me a brand new Compaq PIII-650..arriving 11/21.

On returning from lunch at work today (11-22), there was a phone message asking me to come across the street to another office to "pick up a package misrouted"--thinking this was a magazine ordered earlier this week, i ran across only to fine-------u guessd it-------my beloved computer
sitting on the receptionist's desk...she said she found it under the desk!!

It had been sitting there 7 weeks..noone noticed until today!!!--truely amazing!!..the box is 2 feetX18"X7inches--hardly easy to misplace??? the receptionist said she was a "temp" only there 4 days--yet she found the comput!!

so- I have my beloved compaq back but must return the new
PIII!!

[bailey]

no keep it, it's already paid for, at least till they ask for it. if you don't want it, send it to me.

[M. A. Dockter]

I'm thinking along the same lines. What they don't know, won't hurt them. If you they ask, say you found the laptop yesterday . Maybe Ron could give us some legal insite into the situation.

[HAL9000]

I agree... what's done is done, nobody will know the difference.

[StunGunz]

I'm with the crowd here on this one. How will they ever know you have it? You didn't sign for it, the other secretary did.

[Carl Price]

It's true they will never know, but guess what you will. Keep it if you are unprincipled, and have no morals and would steal if you had the chance, otherwise let them know. Chances are they might let you keep it anyway, since it is already paid for.

PS. I'm highly surprised at the reaction of the other folks on this subject.

[StunGunz]

I don't know what world your from, but here where I live, Insurance companies are just giant legal theives. They've already written off the computer as a loss which means probably any return will be off their books, and never recorded. If this were an indivdual Carl, I would agree, but its not. Its a faceless corporation whos greed has it asking for rate hikes beyond inflation rates, every year.
The way I see it, the new computer is payment for the inconvienience caused by the shipping companies lax delivery practices, and the emotional stress caused when the computer went missing.

[LawyerRon]

Everyone knows the answer to this one.

[HAL9000]

I don't see it as a lack of morals. I see it as "that's life". If I were to lose my wallet, yes I would like it back, but not for one moment would I expect the money to still be in it. Once something is gone, it's finders keepers.

If you really want to see a lack of morals, I used to work in a night club for almost 4 years, I invite anyone to come with me for a night behind the scenes to see what really goes on in a bar. You think you know, but until you work in one, you have yet to scratch the surface on how low things can really get.

[Edited by HAL9000 on 11-23-2000 at 06:00 PM]

[kraken]

Insurance companies are those people who deduct amounts from payouts when your home is destroyed by fire and you have a chimney left standing.

The moral implications are not with the insurance company but with your own criminality. (you check the serial number and find it filed off) "This is not my computer" he cried. But what to do with the ill gotten gains. Return it to the insurance company who may never trust a claim form from him again. Or relieve the guilt by finding a deserving person who may never own such a splendid piece of equipment because of the economics of capitalistic greed mongers.

Torn by the need to get away with it and the creeping guilt that keeps you awake at night. Despair at the thought of capture " I must get rid of the evidence" he thought.

Suddenly a boy in a wheelchair with a cup that says give to the blind appears. In a moment of clarity that strikes with such rarity, you put the compac in his lap and without a word you walk away.

[Edited by kraken on 11-23-2000 at 02:38 PM]

[eshort]

I guess im od fashioned but i called my agenct yesturday and reported the finding of the "lost" computer--

i had also filed a claim against airborne who promply said it wasnt their problem9!) and forwarded it to Compaq....

that was 3 weeks ago--nothing heard yet----

ill let u guys know if the ins co lets me keep the unit (i seriously doubt it)--but--at least ill get my $250 deductible back (which i will use to buy another notebook to play with--im SO addicted!!!)

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL

Ill be in Miami Fla 11/24 for 7 days--will hook into pcmech from there----if had digital camera wld send pix like Hackercarlos.

The in surance co shld pay for my next three trips as i saved them $2900!!!

[kraken]

Eshort has shown that he is law abiding and has a conscience that tells him to "do the right thing".

Its a pity that this thread was for a deed done and not for one that is to happen.

Its a pity that we work for the common good (law) in all our deeds. The moral judgement of Eshort is only shown by his questioning of his own deed and what is the common good.

That questioning makes him truly human.

LawyerRon we are searching, if you know the answer and not just an answer, enlighten.

While the common consences says that eshort should be greedy, the law told him to "do the right thing"

We all know the law is an ass for those with financing.

Its a small thing in the big picture, but many small things make for large beaches.

To whose pleasure do we strive, ours or others or both.

Eshort
I would have given the extra away or just recouped my financial loss over the matter.
Just started for a charity organisation that gives computers to those in need and sells low cost for those that can afford

[LawyerRon]

Sorry,
This one's too obvious.

[cobra]

eshort,
tell them all hello for me in Miami, and that I don't miss them, except for good old mom.....
and good move on the laptop...

[StuartW]

Fraudulent claims mean that insurance companies have to raise their premiums. In effect,apart from theft from the company,a fraudulent claim is in a roundabout way stealing from the rest of us.Then of course,there is the moral consideration.

[eshort]

heelo from Miami--very turbulent plane ride down (trough stirring up atmosphere along east coast)

weather is raining and 75 degrees/dewpoint 72...left Boston at 17 degress!! rain supposed to cease by Sunday.

[M. A. Dockter]

There is snow on the ground here...I hope you die of heat exhaustion! (Just joking)

[AlwaysUp]

BRAVO, CarlPrice!

[Jenni]

StuartW, I agree that eshort did the right thing, and it is what i would have done in his situation. However, I hate the "if you steal from the ins. co. (or the software one for that matter, same arguement), they raise premiums and we all pay for it" arguement. Well, if I have payed for it already, then in my opinion eshort should keep it. Same way with an illegal copy of Windows. If I'm paying for them by way of Microsoft charging me way too much for mine, then they are paid for, and not illegal, just unregisterable.

[StuartW]

Jenni - I am afraid I must disagree with you. If a company (insurance or software) is losing money because of fraud, then they will raise product prices to keep the profit margin (and shareholders) happy.In other words, the honest purchaser will have to pay more than they should have.I would agree that if you have paid high insurance premiums for a number of years, and the opportunity that eshort found himself in arises,the temptation would be to get back what you have paid in. The phrase two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind.

[Jenni]

So in other words, we honest people are just screwed to keep profit margins for the insurance company! But, I knew that anyway. My husband has health insurance through his job. When we had our first child, after insurance had paid it's part, we still owed about $3,000. I know someone who was pregnant at the same time as I was, using the same doctor and the same hospital. She has no insurance and worked out a prepay arrangement with the hospital. She paid $1,500 total! And there was no difference in our deliveries.

[troysvihl]

bravo eshort. it's always refreshing when you run across people that still have convictions


as for the rest of you, i've got to say i'm a bit surprised. some people can justify their way into anything i guess.


lawyerRon - what is the correct decision? i'm fairly sure you would have said to return it, but after the reading the other posts on this string, i wouldn't be very surprised if you meant for eshort to keep it

[glc]

The proper, moral, and ethical thing to do is call your insurance agent for advice. If he tells you to keep it, so be it. It's their decision.

[LawyerRon]

And if he tells you to keep it, make sure you get that in writing, in case he denies the conversation later.

A simple fax memo will suffice.

[StuartW]

I am fascinated by some of the replies, and wonder if it is something to do with culture/Nationality.Personally my conscience would never allow me to keep something that was not mine.
Here is an example. If you were in a branch of a very large department store that had just announced record profits, and you saw a very poor old lady, and a youth in expensive clothes both shoplifting,would you report either,both or none - and why?

[kraken]

StuartW
Life makes cynics of us all. There are injustices and injustices.

If it is at all possible to thumb my nose at huge multinationals then I will in any way I can. Premium increases are inevitable as the "me first generation" (and there have been a few) will take any advantage they can get and the poor honest suckers (yes I'm one) will always loose out.

On your extended question.
1. If I was an employee I would have to report them both as it would be a duty under my employment contract (question of trust).

2. If I was not an employee I might report the youth but only if they showed a bad attitude (pis**d me off).

[StuartW]

Originally posted by kraken 2. If I was not an employee I might report the youth but only if they showed a bad attitude (pis**d me off). [/B]

In making this decision,you have appointed yourself as 'judge,jury and executioner'
Just suppose the old lady was a very sucessful and rich shoplifter who never got caught because she always dressed very poorly; and that the youth was stealing food for his mother, who had sacrificed everything to give her son good clothing.
Until you have all the facts, you can never make an informed decision, which is why most countries set up a legal system to determine whether laws have been broken or not, and then to apply leniency if extenuating circumstances allowed.
In the example I gave, your choice is really between reporting both, or turning away and ignoring the crime(which possibly makes you just as guilty).

[kraken]

StuartW

You are guilty of your own answer. My reply concerning the youth was if they pis**d me off. It was not that THEY pissed me off, it was IF.

IF the little old lady did the same I would consider it in the same light.

Using judgement is something that can only be learned by experience and not from addendums to questions posed.

Yes the little old lady could be rich as hell and just scamming us all, if she in anyway pis**d me off I would have to take that into account.

I will appoint myself judge jury and executioner in the fact of reporting, it is up to the system to do the real judging based on all the facts. My judgment is merely for my response, I cannot send anyone to prison or lop off their heads.

As to being guilty of the crime, I would have to be judged as knowing, not merely suspecting. It is a complex web that is spun when assuming someone did something. A witness cannot be forced to give evidence unless by a court order, in which case there must be evidence or suspicion of your witness to the said crime.

As it was, you did not have all the facts concerning my character and my previous response was very broad, as a detailed response can take a long time to compose.

Yet you judged me.

Each situation will have its own nuances, simple questions like the one you posed can only have simple answers.

Also your original question stated that she WAS a very poor old lady. You should have said (what seemed to be a poor old lady) as this is a totaly new set of perceptions.

[Edited by kraken on 12-10-2000 at 06:24 AM]

[StuartW]

Kraken - Sorry if you mis-understood my reply. In no way was I attempting to judge you by your response to my question.Of course each individual will respond to a given situation in different ways, depending on their circumstances.
What I was interested in was how each Nationality would react to the witness of a crime.I suspect that in a very material society, most people would turn away and say good luck to the criminal, since they were stealing from a big business, which is often perceived to be crooks themselves.
In an Islam country,where Religion and criminal code are inextricably linked, the reaction would be very different.
I take your point that in reporting,or not, a crime you are acting as 'judge and jury'; but then law and order can only succeeed by the will of the people.If a law is bad, people will ignore it.

[kraken]

I in no way misundestood your reply. I was pointing out the inadaquacies of the question that was originally posed.

These type of simplistic questions remind me of a study group. they are usually young and have little understanding of the complexities that life offers.

My furore was in the addendum, not taking an answer based on the question posed and analysing it from that basis, leads to misunderstandings that form prejudices.

An example that I can give is a question that asks the person to think outside of the square.

Nine dots formed into a square, Q: Use five straight lines to connect every dot (forgive me if this is a bit awry as it was a long time ago). The answer focused on extending the lines beyond the boundries of the square. I used curved lines to create an answer as this was not disallowed in the question. My answer was wrong according to the instructor, I pointed out that the question did not disallow curved lines but asked for only five straight ones. The instructor could not think outside of the question and therefore outside of the square. The instuctor was therefore constrained by their own boundries set by the (teachers copy) question.

When boundries are set, they must be done in a complete way so as no misunderstanding of the question can come into play. The question should have read using five straight line ONLY, connect all the dots.