She looks like Mr. Ed's love child.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Selfish + Elfish

+1

nah, apples and oranges. i can SEE the desire in banditing but i'm not at the point i can justify it, so there is that. just saying i can identify. AFA IMCOZ, since teh biggest joy is interacting with my family along the course likely not going to bandit (thus the unsupported lonely IM) but yeah, i can totally see the desire.

---

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit

I will admit i proudly bandited and blogged before. Friend was awarded a trip to a large half marathon in chicago put on by the "Penguin" guy. Penguin guy backed out and wouln't pay for the trip my friend won. I bandited in show of solidarity. Proudly blogged about it afterwards. Not saying what i did was appropriate but no regrets here.

However, banditing under normal circumstances is absolutely pathetic.

It's really simple. Its' theft. I don't see how it's different than shoplifting. She's knowing and admittedly using a service without paying for it.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

At first I thought some of the comments were a bit harsh. But after clicking on the link I can see why. And I kind of agree. I can't stand people who are too cheap to pay and then to go on and brag about it. And about the blog title; not so much.

Hyperbole aside: You don't see how physically stealing a tangible good from a store is different than someone jumping into a 5k they didn't pay for?

Why is stealing an object different than stealing a service?

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce

Stealing a service is still stealing. It doesn't have to be material goods. To some the value of the service is greater than any material goods she may have taken.

---

Formerly DrD

I apologize if I come across as condescending, but generally an object is tangible where a service is not. I'm not saying either is right, but someone jumping into a 5k that they weren't going to pay for anyways has fewer consequences for others than stealing a tangible good from a store.

In the first case, in the vast, vast majority of instances, there is absolutely no loss or effect for anyone for a person to jump into a 5k unregistered, run while not taking anything from the course, and then veering off before the finish. Of course it's wrong, because it's stealing, but that's beside the point in a discussion of the differences.

In the second case, that product was created, ordered, paid for, and put on the store shelf, etc. Someone will eventually buy it or it will go back to the vendor for sale elsewhere or whatever. If someone shoplifts it, that object is a total loss. The vendor loses out a sum that is calculable and will be known through inventory control. Still stealing and wrong, of course.

The similarities between these two concepts end at the fact that they're both stealing and stealing is wrong. They are quite different in all other respects.

You're confusing the issues. Races get general liability coverage to cover its general liability. If a spectator is injured due to an RD;s negligence, it will be covered. However, as a quid pro quo for that coverage, insurance companies will require waivers from each participant. It's not that difficult a concept.

But a bandit is not a participant.

I could see that an insurance company might require the RD to take reasonable measures to prevent bandits as a condition for requiring coverage. I could see an insurer denying coverage if a RD knowlingly or recklessly allowed bandits to participate. But the lack of a waiver seems to be completely irrelevant.

You've built a straw man to justify stealing.

so under that theory, if one person buys a race photo, say of a start line, every other person can steal it (copy off the 'net) because there's no effect........

Of course there is loss to the RD and the photographer in a lost entry fee/purchase.

I wonder how'd she'd feel if a dude said: "We’ve had sex twice, and I bought dinner & drinks and then took you to breakfast both times*. We had sex a third time, but I don't feel like taking you to breakfast this morning. See ya next time"

That's probably a bad metaphor




* which pretty much adds up to what a HM entry would be, coincidentally

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Thief + Queef

Anyone using the closed course is a participant. Lack of waiver is not irrelevant. But you can go on thinking that

So it's ok to not pay my cab driver next time? Can I just tell him since he's only providing a service that it really isn't that big of a deal? Maybe just tell the woman who cleans my house that I'm not paying her this go round because she is merely providing a service?

Of course it's not zero, that was never my point.

My point was to counter the claims by those that RD's cannot get insurance coverage for potential claims arising out of bandits sneaking onto the course. I suspect the general liability policies cover such claims. In the case you cited above, who paid for the defense? While the RD and USAT might have had to pay some deductable, I suspect an insurance company paid the rest.

wow!

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Re-read my post. I did not justify stealing at all. Both are stealing, both are wrong. My position is that they are different concepts.

Again, to rehash the post that you're responding to: Both stealing goods and stealing services is wrong. But they're different concepts.

You're the one creating the strawman by taking an argument I didn't make, that banditing a race can be justified, and arguing against it. That is the very definition of a strawman. I did not and would not justify stealing or banditing a race. I was only explaining how they are different concepts.

edit: But to respond to your strawman anyways: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said was akin to saying that downloading those pictures off the internet for free is a different concept than going to the picture store and putting the physical photographs into your pocket and walking out without paying. Again: Both stealing, both wrong, but two different things.

No, in cases where someone takes a service and doesn't pay that is stealing and stealing is wrong. In both cases you mentioned, that is stealing.

I've seen that word thrown around a lot, but I must admit that I have NO IDEA what it means; can someone explain it to me???

Is it anything like a Wicker Man?

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

And that statement is based on what? Care to cite legal authority? Or are you just making it up?

So you're essentially saying that if an unauthorized individual sneaks onto a closed course, notwithstanding reasonable and good faith efforts by the RD to prevent it from happening, and suffers or causes harm, an insurance company would deny coverage under a general liability policy? While coverage always depends on the policy language, I highly doubt it would be denied in that case. This is precisely one of things that general liability coverage is for.

No, The Wicker Man is a terrible movie with Nick Cage. lol.

Strawman = taking an argument someone made, changing it around a little, and then responding to the changed "easier to argue against" argument. A physical straw man (scarecrow type thing you see in a field) is flimsy and easy to take down, which I assume is where the phrase comes from.

You saw a strawman argument.

From before-

Me: Stealing is wrong. Stealing goods is wrong and stealing services is wrong, but they're different concepts, albeit both wrong/stealing.

Other guy: SO YOU'RE SAYING STEALING SERVICES IS OKAY AND I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR CABS!!

The person took what I said generally (stealing both is wrong, but they're different concepts) and twisted it into a strawman/easier to attack argument to as if I had said something like "stealing goods is wrong but stealing services is not a big deal and not wrong" and then argued against that.

That's a strawman.

Nik Cage's horrible film was a remake of the original Wickerman

NOT THE BEES!

It's called the law. Ask any RD

But as you "suspect" it's not an issue, authority for that statement?