# You theiving cunt **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043 "2005-04-25T16:40:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/141 "2005-04-27T16:35:42Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Maureen, keep in mind that people with other kinds of disabilities at least have a fully functioning brain with which to be “productive and good people.” I don’t know that I would have the courage that the woman on dialysis must have. I understand what you’re saying, and agree to an extent. But, I’ve seen people with both physical and mental disabilities act just as selfish and childish. And people with the exact same disability who accept it and incorproate it into their lives and do their best to adjust. These people are generally more successful, have fewer difficulties doing their work and generally go through less meds (although I have no hard numbers to back that up; it’s my personal observation.). It all comes down to who you were before you became disabled, and who you want to be and are willing to work to be now. Just like people without a disability. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/142 "2005-04-27T16:37:02Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > After all, up until you took the boom box from under Joan’s desk, she hadn’t done anything wrong yet. She might have said to him “Here is your prize, congratulations and enjoy!” Actually, that was not TC’s intent. Her intent was to take the boombox, which Elliot had won fair and square, and pressure him into giving it to her in exchange for a gift certificate, on the theory that “he already had a boombox.” She may have done nothing legally wrong, but it was high-handed, presumptive, sneaky, and arrogant, to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Cheez\_Whia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@Cheez\_Whia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheez_Whia)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/143 "2005-04-27T17:13:47Z")
IMHO, since she took something that never belonged to her (first it was the company’s property, then Elliott’s), she DID do something wrong. It may be gray area on her planet, but not mine. She. Stole. It. Or, was going to strongarm/guilt the kid out of it. It’s still wrong, even if he had “agreed” to trade with her. ---
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/144 "2005-04-27T17:36:47Z")
> [@Exgineer](#): > > I’d say she did something wrong by putting it under her desk in the first place, rather than his. She also was wrong in calling it “hers” after **Maureen** took it and put it on Elliott’s desk. She asked, “Who took _my_ boombox?” ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/145 "2005-04-27T18:32:32Z")
People, I wasn’t defending Joan at all, I thought that much was obvious. My comments concerned only the events up until Maureen put the boombox on Elliot’s desk. I said that it would have been better to explain the situation to Elliot, it was his problem and he could even come out of it a wiser person. My opinion is that taking the boombox from under Joan’s desk without confronting her or at least telling her why was not the most mature attitude either. Sorry for not attributing quotes. > [@](#): > > I’d say she did something wrong by putting it under her desk in the first place, rather than his. Could have been for safekeeping. > [@](#): > > Actually, that was not TC’s intent. Her intent was to take the boombox, which Elliot had won fair and square, and pressure him into giving it to her in exchange for a gift certificate, on the theory that “he already had a boombox.” I know, I can read too. I’m saying intentions are just that… intentions. > [@](#): > > She also was wrong in calling it “hers” after Maureen took it and put it on Elliott’s desk. She asked, “Who took my boombox?” That’s definitely true. Still, it happened after the boombox was taken by Maureen. > [@](#): > > IMHO, since she took something that never belonged to her (first it was the company’s property, then Elliott’s), she DID do something wrong. It may be gray area on her planet, but not mine. She. Stole. It. No. She. Didn’t. > [@](#): > > Or, was going to strongarm/guilt the kid out of it. It’s still wrong, even if he had “agreed” to trade with her. Yes, it’s wrong. She didn’t do anything wrong though, because she didn’t get the chance. If I go rob a bank and have a car accident on the way there and end up in the hospital instead, I can’t be charged with bank robbery. Imagine for a moment that instead of Joan admitting she was going to pressure Elliot, she was a bit smarter than that and said instead “I was going to give it to Elliot. Somebody had to. I just wanted to see his reaction, he would have been really happy. What the fuck is your problem Maureen?”. Then, Maureen would have looked bad. Saying her intentions were this and that doesn’t hold any water. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/146 "2005-04-27T18:44:03Z")
[QUOTE] > [@\*\*Pedro\*\*](#): > > Could have been for safekeeping. Why in the world would it be any safer under her desk than his? You’re grasping here. > [@](#): > > No. She. Didn’t. Yes. She. Did. She took possesion of an object that did not belong to her under false pretenses. (This is where the “intentions” part is relevant.) That is not only wrong, it is illegal. Q.E.D. > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s wrong. She didn’t do anything wrong though, because she didn’t get the chance. If I go rob a bank and have a car accident on the way there and end up in the hospital instead, I can’t be charged with bank robbery. If you walk into a bank with a holdup note in your pocket and a gun under your coat but trip on the way in and sprain your ankle and end up in the hospital, you most certainly can be charged with a crime. > [@](#): > > Imagine for a moment that instead of Joan admitting she was going to pressure Elliot, she was a bit smarter than that and said instead “I was going to give it to Elliot. Somebody had to. I just wanted to see his reaction, he would have been really happy. What the fuck is your problem Maureen?”. Then, Maureen would have looked bad. Saying her intentions were this and that doesn’t hold any water. Well, we do not need our imagination, as she had already stated her intentions, per the O.P. ---
**Author:** ![galt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@galt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/147 "2005-04-27T18:46:29Z")
It seems to me that what she did was somewhat like walking into his office today, taking the boombox, and putting it under her desk, with the intention of giving it back _if he asked for it_. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/148 "2005-04-27T18:58:01Z")
Please, Contrapuntal, pay more attention this time. [QUOTE=Contrapuntal] > [@](#): > > Why in the world would it be any safer under her desk than his? You’re grasping here. It doesn’t really matter where she keeps it, since she was going to tell Elliot she had it and she would give it to him if he insisted. > [@](#): > > Yes. She. Did. She took possesion of an object that did not belong to her under false pretenses. (This is where the “intentions” part is relevant.) That is not only wrong, it is illegal. Q.E.D. No she didn’t. She kept the boombox to give it later to the owner, which I assume wasn’t present at the giveaway. Her manager agreed to that. She also intended to propose a deal, to exchange the boombox for a $20 gift certificate. There’s nothing illegal with that. > [@](#): > > If you walk into a bank with a holdup note in your pocket and a gun under your coat but trip on the way in and sprain your ankle and end up in the hospital, you most certainly can be charged with a crime. I repeat what I said… “If I go rob a bank and **have a car accident on the way there and end up in the hospital instead** , I can’t be charged with bank robbery.” Notice specifically that I didn’t say anything about written notes which would prove a criminal intent. > [@](#): > > Well, we do not need our imagination, as she had already stated her intentions, per the O.P. Well, try imagining it anyway. You may find that next time Maureen (or anyone else) interfering on someone else’s problems because of supposed intentions will have a good gesture backfire. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/149 "2005-04-27T19:06:26Z")
Um, **Pedro** , IIRC the OP ( **Maureen** ) is TC’s manager/supervisor, who most certainly did not agree with her schemes to bully the kid out of his rightful prize. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/150 "2005-04-27T19:06:48Z")
I should also point out that I’m a believer in letting people stand up for themselves, learning the hard way and all that jazz. I’m talking about Elliot here. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/151 "2005-04-27T19:14:21Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > People, I wasn’t defending Joan at all, I thought that much was obvious. My comments concerned only the events up until Maureen put the boombox on Elliot’s desk. Well, then, how about the note she put on his monitor? Not “Hey, you won! I took your boombox for safekeeping” but “Come see me Monday.” Like she had something to discuss with him. I can see what you’re saying, and that you’re not defending Joan and her intentions, but do you think that if **Maureen** had sent Elliot over to refuse a trade with Joan, that there’d have been any less drama? “You don’t want my gift certificate? But- but- you already HAVE a boom box! It’s not FAIR!” This is a woman who’s flinging accusations of sexual impropriety in the office, over a fuckin boom box. At 17, the kid doesn’t need to deal with a psycho like that. It sounds like **Maureen** knows Joan pretty well, and how she would react. It doesn’t matter what any random smart person might have said to make Maureen look bad for filching the boom box; in this case it only matters that it wouldn’t have occurred to Joan (and obviously didn’t) that she wouldn’t necessarily appear to be in the wrong if she didn’t admit she never intended to give it to Elliot. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/152 "2005-04-27T19:23:40Z")
Did you miss the part about her pitching a fit that Elliot won a boombox, because he already had one, and intended not on giving it to him, but holding on to it and offering him a gift certificate in exchange? It wasn’t hers. She didn’t win it. She wanted it, and was going to intimidate a younger kid into giving it to her. What don’t you get? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/153 "2005-04-27T19:26:35Z")
[QUOTE=Pedro] > [@](#): > > Please, Contrapuntal, pay more attention this time. Give me reason to and I will. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t really matter where she keeps it, since she was going to tell Elliot she had it and she would give it to him if he insisted. If he _insisted_?! In your world must one _insist_ to be handed property that is rightfully theirs? You are the on who suggested that she took it for safekeeping. The reason it matters where she put it is that \*his \* desk is as secure as _her_ desk, thereby negating the safekeeping theory. > [@](#): > > No she didn’t. She kept the boombox to give it later to the owner, which I assume wasn’t present at the giveaway. Her manager agreed to that. She also intended to propose a deal, to exchange the boombox for a $20 gift certificate. There’s nothing illegal with that. What is illegal is taking possession of an item that belongs to someone else under false pretenses. When she claimed to be “taking it upstairs for him,” any reasonable person would understand that to mean that her intention was to give it to him. If that had been her intention, she would have placed it under his desk, not hers. She claimed her intent was to give it to him, where in fact her intent was to coerce him into a bad trade. Her stated intent was therefore false. > [@](#): > > I repeat what I said… “If I go rob a bank and **have a car accident on the way there and end up in the hospital instead** , I can’t be charged with bank robbery.” Notice specifically that I didn’t say anything about written notes which would prove a criminal intent. Fair enough. But your analogy, then is a weak one. For it to hold she would have had to trip on the way upstairs **never having taken possesion of the boombox, and never having stated her intent to coerce him into a bad trade.** > [@](#): > > Well, try imagining it anyway. You may find that next time Maureen (or anyone else) interfering on someone else’s problems because of supposed intentions will have a good gesture backfire. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. Not supposed intentions. Stated intentions. There is a world of difference. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/154 "2005-04-27T19:36:36Z")
I would say, that because she stated her intent to coerce him into a bad trade, then put the boombox under her desk, that she took steps (verifiable steps, by her reaction the next morning, her statemnts prior to taking charge of the boombox, and her hissy fit after the fact) to carry this plan out. So, she not only verbally stated an idea, but **TOOK STEPS TO CARRY IT OUT**. (Steps that were blatent, and very easily verifiable, which she didn’t deny, even in her complaints about **Maureen** to the boss.) She was highly unethical, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/155 "2005-04-27T19:42:27Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > It doesn’t really matter where she keeps it, since she was going to tell Elliot she had it and she would give it to him if he insisted. Why should he have to insist to claim something that is rightfully his? > [@](#): > > No she didn’t. She kept the boombox to give it later to the owner, which I assume wasn’t present at the giveaway. Her manager agreed to that. **Maureen** , her manager, did not agree to that. Per the OP, TC absconded with the boombox at the end of the luncheon. > [@](#): > > She also intended to propose a deal, to exchange the boombox for a $20 gift certificate. There’s nothing illegal with that. No, nothing illegal, just unethical and immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/156 "2005-04-27T19:46:31Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > I should also point out that I’m a believer in letting people stand up for themselves, learning the hard way and all that jazz. I’m talking about Elliot here. So if I see someone steal your property, you would rather I stay out of it, and let you figure out “the hard way” where your stuff is? Or if I see someone badly overmatched in an altercation I should stay out of it and let them take their noble ass whippin’? It is possible to stand up for oneself and still need a little back-up. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/157 "2005-04-27T20:01:38Z")
First off, great job **Maureen**. > [@Pedro](#): > > I should also point out that I’m a believer in letting people stand up for themselves, learning the hard way and all that jazz. I’m talking about Elliot here. Elliot is a minor…you’re saying that he should learn the hard way by being coerced, or worse yet, not even know that he won a boombox? Where’s the lesson in that? Thanks to Maureen, he learned instead that some coworkers can be trusted (Maureen) and others can’t be (Joan). If he got coerced, he would have learned that Joan is not to be trusted and Maureen (and other coworkers) could have cared less…making Elliot unable to trust anyone there. You actually prefer that method instead? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/158 "2005-04-27T20:10:07Z")
Which is fine and dandy. So do I in most cases. But this is the case of someone intentionally takeing advantage of the fact that this young man would no way in hell stand up to someone in a position of authority. Also, I’d like to point out, there were two other boomboxes given away that day. Both of the people who got those were there. And yet, she didn’t approach either of them. Why? Because they would’ve told her to go to hell, that’s why. All of which is beside the point. She took it. She had no real intention of giving it up. She didn’t win it. He did. Should I have stuck my nose in? Maybe not. But frankly, had I gone to her after the fact, I guarantee she would’ve had that boombox, and he would have caved. I don’t want anyone here to feel coerced. Which would have happened. Do I know this for a fact? Yes. Yes, I do. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/159 "2005-04-27T20:17:12Z")
Er. I should prolly point out, that was in response to **Pedro** … ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043/160 "2005-04-27T20:37:40Z")
**Pedro** , do yourself a favor here. Go back to lurking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-theiving-cunt/301043.md?page=9)