icft

While I also have a thing for pom-poms, I have a completely different idea of who I want holding them...

I agree. I was simply pointing out the error of saying the casino did it. Carnival did it. But as you said, their ball game. Just clarifying whose ballgame. As for disingenuous. By saying the casino did it at least 3 below applies. Knowing a little history, maybe more. adjective 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf. 3. Unaware or uninformed; naive. As to who pays for it, while the contract between Carnival Cruise Line and Global Casino Operations may not have Carnival paying GCO $25 to hand out the money (it may be more or less depending on where Carnival Corp. wants profit to appear and how much their attorneys figure they can get away with before endangering the corporate veils), legally Carnival Cruise Line is paying for it.

Now you guys are just screwing with the heads of new cruisers 😆 There will probably be a thread started by someone worried they will make a mistake and get charged $5.

It's not complicated. If you looked under benefits for the VIFP program (you know, that thing with gold, platinum, diamond levels) you would have seen the old free tournament entry benefit listed under the benefits of the VIFP program. When covid came around you would have seen the footnote to the VIFP benefits saying that since there were no tournaments the were giving $25. All that was part of the VIFP benefits available to folks who never set foot in the casino. It was offered by Carnival, not the casino operation.

Also, bringing the casino into it is very disingenuous. This was a VIFP perk listed along with all the other VIFP perks like priority boarding etc. It was not a casino perk.

Like minds here. Except for Journeys cruises we generally sail NCL now. That means the loss of the $25 doesn't much matter to us. But we did chuckle when we saw this. It is typical Carnival. Almost all the "temporary changes due to covid" that reduced cost to Carnival and service to the passenger were permanent while the temporary change that had a cost to Carnival and benefit to the passenger truly was temporary.

Ketchup? Most don't care. The difference is you don't mix ketchup with your good bourbon. I will always plant my flag on the hill of "bourbon and Coke" over bourbon and Pepsi. (One of the smaller reasons we mostly sail NCL now.)

No, you have prepaid. You will also note that the bartender will not give you a paper receipt to sign. So there is no "nudge" line on the receipt to add a tip. If you want to recognize especially noteworthy crew members note their names, pass by guest services, get "hero cards," and fill them out and turn them in. NCL has an incentive program to reward crew who provide notable service.

If TxTeach79 was trying to get away from middle school on this cruise he has failed miserably; what with anus and now this? 🫣

They're looking for that lady...

Now you're depressing me.

Ours has never said "Please Cover Up"...

They're joking. That little slot in the top? It's an ad. They're not saying drop your drugs, they're saying "there are drugs to be had here."

AM radio? I am back in middle school😄

Are we back to anus again?

That's what makes it a Sid review...

I feel like I'm back in middle school again...

Promises, promises...

Just don't kiss him...

If the Prima repo was the recent one out of Galveston April 5th we were also on that cruise. In the over 40 cruises we've taken it was the our favorite cruise. Jonathan (Dr. Bong) and Guillermoe at the Metropolitan bar were incredible. They made many of my drinks on the tops of their heads.

"Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man."

Someone pointed out to me a point of possible confusion. Some may have noticed that in the headlines about the tax court case cited above it is said "that they could not net their wins and losses across the year" while the Office of Chief Counsel legal memorandum AM 2008-011 does allow for deducting losses from sessions other than the winning sessions. The difference is that in the tax court case the taxpayers were arguing that the losses from other sessions in the year could be netted with the winning session to determine INCOME. The tax court rejected that saying"...their gambling losses are allowable only as itemized deductions. But because petitioners have elected the standard deduction, they are not entitled to itemize their deductions." The legal memorandum notes "A casual gambler who elects to itemize deductions may deduct wagering losses, up to wagering gains, on Form 1040, Schedule A." So the headline is a bit misleading. The tax court and the legal memo are in agreement that IF you itemize you can deduct your losses up to the amount of your winnings for the year. For reference, the tax court decision: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Endnotes/TC_Memo_2009-306.pdf