ParrotRobAndCeCe

And what about all of the caches that are sitting directly ON THE GROUND? These caches are often senselessly killing grass. And hollow logs? That ammo can is cruelly and inhumanely suffocating all sorts of funguses, lichens and mushrooms. At least with a spike the tree doesn't DIE. I think we need to address this issue IMMEDIATELY!

This is a perfect example of the type of cache that must remain on this site AND the type of cache that one misses out on if they filter on size. This is what makes it more important to fix whatever is wrong. If no one likes my solution, then find another one. A solution must be found as I know of folks who are already missing out on great caches because they've had to filter out the micros. Oooooh, you mean THAT problem. There's already a solution to that problem - it's called stop being so freakin' lazy and read the cache listing before you go out. That's what it's there for. There's a reason that listing a cache is more than just listing coordinates, you know.

I never said "type". Yeah, whatever. You are. You are using "type" like that of a cache which is "illegal" is a type. That doesn't fly. That must have been some other Mushtang. Liar liar liar. I never said "type". You lie. We've established that. Move on dadgumit.

I think the issue boils down to the fact there are so many posts complaining about micros. Why is that? Clearly micros don't outnumber larger caches hardly anywhere, yet they have a bad rap. Why? It's kind of hard to address caches where nothing but a micro will fit, but placing a larger-than-a-micro where one would fit could go a little ways in taking the pressure off. If the cache still sucks then it's not the fault of it being a micro. I think that boils my argument down to a nutshell. Fewer crappy micros, less angst. I'd love to go back to discussing crappy trades instead. So are you saying that a reasonable argument for placing a larger cache in location that could support either a micro or a larger cache is to reduce angst in the forums? Might I suggest just not posting in the forums any more. So, I see you, too, are not interested in a solution. You and others shout down mine but don't offer any of your own. Uh, maybe they're not interested in a solution because they don't see that there is a PROBLEM. And exactly what cramming would that be? Forcing you to find micros in areas that would support ammo cans? Fortunately, everyone here seems to be aware of who it is that's trying to do the forcing.

And the intellectual debate disolves into a playground liar, liar, pants on fire. I guess recess is over folks. Let's all go back to class. So, I should just allow such an outrageous lie stand without challenge? I can debate someone who can keep to the facts. There is no debating lies. ROFL, you've got THAT right! So, how is refuting debating lies by pointing to more lies helping your cause? I just don't see it. Doesn't surprise me. At this stage of the game, it seems you've told so many lies you don't know the difference between a lie and the truth. Even when it's thrust right in your face, you still continue to deny it. It's sad, really, but I gotta give it to you, it takes real stones to continue to insist you never said something when it's been quoted several times.

And the intellectual debate disolves into a playground liar, liar, pants on fire. I guess recess is over folks. Let's all go back to class. So, I should just allow such an outrageous lie stand without challenge? I can debate someone who can keep to the facts. There is no debating lies. ROFL, you've got THAT right!

Interesting. I was wondering when you would get around to (inappropriately) bringing this up, CR. Firstly: Yes, semantics aside, you clearly and repeatedly insisted that those caches be eliminated. The option to simply avoid them wasn't enough for you -- you made it clear that you wanted them all to go away completely, preferably via a wholesale change in the rules. This detail is not debatable; it is a matter of public record. Liar. I'm sorry, did I just insult you, attack your character, or just point out you just knowingly made a complete and utterly false statement? That's not to mention I wasn't the one that first brought up the issue in this thread. Your buddy did. I guess that doesn't matter. Just lie, lie, lie. CR, how can you POSSIBLY say this with a straight face when you clearly made the following statements: I think you owe KBI an apology. You've CLEARLY called for the ban of caches requiring additional logging requirements, at LEAST twice, maybe THREE times. To say KBI is a liar for calling you on it is utterly disingenuous. Fortunately, your posts are public record, so the rest of the community can easily see who is completely full of crap.

Just for the record, a petard was a small medieval bomb used for blowing down gates. He might want to check the definitions of the words he's using before he tries to make his case by correcting someone else's post. Yeah Fizzy, don't be so petarded. Maybe he thought a fifty-cent word would impress us?

Ah, to be unfettered from the tedious chains of intellect. Such envious freedom. (Just kidding! I heard that line in a movie and I've been dying to use it. Don't get your feathers ruffled!) Rob, just for the record, I have not, and will not, tell others what they should do with their own caches. I think I made that clear in my "Fred" post a while back. Sorry, Riff, the CR in this post was your initial-sake over there in the other corner, who seems to make a habit of telling people what sort of container they SHOULD hide. It wasn't directed at you. Agreed. Personally? I like containers with swag too. So much so that when I put out my single hide, I loaded it with over $100 worth of swag, including not one, but TWO Maryland geocoins, one of which was unactivated to become the property of the finder. That being said, I would not presume, for one second, to come in here and tell OTHER PEOPLE what type of container they should hide, unlike someone else with the same initials as you. I think that was a compliment, and if so, thanks. If it makes you feel better about my articulation skills, "because" is essentially a way of saying that it is of no concern to you, CoyoteRed, KBI, Mushtang or ANYONE why I might choose to hide a bison tube in an area that could support a container the size of a bus. The point is, if I chose to hide a micro (which I did not, but which is irrelevant to this conversation), I chose so for reasons that are my own and are of little or no consequence to you. Much the same as my tie analogy, maybe I secretly like red better than blue - but that is none of YOUR concern, as it is strictly my choice to make for whatever reason pleases me, or for no reason at all. I suppose one COULD argue that every decision you make, including the placing of a micro over an ammo can, is made for SOME reason, either conscious or not, provided you actively made the decision instead of choosing randomly (heads it's the micro, tails it's the ammo can!). But again, the decision is that of the hider, and the hider is under no obligation whatsoever to justify his or her decision to anyone, least of all CoyoteRed. Thank you for the interesting debate. It sure beats "la la la la I can't hear you". Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some errands to run - thought I'd try on some "petards" and see how they fit

So your only evidence for your claim that he is about to call for banning micros in locations that would support something else is that he might have done something similar in another thread on an entirely different subject? In that case, I was wrong. Your argument wasn't just a strawman, but an ad hominem attack as well. Which is even less honest, if possible. How sad. You'd think somebody who claims to be so committed to arguing things logically would make some minimal effort to do so himself, and not try to argue via character assassination. BTW, he said "might" not "will" - I think it called irony. Glad to see I'm not the only one who saw that. "Irony" is Fizzy using a strawman to support his claim that Mushtang is using a strawman.

So your only evidence for your claim that he is about to call for banning micros in locations that would support something else is that he might have done something similar in another thread on an entirely different subject? Wow, you really DO twist. I think Mushtang's exact words were: How CONVENIENT of you to miss the "might" in that sentence and translate it to "CR is about to call for banning micros!" Speaking of strawmen and intellectual dishonesty.... Well, that's one thing you got right. You would, wouldn't you? You'd also think someone who spends so much time pointing out logical fallacies on the part of others would quickly recognize their own.

Yeah, CR likes to tell a lot of people what they SHOULD do.

No, you're dead wrong. But what else is new. Yes you have. Or did you miss the whole "because the hider wanted to" bit? Or maybe you DID see it and dismissed free will as a legitimate motivation, much like your buddy with the same initials. What "reasons" can YOU offer as to why it would be better to hide an ammo can in an area that would support a micro?

Not at all. I cache to please me. I don't cache to please YOU. You mean me as a finder of one of your caches? I guess this says it all about your attitude and motivation. Not that I think I'm actually reading a statement based on what was quoted, but one of two things are apparent here. Either you're not reading and understanding what is written or you really don't care how well a finder enjoys a cache you've placed. Read the logs on my hide, why don't you? You've already shown you're not above dragging one's history into the open - funny how you forgot to this time. I hid things that interest ME in a can that interested ME in a location that interested ME. Everyone that's found it has liked it. How in the WORLD is THAT possible?

Wrong, again. Answer: Pocket Queries and create your own. Taking only physical caches: Cache types: 245 (15.9%) Multi-cache 1198 (77.9%) Traditional Cache 94 ( 6.1%) Unknown Cache Containers: 16 ( 1.0%) Large 428 (27.8%) Micro 34 ( 2.2%) Not chosen 33 ( 2.1%) Other 802 (52.2%) Regular 220 (14.3%) Small 4 ( 0.3%) Virtual This is taken from a complete listings PQ and include some 1500 plus caches within 150 miles of our home. Clearly, regulars alone out number all over sizes combined. We have no idea to the true number of smalls because that size came in late and there are some still marked as micro and regular that actually fit the small size. Even if this reduced the size of the pie for regulars, it will do the same for micros making its pie even smaller than it's mere quarter or so. So, even massaging the numbers a few percentage points to take care of mis-sized caches, you still clearly have a larger-than-micro preference. ...for our area. That's not to say other places will have different numbers. I'm sure there are places "notorious" of micros the number could very well be flipped. Let's take one of the most famous micro hot-spots, Jacksonville, Florida: Containers: 13 ( 0.7%) Large 948 (50.7%) Micro 80 ( 4.3%) Not chosen 30 ( 1.6%) Other 615 (32.9%) Regular 182 ( 9.7%) Small Clearly, they like their micros, but it was a host site of a GW event. The whole idea was to have a massive number of easy to place, maintain, and find caches. So it takes this kind of concerted effort to raise the number of micros to this level. If I use the whole area I've accumulated: Containers: 42 ( 0.8%) Large 1947 (36.4%) Micro 156 ( 2.9%) Not chosen 174 ( 3.3%) Other 2289 (42.8%) Regular 736 (13.8%) Small 5 ( 0.1%) Virtual Note this includes all of SC, a good chunk of GA, all of Western NC, and a good portion of North East FL, including Jax. Still, even with artificially high numbers because of Jax, it's clear larger-than-micro is still a favorite. By the way, it's also clear that "anything other than regular" is still a favorite, too, since all of the other categories put together total more than regular. That's the same asinine conclusion you arrived at comparing one size container to all the other ones. But then, the bottom line is you STILL don't have enough evidence or statistics to back up any of your claims. Ad ignorantiam, indeed.

Wrong, again. No, absolutely right, yet again. You found and ran PQ's for THREE areas. You counted a couple thousand out of a QUARTER MILLION caches. You used THREE samples. SMALL ones. And one of those three refuted your claim that micros were not a majority. So clearly your original claim, as I said before, was a complete ad ignorantiam. Next?

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks. Funny you should see it that way. Personally, I see telling OTHERS what size is "best" to hide as "it's all about me".

Then you completely missed the point. The point of the analogy is that of choice. I am free, as the cache hider, to place a cache as *I* see fit, not to please YOU, CoyoteRed, Clan Riffster, or anyone else but me. And you, as a finder, are perfectly free to NOT find my cache. By the way, my cache is an ammo can if that makes you happy. Not because it was better, but because that's what I CHOSE to hide. My next one will probably be a micro, though. Probably buy the container from CR

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?" It seems a lot of posters are trying to make decisions based on their own preference, what's in it for them, and not thinking about the community as a whole. Agreed. Some people are even going so far as to presume to tell others what size cache they should place for their own hides. Can you BELIEVE the gall? Not at all. I cache to please me. I don't cache to please YOU. To assume other people do things to please you is the absolute pinnacle of egotism.

Conversely the opposite is true, as well. Erring on the side of placing a micro instead of regular in the hopes to satisfy more folks would be assuming there are more people who would prefer it be a micro instead of regular. Actually, that's not really accurate either. You'd be making the assumption that you'd be disappointing fewer people by placing a micro than placing a regular. There are some that don't care either way. If you're looking to quantify this then look at the percentages of micros over larger caches. Of course Fizzy or somebody could correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you think that since micros aren't already a majority that more people would rather place, and hunt, a larger cache? How do you know this? Do you have statistics showing this? I would be willing to bet that NO single cache size is a majority, and that in many areas, micros are indeed a plurality. But then, I'm not making that argument, you are. And without statistics from Groundspeak, it's yet another ad ignorantiam.

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?" I don't remember electing you to make that judgement. Don't you mean "what would be best for CoyoteRed?"

Yeah, but everything else being equal, people would rather find an ammo can than your micro, dadgumit.

Good idea, there are all kinds of nasty diseases you can catch out there

I'm game. Next time you're in Maryland, we'll get a charter boat out on the Bay.

Do you really need me to answer that, or are you just being obtuse again? Sweet, you've got argumentum ad hominem to go along WITH your ad ignorantiam.