mresoteric

If it was a genuine offer to someone that could actually come over and cut his grass and he left off the "For Pete's sake", then maybe not. But the post as written is condescending. No, there is nothing condescending about a student working at Starbucks and no I am not a communist. But I do recognize when someone is talking down to me.

...Of course, I'll give you the membership here so I know you will not squander the 30 bucks on junk. Now that could be interpreted as condescending... Hence the smilie at the end. The smilie doesn't make it funny or any less condescending.

That is condescending. Now we're condescending elitist snobs! What other names can you come up with for folks who choose to pay for extra benefits? Oh...forgot one...based on the popularity of a recent picture we're sexist condescending elitist snobs. No. That one post by one member is condescending.

That is condescending.

The only reason to buy a premium membership is if it benefits you. Being a premium member doesn't make anyone better than a basic member. Being a basic member doesn't make you a leech. It may be difficult for someone to justify $30 this month when they have insurance due and a busted refrigerator that needs replacing. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to afford a premium right now. But it is still a choice. Everyone can buy a premium if its high enough on there priority list. But premium membership does not make someone a snob. I think anyone acting snobbish would be that way regardless of their level of membership here.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Isn't that a little hypocritical? Ambient Skater made a similar remark and everyone crucified him for it. You even made a thread about it because he was under 18. It's kind of sad to see an adult acting in the same manner that the adults chastise the kids for acting. The situation is a little bit different. Ambient Skater made that remark as the very first reply to a question asking for help. Youre right. Skater made his post as the very first reply after the guy say he wanted to quit. You made your post as the second reply after friegaric said he was quitting the forums. I guess that makes it ok. At least skater didn't call the guy a liar and start a thread about someones post.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Isn't that a little hypocritical? Ambient Skater made a similar remark and everyone crucified him for it. You even made a thread about it because he was under 18. It's kind of sad to see an adult acting in the same manner that the adults chastise the kids for acting.

Did the person you were thinking of tell a newbie to quit on a thread where the OP was asking what to do? Thats who I was thinking of... He said he was thinking of quitting! I was just helping him along... While this post in question would have been rotf funny if it had been one of the regulars, it's not when it's a newbie. They have no way of knowing the "inside" jokes. In such cases we are laughing at them, not with them. Why would it have been any funnier with a regular than a newbie? If someone is upset enough to want to quit then its not funny. The problem is everyone was laughing along with AS when he compiled his spreadsheet. Then due to bad timing someone happens to post a childish I want to quit post right after AS got all the laughs on his spreadsheet so he posted a poorly timed response. He was wrong. But it had nothing to do with him being under 18. I think the forum regulars can shoulder some of the blame for making fun of "geocides" to begin with. Maybe spend more time trying to make this place a more inviting place to come and a little less time making fun of people that you've pissed off to the point they want to quit. Either way cut the kid some slack. He screwed up. But it really had nothing to do with his age. There are a bunch of you older people who are just as guilty with your snarky remarks on a regular basis.

That's the key. Too many here assume the worst or look for reasons to get upset.

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with? Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides? Where did I say he felt that way? When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write. I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other. But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good. There isn't much to read into a statement like "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Bradley0130 seems to have read it the same way that I did. No. It just means both of you are wrong. I didn't say he felt anything. But is does seem reasonable that if all your caches are good you would not need to specify that this one would be good.

Reviewer's Log (bolded by me) I thought it was also against the rules to adopt out caches without permission from the current owner. It also seems that this team archived a bunch of caches and left the containers as trash.

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with? Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides? Where did I say he felt that way? When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write. I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other. But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good.

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with? Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides? Where did I say he felt that way?

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

It depends on where you are. Clearly. The folks around Oahu know the "trends" of their area, just as I'm sure you see find trends in yours. Apples, oranges. The OP claims cheating while at the same time acknowledging evidence that this team did find caches that they did not log. The cache where they dropped a tb but didn't log proves this. So how can they assume that the cachers did not actually find all the caches they logged? They can delete the logs if they want but claiming they cheated on all the caches is a bit presumptuous. The trend on Oahu may be just a handful a day. Maybe most cachers visiting the area take time to enjoy the views. t But there are some cachers who are more concerned with numbers than they are views. If someone wants to spend their day running around the island to find 60 caches I bet it can be done and then some. I never said you can't find 60 caches in a day on Oahu. In fact there are a couple places where you might get that many by lunch. I said it was highly unlikely they found all the caches they logged. As proof I offer you these tidbits... 1. They only tried to re-log 2 of the dozens of deleted finds, not all or even most of them. 2. When questioned (via email) about the lack of signatures, they told cache owners a couple different things. Some they told their gps 'erased' all their found caches and they couldn't remember which caches they found. This came with an apology if they had made any mistakes. To others they suggested they may only have placed initials (without a date) on the logbook & that they may have signed "out of order." What they never said was anything resembling, "I remember that cache it was a magnetic key holder painted green." or "your cache was a lock-n-lock hidden low by the view point." In other words, they didn't respond with anything to suggest they had actually found the caches in question. I suspect if they did, this thread wouldn't be here. jrr I don't know. These kinds of threads seem to pop up on a regular basis. Seems to me people are much more willing to assume the worst of people rather than the best.

From Section 3.1 of the guidelines: It does not say anything about write about your find. I choose to write about my find online where the owner and anyone else can read about my experience instantly. Back On Topic: I have not had to remove any logs yet. I assume I will verify some finders, try to figure out who some of the people who found it but did not log it online are, and then recycle them. Unless I get something really special then I might scan it for prosperity. Then where in the heck is this guy getting his information? OMG, How many times do we have to refute this myth? "Geocaching > Guide Guide to the Game What are the rules of geocaching? If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value. Write about your find in the cache logbook. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

Then shouldn't you get GS to change the rules? Why should anyone need to write about their find if you are just going to toss the log sheet? Why not get them to change it to "sign your name and date the log" instead? Aw, c'mon... are you trying to tell us that you "write about your find" every time you find a film can or a bison tube? Or do you just leave your initials and date like everybody else? Most cachers probably just sign and date. But, the "rules" keep being brought up. And the "rule" that is used to support deletion of logs without sigs states that you "write about your find". I'm just wondering why anyone should write about their find if owners are throwing the logs away. It seems like the "rules" should be amended to "sign and date". Otherwise, there are a lot of online logs that could technically be deleted for not following the "rules"

Can you give any insight into the average workload in Texas versus other areas such as Florida with more reviewers? I'm confident Prime Reviewer is able to keep up with the queue. But isn't it possible there is more work than one reviewer should have to be responsible for? Isn't it also possible that PR is too proud to admit to it. I respect the Superman mentality, but that often leads to burn out. Are there any guidelines setup for how much work load any 1 reviewer should be responsible for? In short, isn't it possible PR needs help whether he realizes it or not?

Then shouldn't you get GS to change the rules? Why should anyone need to write about their find if you are just going to toss the log sheet? Why not get them to change it to "sign your name and date the log" instead?

OMG, How many times do we have to refute this myth? "Geocaching > Guide Guide to the Game What are the rules of geocaching? If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value. Write about your find in the cache logbook. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com." Then anyone who just signs their name and/or date is not following the rules and should have their log deleted, right? The "rule" says write about your find, not sign the logbook. If you're going to get technical about it then you should adhere to it fully.

One thing to consider. Prime Reviewer may be able to get the job done. But you know he has to be working his a** off to get it done. (for free) If I were Groundspeak I would be concerned with burn out. Better to get him some help now and half the load than wait for him to burn out and quit and then find 2 reviewers for Texas.

It depends on where you are. Clearly. The folks around Oahu know the "trends" of their area, just as I'm sure you see find trends in yours. Apples, oranges. The OP claims cheating while at the same time acknowledging evidence that this team did find caches that they did not log. The cache where they dropped a tb but didn't log proves this. So how can they assume that the cachers did not actually find all the caches they logged? They can delete the logs if they want but claiming they cheated on all the caches is a bit presumptuous. The trend on Oahu may be just a handful a day. Maybe most cachers visiting the area take time to enjoy the views. But there are some cachers who are more concerned with numbers than they are views. If someone wants to spend their day running around the island to find 60 caches I bet it can be done and then some.

Oh gimme a break you are the King of Improve my friend To put that in context: I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though. You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out. Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet. I didn't "string the reviewer up by the toe nails". I simply said what I said. Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them. No improvisation there. I was accused of stringing the reviewer up by the toe nails. I said (and did in no way intend to say) anything about the reviewer. I was simply and purely making a statement about how the cache owner felt... that this was 'an easy mistake to fix' for everybody but the owner of the cache that had to be archived. Please excuse my empathy. I did not accuse you of stringing the reviewer up by the toe nails. I said you could go ahead and do that if it made you feel better. "Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them."

He was a reviewer? I guess he must have been kicked out for making a mistake. Probably why he thinks the rest of you guys should be perfect.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though. You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out. Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet.