Rockin Roddy
-
Posts
8943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rockin Roddy
-
-
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether.
Do you know of any specific cases of these things happening as a direct result of this thread? I have seen none.
Also: Can’t you imagine any scenarios in which the risk of a few people quitting in disgust over information they know to be incomplete might not have been the worst alternative Groundspeak had available to them?
Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.As I said: You’re still here.
With your name way, way up at the top of the posting count you are the most vocal of the handful of protesters in this thread; based on your prediction, then, the fact that you are still with us as a fellow customer says a lot.
(And I also notice you are back to trying to convince me to agree with you. I’m glad to see you changed your mind.
)You must really think highly of yourself if you believe I am in any way directing my comments solely at you, but keep flattering yourself.
And, just so you know, I said there were several ways to show our dissatisfaction...you may have missed that?
-
If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?
How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation?
How do you know this didn’t happen? Because the cache owner told you it didn’t happen?
IF we assume for the sake of argument that the cache was indeed a hoax, then why would we take anything the CO says as fact?
Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place?Don’t reviewers always give a guideline-related reason when they archive a cache? That seems to be a standard policy. I think a blank archive note would have made for more controversy, not less. Don’t you?
If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.Had better? Or else what?
I still disagree with that. This is not a court of law. This is a business.
Example: Swimming pool. Privately owned and run, open to the public. BIG sign at one end: POOL RULES. Some of the rules are for safety; others are there to minimize unpleasantness among customers.
One day a regular of the pool gets banned. A few of the other regulars pester the manager wanting to know why. "He violated a couple of the pool rules. One says no glass, another says no alcohol, and I have very good reason to believe he violated those rules. I warned him. He said he left it at home today, but then ... well, nevermind, I'm not going to get into the details. Sorry, but you’re buddy can’t swim here any more."
Roddy: As another customer, are you entitled to ironclad PROOF at that point?
Roddy: For a business owner, what standard of proof do you think is required?
Roddy: How much PROOF does that pool owner owe you?
If you ask the pool owner that question, he will point to a sign on the wall: "We reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone." It’s his pool. They are his rules. The standard of proof is whatever he says it is. If you don’t like it you can swim somewhere else. He was generous with what little information he gave you; he didn’t have to tell you anything.
This is not a court of law. This is a business. Nobody is robbing you of any entitlement rights by failing to defend their actions to your satisfaction. Nobody here denied SF any of his legal rights. Nobody tossed SF into jail or garnished his wages. They simply rescinded a cache listing, one they offered to him only after he clicked through a bunch of "I Have Read These Guidelines" and "I Agree" screens.
The same ones you and I clicked, by the way. If you don’t like it – if you no longer agree with the things you read when you clicked "I Agree" – then you can go swim in another pool.
That covers the legal standard. What about the practical standard? How much beating of customers over the head with lawyer language can a business get away with before profits suffer?
Roddy, the fact that you are still here tells me they have not violated that standard either. The fact that you are griping is not enough; everything makes somebody gripe, and Groundspeak knows that. A temporary swell of grumbling is not enough to indicate a mistake on Groundspeak's part.
As Traildad observed, there is no mass exodus. None that I can see, anyway.
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether. Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.
-
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".
It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.
I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.
You can buy it or not, but it is a fact.
It's fact that the reviewers often tweak their statements (I buy that part) or that they know it wasn't there for more than months....I'm still not buying this part. I do buy the part I said too, this was a poor tweaking in any case!
-
I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.
What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.
If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?
How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?
If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.
Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business.
If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "
Wouldn't simply archiving with just the note that this was investigated and we have decided to archive been good enough?
-
I have another idea for a giveaway...how about a photo of you with a Todie's Wild Ride coin?? From now until the end of the new release, any photo of you with a Todie's Wild Ride coin will win a chance to be drawn for a free entry into the release (meaning you could win the MICKEY DIVER COIN). Yes, I will release 5 coins for the winner of this, one full entry requirement!!
Rules...there are no rules. Ok, maybe a couple?? You can take a picture of ANY Todie's Wild Ride coin, even if you are newly releasing it, however ONLY ONE PIC of the same coin. You must be included with the coin, your face would be best. If you're alone, the mirror is your friend!
You can enter as many times as you wish, just remember one pic per coin per person!! This will be a drawing, the more you enter, the better your chance of winning an entry for the MICKEY DIVER!!!Get those coin picked up or activated and get those pictures coming in!!!! I may have a surprise for people who go above and beyond while taking the picture...think creatively and remember the message we are trying to send out!!
-
I just picked up the PN-40 on amazon for 239.99. So far it's the best deal out there on it even better than the best BF ads that are up. Bass Pro cannot touch it with there 300 w/ rebates. I would jump on it if you are considering this unit.
Great price, congrats on the purchase!!
-
I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.
What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.
If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?
How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?
If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.
-
This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.
How do you perceive those actions? I am leaning towards the idea that this was a bogus cache. If I was a reviewer and asked someone to check on a cache in good faith and I found out I was lied to in that way, I would consider what was said and done by Nomex to be rather mild. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than doing things in a way that will be perceived in a good light by those of us that really don't have the facts.
And, if you knew for a fact you were right, you wouldn't need to leave a snarky remark calling the CO a lir, you could do that in a private email which would also include a nice lengthy suspension of privilege. I'd never call someone out in public if I wasn't capable of providing proof to back my statement, people just might get riled....
-
I must compliment Toz on his erudite and clearly written posts. I agree that GS's approach to this cache - archive because they had reason to believe that it might be suspect - is a good practical solution that has worked well in the past and will most likely work just as well in the future. My interpretation of an archive note (it is normally explicitly stated, and for anybody who has been caching a while they would know that) is that the reviewers think there is a problem with the cache; if the problem is fixed, the cache can be un-archived. It is not necessarily a final death sentence. Fixing the problem would in this case be proving that the cache is there, and clearly from the reviewers response to "I have checked on the cache and it is there" stating that it is there in a log was not enough.
The CO chose one route - removing any evidence that the cache is there and making no further attempts to prove the cache was there. Nothing wrong with that. That is the route he chose, so that's it. He did not feel the need to take it further, and neither did GS, so the situation is concluded. Practical.
Now the rest of us following this topic are left speculating and discussing whether the cache was there or not and whether the process could be done differently...
Yep, if only the CO could read minds....
-
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".
It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.
I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.
-
My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.
So obviously the CO lied since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........
-
I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.
I have stated this several times now! I'm not out for Nomex's head, I don't need him "fired" or even chastised either in public or not. I do believe this was a good learning experience.
-
Is everyone PAYING ATTENTION??
I was PAYING ATTENTION today when my son and I were out caching, an older couple were out on their bicycles, and we met at the entrance to a parking lot. I had my eye on them from 50 yards away, and stopped and waved them on.
EVERYONE keep your eyes open for bikes and avoid accidents!
That will earn you a coin to be released, my friend!! I'll send info soon...watching the Red Wings right now!!
Yes Robert, I did enjoy my walk. A beautiful day that did help to clear my head and soul, gotta love that!! I enjoyed our chat, my friend, hope I didn't depress you too much though!
And, my luck would have it that the short pier would merely put me waste deep in sludge... 
Thinking of you, my friend! -
First, you have no idea whether the CO lied or not. Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.
But hey, that's been stated sooo many times, I'm sure most of us already know this??
I think I have made it very clear that I am speculating, as are we all. What is your point for saying this. You have your opinion on what is good business practice... not everyone agrees with you. I suppose when all this is said and done the numbers on your side that have quit the site and caching, will tell the tale as to if what they said was good business practice or not. I don't think there is going to be a mass exodus.
So cut and dried? Maybe those of us who aren't happy about this can find other ways to express our disappointment...maybe? I can think of several ways I could simply cut back on the money I give to GS...
And you're right, not everyone DOES agree with me. I would have to guess that was obvious when we went past 5-6 pages?
I guess that's the beauty of the forums, we can discuss it. -
Its threads like these that make miss the days when 'TPTB' or 'Groundspeak' pretty much referred to Jeremy. Back then. if a CO pulled a fake hide and lied to everyone about it several times, Jeremy would probably have archived the cache with a scathing note on the cache page. If the CO still feigned innocence, he likely would have ended up banninated (with a nice refund of his prorated membership payment). There would be no double standard where it is OK for a cache owner to lie to the community over and over but not OK to call him on it.
Madness.
You have proof to back your blatent accusations, right? Otherwise, I see your post as in violation of guidelines. Name calling and defamation of character are good for a start?
-
It sure is funny how so many think this is a dead horse topic, yet are coming in, posting OFF-TOPIC and complaining we should let it die? Sounds like a LOT of people are paying attention to this thread even when saying it's not worth having here??
Seems if you wanted it to die, you'd not add to it...unless the new perception is that, if enough people post off-topic, the thread will get closed? I would hope the mods wouldn't allow this to happen.....
-
If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?
You really don't care what it is I am saying, you are not paying any attention at all or maybe I'm just not getting my point across.
I do not know if Superfly put this cache out as a practical joke or not, I do not know him. Several poster who know him say they believe him, are they all wrong? I don't know.
I do know when Nomex archived the cache he took a standard note that said the cache hasn't been there for months, (could still be considered calling SF out, but most people would not think twice about a standard form) and added the word years.
There was no call to do so in that format. If TPTB and Nomex felt they had reason to believe the cache was a practical joke, they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line. If he had not added his own feelings, but had just archived the cache, I would have been out of this thread by the second page.
I think we are gaining ground on this. I gather that your answer to my question of what should they have done is, "they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line."
"Nomex took a standard note that says the cache had not been there for months"? It does not look like a standard note to me. Is this a common thing that needs a standard note, no cache to find for several months? What causes you to "know" that this was a standard note that has been added onto? Do you really know it to be true?
I feel that if this was a practical joke cache that was never there, TPTB and Nomex did nothing wrong or excessive by saying the cache was archived because it hasn't been there for months or years. That is the reason, at least according them. I have no reason to call them liars. The cache was published by the CO in a public way. 5 public comments were made saying the cache was there or no hint was needed. If those were all lies made by a CO in a public way, then one mild response in the same public area seems perfectly fine.
If you think they should have archived it with no comment I have no great argument with that. I do however think this would have been just as long as a thread all about how this cache was archived with no comment.
First, you have no idea whether the CO lied or not. Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.
But hey, that's been stated sooo many times, I'm sure most of us already know this??
-
Is everyone PAYING ATTENTION??
-
And an FYI...convinced and being able to prove something are two different things. I am convinced that TPTB didn't do a thorough investigation...can I prove it?
If you believe Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation, you have every right to your opinion.
If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation – and you wish to convince me, or anyone else, to join you in your belief – a then I would say the burden of proof is on you.
I feel no need to convince you of anything.
The fact that you keep responding to nearly everything I post tells me otherwise.
Being a person who OWNS a business, a golf course which deals with the public every day, I can tell you that calling someone a liar is NOT good business practice. I don't care if the person lied or otherwise. If the person did, you had better be ready to show proof if you already publically called them out OR you'd best not title them the liar at all. Since other customers will be taking note of how the situation is handled, you might want to make sure you do it right, or at least try to make it right afterwards should you have erred.First, keep this little detail in mind: Nomex didn’t actually say "Superfly is a LIAR!!!" Nomex simply contradicted one of Superfly statements with a statement of his own.
And secondly ... be honest: Are you sure you can’t imagine ANY scenario in which contradicting a statement made by one of your customers might be the best option available? We already know that there is a lot more to this case that we haven’t been told. Think about it.
A golfer at your facility complains to you, right there in the pro shop where everyone can hear, that he was injured by one of your golf carts on September 31st. You answer back (also in a voice that everyone can hear) that that is impossible because your course does not supply (or even allow) golf carts -- and there is no September 31st on the calendar. You have now contradicted his statement. Or called him a liar, if you prefer. I ask you: Was that good or bad business practice on your part?
Apples and oranges...but I'm certain you know that.
Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s apples and oranges. Why don’t you explain it to me?
You seem convinced that calling a customer a liar is NEVER a good business practice. The folks at Groundspeak appear to disagree with you.
I gave you a hypothetical, based on your own business, and asked whether you thought contradicting the statement of that customer would be the right thing to do. If you’re not going to answer my question, then can you please at least tell my why you think my question is irrelevant?
No, don't flatter yourself, I could care less if you are convinced of ANYTHING.
-
One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him.
Thank you for your e-mail and for your concern. I understand how you and others may perceive Nomex's actions and find them hard to understand.
Yes, help from Groundspeak regarding maintenance was asked for. Nomex volunteered his services to help us take care of some abandoned/problem cache listings. Please remember, all caches are meant to be found.
Not jumping to conclusions is a good approach. Being a member of your local friendly Reviewing team, I can personally tell you that the amount of grief and complaining about this one particular cache far surpasses all others to date. Now, I have no way of knowing what correspondence has taken place between the CO and Nomex and most likely never will. Groundspeak is currently looking into the matter and I am sure will have it resolved soon.
Will Nomex's decision stand? I don't know. That is up to Groundspeak. I'm sure we will all find out at the same time.
In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page.
Please feel free to contact us at any time with questions or concerns...
Not much new there. DeRock had already cleared up the fact that they had invited Nomex to look at some caches. It is obvious that Nomex archived this cache without letting the local reviewers know that he was going to do it or his reasons for archiving it.
Since the revewing team has had complaints about it I think Nomex was well within his rights to archive the cache. This should never have spilled into the forum the way it did. This is an issue between the CO and Nomex/Groundspeak. None of us posting here know all the facts so why are so many people getting so mad about it. It's things like this getting blown way out of proportion that spoil my (and many others) enjoyment of the game. I come on to the forums to read about other people's experiences and give help where I can. I do not come on here to read about people badmouthing GS and the reviewers without all the facts. It creates too much bad feeling in the middle of what is a worldwide community game. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!
Wow, obviously this bothers you. I'm not even sure why you put yourself through it since you seem really bothered. Maybe instead of hitting the reply, you should be hitting the exit? Seriously, you have a choice!
Yes it bothers me that this thread has continued for so long for no good reason and I was making that point. You are right that I can click exit but then it would have been impossible for me register my opinion that all of this is unnecessary in the hope (that is obviously misplaced) that people will see reason.
Also, your reply just proves that the focus of this thread has moved away from the original issue and is now just an excuse for people to slag each other off or question their motives. This has gone beyond madness now. Give it up, move on and let's get on with the business of hiding and finding caches. After all, that is our common cause here. All of the bile that has been spewed on here has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and it's time to stop flogging the dead horse.
I, like many others who are truly interested in this thread, have stated my concerns, "slagging" wasn't in the lists I saw!
-
Without proof, or without offering proof to you? You do realize that they may have proof don't you? Under my scenario you seem to be completely ok with a CO publishing a non-existent practical joke. Where is your outrage for that. You seem very upset that the CO was "called" a liar.
Perhaps I could have worded that a little different. It wasn't without proof, but in a format where they couldn't offer the proof.
If the CO did publish a non-existent cache as a practical joke, I would be unhappy with that. I am still not sure if he did or didn't. I tend to believe he didn't, and without being privy to the inside information TPTB have I really don't know now do I?
I just find it hard to believe so many of you don't care what those with authority do if you believe the person they are doing it to is guilty.
Let's turn this around. What if it turned out Nomex was wrong, the information he had was not true. How would you feel about him then?
Two different points. Did the CO publish a practical joke? Did the reviewer indicate he was a liar when he archived the cache. They are separate as far as I am concerned, and I don't know about the first, but can read the second myself.
The reviewers have a certain amount of authority over the COs, and with that should be some amount of responsibility.
You tend to believe he didn't. You see this through that lens. Why do you tend to believe he didn't. I don't know the CO or anything about him. Without knowing anything about the CO I find it easy to believe that a person might think it was a good idea to publish a joke cache of this type. This does not seem way off the chart impossible. What seems more likely, a cacher would publish a joke cache, or TPTB and the reviewers would do what they have done for no good reason? From my knowledge TPTB and Nomex have no history of history of doing the "wrong" thing for no reason. My knowledge of the CO is blank. I weigh what I know about the CO against what I know about TPTB and Nomex to decide what I should tend to believe.
If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?
You're assuming that Nomex acted upon good info. I believe Nomex believes his "proof", however, I question whether his "proof" is valid or, this is possible, could it be that they acted in good faith upon bad info?
-
One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him.
Thank you for your e-mail and for your concern. I understand how you and others may perceive Nomex's actions and find them hard to understand.
Yes, help from Groundspeak regarding maintenance was asked for. Nomex volunteered his services to help us take care of some abandoned/problem cache listings. Please remember, all caches are meant to be found.
Not jumping to conclusions is a good approach. Being a member of your local friendly Reviewing team, I can personally tell you that the amount of grief and complaining about this one particular cache far surpasses all others to date. Now, I have no way of knowing what correspondence has taken place between the CO and Nomex and most likely never will. Groundspeak is currently looking into the matter and I am sure will have it resolved soon.
Will Nomex's decision stand? I don't know. That is up to Groundspeak. I'm sure we will all find out at the same time.
In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page.
Please feel free to contact us at any time with questions or concerns...
Not much new there. DeRock had already cleared up the fact that they had invited Nomex to look at some caches. It is obvious that Nomex archived this cache without letting the local reviewers know that he was going to do it or his reasons for archiving it.
Since the revewing team has had complaints about it I think Nomex was well within his rights to archive the cache. This should never have spilled into the forum the way it did. This is an issue between the CO and Nomex/Groundspeak. None of us posting here know all the facts so why are so many people getting so mad about it. It's things like this getting blown way out of proportion that spoil my (and many others) enjoyment of the game. I come on to the forums to read about other people's experiences and give help where I can. I do not come on here to read about people badmouthing GS and the reviewers without all the facts. It creates too much bad feeling in the middle of what is a worldwide community game. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!
Wow, obviously this bothers you. I'm not even sure why you put yourself through it since you seem really bothered. Maybe instead of hitting the reply, you should be hitting the exit? Seriously, you have a choice!
-
Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once.
Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.
For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.
Hold on now, was it Cheech's fault you DNF'd? Did you give your all in your attempt to find?
-
Being a person who OWNS a business, a golf course which deals with the public every day, I can tell you that calling someone a liar is NOT good business practice. I don't care if the person lied or otherwise. If the person did, you had better be ready to show proof if you already publically called them out OR you'd best not title them the liar at all. Since other customers will be taking note of how the situation is handled, you might want to make sure you do it right, or at least try to make it right afterwards should you have erred.
First, keep this little detail in mind: Nomex didn’t actually say "Superfly is a LIAR!!!" Nomex simply contradicted one of Superfly statements with a statement of his own.
And secondly ... be honest: Are you sure you can’t imagine ANY scenario in which contradicting a statement made by one of your customers might be the best option available? We already know that there is a lot more to this case that we haven’t been told. Think about it.
A golfer at your facility complains to you, right there in the pro shop where everyone can hear, that he was injured by one of your golf carts on September 31st. You answer back (also in a voice that everyone can hear) that that is impossible because your course does not supply (or even allow) golf carts -- and there is no September 31st on the calendar. You have now contradicted his statement. Or called him a liar, if you prefer. I ask you: Was that good or bad business practice on your part?
And an FYI...convinced and being able to prove something are two different things. I am convinced that TPTB didn't do a thorough investigation...can I prove it?If you believe Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation, you have every right to your opinion.
If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation – and you wish to convince me, or anyone else, to join you in your belief – a then I would say the burden of proof is on you.
Apples and oranges...but I'm certain you know that. Furthermore, I feel no need to convinve you of anything.
)
And, my luck would have it that the short pier would merely put me waste deep in sludge... 
Thinking of you, my friend!
Delorme PN-30/40 vs Garmin etrex Vista Hcx
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
I like the belittling tone of this post...nice! Since I use my PN-40 for my SOLE car nav unit, I will tell you I have NO NEED for maps other than what's on my unit. I have NO NEED to worry about being lost, my unit does an AWESOME job, thank you very much!
As a note, I own the PN-40 AND have the power pak adaptor which slides right into the back of the unit. With the 2 piece car/computer/home carger cord, I can simply plug in and unplug ANYTIME I enter the car and I usually do if we're driving more than say 10 miles to the next cache. Sadly, DeLorme stopped making that adaptor/cord set, it surely is a sweet piece of equipment. And you know what, I cannot recall the last time I needed to switch out my battery pak, it lasts as long (well, LONGER) than I do and I've been on some pretty long cache days!
You can continue to belittle all you please, but I think your credibility sours when you post in this way. If you need to belittle to make a point, the point must not be very strong.
..just saying