[Rogue Reviewer?]

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Something we can agree on. Take that thought a bit further please...if I had PROOF that all that was accused of the CO was fact, would I let the CO continue to hide caches, to have posting ability in the forums and even to be allowed to cache? My response would be a BAN for a long time so the community has no worry that this purposeful hoax wouldn't be a concern from that CO again and to send a message that lying and trying to get over on the PTB will not be tolerated. I have to wonder why the PTB were so nice about the way they handled the situation.

I suspect that Jeremy was on vacation and everyone else hit the nog.

 

(It should be noted that I'm pretty sure that the volunteer reviewers don't have the authority to ban cachers or do that other stuff.)

 

I'd be willling to bet Miss Jenn does though...

 

Let me ask you this, and you can answer or not as you please I may have already asked, but whay are you so willing to accept that TPTB have the smoking gun? You seem to keep saying you wholeheartedly believe they have it....why?

[Rogue Reviewer?]

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Something we can agree on. Take that thought a bit further please...if I had PROOF that all that was accused of the CO was fact, would I let the CO continue to hide caches, to have posting ability in the forums and even to be allowed to cache? My response would be a BAN for a long time so the community has no worry that this purposeful hoax wouldn't be a concern from that CO again and to send a message that lying and trying to get over on the PTB will not be tolerated. I have to wonder why the PTB were so nice about the way they handled the situation.

[Buying a Delorme PN-40]

...keep(ing) track of where the sats are in the sky ... is a partial (if not primary??) reason for the "battery drain" while sitting on the shelf..

That's an interesting explanation I hadn't heard before. Where did you find that?

 

Has it not been mentioned a few times in different threads? If I am mistken, please point me in the right direction!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

But hey Mick, I'd be happy to go caching should a gas card mystically find itself in my mailbox! :unsure:

 

Just kidding, my friend. Truly, we've left a few local caches for when the weather is nice and we have a few spare gallons to go out...tonight may be one of those times! Got to wait for the kid to get home though...

[Rogue Reviewer?]

Roddy, seriously, when do you have time to cache? It seems like you spend most of your time on the forums.............

 

Each case is different, each reviewer is different. I'd say that in 99.999999% of the cases, the reviewers do the right thing. That does not mean their actions are always correct, but made for the right reasons.

 

A lot of DNF's on a cache should be taken by the reviewers as a sign that there may indeed be a problem. I know of a few caches in my area that have gone MIA after being replaced before anyone could find them.

 

As for "faking" a find to keep your cache from being disabled, I'd say that that would count as a "bogus log" and if discovered, should result in the immediate archiving of the cache, locking it, and suspending the owners account for a while.

 

Roddy, it seems to me that at times in this thread, you are trying to keep it going by stretching for similarities that just aren't there. You've used the "what might have happened" argument to make your point.

 

We need to stay "on target" here. We can't make arguments about what might have happened, or facts not in evidence. There is only one person who knows for sure if the cache really existed. His story, while plausible, does create some doubt. When Miss Jen posted that she supported Nomex's actions, the cache had already been thrown away. From the time line that I can figure out, it was tossed the day the cache was archived.

 

The only thing that concerns me with this situation is the way the logs made things look. In my opinion, there was a serious breakdown in communication. If Nomex wanted proof that the cache was there, he could have asked for it, or at least posted a note along the lines of " There have been some concerns raised about this cache, could you please contact me at such and such email address so we can discuss this further before re-enabling this cache"

 

NOTE, I am NOT in any way singling Nomex out for censure. I believe that sooner or later this sort of issue would have happened with the canned notes, it is unfortunate that he was the "lucky one". I've spoken via email with some of the cachers from his area, and I am assured that he does a great job, and has a reputation for being quite fair and understanding.

 

Respectfully, I am unemployed and have no money for gas to go caching. If I did, I would be out and caching. So, I don't mind playing in here.

 

I'd agree with the percentage of correct actions, I see a few cases right here though that cause concern. It may not for you, it surely does for me. I hide caches which are sometimes considered hard and I don't want to worry that I will soon be forced to prove my hide exists. Seriously, the owner checked the cache just DAYS before it was disabled (could have been sooner, I've not gone back to the page to check the exact time). no one has found it and it's HIGHLY unlikely to have been muggled..so why would a reviewer think this is a problem cache? One thing I can think of (STRIKING SIMILARITY ALERT )...because a previous searcher complained. Truly, the cache wouldn't even be in the reviewer's radar otherwise, would it?

 

I shouldn't have to fake a find at all, but then, I shouldn't have to worry that my cache will suddenly be disabled and I will need to prove I'm not lying. I believe your idea of the handling of the situation is waaay overboard though, if the situation and outcome of this (the cache in question that started this thread) is an indicator...they have enough reason to believe the CO LIED and then carried on that lie while all the while the cache was a hoax...is a lot worse than trying to protect my cache from a worried finder that can't help themselves but to complain simply because they aren't good enough to make a find.

 

I'm not stretching a thing, the facts are right there to be seen. If you aren't concerned, that's fine. I am and I will discuss it as much as I see fit! I am not being rude to you, my friend, please don't tell me I am purposely exxaggerating in order to carry on the thread, I am sure most here can see this is NOT the case. These are honest concerns and I am happy to endure the now expected assaults to discuss my concern.

 

Why are you backtracking to the original cache? Why are you still trying to prove/disprove something many of us have acknowledged matters little at this point? The point I am discussing here is the new cache and I believe I am very much on target. The "one off" theory is now proven wrong by yet another similar case, saying we can't worry because of the cache being found is like saying we shouldn't worry about the next big quake merely because we felt a few tremors. Sticking my head in the sand and pretending life is peachy has not proven to work well for me, I will speak my concerns and hope they are being heard!

 

The statement about handling the cache in the OP...we agree.

 

In the end, I surely hope this doesn't become the norm, you'll have to excuse me if I am a bit concerned it will be though. Having been here a few years, I wouldn't say I know all the goings ons, but I do know this is the first such disablement for the reason given by the reviewer...and I wonder when the guidelines changed to what seems to be what they are now. When was "cache must be found before too many DNFs" get added to the requirements of hiding a cache?

[FTF versus park hours]

There's always an exception to the rule, I own a cache in a roadside rest park that closes during the winters. While the gates are closed and the sign says so, it is not really closed to people wishing to walk around and stretch their legs etc. The PTB don't want to spend money maintaining the parking area during the winter AND they ask you not to use the toilets. I've chatted with TPTB and they are fine with allowing people to walk in even when signs say otherwise and I note this on the cache page!

[New price on Delorme PN-40]

It's too bad Amazon.com can't/won't ship this unit to Canada. Amazon.ca doesn't list it. The Delorme's all have really bad regional map support for Canada so if I could get this unit at that price it would clearly be much better than other units which wouldn't provide me map support either, but without map support its not worth the price other online retailers want me to pay for these otherwise great looking units.

DeLorme now has maps for Canada included with the unit, and I think some higher-detail maps available for download in the Map Library (I don't have my PC available at the moment to check). You can also download shapefiles from http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/index.html & convert them to layers in TopoUSA, then export to the device.

 

I eventually found my way pat the FUD and found 2 or 3 posts on the Delorme forums about how to install the maps. Now I just have to see whether I can find an affordable way to buy one I might know somebody who has a US postal address just over the border.

 

I'm no just over the border, but I'd be happy to help if you'd like. PM or email if you want!! I know, trusting a stranger is scary, your call, my friend!!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

 

Simple RR, if the reviewer has concerns about the cache, he or she should disable it. At that point, they can ask for whatever information/actions seem needed and reasonable. What is an inordinate amount of DNF's?? I'd say it depends on the cache. A 1.5/1.5 that has few, if any DNF's that suddenly starts racking them up, 3-4 DNF's and I'd be concerned. A 5 Star, depends on the number of DNF's AND the cachers that have DNF'd it. A bunch of rookie cachers who have mostly found 1 and 2 star caches, not as big of a concern as a few high number cachers who regularly go after the tough ones, then I'd be looking.

 

So checking the cache 4 times doesn't alleve any concerns the reviewer has? Being an active CO has no bearing on whether the cache is being maintained or not (surely, that must be the concern of the reviewer unless they're saying the cache is a hoax...right?)? Again, why disable? Why not privately ask since it's obvious (to me at least) that the CO is doing her job.

 

I'm not questioning whether a problem cache should be disaled, I wonder why this one was considered a problem cache if the CO is active...unless the reviewer believes the cache not to be there at all. Isn't that saying the CO lied when she stated all was well just a few logs before? IMHO, this isn't a problem cache. A problem cache would (again, IMHO) be those which seem to be neglected, the owner is inactive ec. Since when did a lot of DNFs equate to a problem cache?

 

How many DNFs are now required before I must either fake a find or expect my cache to be called a "problem" cache?

[Hiking poles]

 

I eventually settled on ... of all things ... a shovel handle!!!! Supports much weight in difficult terrain ascents and descents, gives me extra reach when in rattle snake territory etc. etc.

 

.

Rattle snake!!. That's not a snake. This is a snake.

PS. can you spot the cache location?

 

Or this one

http://www.hemmy.net/images/cool/snakefence02.jpg

http://www.hemmy.net/images/cool/snakefence01.jpg

 

Caching in Australia anyone?

At least we don't have grizzly bears.

 

What kind of snake is the brown one? That puppy is one long snake!

 

I made my own staff and I think I did pretty good if I do say so myself! Most people would say you need to debark the wood, I didn't bother, I just sanded dried and sealed...turned out really nice! I'll see if I can find any pics! This is cheap and really rewarding as far as pride and useage, I know my staff will handle most anything I throw at it!

 

Here it is..

 

[Rogue Reviewer?]

In fact, I don't recall EVER saying I outright refuse to discuss this situation.

Maybe not, but I think these two exchanges came pretty close.

 

This one:

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

(1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

(2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

 

These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

 

I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier for you to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

I have no desire to play these games with you.

Oh well.

 

It was worth a try...

... and this one:

 

You have stated that they did it wrong. I am merely asking you to roleplay a way that you think would be better. Why are you unwilling to do this?

... no, I don't wish to play these games with you, my friend. Play on your own and see how that works!

There are others as well.

 

Whenever anyone asks you to reexamine your viewpoint in a way that might better allow you to see the issue from another person’s point of view, you recoil and blow it off, calling it "games."

 

That doesn’t sound very open-minded to me. That sounds more like an absolute refusal to discuss this situation—the very thing you deny doing.

 

(And now that I’ve pointed that out, I expect you will again respond by accusing me of "playing games" with you.)

 

Seems to me that if you really want to sell your viewpoint you might want to consider some tactic other than childish obfuscation. It’s not a very effective persuasion tool.

 

A person who is confident in his point of view shouldn’t be afraid to open it up to question, or to question it in his own mind. If a viewpoint can’t withstand such questioning, then what good is it?

 

Sad KBI, but who's fault is it that I won't engage with you, Mushtang, KBI and maybe a couple others (at most)? Could it be that I've been down that road a few times before and am now gunshy? You guys have played this game I have detailed more than a few times with me, yet you want me to just blindly accept that this time will be different? Sorry, you made that bed, my friend!

 

Withstanding a few questions if fine, spinarama and demand/twist are games which I am not quick enough to play, you guys are pros. Take that as a compliment if you'd like, it's not exactly meant to be. Your tactics are to rile, agitate, spin and twist until you have me so confounded "I" don't even know what I said. This is nothing I am interested in playing, my friend!

 

So, you can call me a liar, you can say I won't back my statements...but you and I both know he truth. And truly, I don't believe you're actually interested in my opinion anyway, are you? I mean, I've given it enough and all I see is agitation and games being played, so why such interest that some continually DEMAND my answers?

[Buying a Delorme PN-40]

. . . . . . If Delorme offered a premium option for accurate road mapping it would make quite a few people happy... weird to me as they offer the excellent road software for other platforms.

Maingray (and others) have critiqued the PN-30/40 device's road routing pluses and minuses pretty well, even down to specifying displeasure with road naming conventions of state highways. I do not presently own a modern Garmin gps for comparison, and only passed through North Carolina once in a single day, but would note on the plus side that the old yellow recycled etrex that my wife picked up for a few dollars seems quite light to carry and does not discharge the batteries when sitting on the shelf unused.

 

Seems to me that the main pluses and minuses of the Delorme PN-xx devices are derived from the fact that they evolved as partners to very powerful computer based mapping software. However, the PN-xx devices do not have the massive processing power of modern computers to give the same performance or monitor display form factor as a large Windows computer using similar software.

 

As to the misconception that Delorme PN devices do not interpolate exact street addresses from available vector block ranges, this is incorrect. They do interpolate correctly from available data, but typically assume that all blocks include building numbers from 1-100. In many cases, the street numnber range is narrowed down more exactly. Not infrequently the interpolation is made from an even larger range of vector ranges than a single block. If other brands of gps devices consistently do a better job in street address location, then they are to be commended.

 

Does that yellow also keep track of where the sats are in the sky like the PNs do? That is a partial (if not primary??) reason for the "battery drain" while sitting on the shlelf, my friend! If you know you're going to leave the unit on the shelf for a week or more, pulling batteries (if you're not using the battery pak which is rechargeable in the unit) is a simple thing, one I do for most ANY device I know I'm going to leave unused for a period of time.

 

Although the unit suffers a little on recalc, it isn't so bad that it's junk, I don't see a problem (and I know, I am of the minority here). Truly though, if I was so worried about driving instructions, I'd own a car nav device. No handheld will do what they do as far as speaking and features are concerned. And last, since the PNs were not made primarily for car nav, I'd not expect them to work as such, rather I'm pleasantly surprised that it does that job saving me more $$$...since I can accept the flaws and live with it!

 

YMMV!!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

RR, one BIG difference, the cache WAS reactivated. As for what MIGHT have happened, well, there is no way to tell. Perhaps the cache would have been archived. Then who knows, maybe the owner would have sent in a few photos, and taken his or her local reviewer to the cache and the reviewer would have kept it archived because it was just too hard to find. The Maybe Jeremy would have flown out in the Groundspeak Lear Jet, investigated the situation, held a "beer summit", re enabled the cache and caused and outbreak of world peace.

 

You can't use what might have happened to bolster your argument, there is no way to prove "might have been's"

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

 

I don't see it.......... the reviewer had concerns and acted appropriately. The cache was then found and all is well.

 

I know I'd be pretty concerned if, after I had just checked and stated checking to make sure the cache was still there, the reviewer disabled my cache. Even if I didn't know anyting about this thread, that would give me reason for concern. Why did the reviewer have concerns? Because of the inordinate amount of DNFs? That seems a first to me. What constitutes an inordinate amount? Why disable? Why didn't the reviewer simply email the owner asking about his concern?

 

Seems this is a perfect reason for concern. You say the cache was found and all is good...what if the cache hadn't been found? You can't see the similarities?

[FTF versus park hours]

Thanx for steering us back on course!

 

It is my belief that breaking park rules, simply to hunt a cache, then bragging about your illicit activities on the cache page can cause harm to this little game we all love to play. As someone who has worked hand in hand with land managers to get our game allowed on their property, I can say with certainty that many land managers do read the logs on caches on the properties they manage. One of their concerns is the belief that cachers are a rogue bunch who will do anything to score a find, and that by allowing this activity to take place, they are opening themselves up to all manner of problems. When they see a log that paraphrases "I broke your stoopid rules so I could find a film can", their misconceptions are strengthened even further.

 

I know my local state parks crew pay attention to the logs of caches on their property, I showed them how! I also told them to get ahold of me immediately if they saw any problems. I also take the time to report (and inform the owner and explain how to get permission etc) any new caches that go on their property without permission (I know when permission is given since I was handed the power to grant permission and I alone have permission to place hides on their property). We (the state park crew and myself) have a really good relationship and I work hard to keep it that way! btw, when I say I have the power to grant permission, the CO still needs to apply for the permit...truly, it's more the right to OK a hide and send the CO off after the permit!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

So he contacts you and tells you that the cache does, in fact, exist. What do you do?

 

I tell him, privately, what my concerns were, and what I need to relist the cache.

What I need would vary based upon the circumstances.

 

Also, it seems like options 3 and 4 would result in a thread much like this one

Caches from non-compliant owners get archived all the time.

I've yet to see a regular in here squawk about it.

 

wouldn't you archive it ASAP?

No, I don't think so. Even a credible source can get it wrong on occasion. By disabling, and posting a note asking that the owner contact me, I've put the ball in the CO's court. They can respond, or not, as is their want. If they choose not to respond, they would have very little room left for whining when I archived it. If, in the unlikely event the archival created a poo storm on the forums, I could post that I asked the CO to contact me, and they refused, without violating any privacy concerns.

 

If the credible source told me of something more serious, (No Trespassing signs, cache hidden next to a police station that was shaped like a pipe bomb, etc), requiring immediate attention, then I would archive it right away. This one didn't seem serious enough to warrant a rapid response. I'd guess that Nomex felt the same way.

 

What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

The coords to a local ammo can containing a pair of airline tickets and a car rental receipt in my name, along with a gilded invitation to Groundspeak Headquarters.

 

let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Once again you are either unwilling or unable to back your spurious claims.

Not that this is surprising, considering your typical debate tactics.

So, just in case you are able to comprehend simple sentences:

Yes, please re-quote specifically what it was that makes me dishonest, unethical and discourteous, in 140 font red.

Thanx!

 

If they kept the reason for the archival between themselves and the CO, I doubt this thread would have been this long.

Can I get an "Amen!"?

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that!

 

THANKS Clan...I was having the doggest time figuring out why my publically looked so weird, just couldn't find the right spelling. Got it now, THANKS!!

 

Oh, and I agree with just about everything you posted here!!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

just sayin' my friends

Is "my friends" the new short-hand for "crawl back under your rock and die"? It seems to be the way it's being used in this thread.

 

Nah, it's just the new way to agitate and play their games. They like to belittle, just like the "just saying" line (I'd bet some know where that came from too). It's like I said, they want me to be frendly, they tell me I'm rude to Sbell for not appreciating him asking me to not call him friend (and I would...as soon as he stopped demanding, defaming and belittling as I had asked). They want to ignore all the incoming jabs and pretend I am the rude one. Play on, it's great fun watching some of them...

 

Of course, it has been used to identify both friends and those who are not so friendly...by me at least. It's great how those two words can be used in either way, my friend!! (that was the actual friend use there just so we know )

[Rogue Reviewer?]

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

[Rogue Reviewer?]

The scenario that I believe is the most likely to be true is the one in which there was a good reason for the way the cache was archived and none of the private information was divulged.

Because I've never had cause to doubt anything that my reviewers have done, or (prior to this isolated incident), anything that TPTB have done, I tend to agree with your assessment. When we, (the collective 'we'), are not privy to all the facts, we tend to look for what is most likely. In this case, I think you nailed "most likely" perfectly. I still have some concerns, and some questions, and I would feel a whole lot better if Groundspeak would tell us that they will, at least, look into whether or not the copy/paste notes used for disabling/archiving caches might be revised for a more positive effect, but at this juncture, I doubt that will come to pass.

 

As with many aspects of this game, we must rely somewhat on faith.

 

Leaving KBI to his inisting I refuse to discuss the issues (half right, I won't play he spinarama game with him as I stated previously), I think this is about right! What would I like to see? That GS has learned from all this (surprise, I've said it enough) and that our concerns are being listened to. A simple "we hear you" would be great and would go a loooong way for some of us (hey Mushtang....I posted it again for you ).

[Rogue Reviewer?]

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

 

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

[Rogue Reviewer?]

I don't even for a SECOND believe that TPTB will ever step in and say anything, I've said this many times and yet you try to say this is what I said? Please stop playing the spin game and stick to the facts...if you know them.

Facts eh? Okay.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 7 in this thread and said that if there was an error in archival the situation could be reviewed and the cache un-archived. Not a big deal.

 

But the cache owner didn't follow the path that would have made the most sense (proving to the local reviewers that the cache was still there), instead he got his panties in a wad and started complaining that he was being treated unfairly (which in my opinion was only to try and save face since the cache was never there).

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 12 in this thread where DeRock (a local reviewer) made it clear that there was more to the story. But since the rest of the story wasn't shared with us, wouldn't you think that it wasn't something that needed to be shared?

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 67 in this thread and stated that this additional information was known to all the necessary people and they're under no obligation to tell.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 391 in this thread, where MissJenn stated that "each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue.""

 

So is this a spin game? I've given you links to at least 4 times where TPTB have done something that you said they'd never do. It's clear which one of us has trouble with the facts.

 

Yep, this is exactly the spin game I talked about. I state something and you bring it up as if it is a lie. You and I both know what I meant when I said that, I believe ANYONE who has been reading this thread does as well, yet you wish to present info everyone here who has been paying attention already knows and say this is fact proving my statement wrong.

 

I'm sorry my friend, I will NOT play your game. That, my friend, is a FACT!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

This is exactly how RR handles most direct attempts to pin him down and to try and avoid having him obfuscate and confuse the discussions with off topic posts and claims. He'll make a claim, but refuse to back it up or support it when asked to do so. You'd think that if his opinion about something was important to him he'd be happy to re-state it when asked to do so. And then when the discussion goes on without him he jumps in and tries to further obfuscate and derail the thread.

 

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

Ummm no, Mushtang. That's how I stop the going in circles even after explaining myself 10, 20 or even 30 times on the same old thing. That's how I stop the spin cycle that you, KBI and sbell LOVE to try to get me in. Some may not know, but I'm a little slow when trying to discuss things and these three know it all too well. I don't always pose my answers just perfectly and then WAM! And not only that, but they know I get irked when they play that game and they press and press hoping I will explode, they seem to get a kick out of that as well.

Not at all the same old thing. Sbell asked you a very simple question that frames the discussion in a new light. You've never, not once, answered the question that Sbell asked and yet you insisted over and over that the answer was back there without even showing anyone where it is.

 

If you're here to debate, then why wouldn't you want to discuss your position on the issue? You say this is something you've said, but why try and hide behind those posts being difficult to find? It would seem to me that you'd want to re-state what you think you've said, or at least post the link so we can go read it. Refusing to debate is a weird debate tactic to me.

 

Why do you suppose they bypassed the better, more articulate writers and picked on me repeatedly? I mean, CR and I have the same opinion (pretty much), did you see Sbell harassing Clan for a reply? No, because that wouldn't give him the satisfaction of having me stammer and stumble and not say it just right so he could then pounce and twist...his favorite part of the game.

Are you under the impression that you're the only one that Sbell, KBI, and I are quoting and asking questions to? Or are you saying that none of us has quoted and asked questions to CR or anyone else?

 

This is a perfect example of your obfuscation. You, for some reason, refuse to debate the topic so you then claim victim status and try and confuse "Sbell and Mushtang would like to know RR's viewpoint on something" as "Sbell and Mushtang are picking on RR".

 

Everyone here KNOWS I've spoken my mind (come on, I'm the top poster here aren't I??), yet they BEG, NO, they BADGER me for a repeat...not playing, sorry. So, tell it like it is Mushtang, don't let on that I won't answer...I already did 10 or more times in this thread. I can't believe anyone would accuse me of NOT discussing this, what do you think I've been doing all this time?

You've posted a lot, but none of those posts are the answer to Sbell's question (at least none that I see). CR answered the question. I'm curious as to why you refuse. I'm not saying that you're obligated to, but since you claim that you already have but then insist that someone else show where this happened all I can see is you sidestepping the discussion.

 

Oh, I know, since I said a while ago that the main reason for my continued posts is to keep this alive, sbell and co would have you believe I am trying to side-step the discussion....HARDLY. Just bypassing the circlefest, the spinarama!

 

But please, carry on. It's fun to watch you guys try to get me riled.

Sort of like what you were doing with Sbell by turning up the frequency that you call him "my friend", even after he asked you not to? Hmm... seems like typical RR pot and kettle behavior to me.

 

And NO, I refuse to play that game. Been there, done it with you guys more than I should have already. So, as I said before (and I believe Clan even backed) I said what I'd have done and it's there to be read...please help yourselves!

Again, I have no objection to you refusing to participate in this particular aspect of this discussion. If you don't want to answer Sbell's question that's certainly your choice. But I don't understand why you wouldn't stay out of that part after you refused to answer. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Here we go round in circles...

[METAL DETECTORS]

I seem to remember hearing that people have used them (especially winter months) around here for finding ammo cans. Sounds like a good idea, especially when the snow is knee deep or so!

[Rogue Reviewer?]

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out.

 

The only ones wanting the facts seem to be those who agree with GS. Clan, myself and many others have stated REPEATEDLY that we're far past that part, but look, and see who are really demanding the facts while also complaining about the thread...same old same old. As I have said, as Clan has said,some in here don't even know what the discussion is. That's because their main purpose to come in here is to derail and agitate.

 

RR, you and I have been on opposite sides of the fence before and for that I am sorry. I have read and kept up with this whole thread and you have always been right on! TPTB feel that they can approach slander and not back off or present their side of the story. I have held out that there has got to be more than we have read and there probably is but we will never know.

RR, keep plugging!

P.S. If Briansnat was in charge this would have never happened or at the least, we would have gotten an explanation and this thread would have ended before the 12th post!

 

[Rogue Reviewer?]

There are now two finds on the Arizona cache and the locals seem to be happy hunting for it. Even disabled, they come and try. The watch count on the cache went from 10 early this morning to 33 right now...we're watching and it's still disabled. I wonder what comes next? Re-instated with an apology? Just re-instated? Will watch closely!

 

It's disabled, not archived. The owner can enable it at any time. There is no apology in order from RR for doing his job.

 

The owner can enable even though they didn't disable? Learn something new every day, THANKS Briansnat! I'm on the fence as far as the rest of your statement goes though...

 

I wonder if the owner knows this or do they think (like I would) that the reviewer has to follow up? Ooops, question answered, she just enabled it!

[Dakota 20 Accuracy VS Oregon and PN-40]

You got it right that, on the Garmins, you must mark a new location in order to change the coords for a multi. This also means, as you said, that you would need to go to the first page for any info and to log the find. I found this confusing and a PITB, but ymmv!

 

I am a big fan of the PN-40, love mine!! And the DeLorme team, TOP-NOTCH in my book, great group of people!

[COINTEST: Todies Wild Ride!]

Here is a picture of the youngest member of Maine Family. The picture is part of the message from a 4 year old. He was looking through his coins in his treasure box and picked up these two coins togehter. The Rod, Tod with Kaboom and a cell phone. Thought it was a perfect picture to go along with his message.

 

 

Nice picture, THANKS for sharing it!! You are now in the running, my friend!! Anyone else? Get those pictures in so you too can be in the run for a free entry for the MICKEY DIVER!!!