Jump to content

Rockin Roddy

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    8943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rockin Roddy

  1. This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

    Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is goor. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. :lol:

     

    I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn;t change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

  2. You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

     

    I know, because GS said so...right?

  3. How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.
    Secrets are no fun unless they are told and once they are told, it's only a matter of time until there is no secret.

     

    Most people who would lie to the community as you are suggesting would eventually tell someone else about it, if for no other reason to prove how clever they are. Once that person is told, they might take the information to a reviewer, (on the condition of anonymity). The reviewers might then ask the cache owner to check on his cache, hoping that he will do the honorable thing and report the non-existent cache as missing and archive it. If he did not, the reviewer certainly would archive the cache.

     

    This scenario sounds familiar, doesn't it?

    I question the existence of the cache. However, had SF taken a picture of the cache and submitted it to GS as proof, I have no doubt that they would have accepted it as such. Heck, I even would concede the cache existed if there was a picture of it. So don't go claiming that a picture would not satisfy anyone.
    I also would have accepted a picture of the cache as proof. I'm sure TPTB would have also, depending on what their other evidence to the contrary is.
    If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.
    That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there...
    You're making the argument that the cache should have been archived because teh cache owner failed to maintain his cache and lied to a reviewer about it? Interesting argument, but I don't think it applis to this scenario.

     

    Good try, nice job putting words in my mouth.

  4. I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

     

    On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

     

    How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

     

    I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

    If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.

     

    That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there...

     

    If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

     

    And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

     

    If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't.

    I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed.

     

    Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

     

    And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

  5. I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

     

    On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

     

    How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

     

    I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

    If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.

     

    That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there...

     

    If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

     

    And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

  6. I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

     

    On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

     

    How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

     

    I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

    If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.

     

    That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there...

  7. Hi, I just this minute ordered a PN40 from Amazon for 229.00 I think this is the cheapest right now. Did I read some where I can get the power kit for like $29.00? I have been doing some serious reading trying to decide which GPSr I was going to get. After much research, I decided on the 40, it was a big toss up becuz the oregon300 is about the same price at REI but at the end I read a couple of bad reviews on it. I really kind of wanted the Lowrance endura, but read to many bad things about it. and I read hardly anything bad with the Pn but wasn't sure if I wanted the 30 or the 40 but for$50.00 more I figured the 40.

    I really hope I dont have buyers remorse as soon as I get it. So many choices.

     

    Pretty sure you'll be happy with it, this unit is great! If you have any questions, you can ask here or go to the DeLorme forums http://forum.delorme.com/...and, as you can see, DeLorme often comes into these forums to lend a hand.

     

    HAPPY CACHING, my friend!!

  8. Well, after a ton of nice days and moderate temps, it turned chilly yesterday...and rained. Last night, it got really chilly and SNOWED. We had a small amount accumulate, a trace or dusting! I even had to turn up my thermostat, guess what I now have it set to for one coin to be used in the new release.

  9. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

    The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

     

    This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

     

    Anything's possible Toz! :D I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

     

    In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

    I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that.

    :lol:

     

    Not hardly. Show me, other than the three here, where a presumed active cache was archived even after insistance from the CO that it was there? Sure, we see GS archive caches when owners don't answer or tke the time to bring the cache back to compliance, that's not the case here at all. Nope, that's apples and oranges.

    Exactly. You are arguing my point for me. It is apparent that this is a unique situation and there is NO reason to believe that the two things you suggested are going to happen unless there are extreme circumstances. Ironically, I don't believe you, RR, would ever find yourself in this situation because you are smart enough and responsible enough to never let it get that far.

    Seriously, I know you are a champion of causes and I admire that. When I hear Phil Ochs sing "Going down to Mississippi" I think of you. I like to think that although we disagree on a point of this trivial game, we would be standing together for a real cause. So don't take offense if I poke a little fun at you on this topic! When the real spit starts goin' down, I got yer back! ;)

     

    My friend, I'd be buying the first beer should we happen to meet, no worries there!! ;):D

  10. To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

    The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

    If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

     

    The key word being "IF"! B)

    Given that TPTB have proof that the cache didn't exist, I believe that it didn't exist. The 'if' was simply my attempt to focus my response only to the meat of CR's post. I should have known that you would choose to obfuscate, rather than stick to the issue..

     

    Hey, you said it, my friend! :P

  11. To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

    The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

    If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

     

    The key word being "IF"! :P

  12. I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :P
    O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! B) )

     

    Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

     

    Do you believe your hard to find caches are now in danger of being archived, or that the hard to find caches in your area might be next? [

    Yes, it is a possibility.
    Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position? Are you calling Lep a liar?

     

    Here we go again.... :unsure:

     

    I believe it could happen again, it's happened before. I didn't see Keystone state it couldn't happen, I did see him state the guidelines haven't changed...big difference here! I suspect we both know this though....

  13. This thread is still running? 26 pages, 50 comments per page is 1300 comments...

     

    Without going back through all 26 pages and making this into a hockey analogy, the ref blew the whistle and called a penalty. On review, the league supported the original call.

     

    Correct or not, the ref made the call. Drop the puck and carry on.

     

    Yes, the puck has been dropped. However, just like in the game of hockey, sometimes people disagree with "the call" and they do as is done here (I'd hope with less snarkiness and belittlement), they discuss it. Case in point...The Red Wings had a player hurt the game before last, the call was for a minor penalty against the opposing player. Not many agreed with the ref and held a discussion after the fact where it was decided the opposing player should be penalized more than 2 minutes, was given a 5 game suspension w/o pay and loss of over $38,000 as a fine.

     

    Discussion, some might wish it didn't happen, but then, they don't really need to participate if they'd rather not!

  14. I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

     

    O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! :P )

     

     

    Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

     

    Do you believe your hard to find caches are now in danger of being archived, or that the hard to find caches in your area might be next? Yes, it is a possibility.

     

    If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it (this topic) possibly be causing so much strife? I don't believe the chance is even REMOTELY part of the cause of the strife, that's a whole different thing altogether. Possibly snarky remarks, misrepresentation and a few other less than friendly actions would be the cause of any strife...you know, belittlement?

     

    Do you really think that this ("it could happen to you or me.") is worth worrying about? And I answered this for you earlier...what you consider worthy of concern and what I do are obviously different. Please use your own judgement when tryig to come up with this answer...as I have stated before.

     

    And one more:

     

    Do you believe that others need to be as concerned about this as you are? Read the last answer.

  15. So if the FTF is known to be when the park is closed, would it be the right thing to do to delete the log???

    Sure is. It's definitely NOT an ALR to require someone to follow the law. If someone posts an after hours find on my caches, they get deleted, no problem!

    I'm thinking that you've missed previous threads on this topic where guidance on this issue has been received.

     

    Having PARTICIPATED in said threads, I knw what was said. I seem to remember (even with my horrid memory) that even mods agreed with my comment...in past threads.

  16. Having taken a quick look at TDE/SF's profile page, I was a bit surprised to find the links to bajillions of pictures of caches. Given that he felt the need to take pictures of all those caches, I find it hard to believe that he never snapped a pic of the cache in question.

    What you believe and what you can prove is entirely different, I'm afraid.

  17. ... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
    Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).

     

    Sbell, would it surprise you to know I OFTEN acknowledge people with "my friend"? Would it surprise you that I am in no way trying to BEAT anyone? I said it before and I'm saying it now, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just posting to post...my friend! When you're done attacking me simply because I wish to keep this at the top, I'd be more than happy to debate with you!

     

    Of course, I don't expect you to believe what I said, however, check ANY of my posts in the Todie's Wild Ride thread, in many other thrteads, in many of my emails or PMs or anywhere I comment...if you feel you need me to prove my statement, my friend!

     

    Oh, and why do I use that comment, you might ask? I consider most people here as my friends. Some are more like combatants, but I still would be happy to buy most a beer at the end of the day. If my being a friendly person bothers you or makes you perceive me as a two-faced person, that would be YOUR problem, my friend, and is for you to consider fixing for yourself. It matters not to me how you see me since I truly don't give a rip whether you believe me, don't believe me or WHATEVER....my friend!

     

    btw, I sometimes use "my friend" with those I don't consider friends, those I have less than full respect for and those I would never even consider buying a beer for...although this doesn't necessarily pertain to you, my friend!

    That is the second time in this thread that you have accused me of making attacks or otherwise violating the forum guidelines. I previously asked you to back up your accusation and you declined. I again ask you to do this.

     

    Where in the prior post did I attack you?

     

    I must, at this time, insist that you stop these spurious attacks and begin showing more respect for the forum guidelines and the overall community. Your current behavior is unacceptable.

     

    I believe you can find the attack just fine as can anyone else who reads the post. Whether it violates TOU is another matter, I don't recall stating that anywhere...as you can read. If you feel my "current behavior" to be unacceptable, please feel free to hit that report button, it's for that purpose, my friend! btw, respect is something earned, not given. I tend to treat people as I'm treated.

     

    Now, if you can show where I attacked you, I'd be interested in seeing it.

  18. So if the FTF is known to be when the park is closed, would it be the right thing to do to delete the log???

    Sure is. It's definitely NOT an ALR to require someone to follow the law. If someone posts an after hours find on my caches, they get deleted, no problem!

  19. I'd second the PN-30. Can't beat that deal and package for a paperless unit. Simple to use, complete with maps and map software and you can even download aerial imagery!

  20. MAYBE because it's a hot issue and, while it doesn't spell the end of caching in whole, it COULD happen to you or I.

     

    So, I should be worried now that one of my caches could be archived? Even though it appears that there is less than a .003% chance it could happen to me?

     

    Or I should be worried that any hard to find cache in my area with a string of dnf's could be a target now matter how unlikely that is to happen?

     

    Do you really think that this is worth worrying about?

     

    I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

  21. ... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
    Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).

     

    Sbell, would it surprise you to know I OFTEN acknowledge people with "my friend"? Would it surprise you that I am in no way trying to BEAT anyone? I said it before and I'm saying it now, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just posting to post...my friend! When you're done attacking me simply because I wish to keep this at the top, I'd be more than happy to debate with you!

     

    Of course, I don't expect you to believe what I said, however, check ANY of my posts in the Todie's Wild Ride thread, in many other thrteads, in many of my emails or PMs or anywhere I comment...if you feel you need me to prove my statement, my friend!

     

    Oh, and why do I use that comment, you might ask? I consider most people here as my friends. Some are more like combatants, but I still would be happy to buy most a beer at the end of the day. If my being a friendly person bothers you or makes you perceive me as a two-faced person, that would be YOUR problem, my friend, and is for you to consider fixing for yourself. It matters not to me how you see me since I truly don't give a rip whether you believe me, don't believe me or WHATEVER....my friend!

     

    btw, I sometimes use "my friend" with those I don't consider friends, those I have less than full respect for and those I would never even consider buying a beer for...although this doesn't necessarily pertain to you, my friend!

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

    Oh well. :unsure:

     

    It was worth a try, but I’m out of time for now.

     

    I’m outta here for a few more days.

     

    Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here Roddy – and I sincerely hope your Thanksgiving is as awesome as mine is about to be ...

     

    Unfortunately, mine won't be until Sunday....no turkey for me this day! :P Have a good one, my friend!

×
×
  • Create New...