traildad

Acceptable to whom? I actually think there are better ways to handle the situation than to call someone a liar. But not everyone is diplomatic in their approach to people. If you are going to do so, then at least make sure those 2 points are addressed. Keep in mind that no one actually called anyone a liar. It is inferred by the statement that the cache had not been in place for months or years. Depending on your point of view, it could be that the comment by Nomex only meant that SF was a hoaxer. The lie word is all in the mind of those reading the comment. If the cache in question was a joke/hoax cache, maybe the lie word is the wrong choice.

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! So there you go again. You could just say that you responded without reading the post, please re post but you choose falsely imply debate tactics. As I posted a short time ago and was there for you to read http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4142052 When you make statements like the one directly above, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity and fairness. I typed it very very slowly. Are you now able to read the words that you yourself typed that I quoted right on the page where you chose to respond to as though you had no clue what I was referring to. Yes I see you just love to use those debate tactics that are dishonest, unfair, and lacking integrity. All the while claiming As long as we all know you are making false claims and false quotes, knock yourself out. PS, your quote of my words above used the word discourteous. Did I type too fast for you again or did you include that word in another attempt to be dishonest, unfair and show a lack of integrity?

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have. Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator. I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong. This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it. Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy. It seems to me that SF had plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. He chose to throw the cache away and say nothing. He could have left the cache archived and posted great photos showing the cache in place and detailed photos of the cache container. That would have been a great rebuttal leaving TPTB looking very bad. I wonder why he didn't go that route. After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response. What this boils down to, is you feel it is just fine for a reviewer to insult you when he cannot back up that insult.(not that he doesn't have proof, just that he cannot or will not provide the proof.) If that is OK with you that's fine just don't expect me to agree. From my point of view, I really don't know if the cache was a hoax or not. Nor do most of you. For me that is not the point. If the reviewer cannot tell us why he thinks the cache was not there then he should not say the cache was not there. However, I don't know why I am even trying to get the point across. Nobody cares these days about manners. Was all that an attempt to say gee, you are right. There really was plenty of opportunity for SF to make a rebuttal?

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have. Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator. I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong. This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it. Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy. It seems to me that SF had plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. He chose to throw the cache away and say nothing. He could have left the cache archived and posted great photos showing the cache in place and detailed photos of the cache container. That would have been a great rebuttal leaving TPTB looking very bad. I wonder why he didn't go that route. After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Uh... OK. Let me type this slowly... What words of yours did I falsely and intentionally mis-characterize? Thanx! Did you reply to my post without reading it? I quoted you in plain sight. Should I have typed it slowly for you to read? Your words were quoted, what more do you need to be able to see them and read them. I mean come on, would it really help if I quoted and posted them a second time. It seems that you are just playing games in an attempt to again make false claims. If you really really couldn't read and understand your own words when they were quoted on the page let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Sorry. Maybe I'm just dense tonight, but I'm not following your logic. Are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I suggested you weren't paying attention? Or are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I labeled the opposing side to your view as detractors? Or could it be that I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I misspelled philosophy? Perhaps you feel I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I mentioned that the other side to this debate has an issue with how Nomex handled it? Please clarify. If you can. Thanx! Well you used the word dense, not me. When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness. By the way, I quoted a short statement by you and your response had lots of "guesses" but somehow didn't include the words that were quoted. Maybe a good nights sleep would be in order before you try to respond again.

I'll give it a go... My personal values include honesty, integrity and fairness. These are part and parcel of who I am, and dictate how I react to the world around me, as well as how I expect to be treated by society. When I see one soul treat another soul poorly, I feel compelled to act. To make right what was wrong. When you make statements like the one directly above, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity and fairness.

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises. I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice! Since you really don't know what happened how can you say this? It might be that GS had way more that hearsay info. Do you have proof to the contrary. I doubt you have proof. So you are for sure convicting GS based totally on hearsay. All your accusations are based on hearsay. Do you really think GS is going to have reviewers visit all caches in question. The standard you hold them to has to be rooted in the reality of the game we are playing. Otherwise the framework of the game falls apart. The game is not being played in the imaginary world where everyone is 100.000% honest and infallible with perfect integrity. Some are dishonest. Some misread or misunderstand guidelines. The human equation on both sides make it impossible to resolve all situations that may arise, in a "perfect" way.

Nope. Not at all. Did I ever claim I was, or is this just another desperate attempt to twist reality? Of course if Groundspeak, (or Wally World, or Sears, or AT&T, etc), publically called me a liar, then I would feel humiliated. I suspect that anyone who makes it a point to comport themselves with honesty and integrity would also feel slighted by such a public claim. How about you? That was a question. If you had "claimed" you were, I would not need to ask. You did say "However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions." You are one of their customers and you used the word. I have not seen anyone else say they felt humiliated, so I was asking if you were referring to yourself.

Why would you think that? I believe that everyone involved in this thread has stated they have nothing but the highest respect for Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Lackeys at Groundspeak. Because that is what you implied. Read your own post. Do you feel publicly humiliated? I didn't see anyone say that they were.

Shhh!! We agreed that we'd keep that quiet! (stoopid grassy knoll...) Of course. Wouldn't you? I prefer to operate openly and honestly, as I feel that doing so helps my credibility. Sneaking around behind the scenes just feels kinda slimy. From what I've read of the cachers up that way, I think most of them are also open, honest people. Based on that assumption, it would be difficult to believe that an entire horde of them could spend an entire day at one cache site, without at least one of them posting something. If you are the type that prefers backroom dealings, then I can see why you'd make the assumptions you have. I see. It is just TPTB and the reviewers etc. that are the slimy ones? All that back room dealings archiving the cache without posting proof. Concealing the identity of anyone that provided the info. How many are an entire horde, (your word not mine)? I notice how when you want to help your argument you change my words to make your argument sound more reasonable. I say more than one person. That would be more reliable evidence for the reviewer that SF never showed up for the maintenance check. If all of the horde had spent a lot of time searching for the hoax, then yes they might act as one and keep things quiet.

Maybe you should read your posts. It seemed like he was pretty spot on.

I would think, in your hideously twisted courtroom analogy, that getting the ticket would equate to having the cache disabled. I.e; An official of some sort brought to your attention a problem that needs to be responded to. In the case of this cache, on the offense line, the ticket says "Hasn't been found". On the back of the ticket, where you have your listed remedies, Nomex selected "Check your cache". SF knew that a cache not being found was, in no way, even a suggestion of a guideline violation. As such, he follows the suggested remedy on the back of the ticket, (claiming), checking his cache. He walks into court, (posts on the cache page), that he took the suggested course of action. The Judge finds him guilty for an offense that was never mentioned on the ticket. Not unlike me going to court, testifying that I had fixed my tail light. Then having the Judge say, "I order a $50 fine for your broken headlight". I appeal to the next higher circuit, to be told "We stand behind our Judge's ruling. Pay your broken headlight fine". Talk about hideously twisted. It seems clear to me that this has more to do with the claimed maintenance check, and nothing to do with how many dnf's there were.

Perhaps I did. I tend to use logic when facts are not present. In this case, I'm working on the theory that the cache was not archived simply because it had not been found. Based on that theory, there must be some other reason it was archived. Could that reason be that Nomex believed the cache had not been in place for months/years? It certainly seems that way based upon what he posted. If that's the case, how did he reach that conclusion? Perhaps someone brought it to his attention? If so, who would that be? Some ole fat crippled guy in Central Florida? Not likely, as I didn't even know this cache existed. Who then? The local reviewers? Now we're approaching the realm of the possible. While you are welcome to your theory that Nomex is a psychic, and was mystically blessed with the knowledge that one cache out of 900,000 was a potential problem child, I think I'll stick to my theory, as it sounds more reasonable. Without so much as a single DNF? According to what I saw on the cache page, the locals were not particularly shy about posting DNFs to this cache. Yet, you would have us believe that a group of them stayed out there for an entire 24 hour period, stalking the cache site, without a single mention of their activities? Uh... OK. Hey, who am I to question your beliefs? Should we discuss the Illuminati, black helicopters, aluminum foil deflection beanies, and those strange symbols on the backs of stop signs next? You are missing a very important part. If they dropped a dime on the CO, now maybe they wouldn't want to post the dnf. If they did, then everyone might figure out they were somehow linked to the archival. If you realized that the claim of a maintenance check was bogus and turned it in, would you post your dnf?

Everything you've heard, or everything you choose to believe? It is not for GS to prove anything. At the end of the day it seems that TPTB are not extremely worried if you are happy with how this turned out. I believe I posted my thoughts. Everything I have heard. What you seem to have missed is that I said the evidence seems convincing? Does this sound like someone who is not willing to see both sides? It would be others here who are not willing to have an open mind, well, nor even read what is posted. As CR pointed out, many don't even know what the issue at present is. We would disagree on who has the burden of proving what, you are welcome to your opinion as I assume I am mine. As I have stated my position several times over and it has yet to sway you, I won't bother going in further circles. Whether TPTB are worried or not is not up to you or I to determine. Then maybe also it is not up to us to determine if any customers are happy or not.

My first clue was this thread being started. I read a few posts, then saw a link to the cache page, where I read what SF posted, and I read what Nomex wrote. These postings led me to the following conclusion: 1 ) SF submitted a cache for publication. 2 ) The cache was believed to meet the guidelines, and was published. 3 ) A theory was developed amongst locals that the cache was a hoax. 4 ) The local reviewers asked for assistance. 5 ) Nomex reviewed the situation and agreed that it might be a hoax. 6 ) Nomex archived the cache. Ergo, it has happened at least once. Just check the cache page if you don't believe me. Did you come to some other conclusion? If so, did you leap to it, or approach it cautiously? It seems that you have made a big leap. Where did it say the locals developed a theory? Was this is a group meeting? The local reviewers asked for assistance? With this cache or in general? Nomex agreed it might be a hoax implies that he was informed of some suspicions and asked to check them out. What hat did you pull that out of? Nomex archived the cache, you got that one right. No I don't think it would be equally possible. It is much easier to believe that there was some cachers looking for the cache that day than it is to believe that a impossible to find cache could be checked from afar. If you want to make up a argument for every possibility have at it. The likelihood of GS archiving a cache only because no one had found it reduces the credibility of the other arguments.

Everything you've heard, or everything you choose to believe? It is not for GS to prove anything. At the end of the day it seems that TPTB are not extremely worried if you are happy with how this turned out.

Can I back what? How do I know? I don't care what the owner knew. If the reviewer says check the cache, the CO can't post that he did unless he really did. Otherwise he should say "checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem" etc. etc. I really am not sure what you mean here.

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.

Simple math would indicate that, if a thing happens once, there exists a possibility that it could happen again. RR says it's "possible". The mathematics of probability says it's "possible". A better question, (as asked by Sage Fox), would be, "Is it likely?". Because of my personal relationship with my reviewers, and the high degree of professionalism consistently displayed by folks like Miss Jenn, combined with the almost universal claims from those who know him that Nomex is an honorable person, I'd say the chances of this happening again are remarkably slim. If TPTB were to do some behind the scenes work with their reviewers regarding customer relations, I think that the chances would be even more remote. Simple math might indicate that, but what indicates that it has happened at all? You jump to the conclusion, and then use it to support the aftermath. The mathematics of probability say that it is possible that the world will end tomorrow. Do you live your life as though all things that are possible, are likely? Reasonable doubt and ridiculous doubt are not equal.

I would assume that in those cases there was not a forum post suggesting that they had been archived because of too many DNFs.

Because we, the caching public, to not have complete information about this archival, I agree any conclusions drawn are inherently invalid. That does not seem to stop anyone on either side of this debate from drawing conclusions and stating them as facts. The only thing I find here that,to me is a fact, Nomex called Superfly a liar and did not/ or could not provide any proof. For those who feel if Superfly was lying he should be publicly call on it. I agree, he should. But only if the person who calls him on it is in a position to back it up. I may be wrong, but I believe if Nomex had just archive the cache and had not added his editorial, this thread would have died after the third page. For those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of something by using secret information. I would say I really wouldn't want to live in your world. I believe that you are wrong. If the cache had been archived without any explanation, the controversy would have been worse. Then everyone would be sure that it was only because it was too hard to find. Some public explanation was needed. Any truthful explanation ends up suggesting SF was a liar.

Google is your friend.

Do you mean? morally, ethic'lly Spiritually, physically Positively, absolutely Undeniably and reliably Dead.

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! Keep in mind there is more than one kind of proof. Absolute proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence is just a little more proof it is a hoax than proof that it is not. Just enough to tip the scale. For this kind of court, that would be good enough.