Counting Finds

[+Ambrosia]

If you tried to complicate the numbers/rating system, it would get way too subjective.

 

1. I have done caches that took me on a long hike in the mountains, and were still very carpy.

 

2. I have done drive-by micros that blew my mind either from their cleverness or by the beauty of the area.

 

3. Now that my body doesn't obey me anymore, sometimes I'm just super happy to do park and grabs where the cache is brought to me on a silver platter.

 

How can you quantify any of this?

 

And as to how many finds = a person's authority in geocaching:

 

I know many cachers that have only a few caches relatively, but have been caching as long as me and are just as involved or more so in this sport. I find them to be someone I look up to, not for their numbers, but for their love of the sport. Just because they perhaps choose to mostly do long hikes as opposed to doing every lampost micro to up their numbers doesn't make them any less qualified. Maybe it makes them more so.

[+budd-rdc]

Someone can always host a Geocaching competition site, where the participants will need to register and the site owner can monitor stats and complaints. There are already leaderboard sites, so this is just taking it one step further. I don't know.. call it geocachingolympics.com or something.

 

I'm not volunteering, since I'm not really competing, and rather not shoulder the responsibilities for running such a site.

[Mushtang]

But, since you won't let this go, let's explore further, shall we? What exactly were you trying to get at with this quote, "Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime?" On what level are you trying to compare the two activities? By website? By the number of folks participating? What? Can't really argue a point unless we clarify why you think letterboxing is somehow inferior.

 

That's a good point for you to make, just a few posts after you said the following:

 

Comparing letterboxing to geocaching is like comparing riding horses and riding ATVs. I'll leave you to figure out the rest of my meaning.

 

Now on what level are you trying to compare the two activities? Can't really argue a point with such a master of dabate like you Mr Red.

 

(Do I see some popcorn icons?)

 

Trying to somehow insult letterboxing (go ahead a back peddle all you want, but your message was clear) you insult letterboxers, as well. That means you insult a portion of the population here. Good job.

 

So... if he insults the activity of letterboxing, he must also be insulting the people that letterbox? Let's explore this a little, shall we? Here's a quote from YOU when replying to him.

 

Naw, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I called the statement you made dumb. I can only make a judgment on what you say and I called the statement dumb. I don't know you so I don't know if you are dumb.

 

So in your case, there is a difference in calling a statement dumb and calling him dumb. But in his case if he insults an activity then it's the same as insulting the players. Hmm.....

 

I'll make a judgment on you CR, based on your posts here and in the past. You are dumb, your statements are dumb, and I wonder if you ever get tired of your hypocricy being shown over and over again?

[Jeremy]

I'll make a judgment on you CR, based on your posts here and in the past. You are dumb, your statements are dumb, and I wonder if you ever get tired of your hypocricy being shown over and over again?

 

CR opened the door to his statements being considered dumb (and I have to agree with that), but considering that no IQ test has been administered please stay clear from saying he is dumb. I'm sure he is a perfectly smart guy as are most forum posters.

[+The Leprechauns]

[Mushtang]

I'll make a judgment on you CR, based on your posts here and in the past. You are dumb, your statements are dumb, and I wonder if you ever get tired of your hypocricy being shown over and over again?

 

CR opened the door to his statements being considered dumb (and I have to agree with that), but considering that no IQ test has been administered please stay clear from saying he is dumb. I'm sure he is a perfectly smart guy as are most forum posters.

 

Good point. I retract my statement about CR being dumb. I don't think I'll go so far as to say that he's smart, but I'll refrain from insulting the person.

 

He made it so easy I got carried away.

 

Mr. Red, please accept my most humble apology.

[+The Leprechauns]

Whew. We can stand down now.

 

[+headybrew]

The change I wish would happen to the smiley system, is simply that it rewards all cache finds equally. Even if competition is not important to you and your just keeping track for the heck of it, wouldn't it be nice to distinguish between the effort you made for a park'n'grab vs a mountain hike cache?

 

Something tells me that all those folks with many hundreds or more finds are not exerting very much effort/per find. I'd be much more impressed with a cacher who has one find on the top of mount everest than a cacher who has 5000 finds of unknown difficulty.

[+TotemLake]

I don't really care how much anyone else caches and how tough their finds are. I do my own thing. Happy caching to all, have a ball.

 

If you go after a "real" 5/5 - you'd BETTER care how tough the find is! Nothin' like waking up dead at the bottom of a 200ft fall to say "gosh, wish I'd cared a bit more how tough that really was. . ."

 

And that's my point: Many 5/5's just aren't. Someone does a 5/5 in a paddle boat and probably thinks they're more prepared for the next one than they probably are.

 

A 5/5 means the cache requires due diligence to do the proper research of the requirements before you go after it. Any rating beyond than that is superfluous and still doesn't address the requirements of what is and isn't needed. In fact, more granularity will cause more confusion over what is and what isn't a ?/?.

 

As for a change in the count rating. I'm with Kealia and Lep. The smiley is the great equalizer and a change isn't needed except to satisfy someone's yearning to up the numbers in a different way. A find is a find, nothing more and nothing less.

 

To answer another's question why count at all? Whether a person is in it for the numbers or not, the question still comes up, "How many finds do you have?" It's a nice to know in general conversations. Why does it have to be about competition just to have a simple count?

[+Ambrosia]

The change I wish would happen to the smiley system, is simply that it rewards all cache finds equally. Even if competition is not important to you and your just keeping track for the heck of it, wouldn't it be nice to distinguish between the effort you made for a park'n'grab vs a mountain hike cache?

 

Something tells me that all those folks with many hundreds or more finds are not exerting very much effort/per find. I'd be much more impressed with a cacher who has one find on the top of mount everest than a cacher who has 5000 finds of unknown difficulty.

Um, look at my post at the top of the page. You just cannot say how much each person's effort is, because it is totally different. I went to a cache a month ago where I had to use a wheelchair to get to it. That was difficult, and a real challenge for me! But I have been feeling better lately and I just took my friend Lep to it again last weekend and I was able to walk right to the cache. So how do you really rate these things?

 

Just go with the system we have right now. It works best all the way around.

[+TotemLake]

The change I wish would happen to the smiley system, is simply that it rewards all cache finds equally. Even if competition is not important to you and your just keeping track for the heck of it, wouldn't it be nice to distinguish between the effort you made for a park'n'grab vs a mountain hike cache?

 

Something tells me that all those folks with many hundreds or more finds are not exerting very much effort/per find. I'd be much more impressed with a cacher who has one find on the top of mount everest than a cacher who has 5000 finds of unknown difficulty.

 

That makes giant assumptions about people you don't know and not look at the caches they do find. I know of several big finders that hit the entire range of caches, from parking lots to mountains to special equipment required.

[Phantom_Dog]

Who is it you are trying to compete against? Is there some secret black market for smilies that I am not aware of yet?

 

Just have fun and dont worry about the freggin smilies!

[+The Leprechauns]

In a prior post to this thread, I said that I *liked* the fact that all caches are worth the same single smiley. I just wanted to repeat that -- to me, it's a big positive.

 

I've just returned from a big geocaching trip to Washington State. Two of the 75 caches I found made my "Top Five Percent" list. One of them was a hike up a mountain that TotemLake was kind enough to organize. It was a great hike with beautiful weather and good company. The other one was a micro located 50 feet from parking, which I enjoyed finding with Ambrosia. With 2550 finds between us, this "newbie's first hide" micro surprised us by being exceptionally cool. And I was very grateful that Ambrosia could walk to it with me.

 

How can you assign relative values to these two experiences? They were both wonderful. I suppose I could break the tie by deciding who gave me the best hug after the cache find, but TotemLake didn't hug me because he was too busy making coffee on top of a mountain. I guess I will have to ask Criminal about TotemLake's hugging skills.

[+TotemLake]

I guess I will have to ask Criminal about TotemLake's hugging skills.

DOH!

 

Yah but I got a great reaction out of ya and that was priceless.

Edited April 28, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Ambrosia]

I guess I will have to ask Criminal about TotemLake's hugging skills.

DOH!

 

Yah but I got a great reaction out of ya and that was priceless.

It was priceless. Thanks for entertaining us.

[CoyoteRed]

Now on what level are you trying to compare the two activities?

 

Now look who has a reading problem. I was asking him how he was trying to compare the two activities.

 

Second point, I know I've made dumb comments, happens all the time, doesn't mean I'm dumb. Heck, you could look at yourself as an example. However, in your statement, "So in your case, there is a difference in calling a statement dumb and calling him dumb. But in his case if he insults an activity then it's the same as insulting the players." If you can't see the difference, then there is no hope. Hint: one-time statement versus activity defining a group.

 

But, again, like every other instance where you try to engage me, you're trying to get a rise out of me. Fun games for you I guess. Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person.

[Jeremy]

 

Second point, I know I've made dumb comments, happens all the time, doesn't mean I'm dumb. Heck, you could look at yourself as an example. However, in your statement, "So in your case, there is a difference in calling a statement dumb and calling him dumb. But in his case if he insults an activity then it's the same as insulting the players." If you can't see the difference, then there is no hope. Hint: one-time statement versus activity defining a group.

 

Uhh... he apologized? You gotta respect that.

 

But, again, like every other instance where you try to engage me, you're trying to get a rise out of me. Fun games for you I guess. Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person.

 

Don't make lep elevate the thread again

 

oops! Too late

[CoyoteRed]

Uhh... he apologized? You gotta respect that.

 

Yeah, like I should appreciate a back-handed compliment, too, right?

Edited April 29, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[gerboa]

As the OP of this thread, may I terminate it with one last observation ?

 

When Rolls Royce were asked the Horsepower of their engines, the reply was "Enough".

Edited April 29, 2006 by gerboa

[+Adrenalynn]

As the OP of this thread, may I terminate it with one last observation ?

 

When Rolls Royce were asked the Horsepower of their engines, the reply was "Enough".

 

Enough for what? To move the heap out of the way of cars with real horsepower-to-weight ratios, or enough to roll it up a small embankment and off the cliff-face onto the rocks below?

 

"enough" indeed. An answer like that is invariably a shield for marketing to hide behind when their product is clearly inferior in the regard in which the question is asked...

[gerboa]

As the OP of this thread, may I terminate it with one last observation ?

 

When Rolls Royce were asked the Horsepower of their engines, the reply was "Enough".

 

Enough for what? To move the heap out of the way of cars with real horsepower-to-weight ratios, or enough to roll it up a small embankment and off the cliff-face onto the rocks below?

 

"enough" indeed. An answer like that is invariably a shield for marketing to hide behind when their product is clearly inferior in the regard in which the question is asked...

 

Well at least enough to beat the Luftwaffe.

 

http://www.bcam.net/engines/merlin.htm

Edited April 29, 2006 by gerboa

[+Adrenalynn]

As the OP of this thread, may I terminate it with one last observation ?

 

When Rolls Royce were asked the Horsepower of their engines, the reply was "Enough".

 

Enough for what? To move the heap out of the way of cars with real horsepower-to-weight ratios, or enough to roll it up a small embankment and off the cliff-face onto the rocks below?

 

"enough" indeed. An answer like that is invariably a shield for marketing to hide behind when their product is clearly inferior in the regard in which the question is asked...

 

Well at least enough to beat the Luftwaffe.

 

Grant you that. They had a different sort of "marketing" though.

[gerboa]

As the OP of this thread, may I terminate it with one last observation ?

 

When Rolls Royce were asked the Horsepower of their engines, the reply was "Enough".

 

Enough for what? To move the heap out of the way of cars with real horsepower-to-weight ratios, or enough to roll it up a small embankment and off the cliff-face onto the rocks below?

 

"enough" indeed. An answer like that is invariably a shield for marketing to hide behind when their product is clearly inferior in the regard in which the question is asked...

 

Well at least enough to beat the Luftwaffe.

 

Grant you that. They had a different sort of "marketing" though.

 

you are too kind, the Rolls Royce Merlin also powered the Centurion and Conqueror Tanks

Edited April 29, 2006 by gerboa

[+Adrenalynn]

I'm sure that some of us hunt caches in a Centurion Tank. I suggest that everyone that hunts caches in a Centurion Tank have their numbers masked.

 

If you really want your numbers masked, how about you just don't log them? That will leave the game the same for everyone that likes it that way AND give you the thing you're looking for!

[gerboa]

I'm sure that some of us hunt caches in a Centurion Tank. I suggest that everyone that hunts caches in a Centurion Tank have their numbers masked.

 

If you really want your numbers masked, how about you just don't log them? That will leave the game the same for everyone that likes it that way AND give you the thing you're looking for!

 

my daughter thinks you are a grouch but she's only 6, for me I simply don't understand your point/s, but then she thinks I'm stupid.

[+Adrenalynn]

Ok, let me clarify a couple things:

 

Why not make the 'found' count visible only to the account holder?

 

Agree Agree Agree

 

Clarification 1: you're supporting masking of found-count. I'm countering with "don't log your finds if you don't want anyone looking at the found count.

 

Clarification 2: yeah, well I think she's a booboohead. But that doesn't change the first point, now, does it?

 

[edit to fix nested quote issues]

Edited April 29, 2006 by Adrenalynn

[+RichardMoore]

I'm sure that some of us hunt caches in a Centurion Tank. I suggest that everyone that hunts caches in a Centurion Tank have their numbers masked.

 

If you really want your numbers masked, how about you just don't log them? That will leave the game the same for everyone that likes it that way AND give you the thing you're looking for!

Because there is no box to check on Pocket Queries for "Don't show caches that I've found but haven't logged."

[+Adrenalynn]

I'm sure that some of us hunt caches in a Centurion Tank. I suggest that everyone that hunts caches in a Centurion Tank have their numbers masked.

 

If you really want your numbers masked, how about you just don't log them? That will leave the game the same for everyone that likes it that way AND give you the thing you're looking for!

Because there is no box to check on Pocket Queries for "Don't show caches that I've found but haven't logged."

 

But there is with GSAK...

[+Mopar]

I'm sure that some of us hunt caches in a Centurion Tank. I suggest that everyone that hunts caches in a Centurion Tank have their numbers masked.

 

If you really want your numbers masked, how about you just don't log them? That will leave the game the same for everyone that likes it that way AND give you the thing you're looking for!

Because there is no box to check on Pocket Queries for "Don't show caches that I've found but haven't logged."

 

But there is with GSAK...

So someone with 2490 finds should have to grab 5 full PQs to get 10 unfound caches in GSAK? And if that person uses a Mac or Linux?

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

"Letterboxing 'WAS' highly innovative". Past tense. No longer innovative. That's my point.

 

I was unaware that something could be innovative and then suddenly become "no longer innovative". It is either innovative or not. Technology changes and advances are made, that doesn't make something "no longer innovative".

 

Ben Franklin invented bifocals. Pretty innovative in their time. Lasik surgery removes the need for bifocals in many cases now. That doesn't mean that bifocals aren't innovative.

 

Get it now?

 

Sheesh! Play how you want! Count how you want! If you're into the competition, fine! If not, don't log anything Why the arguing?

[uperdooper]

*leaves the package on the counter*

 

 

some of you are going to need it.

[Mushtang]

But, again, like every other instance where you try to engage me, you're trying to get a rise out of me. Fun games for you I guess.

 

Yes, it's fun for me to point out your inconsistencies. You come across to a lot of people (not just me) as a know it all, my way or the highway, I'm a better cacher than you because I cache correctly, this web site sucks but for some reason I'm still here, kind of guy. So I enjoy engaging you about your statements when you behave this way.

 

Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person.

 

Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of that?

 

I've met several people like you over the years in different areas of my life and it's even more fun to point out their misuse of logic and arrogant behavior in person.

 

By the way, you seem to think my goal is to get you to do something to get booted off the forums.again. That wasn’t my goal the day it happened when you replied to something I’d said, and it’s never been my goal. I’d much rather you stay online. You’re much more fun to debate when you’re allowed to show your stuff.

 

One more thing... when will you be leading the mass exodus away from geocaching.com? You’d mentioned it a couple of times in the past so I thought I’d ask.

[CoyoteRed]

Yes, it's fun for me to point out your inconsistencies.

Too bad for you, you pointed out no such thing. Care to address my rebuttal?

 

Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person.

 

Wrong again.

Really? You insult people to their face, call them dumb to their face? Please tell us how you've been so lucky to not have had to use your dental insurance.

 

One more thing... when will you be leading the mass exodus away from geocaching.com? You’d mentioned it a couple of times in the past so I thought I’d ask.

Provide a link for all of us to enjoy. Oh, wait, you can't.

[+fizzymagic]

You come across to a lot of people (not just me) as a know it all, my way or the highway, I'm a better cacher than you because I cache correctly, this web site sucks but for some reason I'm still here, kind of guy. So I enjoy engaging you about your statements when you behave this way.

You know, I object to personal attacks even when they aren't directed at me. I suggest a quick review of the forum guidelines.

[Mushtang]

Yes, it's fun for me to point out your inconsistencies.

Too bad for you, you pointed out no such thing. Care to address my rebuttal?

Your rebuttal??? You seem to think calling a statement dumb is the same as calling the person that said the statement dumb (not true at all) . But you also argue that someone else calling an activity dumb is the same as calling everyone that does the activity dumb (not true at all either). Your justification for the inconsistency is that in one case it's a one time statement and in the other it's an activity. What the heck? It's two versions of the same thing!!!!

 

You got upset that he did something and then you turned around and did it yourself.

 

Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person.

 

Wrong again.

Really? You insult people to their face, call them dumb to their face? Please tell us how you've been so lucky to not have had to use your dental insurance.

First of all I never said I insult people to their face. I said I enjoy pointing out misuse of logic of people that talk to other folks the way you do. Please link me to the place where I said I call people dumb to their face. Oh wait, you can't.

 

Does your remark about the dentist mean that when someone calls you dumb in person your reply is to punch them in the mouth? I know that's not exactly what you said, so I'm curious if that's what you meant.

 

One more thing... when will you be leading the mass exodus away from geocaching.com? You’d mentioned it a couple of times in the past so I thought I’d ask.

Provide a link for all of us to enjoy. Oh, wait, you can't.

Just wishful thinking on my part I guess. But it comes from here: Link for others to enjoy It would be a shame to see you tossed out of here, but if you left on your own I wouldn't cry about it. You do complain a lot about this site so it makes me wonder what keeps you here other than trying to get others to do things your way.

[Mushtang]

You come across to a lot of people (not just me) as a know it all, my way or the highway, I'm a better cacher than you because I cache correctly, this web site sucks but for some reason I'm still here, kind of guy. So I enjoy engaging you about your statements when you behave this way.

You know, I object to personal attacks even when they aren't directed at me. I suggest a quick review of the forum guidelines.

 

Thanks for the tip, but that wasn't a personal attack. It was an accurate description. I've heard these things from multiple people that all have the same impression of him based on his posts.

[CoyoteRed]

Just wishful thinking on my part I guess. But it comes from here: Link for others to enjoy

Much like the rest of this post. Heck, much like much of all your posts directed at me. First you claim that I said something multiple times, yet you can't point out a single instance. However, if folks follow your link they will see it was you that suggested it.

 

You make no sense what so ever. I'll illustrate:

 

You: "I'll make a judgment on you CR, based on your posts here and in the past. You are dumb, your statements are dumb, and I wonder if you ever get tired of your hypocricy being shown over and over again?"

 

Me: "But, again, like every other instance where you try to engage me, you're trying to get a rise out of me. Fun games for you I guess. Somehow, I think you wouldn't do it in person."

 

You: "Wrong again. " Though I did notice a little back peddling by clarifying the instances you would do it in person. Still, you said it and claim you would have done it in person.

 

Me: "Really? You insult people to their face, call them dumb to their face? Please tell us how you've been so lucky to not have had to use your dental insurance."

 

So, you called me dumb. I said you probably wouldn't do it in person. You said you would. I asked for clarification. You back peddle. So, either you would have said in person that which you wrote elsewhere in this post, or you wouldn't. Either way, what does that say about you?

 

Second, someone who walks around insulting people as you claim (or not, depending on which post) is bound to come across someone who will take offense enough to pop you in the mouth. That's why I made the statement and the meaning of which was lost on you because it was an insinuation that folks that spout off like you are too chick to do it person. It's fine when a distance separates the two parties, but if that distance is only 3 feet, the rhetoric gets toned down a lot, if said at all.

 

So, which is it? Would you call me, or anyone else, dumb to my face or not? Would you or would you not say the same thing in person as what you've wrote. (Not the same words, but the same ideas as I realize in written and face-to-face conversations the actual verbiage is different while the idea conveyed is the same.)

Edited April 30, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[Mushtang]

You: Inconsistency, failed logic, insults to the web site, contradictions...

 

Me: Logic, pointing out your contradictions

 

You: More contradictions, claims of stuff that didn't happen, statements that show you can't understand simple concepts

 

Me: More logic, pointing out your contradictions, explaining things to you in simpler language

 

You: I know you are but what am I?

 

This is fun. Let's do some more.

 

And yes, I would call you dumb to your face. No problem. Gonna threaten me with more need for dental work? I've never said anything to you in the forums that I wouldn't say to your face.

[+CYBret]

Would you ladies please take your pissin' match to PM. I'm tired of reading it and getting reported posts about it.

 

Bret

[CoyoteRed]

And yes, I would call you dumb to your face.

 

Considering you have nothing to add to the discussion, welcome to the ignore list. Sorry to take your fun away, but goodbye.

[+TotemLake]

[gerboa]

Just to keep the pot boiling how about a ratio hidden:finds, be sure to point out a 50:100 and 1:2 will give the same ratio.

[+Ed & Julie]

Sheesh people...take it offline and out of the forums already...do we need a bunch of personal "am not", "am too" posts?

[dunderhead]

Sheesh people...take it offline and out of the forums already...do we need a bunch of personal "am not", "am too" posts?

 

The OP tried to get it terminated, but as people seem determined to flail around the topic and enjoy doing so, I guess he thought he'd "help"

[+wimseyguy]

Um the OP can also as the OP lock this retired equine thread anytime they want to. I think they are enjoying the witty repartee.

 

PS I'll repeat my agreement with Lep and everyone else who likes the one cache found=one smiley as the only counting system I need here. Saturday I found a bunch of relatively easy caches with a group of friends. We had lots of FUN driving around together all day. At the end of my posting session I noticed I was at 2899. I will pick something a little more significant than a drive by for #2900, just to make me smile. Perhaps one of those nasty puzzles that has been parked at the top of my page one of unfounds for a long long time.

BTW I also smile when the odometer 'rolls over'. This is one instance when digital is not better than the old analog style devices IMHO.

Edited May 1, 2006 by wimseyguy

[+Mule Ears]

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

 

If some miraculous formula yielded a better and more objective Geocaching "score," there would be even more discontent. The change would irritate the reigning high-count champs who got there by relentlessly pursuing easy caches. Serious rivalries would develop between previously laid-back hiker/cachers. Endless disputes would erupt over the difficulty rating of puzzle caches. If placements were excluded from the figuring, incentives to place caches would dry up. If placements were included in the figuring, folks would scheme to manipulate the system.

 

The raw find-count system is imperfect, but its fundamental flaw is also its greatest strength--it undermines any serious claim at competition-by-score. People still compete alright, but they do it based on reputation. Every person or team seems to carve out a distinct niche--this one is brilliant at puzzles; that one takes long hikes; this writes amusing logs; that takes amazing photos. And when a discussion arises and someone tries to impose their viewpoint by citing credentials rather than persuasive points, we all just laugh at 'em.

 

Look at it this way--baseball fans/fanatics are some of the most stats-crazed folks on the face of the earth, and they can still argue the merits of players and teams endlessly. Perfect stats don't settle arguments, they creat new and different kinds of arguments.

[+ReadyOrNot]

When I look at someone's find count, I see it more as an experience indicator. When someone with 20 finds writes a log at one of my caches saying, "I think this cache was too difficult", it means less than if someone with 2000 finds makes a comment on one of my caches.

 

As far as competition.... I've got some friendly competitions for "First To Find". To be honest, the main reason I run out the door when a new cache comes out is because of the higher chance of running into another cacher. You've got a greater opportunity to meet fellow cachers on new hides.

 

I find it fascinating that people want to get rid of the find counts altogether. There are too many positive aspects to the find count. These must be the same people who try to find caches with divining rods and get all antsy when invasive blackberry bushes get injured. By the way, if you listen carefully, you can actually hear them cry

 

When is someone going to kill this thread?

[gerboa]

I WANT to Kill it..but how ?.I'm the OP.