The End Of Micros?

[CoyoteRed]

I'm pretty sure that's not what that means at all.

 

Then why are you saying it?

 

You are right though that the container doesn't create a quality cache, but is certainly an element for it. A nice waterproof container is always better than fragile, leaky one for creating a cache.

 

As for why we don't sell ammo cans online, my shipping department (Sissy) refuses to handle them. We used to sell ammo cans of various sizes at meets, but the purchase was a one time shot, we're out and we've not been able to find a convenient supplier. ( i.e. NOT renting a couple of 53' trailers, the tractors to pull them, and picking up a few ten's of thousand cans at auction, then filling our garage floor to ceiling. I've thought about it, but every time I mention it I get "the look." )

 

As for any "test" when we sell a Bison capsule, it was the same as for the ammo cans--none. But I hardly think that was really a point for discussing the issue, only trying to get a dig in making it personal.

[CoyoteRed]

Other times, I could have carried an ammo can because it wasn't that far, but I could only afford to put out a waterproof match container. Although I have some $5.00 ammo cans out there that started out filled with $10.00 worth of swag, I haven't been able to do that for most of my hides.

 

Thank you.

 

That's what I was asking for; a reason, a why. You provided and actually added to the debate. I appreciate that.

 

For the record, I can hardly find fault with it either. (Not that it needed saying in general, but only for a specific audience.)

[CoyoteRed]

So CoyoteRed, how did Clan Riffster do arguing your point?

 

After you go through, pick nits, take things out of context, and twist words? I'm only basing this on past experience because it's so easy to just skip your whole "blow-by-blow" so I wouldn't know how you though he did.

 

After reading his post though I see we share a similar point of view on this issue.

[+thedeadpirate]

I'm pretty sure that's not what that means at all.

 

Then why are you saying it?

 

You are right though that the container doesn't create a quality cache, but is certainly an element for it. A nice waterproof container is always better than fragile, leaky one for creating a cache.

 

As for why we don't sell ammo cans online, my shipping department (Sissy) refuses to handle them. We used to sell ammo cans of various sizes at meets, but the purchase was a one time shot, we're out and we've not been able to find a convenient supplier. ( i.e. NOT renting a couple of 53' trailers, the tractors to pull them, and picking up a few ten's of thousand cans at auction, then filling our garage floor to ceiling. I've thought about it, but every time I mention it I get "the look." )

 

As for any "test" when we sell a Bison capsule, it was the same as for the ammo cans--none. But I hardly think that was really a point for discussing the issue, only trying to get a dig in making it personal.

 

Actually, it was a legitimate discussion point. If you took it personal, then I appologize. I believe I added that it was taken out of context?

 

Let me try again. If I see that phrase, without any other knowledge of my own and in the absence of larger containers, I may could make the connection that if I purchase the bison tube that I would somehow be making a quality cache because of the container. And I think we can agree that the container, no matter the size, doesn't make the hide. It's a combination of all the elements. But I think a lot of people "think" it's the container.

[Mushtang]

Don't sweat it Alex, he's only arguing to hear himself type.

So if I've got an opinion opposite of yours and express it, I'm only doing so to hear myself type. But if you express your opinion you're helping the world to become a better place or something? I think it's fun to debate in the forums and I assumed you did too. If this is upsetting to you, and I'm only assuming it is because you've told Alex not to sweat it as though you thought he would be upset too, then maybe you're taking it too personal.

 

In my mind we're having a conversation, not screaming and arguing. Please don't sweat it.

 

So long as I feel I comprehend their point, I can argue it. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

True, but I was asking to get CoyoteRed's opinion so it just seemed strange that someone else would stand up and give it.

 

If you left it in context, you might understand what I was saying.

I went back and read it in context, and honestly it seems like the two parts contradict each other. I read you saying that Fred should hide 1) whatever size he wants to hide AND 2) it should only be the largest container that he can. I can't find any other way to understand it. If I've got it wrong, can you re-word it to help me?

 

Irrelivent to the conversation.

How is it irrelevant? You're saying that people should hide the largest cache always, and also acting like they should have a choice in size, so I made an analogy. I wasn't actually trying to break away on a tangent about buying cars.

 

Once again you dodge the point. You're getting good at it.

Not at all. Once again I think that I've pointed out a fault in someone's logic, and they're reacting to it with insults. I made a valid point about micros. If it's a micro, it will be listed as such, and those that prefer to trade items can skip them. That's not dodging the point, that's making an additional point to show you why your "win-win" logic didn't work.

 

Oooh. Dodged it again, I see. Kudos to you for being so clever.

Oooh, upset that I've proved you wrong again. You're getting good at it. Seriously, are you going to ignore the fact that I showed you why a micro could be better? It's possible that an ammo can can't always be substituted for a micro, even if there's room, and give as high a quality hide.

 

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to refresh an old man's memory. I don't recall being upset over a micro hidden in a beautiful location. In fact, I think I said quite the opposite.

Okay, you said "The argument stems from what other cachers believe, including myself, which is; the cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large." I took that to mean that you would prefer a large container in your example since a large could have been hidden. It's true that you did say "quite the opposite" in the post, but you contradicted yourself a couple of times so it's hard to keep up.

 

Do you really need me to answer that, or are you just being obtuse again?

Not being obtuse at all. I asked because I wanted you to see that the only difference was that you and CR weren't happy. Fred was happy and the people that looked for the cache knowing what the cache size were happy. The unhappy group were the people that thought they knew how to hide caches better than others.

 

I think you kinda missed that part about "in an area capable of supporting it", but I suspect you missed it deliberately, simply so you could continue your argument.

I know you read my reply to Alex on this same point because you told him not to sweat it. I'll say it again though since we're now on a different page and you can't easily scroll up to read it. In YOUR example that you set Fred up with you made it clear that the AREA could support both kinds of hides. A regular could have gone on the ground behind the tree, in a stump, under a stack of sticks, etc. You don't hide bison tubes the same way you hide regulars.

 

If you want to change your argument from "the largest cache the area can support" to "the largest cache a specific location can support" then I'll give you a slightly different reply. My argument was that a micro could have benefits that a large container couldn't - which counters your point of "A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro"

 

Did I say Fred was doing it wrong?

Not in those words, but you very clearly implied it. You said, "cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large." So from that I understand that if he hides a micro where a large could go, he's done it wrong.

 

If you want to reply to my "arguing just to hear myself type" with counter points please do. It's a fun debate.

[Mushtang]

I don't want to stir the pot myself, so I'll ask CR directly and appologize to him if I'm wrong. CoyoteRed, am I accurate that you've been trying to say that if a person hides a micro where a regular one could have been hidden, then they've made the wrong choice, and that they should have hidden a regualar sized cache instead?

 

Close.

 

In my opinion, yes, they made the wrong choice. They could have pleased more people more often by placing a regular. Better yet, a well maintained and well stocked regular would have been even better.

 

Then it sounds like I had it right the first time. CoyoteRed thinks that people are wrong if they hide a micro instead of a regular if a (well stocked, non leaky) regular could fit.

 

He's given us another prime example of trying to tell other people how to cache, and be more like him, because he knows better.

[Mushtang]

So CoyoteRed, how did Clan Riffster do arguing your point?

 

After you go through, pick nits, take things out of context, and twist words? I'm only basing this on past experience because it's so easy to just skip your whole "blow-by-blow" so I wouldn't know how you though he did.

 

After reading his post though I see we share a similar point of view on this issue.

 

So once again you're going to accuse someone of taking things out of context, twisting words, etc., but you're not going to give examples, or at least links? It's easy to insult someone's post if you didn't even read it.

 

By the way, you left out "reading comprehension problem", an old favorite of yours.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

 

I don't actually prefer either size, I like finding all caches. CR is saying that if there's room for a regular size he thinks the hider should have hidden one instead of a micro. What Sbell, ParrotRob, and I are saying to CR, is that just because HE doesn't think a micro should go there, doesn't mean that one shouldn't have gone there.

 

At least that's what I'm saying, maybe I shouldn't speak for Sbell and ParrotRob.

 

No, you've pretty much hit it on the head. Personally, I couldn't care less who likes what sorts of containers. What I take offense to is any one person attempting to claim that their opinion can be the only right one.

 

Of course, now CR will come in here and say that my claim that people should be able to make their own choices is an attempt to cram MY opinion down HIS throat as he's done before. That argument goes kind of like this:

 

CR: You should always wear the RED tie whenever you have a choice between the red and blue one!

Me: Uh, you should wear whatever tie you WANT to wear.

CR: Don't force your opinion on ME!

 

Get it? Me either.

 

I don't want to stir the pot myself, so I'll ask CR directly and appologize to him if I'm wrong. CoyoteRed, am I accurate that you've been trying to say that if a person hides a micro where a regular one could have been hidden, then they've made the wrong choice, and that they should have hidden a regualar sized cache instead?

 

Someone will have to quote that last paragraph, because he's supposedly got me on his ignore list.

 

Done.

Edited June 23, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Mushtang, I can't presume to answer for CoyoteRed, but seeing as how we share the same initials, I can certainly argue their point;

Assume Fred is going to hide a cache. Say for argument sake that Fred picked a gorgeous location, that folks would be inspired by. Any cache would be well received at such a location, and the caching community would benefit greatly from it's placement. Fred has reasonably unlimited resources, and a handy supply of ammo cans and bison tubes. The vegetation is dense enough to hide a Greyhound bus.

That's the setup.

So, what kind of container should Fred put there?

Technically, the only answer is, "What ever kind of container Fred wants to hide there". Nobody is arguing that.

The argument stems from what other cachers believe, including myself, which is; the cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large.

 

Now if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide a film cannister, more power to him. It's his cache. Those who like scenery will be pleased. I know I would be. However, those who actually enjoy writing in log books, trading swag, and swapping TB's would be less enthused. Of course if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide an ammo can, the scenery folks will still be just as pleased, and the faction that enjoys regular sized caches will also be pleased. A win-win situation.

 

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased a percentage of the caching community, while in the second, he has pleased a larger percentage.

(try saying that 5 times fast)

A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro, while a micro does not have all of the benefits of a regular.

 

Riffster, with all due respect, your argument, while well thought out, is fallacious. Why, you ask? Simple. To boil your argument down, it comes down to:

 

1) If Fred hides a micro, the scenery lovers will be pleased.

2) If Fred hides an ammo can, the scenery lovers will be pleased and so will the "ammo can lovers"

3) Therefore, option 2 is the best choice for the community as a whole.

 

This conclusion is based on the unstated assumption that the "ammo can lovers" outnumber the "micro lovers" or "ammo can haters" or whatever else. While you may BELIEVE this, it's not a documented fact, and for this argument to work, you'd have to prove such. Otherwise, this is an Argumentum ad ignorantium, and you are claiming that more people like ammo cans simply because it hasn't been proven otherwise.

 

Case in point:

 

1) If you wear the red tie, you will please the tie lovers.

2) If you wear the BLUE tie, you will please the tie lovers AND the "blue" lovers.

3) Therefore, you should wear the blue tie.

 

The unstated assumption here, is that there are more blue lovers than red lovers. It's the same exact argument you're using above.

Edited June 23, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

 

In the second, Fred has pleased himself with his hide, pleased others that knew it was a regular sized and still wanted to look for it, and pleased you too.

What's the difference in those two?

 

Do you really need me to answer that, or are you just being obtuse again?

 

Sweet, you've got argumentum ad hominem to go along WITH your ad ignorantiam.

Edited June 23, 2006 by ParrotRob

[CoyoteRed]

So CoyoteRed, how did Clan Riffster do arguing your point?

 

After you go through, pick nits, take things out of context, and twist words? I'm only basing this on past experience because it's so easy to just skip your whole "blow-by-blow" so I wouldn't know how you though he did.

 

After reading his post though I see we share a similar point of view on this issue.

 

So once again you're going to accuse someone of taking things out of context, twisting words, etc., but you're not going to give examples, or at least links? It's easy to insult someone's post if you didn't even read it.

 

By the way, you left out "reading comprehension problem", an old favorite of yours.

 

Eh, one could assume you've changed your ways, but doubt it. If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

 

As for reading said posts you've taught me to not read them as they never add anything to the debate. It is your own fault you know. What you do is only a step or two above criticize someone's spelling or grammar.

[CoyoteRed]

While you may BELIEVE this, it's not a documented fact, and for this argument to work, you'd have to prove such.

 

Conversely the opposite is true, as well. Erring on the side of placing a micro instead of regular in the hopes to satisfy more folks would be assuming there are more people who would prefer it be a micro instead of regular. Actually, that's not really accurate either. You'd be making the assumption that you'd be disappointing fewer people by placing a micro than placing a regular. There are some that don't care either way.

 

If you're looking to quantify this then look at the percentages of micros over larger caches. Of course Fizzy or somebody could correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you think that since micros aren't already a majority that more people would rather place, and hunt, a larger cache?

[+alexrudd]

Riffster, with all due respect, your argument, while well thought out, is fallacious. Why, you ask? Simple. To boil your argument down, it comes down to:

 

1) If Fred hides a micro, the scenery lovers will be pleased.

2) If Fred hides an ammo can, the scenery lovers will be pleased and so will the "ammo can lovers"

3) Therefore, option 2 is the best choice for the community as a whole.

 

This conclusion is based on the unstated assumption that the "ammo can lovers" outnumber the "micro lovers" or "ammo can haters" or whatever else. While you may BELIEVE this, it's not a documented fact, and for this argument to work, you'd have to prove such. Otherwise, this is an Argumentum ad ignorantium, and you are claiming that more people like ammo cans simply because it hasn't been proven otherwise.

Sounds like it's time for a poll. Let's settle this once and for all!

 

If given a choice (all other things being equal), would you rather find

(1)A regular-sized cache (ammo box, Lock 'n Lock, Tupperware, etc.)

(2)A micro-sized cache (film cannister, Bison tube, magnetic key holder)

 

 

(off-topic) Oh, and it's rather interesting to become a topic of conversation yourself, without any personal barbs

Edited June 23, 2006 by alexrudd

[+Renegade Knight]

...If given a choice (all other things being equal), would you rather find

(1)A regular-sized cache (ammo box, Lock 'n Lock, Tupperware, etc.)

(2)A micro-sized cache (film cannister, Bison tube, magnetic key holder)...

 

The regular of course.

 

The micro only kicks in when the choice is.

1) A Micro

2) Nothing at all.

[+fizzymagic]

What you do is only a step or two above criticize someone's spelling or grammar.

I have to disagree here, CR. At least when somebody corrects another's spelling or grammar, the correction is usually valid.

 

The way he argues is a step below that since it consists of a set of well-disguised logical fallacies and misrepresentations.

[+CheshireFrog]

Conversely the opposite is true, as well. Erring on the side of placing a micro instead of regular in the hopes to satisfy more folks would be assuming there are more people who would prefer it be a micro instead of regular. Actually, that's not really accurate either. You'd be making the assumption that you'd be disappointing fewer people by placing a micro than placing a regular. There are some that don't care either way.

 

I have no proof that either side of this example is true. The point is, if people prefer larger caches, then they should place larger caches. Trying to dictate what someone else places based on some perceived notion of what the community would prefer is pure hubris. Ditto trying to restrict or archive caches based on the same criteria.

[Mushtang]

What you do is only a step or two above criticize someone's spelling or grammar.

Just so I don't let you down... you misspelled "criticizing".

[Mushtang]

Sounds like it's time for a poll. Let's settle this once and for all!

 

If given a choice (all other things being equal), would you rather find

(1)A regular-sized cache (ammo box, Lock 'n Lock, Tupperware, etc.)

(2)A micro-sized cache (film cannister, Bison tube, magnetic key holder)

 

I don't think that poll accurately addrsses the issue.

 

How about asking would you rather find

(1) An interestingly hidden cache of any size

(2) The largest container that would fit in the spot, regardless of how interesting the hiding technique is

[+KBI]

Sounds like it's time for a poll. Let's settle this once and for all!

 

If given a choice (all other things being equal), would you rather find

(1)A regular-sized cache (ammo box, Lock 'n Lock, Tupperware, etc.)

(2)A micro-sized cache (film cannister, Bison tube, magnetic key holder)

You forgot:

 

(3) Container size is irrelevant to me -- I have no prefrence.

[Mushtang]

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

 

And why is that a bad thing? Why is reviewing something someone wrote and discussing each point something to avoid? I'd much prefer that to your normal reply, which is to give a vague answer, not address something specifically asked of you, and wild statements of twisting words and such without references, and then insulting them.

 

I'm only trying to make it clear what I'm replying to.

[+Miragee]

Sounds like it's time for a poll. Let's settle this once and for all!

 

If given a choice (all other things being equal), would you rather find

(1)A regular-sized cache (ammo box, Lock 'n Lock, Tupperware, etc.)

(2)A micro-sized cache (film cannister, Bison tube, magnetic key holder)

 

I don't think that poll accurately addrsses the issue.

 

How about asking would you rather find

(1) An interestingly hidden cache of any size

(2) The largest container that would fit in the spot, regardless of how interesting the hiding technique is

You forgot the most important option.

 

(1) A cache of any size in a fantastic location.

[+KBI]

Eh, one could assume you've changed your ways, but doubt it. If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

So let me see if I understand this correctly: You're saying that the act of breaking another person's post into smaller, individually quoted bits in order to respond to each point individually is somehow logically invalid?

 

In other words, you're saying it's bad logic to quote-and-respond point by point like this? And this? And this? And this?

 

If not, then what exactly ARE you trying to say there, CR?

 

Sounds like yet another weak (and fallacious) substitute for responding directly to the other person’s actual argument. That's almost as impressive as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU ANYMORE LALALALALALALA" -- otherwise known as putting folks on your "ignore" list. Not that YOU would ever think such a move would convince anyone to support your position -- right, CR?

[Mushtang]

Eh, one could assume you've changed your ways, but doubt it. If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

So let me see if I understand this correctly: You're saying that the act of breaking another person's post into smaller, individually quoted bits in order to respond to each point individually is somehow logically invalid?

 

In other words, you're saying it's bad logic to quote-and-respond point by point like this? And this? And this? And this?

 

If not, then what exactly ARE you trying to say there, CR?

 

Sounds like yet another weak (and fallacious) substitute for responding directly to the other person’s actual argument. That's almost as impressive as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU ANYMORE LALALALALALALA" -- otherwise known as putting folks on your "ignore" list. Not that YOU would ever think such a move would convince anyone to support your position -- right, CR?

 

Za - ZING!

[Clan Riffster]

Mushtang, does your Mom know you're on the computer?

 

Riffster, with all due respect, your argument, while well thought out, is fallacious. Why, you ask? Simple. To boil your argument down, it comes down to:

 

1) If Fred hides a micro, the scenery lovers will be pleased.

2) If Fred hides an ammo can, the scenery lovers will be pleased and so will the "ammo can lovers"

3) Therefore, option 2 is the best choice for the community as a whole.

 

This conclusion is based on the unstated assumption that the "ammo can lovers" outnumber the "micro lovers" or "ammo can haters" or whatever else. While you may BELIEVE this, it's not a documented fact, and for this argument to work, you'd have to prove such.

I concur. It is my opinion that, all other things being equal, (hide quality/location/write up/etc), more folks would prefer to find a container with swag, than one with just a log sheet. While certainly not scientific, I've formed this impression based upon the dozens of cachers I've spoken with personally, as well as reading the opinions of folks here in the forums. I'll grant you that I have absolutely no evidence to support this belief, yet the belief remains.

Perhaps an addendum to the 1st statement is is order?

1) If Fred hides a micro, the scenery lovers will be pleased, however, if he hid an ammo can, the ammo can haters would be less than pleased.

Personally, I have never met an ammo can hater, nor have I ever heard of an ammo can hater. Naturally that doesn't exclude their existence, but it would certainly be an indicator that their percentage of the whole is small. I've heard of cachers who love micros, I've heard of cachers who hate micros, I've heard of cachers who could care less about the container size, so long as the hide is well thought out, but I've never heard of someone putting a cache on their "Ignore List" solely because of it's size.

 

As I've stated numerous times throughout this debate, I quite often enjoy hunting for micros. Micros offer a challenge for those areas that cannot support an ammo can. The game would definitely lose something if micros ever go the way of the Dodo.

 

Post script: I hate ties, regardless of their color.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Clan Riffster

[Mushtang]

Mushtang, does your Mom know you're on the computer?

No. Does your husband know you're on?

[+Renegade Knight]

For some reason I'm finding the fact that this whole thread is a Tempest in a Teapot and given the subject it’s just funny.

[+Wild Thing 73]

So what are you looking for? A chest filled with Gold?? Why don't we just enjoy the Hunt!!!In the traditional (regular) caches, I TNLN SL and TFTH© It is a great sport Enjoy

[+spicy_victory]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but finding a well hidden/thought out/creative in some way micro is preferable to finding an ammo box full of religous tracts, old golfballs and broken happy meal toys. For us its about the journey and the find, not so much about the swag.

We have found 113 caches so far... small time to many of you, and, except for one FTF prize, the cache contents suck.

As long as we can sign a log, what difference does it make?

We had fun getting there, we had fun finding it and we even had fun staching it back again. We have made more memories looking for that tough to find micro then we have pulling out trash from tupperwear hidden under an old tire.

To each their own I guess... but any cache, reguardless of size if it is well thought out, is fun...

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

Again, this is just my two cents.

[+Miragee]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but finding a well hidden/thought out/creative in some way micro is preferable to finding an ammo box full of religous tracts, old golfballs and broken happy meal toys. For us its about the journey and the find, not so much about the swag.

We have found 113 caches so far... small time to many of you, and, except for one FTF prize, the cache contents suck.

As long as we can sign a log, what difference does it make?

We had fun getting there, we had fun finding it and we even had fun staching it back again. We have made more memories looking for that tough to find micro then we have pulling out trash from tupperwear hidden under an old tire.

To each their own I guess... but any cache, reguardless of size if it is well thought out, is fun...

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

Again, this is just my two cents.

Very well said. Thank you.

 

I wish you lived in my area so you could go find the bison tube in this location.

[+wabashbanks]

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read by a bunch of WAY "BETTER THAN YOU ARE" types!

A cache is a cache! Look for it if you want, don't if you don't! Some people love them, some hate them. I for one much prefer a micro because it isn't littered with junk and is a whole lot harder to spot, as a norm. That is what I like. I would NEVER tell someone though not to plant an ammo can! Do I look for all types? You betcha! You little friends group where you drew your samples from is laughabley absurd! So all twelve of you have the best idea of what the REST OF THE WORLD likes and doesn't like? Mushtang, ParrotRob and Spicy victory are right! CR and Clan R's arguments are just plain nuts!

Here is the best part....You can all flame me all you want. This is going to hurt your feelings a bit, but I won't be reading what you say because all in all, your opinions don't mean squeeze to my enjoyment of this game. That is the real point gents, and any ladies, YOUR opinions don't mean anything to me I like the game the way I like it and I am big enough to actually READ the description of the cache. So far I have been willing to give them all a try. You never know when you will be pleasantly surprised!

 

Mostly though, I agree with Renegade Knight. Sad but very funny!

[+alexrudd]

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

I agree with you on this case, but that's not a fair comparison. (not just picking on you, there are plenty of examples the other way - well-stocked regular vs. magnetic key holder).

 

There are lame regulars, and there are lame micros. There are also great regulars, and there are great micros. Each have their place.

 

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

[+KBI]

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

(3) No preference.

 

(Didn't you already ask this question? )

[+tozainamboku]

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

I agree with you on this case, but that's not a fair comparison. (not just picking on you, there are plenty of examples the other way - well-stocked regular vs. magnetic key holder).

 

There are lame regulars, and there are lame micros. There are also great regulars, and there are great micros. Each have their place.

 

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

If two caches are equal in every way other than size (Where do you get micro sized ammo cans or great big regular sized Bison tubes?) and I really liked trading items or had a travel bug I was looking to drop some place or really wanted to read the logs that others had written in the full-sized log book then the regular is better. Otherwise the micro is better because I don't trade and it takes too long to find the log book hidden among all the junky broken McToys in the regular cache.

[+alexrudd]

(3) No preference.

 

(Didn't you already ask this question? )

Yeah, if you don't have a preference that's fine. Not really much point in adding a third choice for that, though.

 

If two caches are equal in every way other than size (Where do you get micro sized ammo cans or great big regular sized Bison tubes?)

Huh? Sorry, but where did that come from

[...]and[if] I really liked trading items or had a travel bug I was looking to drop some place or really wanted to read the logs that others had written in the full-sized log book then the regular is better. Otherwise the micro is better because I don't trade and it takes too long to find the log book hidden among all the junky broken McToys in the regular cache.

Thanks for a valid opinion, but I thought we said this hypothetical cache wasn't going to be filled with broken McToys....

[+tozainamboku]

This thread has gotten totally absurd. We have a hypothetical situation of everything else being equal that a regular size cache would always be prefered over a micro. Any attempt to argue that someone would still prefer a micro or even have no preference to size is met with ridicule or additional restrictions to the hypothetical.

 

Everthing else being equal I am certain that most geocachers would prefer a traditional cache to a puzzles. I will continue to hide puzzle because I know there are other cachers that like solving puzzles as much as I do. I will continue to hide micros where I think it is appropriate, because I know that there are other cachers that like the challenge and the variety of finding micros even away from urban areas. I may question why someone else places a cache in a particular location or uses a particular container and may even say something in my log. However, as long as the cache meets the guidelines for listing on Geocaching.com, I will accept the answer that hider feels that there is someone would like the cache. Not every cache has to win a popularity contest.

Edited June 24, 2006 by tozainamboku

[CoyoteRed]

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

 

There is no need for you to understand anything. I was speaking to someone else.

[CoyoteRed]

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

 

And why is that a bad thing? Why is reviewing something someone wrote and discussing each point something to avoid? I'd much prefer that to your normal reply, which is to give a vague answer, not address something specifically asked of you, and wild statements of twisting words and such without references, and then insulting them.

 

I'm only trying to make it clear what I'm replying to.

 

You might have missed a post.

Edited June 24, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

As long as we can sign a log, what difference does it make?

 

It makes all the difference in the world for some people.

[CoyoteRed]

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?"

 

It seems a lot of posters are trying to make decisions based on their own preference, what's in it for them, and not thinking about the community as a whole. Even some of the analogies--not this one--is basing the hiding preference on what's in it for the hider. Shouldn't it be based on what's in it for the finder?

[+Mudfrog]

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

I agree with you on this case, but that's not a fair comparison. (not just picking on you, there are plenty of examples the other way - well-stocked regular vs. magnetic key holder).

 

There are lame regulars, and there are lame micros. There are also great regulars, and there are great micros. Each have their place.

 

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

First off, let me just say that we enjoy finding all sizes of fun creative caches in nice locations. But, i will also say that micros are usually less interesting for us to find than regulars, at least most of the time.

 

For your poll, this is a no brainer. The regular gets the vote hands down. For the reason i stated above and because we enjoy discovering travelbugs, geocoins, and every once in a great while, good swag. The larger logbook is allways nicer to deal with too. You won't find any of this in a micro!

[+tozainamboku]

 

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?"

 

 

What would be best for the community would be to accept that there are as many ways to enjoy caching as there are cachers and to be tolerant of caches we personally don't like to do. Guidelines can be proposed and enforced to restrict or prohibit caches which may truely be "bad" for geocachers in that they may lead to government or land manager restrictions. In fact it may be micros are a better choice in that it is less likely that a muggle would call the bomb squad if he found a micro.

[+TrailGators]

Even if the area could support a larger container, I would much rather use skill and brain power to find that cleaverly hidden bison, than to just walk up and grab a junked out, peanut butter jar.

I agree with you on this case, but that's not a fair comparison. (not just picking on you, there are plenty of examples the other way - well-stocked regular vs. magnetic key holder).

 

There are lame regulars, and there are lame micros. There are also great regulars, and there are great micros. Each have their place.

 

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

First off, let me just say that we enjoy finding all sizes of fun creative caches in nice locations. But, i will also say that micros are usually less interesting for us to find than regulars, at least most of the time.

 

For your poll, this is a no brainer. The regular gets the vote hands down. For the reason i stated above and because we enjoy discovering travelbugs, geocoins, and every once in a great while, good swag. The larger logbook is allways nicer to deal with too. You won't find any of this in a micro!

 

On the flip side a micro is more challenging to find and 99% of ammo boxes require very little effort to find. But an ammo box let's one put swap into the cache. Many like me could care less about the swag but both have value in their own ways. Variety is the spice of life so I'm not sure why we would want to get rid of the variety....I was disappointed to see virtuals and earthcaches go away. There was less variety after that decision was made. Edited June 24, 2006 by TrailGators

[CoyoteRed]

In fact it may be micros are a better choice in that it is less likely that a muggle would call the bomb squad if he found a micro.

 

This is very similar to the "land manager very much preferring virtual caches" argument.

 

Also, considering the number of bomb scares compared to caches placed, not to mention bomb scares that weren't caches at all, I think the argument doesn't hold water.

[+TrailGators]

In fact it may be micros are a better choice in that it is less likely that a muggle would call the bomb squad if he found a micro.

 

This is very similar to the "land manager very much preferring virtual caches" argument.

 

Also, considering the number of bomb scares compared to caches placed, not to mention bomb scares that weren't caches at all, I think the argument doesn't hold water.

Plus if people follow the rules then caches won't be placed in inappropriate places in the first place. If you see you a cache in an inappropriate place you should report it to your admin.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Ditto what Mudfrog said. (and CR for that matter)

 

I like cache of all sizes, and great micros are just that, great. There's a fellow in our area who almost exclusively hides micros, and they are very well done.

 

Unfortunately, a LOT of the micros I find are not done out of creativity, but out of cheapness and or laziness. That's just my experience, but it's holds true more often than not.

 

One more note- The red/blue tie analogy is VERY weak. We're not talking about varying colors of camo on otherwise identical micros. We're talking about totally different functionality of two cache sizes. A more appropriate comparison would flip flops to hiking boots. Both are footwear, but they serve different purposes.

[Mushtang]

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

 

And why is that a bad thing? Why is reviewing something someone wrote and discussing each point something to avoid? I'd much prefer that to your normal reply, which is to give a vague answer, not address something specifically asked of you, and wild statements of twisting words and such without references, and then insulting them.

 

I'm only trying to make it clear what I'm replying to.

 

You might have missed a post.

No, I didn't miss it. But I'm not asking Fizzy, I'm asking you. Obviously you've run out of logical replies and now you just avoid me by pointing me to someone elses post.

 

Don't run CR, answer the question if you can. And then tell me why it's bad when I quote and reply that way, but it's perfectly acceptable when you do it?

[CoyoteRed]

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

 

And why is that a bad thing? Why is reviewing something someone wrote and discussing each point something to avoid? I'd much prefer that to your normal reply, which is to give a vague answer, not address something specifically asked of you, and wild statements of twisting words and such without references, and then insulting them.

 

I'm only trying to make it clear what I'm replying to.

 

You might have missed a post.

No, I didn't miss it. But I'm not asking Fizzy, I'm asking you. Obviously you've run out of logical replies and now you just avoid me by pointing me to someone elses post.

 

Don't run CR, answer the question if you can. And then tell me why it's bad when I quote and reply that way, but it's perfectly acceptable when you do it?

 

One, I linked to Fizzy's post as my answer. I would have thought that obvious. You know, it's how you break down the other person's post into multiple quotes, take statements out of context and use "well-disguised logical fallacies and misrepresentations." You didn't disappoint as I did go back and read your response to Clan Riffster and sure enough, you twist a little here, jump to conclusions there, and point out useless angles.

 

However, you knew this. This is part of your MO. Sad thing is, you think you do it well. It might take a little while for most of us to catch on, but you're not fooling everyone.

 

Now, if you would like to discuss micros, fine.

[CoyoteRed]

One more note- The red/blue tie analogy is VERY weak.

 

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks.

 

Why would someone choose any particular color of tie over another if both would be aesthetically pleasing? Is that person thinking "I should were this color because others will like it" or are they thinking "this is the color I like?"

 

That's not to mention a tie color is so important that you can't change later in the day or that you're not going to be faced with the same dilemma again tomorrow.

 

I have to wonder if some folks place caches for themselves rather than for the community. Just where is "how well is the community going accept and enjoy this cache" on their list of priorities?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

This thread has gotten totally absurd. We have a hypothetical situation of everything else being equal that a regular size cache would always be prefered over a micro. Any attempt to argue that someone would still prefer a micro or even have no preference to size is met with ridicule or additional restrictions to the hypothetical.

 

Everthing else being equal I am certain that most geocachers would prefer a traditional cache to a puzzles. I will continue to hide puzzle because I know there are other cachers that like solving puzzles as much as I do. I will continue to hide micros where I think it is appropriate, because I know that there are other cachers that like the challenge and the variety of finding micros even away from urban areas.

 

Yeah, but everything else being equal, people would rather find an ammo can than your micro, dadgumit.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?"

 

I don't remember electing you to make that judgement. Don't you mean "what would be best for CoyoteRed?"