Logging Requirements

[+ibycus]

I think a big part of the issue centres around the question, can ALRs make an otherwise lame cache...not so lame?

 

By your own admission KBI, your poetry cache is an otherwise lame micro. You seem to feel that the ALRs make your cache special and unique.

 

Does it add anything to the hunt? The 'thrill of the find'? The journey to the cache? I think you'll have to admit probably not.

 

The only thing it does add to is the fun of reading the log page, but given that this a lame micro, how much fun is reading the logs really going to be? Essentially all the logs say is "TNLNSL" but in poetic form. Doesn't really make for some great poetry.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are some ALR cache that I've done that I really enjoyed (GC7AD9, GCNGJB,GCVYF7 to name a few) and I don't advocate banning them, I just don't think that ALRs rescue an otherwise lame cache.

 

Each of these caches had something somewhat unique/creative about the cache itself that made the ALR something that made sense for the cache.

 

GC7AD9 - You had to colour a playing card in the cache before you were allowed to log a find. They were all different animal pictures on the cards, and you were at a traditional in the middle of a big park.

GCNGJB - You had to log the cache at the same time as another cacher that you didn't normally cache with. It was trying to encourage 'meet-ups' of new people.

GCVYF7 - Logging was based on the number of lame micros you'd hidden. The more lame micros you'd hidden, the less you could log the cache. (basically there were 7 micros hidden creatively in a confined area, each with a log book, for every two lame micros you'd hidden meant you could log this one one less time).

[+sbell111]

Wow. Two of the three sound especially lame.

 

Anyway, what's your point? I clearly missed it. You seem to be making the point that some ALR caches are fun and others are not. Sort of like all caches, I guess.

[Mushtang]

Suffice it to say that some people like these caches ...

 

Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it? Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?

 

Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "I ain't doing this cache because it doesn't have an ALR?"

WOW!!!! That's got to be the dumbest reply you've made in a long time, and that's really saying something.

 

Have you ever heard of someone saying, "I ain't doing this cache because it ain't got a suggested requirement, it ain't got no requirement at all?"

 

Why not? People like the optional kind right?

 

I think I see your issue a little more clearly now. You, apparently, only like one kind of cache (probably a regular with an ammo can), won't look for any other type, and are not happy that other types are allowed. You really should open up your mind to the fact that people enjoy different kinds of caches, and if you don't like a specific kind you don't need to vote to have that kind eliminated.

 

(go ahead and try to say that you never called for them to be eliminated, or accuse me of twisting your words by suggesting you did say it)

[+ibycus]

Wow. Two of the three sound especially lame.

 

Anyway, what's your point? I clearly missed it. You seem to be making the point that some ALR caches are fun and others are not. Sort of like all caches, I guess.

 

I dunno, thought they were kind of neat (the interest of the third one I suppose is somewhat area dependent, we'd had a lot of micro spew lately and this was kind of a play on that).

 

The point was though for the most part it wasn't the ALRs that made the caches interesting. It was something else, the ALRs were just a 'bonus' thrown in on top. They weren't there to rescue a lame micro in a tree.

[+sbell111]

'A bonus thrown on top'?

 

That sounds like it could make an otherwise dull cache fun, to me.

[+ibycus]

'A bonus thrown on top'?

 

That sounds like it could make an otherwise dull cache fun, to me.

 

Not really. If that was all that was interesting about the cache, there would really have been nothing interesting about the cache. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I don't see it as such.

 

For example the second cache, who the heck wants to meet new cachers around a lame micro in a tree? If the cache were no good on its own, having the ALR would actually make the experience worse not better.

 

The first one, isn't quite such a good example, as it requires a traditional cache to work If it were 'go home and draw me a picture after finding this film can in a tree' it would have again spoilt the experience.

 

The last doesn't really work without the particular social environment that the cache was placed in, but at least all the hides were fairly creative and interesting in and of themselves (if it had been a set of micros in a Walmart parking lot, it would have been a pretty lame cache)

[+wavector]

I hope they do

 

Ditto that.

 

If you are travelling and finding Traditional caches using your GPS and signing the logbooks as you find them, you may get logs deleted by cache owners who have ALRs.

 

I think that we should have a tool to eliminate such caches from the list of coordinates the database spits out.

If there is a cache where signing the log book is not considered a "Find" the ability to eliminate that cache in a search would be an asset.

My own caches have had all the ALR's eliminated.

I would not delete a log for any other reason than the TB tracking code is displayed or an egregious spoiler is given, but experience is the best teacher, someone may come up with another reason that I would consider.

I never thought I would delete a log since "it was just a game" but then I realized I was going to have to protect the TB owners who cannot do anything when the tracking code is posted, they have to count on cache owners enforcing courtesy. I never delete a log without sending an email first but again, experience is the best teacher.

I know from experience that ALRs cause "friction" in cache hunters and would suggest to all cache hiders to consider them carefully and realize the potential impact. I removed ALR's to increase the fun that people could have while "hunting and finding" my geocaches.

[+sbell111]

Not really. If that was all that was interesting about the cache, there would really have been nothing interesting about the cache. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I don't see it as such.

 

For example the second cache, who the heck wants to meet new cachers around a lame micro in a tree? If the cache were no good on its own, having the ALR would actually make the experience worse not better.

 

The first one, isn't quite such a good example, as it requires a traditional cache to work If it were 'go home and draw me a picture after finding this film can in a tree' it would have again spoilt the experience.

 

The last doesn't really work without the particular social environment that the cache was placed in, but at least all the hides were fairly creative and interesting in and of themselves (if it had been a set of micros in a Walmart parking lot, it would have been a pretty lame cache)

I'm not a social person, but two of my favorite memories were finding caches with people I don't normally cache with. Some of the caches would be lame, by your definition.

 

Also, your post presumes that micros are lame and non-micros are not. Interesting, or not.

Edited August 28, 2006 by sbell111

[+ibycus]

I'm not a social person, but two of my favorite memories were finding caches with people I don't normally cache with. Some of the caches would be lame, by your definition.

 

Neither am I really. And I really did enjoy finding that cache, but the whole experience would have been pretty ridiculous if we were all clustered around a micro magnetically attached to an electrical box. I'm guessing that these finds were ones you actually had to get out of your car to look for? And weren't a 'park and grab' type of cache?

 

Also, your post presumes that micros are lame and non-micros are not. Interesting, or not.

 

I am, I admit somewhat biased towards ammo cans in the woods style of caching, and away from 'micro caching'. That isn't to say I haven't found some pretty neat micros, *but* the majority have been pretty lame, and I tend to passively avoid them. It also is true I've found some pretty pathetic 'non-micro' caches too, but in my experience, the

P(a randomly chosen micro will be lame)>>> P(a randomly chosen Regular cache will be lame)

 

**edit to add a comma**

Edited August 28, 2006 by ibycus

[+niraD]

Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it? Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?

Yes, I've found an ALR cache that was more fun and more memorable because of the ALR. (FWIW, I could say the same thing about a lot of local puzzle caches, where the location hint is often some variation of "in the usual place".)

 

There's an ALR cache on my "nearest to home" list that is more involved, and I'm still working on collecting the necessary tokens. I think it presents a fun challenge.

 

I don't want all caches to be ALR caches, just as I don't want all caches to be puzzle caches. But they are interesting and fun in moderation. I just don't think ALR caches should be listed as traditional caches (except perhaps if the ALR can be met after the fact by writing/editing the log appropriately).

[ju66l3r]

I like to buck the system (no surprise).

 

If they want a haiku:

 

This cache was boring

Writing haikus won't help it

This haiku is lame

 

Or a limerick:

 

There once was a cacher so lame

They made me write limericks for game

I gave it some thought

and look what it wrought

I guess "lame cacher, lame cache" all the same

 

Write a tall tale about a cacher who makes up stupid rules getting their comeuppance at the hands of an angry giant or something, etc, etc. I think you see where I'm going with this. Meet the rules if you want the smilie but it doesn't mean you have to give them what they implicitly desired.

[+wavector]

What I understand is the part where you use the sheer volume of electronically downloaded caches as an excuse for not reading the descriptions. If I were you, and I had loaded the same list of 500 coords into my GPS I probably wouldn't read all 500 pages of text either -- but I sure as [heck] wouldn't use that as an excuse to ignore logging requirements

 

Which logging requirements would you be ignoring, the ones you didn't read about ?

 

I think we are both talking English but we are arriving at different "practical" conclusions.

I used the "sheer volume" as an "explanation" as to why I "could not" read them, not as an excuse because I did not read them, does this make any sense to you? I am not certain that it does because you say the tool for eliminating caches with ALR's is the monitor and you suggest reading?

 

The tool for eliminating ALR caches at the outset of the hunt using a PQ isn't there and it should be. The OP's question is clear, the owner "can" delete the log but would that be "right".

 

I would not delete a log because an ALR has not been complied with and I would not think it was "right" if I saw a log deleted because an ALR was not complied with.

[CoyoteRed]

I think I see your issue a little more clearly now. You, apparently, only like one kind of cache (probably a regular with an ammo can), won't look for any other type, and are not happy that other types are allowed. You really should open up your mind to the fact that people enjoy different kinds of caches, and if you don't like a specific kind you don't need to vote to have that kind eliminated.

 

...and you couldn't be more wrong. Again. My preferences are clear by the caches we've logged. Go ahead. Take a gander.

 

Oh, my! Micros, smalls, regulars. Traditionals, multi, puzzles. Holy cow, for someone who doesn't like anything other than regulars I sure seem to enjoy a broad spectrum. Heck, there's even a couple of caches with ALRs in there!

 

Yeah, you see my issue about as clearly as mud.

 

(go ahead and try to say that you never called for them to be eliminated, or accuse me of twisting your words by suggesting you did say it)

"Them?" You mean caches or the requirements? You were entirely too transparent in your sorry attempt at a set-up here.

[CoyoteRed]

Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it? Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?

Yes, I've found an ALR cache that was more fun and more memorable because of the ALR.

 

What about the second part of that quote? I noticed you and others skipped right over that.

[Pto]

Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it? Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?

Yes, I've found an ALR cache that was more fun and more memorable because of the ALR.

 

What about the second part of that quote? I noticed you and others skipped right over that.

 

What about the second part of the quote? OK Ill bite.

Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable because of the ALR.

Probably not- but the result would be Far different.

Asking would most like result in 50+% of people would ignore it, since their simply too busy looking at 500 coords to bother. Another 30% or so wouldnt bother, becasue they were on a numbers ho run, and couldnt spend the minute doing it. The other 20% would cache on as normal. Life wouldnt End for them being required to Do something so simple.

 

As was pointed out, since people wont even bother to Read the cache page now- allowing them an option would mean, most likely that only the very few cachers will participate.Wheres the fun in that?

Not having to read the cache page, of course!

[Mushtang]

Yeah, you see my issue about as clearly as mud.

Honestly, trying to follow your logic and your reasoning is like trying to look through mud, so it's not surprising that I can't see your issue.

 

(go ahead and try to say that you never called for them to be eliminated, or accuse me of twisting your words by suggesting you did say it)

"Them?" You mean caches or the requirements? You were entirely too transparent in your sorry attempt at a set-up here.

Hmmm.. both caches, AND requirements. I'll set you up again....

 

(go ahead and try to say that you never called for Additional Logging Requirement caches to be eliminated, or accuse me of twisting your words by suggesting you did say it)

[Mushtang]

As was pointed out, since people wont even bother to Read the cache page now- allowing them an option would mean, most likely that only the very few cachers will participate.Wheres the fun in that?

Not having to read the cache page, of course!

Exactly! Making it optional would change the cache into an entirely different kind of cache, just like making a puzzle optional on a puzzle cache.

[ju66l3r]

Exactly! Making it optional would change the cache into an entirely different kind of cache, just like making a puzzle optional on a puzzle cache.

 

No, I don't exactly agree. The caching experience does not entail the logging online. Logging online is actually a GC.com-created portion of the activity. Therefore, creating the hoop to jump through between the caching experience and the ability to keep records on this website is just a modification of the GC.com-introduced portion of the activity. It doesn't change the cache or how to log the cache, just how to record the event on this website.

 

If the haiku/poem/limerick were somehow tied to the receiving of the final coordinates, then it would be akin to the puzzle cache and could be considered altered if the haiku were made optional instead.

 

Getting coordinates, finding cache, signing logbook in cache = geocaching find.

Announcing it here/getting smiley = GC.com.

 

So, it's not an entirely different kind of cache if you add/remove ALRs; it's just a different kind of GC.com logging experience. I think the argument against ALRs is that the GC.com experience should be as close to a non-impeding step to the geocaching find as possible...especially if the impediment is just to satisfy a hider's need to have their hide stand out or make it fun for them to read the logs.

 

"What am I? A poet? A Robert Ludlum Frost, here to amuse you? Do I look like a freakin' Japanese wordsmith with a penchant for global positioning? Am I? Am I?" -- in my best Pesci impression

[Mushtang]

Exactly! Making it optional would change the cache into an entirely different kind of cache, just like making a puzzle optional on a puzzle cache.

 

No, I don't exactly agree. The caching experience does not entail the logging online. Logging online is actually a GC.com-created portion of the activity. Therefore, creating the hoop to jump through between the caching experience and the ability to keep records on this website is just a modification of the GC.com-introduced portion of the activity. It doesn't change the cache or how to log the cache, just how to record the event on this website.

 

If the haiku/poem/limerick were somehow tied to the receiving of the final coordinates, then it would be akin to the puzzle cache and could be considered altered if the haiku were made optional instead.

 

Getting coordinates, finding cache, signing logbook in cache = geocaching find.

Announcing it here/getting smiley = GC.com.

 

So, it's not an entirely different kind of cache if you add/remove ALRs; it's just a different kind of GC.com logging experience. I think the argument against ALRs is that the GC.com experience should be as close to a non-impeding step to the geocaching find as possible...especially if the impediment is just to satisfy a hider's need to have their hide stand out or make it fun for them to read the logs.

 

"What am I? A poet? A Robert Ludlum Frost, here to amuse you? Do I look like a freakin' Japanese wordsmith with a penchant for global positioning? Am I? Am I?" -- in my best Pesci impression

If the logging requirement were optional on a poetry cache, you'd have a regular. If the puzzle were optional on a puzzle cache you'd also have a regular. In both cases there's something additional to signing the log that the owner wants you to do.

 

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

[Pto]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

 

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

[ju66l3r]

 

If the logging requirement were optional on a poetry cache, you'd have a regular. If the puzzle were optional on a puzzle cache you'd also have a regular. In both cases there's something additional to signing the log that the owner wants you to do.

 

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

 

But that's just it (maybe I wasn't clear). There's no such thing as a "poetry cache". It is a regular cache, gets a regular cache icon, reads as a regular cache, is indistinguishable from a regular cache, can even be logged online like a regular cache (and then can have your log deleted). Get the coordinates, go find the box, write in the logbook. The getting of the smiley/writing an online log is invention of the GC.com website. Hindering my ability to log here is just ALR to a regular cache.

 

By your logic, 4 x 4 + 2 = 4 x ( 4 + 2 ). Order of operation matters, because the puzzle prevents you from getting the coordinates to find the geocache at all. The ALR only prevents you from using GC.com to maintain your records.

 

I think my Travel Bug stands out/has fun logs. It has the additional logging "request" (not requirement) that people take a picture of their car with the TB in the picture. People don't always post a picture with their car. I don't delete the logs that don't. I still think the gallery of all sorts of cars from the people who do contribute still makes for fun logs and a stand-out listing. You can satisfy this reason for adding an ALr (r = request) without making it an ALR (R = requirement) and make it fun for those who like dancing and those who don't want to dance for your amusement.

[+sbell111]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

I think you (and others using this argument) are obfuscating the issue. You do not need to read 800 pages before heading out. You only have to read the page for the single cache you are headed to.

[Mushtang]

 

If the logging requirement were optional on a poetry cache, you'd have a regular. If the puzzle were optional on a puzzle cache you'd also have a regular. In both cases there's something additional to signing the log that the owner wants you to do.

 

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

 

But that's just it (maybe I wasn't clear). There's no such thing as a "poetry cache". It is a regular cache, gets a regular cache icon, reads as a regular cache, is indistinguishable from a regular cache, can even be logged online like a regular cache (and then can have your log deleted). Get the coordinates, go find the box, write in the logbook. The getting of the smiley/writing an online log is invention of the GC.com website. Hindering my ability to log here is just ALR to a regular cache.

 

By your logic, 4 x 4 + 2 = 4 x ( 4 + 2 ). Order of operation matters, because the puzzle prevents you from getting the coordinates to find the geocache at all. The ALR only prevents you from using GC.com to maintain your records.

 

I think my Travel Bug stands out/has fun logs. It has the additional logging "request" (not requirement) that people take a picture of their car with the TB in the picture. People don't always post a picture with their car. I don't delete the logs that don't. I still think the gallery of all sorts of cars from the people who do contribute still makes for fun logs and a stand-out listing. You can satisfy this reason for adding an ALr (r = request) without making it an ALR (R = requirement) and make it fun for those who like dancing and those who don't want to dance for your amusement.

I see what you're saying, but you're getting lost in what I'm calling the cache instead of what I'm trying to say. I do that too, so I'll re-word my statement to try and be clearer.

 

If someone wants to create a cache that requires something additional to be allowed to log it, but they're forced to made the additional thing optional, then that cache becomes no different than a regular cache. This is the same result as if you change the rules so that a puzzle cache is required to post the actual coordinates and the puzzle is optional.

 

I'm saying the end result of the two becomes the same, not that the place the two started was the same. Order of operation does matter! It's undeniable that a puzzle cache and an ALR cache are different in many ways, one of which is where the obstacle between you and the online log lies. That is, until you make everything optional.

 

Thus... making an ALR on a cache optional would be the same as making a puzzle on a cache optional. It would reduce both to a regular cache.

 

So how would owners of puzzle caches feel if the site refused to list puzzle caches that didn't have the final coords listed, instead of how the cache owner wanted to make it, and they required all currently listed puzzle caches to change or be archived?

[+ibycus]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

I think you (and others using this argument) are obfuscating the issue. You do not need to read 800 pages before heading out. You only have to read the page for the single cache you are headed to.

 

I think you assume too much. I for one very often don't know half of the caches I'm going to do before I get within about 1km of them.

 

My typical urban cache day involves

"Well I'm here. Wonder if there are any caches around?"

"Hey look, there's one pretty close, lets go grab it"

"Got that one, what's next?"

 

Now I'm not one of the ones who say that ALRs should be banned or anything like that, *but* I don't think they can rescue a bad cache.

 

Want to read interesting logs on your cache? Put out an interesting cache! Put out a crummy cache, don't force people to write interesting logs on it just to get a smiley.

[CoyoteRed]

If someone wants to create a cache that requires something additional to be allowed to log it, but they're forced to made the additional thing optional, then that cache becomes no different than a regular cache. This is the same result as if you change the rules so that a puzzle cache is required to post the actual coordinates and the puzzle is optional.

 

Boy, you've got me there. "Let's make all the caches traditionals, that would make all of the caches traditionals."

 

Man, how do you argue with that brilliant logic?

[+baloo&bd]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

Solution: Get a PDA or Treo.

 

Bottom line is that if I put out a ALR cache (I'm not really a fan of them either) and you log it, as the cache owner I can delete your log. You can gripe, you can make me the subject of ridicule in the forums, you can even organize a boycott of my caches but the log will still be deleted.

 

My cache, my rules (within guidelines).

[Mushtang]

If someone wants to create a cache that requires something additional to be allowed to log it, but they're forced to made the additional thing optional, then that cache becomes no different than a regular cache. This is the same result as if you change the rules so that a puzzle cache is required to post the actual coordinates and the puzzle is optional.

 

Boy, you've got me there. "Let's make all the caches traditionals, that would make all of the caches traditionals."

 

Man, how do you argue with that brilliant logic?

FINALLY! CR, you've finally gotten it. If we make all the caches the same, then they'll all be the same. And that's not what most of us want.

 

We like variety.

 

Does this mean you're over your argument of "Let's change all the caches that I don't like into caches that I do like, because obviously everyone else must feel the same way"?

[Mushtang]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

Solution: Get a PDA or Treo.

 

Bottom line is that if I put out a ALR cache (I'm not really a fan of them either) and you log it, as the cache owner I can delete your log. You can gripe, you can make me the subject of ridicule in the forums, you can even organize a boycott of my caches but the log will still be deleted.

 

My cache, my rules (within guidelines).

Man, I love it. It's a great summary of how things work (much to the dismay of those that want to change the guidelines to remove such offensive caches from the GC.com listings).

[+sbell111]

And what's wrong with wanting to have your hide stand out or to have fun logs? Is that something to be avoided??

Nothing.

It IS if you download 800+waypoints, and hit the road on a many mile caching trip without reading any cache page info. How Dare you require me to DO something other then get my Smiley....

I think you (and others using this argument) are obfuscating the issue. You do not need to read 800 pages before heading out. You only have to read the page for the single cache you are headed to.

I think you assume too much. I for one very often don't know half of the caches I'm going to do before I get within about 1km of them.

 

My typical urban cache day involves

"Well I'm here. Wonder if there are any caches around?"

"Hey look, there's one pretty close, lets go grab it"

"Got that one, what's next?"

That is exactly how I typically cache, with but one tiny addition. In between 'there's one pretty close' and 'lets go grab it', I read the cache page.

[CoyoteRed]

Does this mean you're over your argument of "Let's change all the caches that I don't like into caches that I do like, because obviously everyone else must feel the same way"?

 

Well, I have no control over your fantasies, so do whatever you want.

[+sbell111]

Does this mean you're over your argument of "Let's change all the caches that I don't like into caches that I do like, because obviously everyone else must feel the same way"?

Well, I have no control over your fantasies, so do whatever you want.

That is how you come off. If it is incorrect, please explain why you complain so much about caches that you don't like.

[CoyoteRed]

Does this mean you're over your argument of "Let's change all the caches that I don't like into caches that I do like, because obviously everyone else must feel the same way"?

Well, I have no control over your fantasies, so do whatever you want.

That is how you come off. If it is incorrect, please explain why you complain so much about caches that you don't like.

 

You fool yourself into thinking you have some sort of wonderful insight into human nature.

 

You might want to reflect on the way you yourself come off to others.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This thread is a winner!

 

<image removed by moderator>

Beating A Dead Horse Award

 

No matter how much you flog it this horse won't take you another inch!

Edited August 29, 2006 by Quiggle

[+Jhwk]

and this is a perfect example of why i took a week off from the threads...

 

[+sbell111]

You fool yourself into thinking you have some sort of wonderful insight into human nature.

 

You might want to reflect on the way you yourself come off to others.

I get that you're trying to deflect the issue, rather than giving an honest response, but in general I think that my posts tend to be 'If it isn't broke why change it?' While your's tends to be 'I don't like this. Let's kill it.'

 

edited to acknowledge the horrible grammatical flaws with that sentence.

Edited August 29, 2006 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

You fool yourself into thinking you have some sort of wonderful insight into human nature.

 

You might want to reflect on the way you yourself come off to others.

I get that you're trying to deflect the issue, rather than giving an honest response, but in general I think that my posts tend to be 'If it isn't broke why change it?' While your's tends to be 'I don't like this. Let's kill it.'

 

edited to acknowledge the horrible grammatical flaws with that sentence.

 

Let's stop the personal attacks on each other, OK?

 

Topic has been discussed thuroughly. Let's give it a few weeks break before start all over.

 

topic closed

 

Thanks