Turmoil at the Top

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well, I'll be the first to say "congrats" to both TeamAlama and CCCA rather than throw out some cheap shot about numbers.

Same here! I do not see any turmoil, nor conflict, nor animosity, between these two people! Congratulations to both of them, for it sounds like they are doing what they love to dom and having fun!

[CacheMonkeez]

As of 9/8/2006

 

1. TeamAlamo - 16700

 

1. CCCooperAgency - 16625

 

Wow. CCCA has been the worldwide leader since I've been caching (2002). It's weird to see somebody else on top. Congrats to both.

[+TrailGators]

1. TeamAlamo - 16700

2. CCCooperAgency - 16625

So this means that TeamAlamo gets home field advantage during the playoffs?

 

dave

 

It would be cool to have a caching Superbowl. Maybe we could drop both cachers off in a place they have never been and see who could find the most caches in a 24 period....

[+tozainamboku]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

 

So your saying move this to the rants section?

 

BTW, congratulations to Lee, Lynn, Dave, and Elin.

 

One solution would be to not let anyone (including the actual cacher's account) see the numbers, I bet this is why Waymarking doesn't have "numbers". But then again, looking at the popularity of Waymarking vs. Geocaching and the number of complains when locationless (and any future virtual, earthcache, etc.) caches became "non-smiley", "non-scoring contest" Waymarking, I think the PTB realize that while it is too much of a "contest" for some, eliminating smileys/scoring would probably cut the popularity of geocaching and the site greatly. My theory as to why they do not re-allow the virtuals, locationless, etc. is both because they don't want to cry "failure" on the Waymarking site (and certainly there's some activity on there) and because I think the heavy log load on easy virtuals and locationless probably started to jam up the geocaching site and caused the switch to Waymarking.

Waymarking does have numbers and there are people out there who are logging as many new waymarks as the can. They compare numbers with other waymarkers. I would guess there will eventually be a leader board for most waymarks as well as most categories of waymarks. It doesn't seem that there is much competition for visits to waymarks. Though there is much discussion about visiting one's own waymarks, visiting waymarks multiple times, and counting visits to waymarks made before the waymark was listed. The Waymarking site does track number of waymarks visited and you can look at a player's profile to find it. It looks like the consensus on the Waymarking forums including input there from OpinioNate and Jeremy is that visiting won't become competitive and in most categories all visits should be allowed except for armchair visits. However some categories will be setup more like virtual caches requiring as confirmation to be sent to waymark owner to log the waymark.

Edited September 10, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+geognerd]

As of 9/8/2006

 

1. TeamAlamo - 16700

 

1. CCCooperAgency - 16625

Wow. CCCA has been the worldwide leader since I've been caching (2002). It's weird to see somebody else on top. Congrats to both.

A lot of the topics criticizing cachers with a high number of found it logs refer to CCCA and questionable logging practices. I've seen little written about about TeamAlamo and it's never been anything bad. This makes me wonder if TeamAlamo played more on the up-and-up and if they will come under closer scrutiny now that they're at the top of the list. I use the word "they" since I don't know TeamAlamo and don't remember if they are a he, she, individual, or group. Edited September 10, 2006 by geognerd

[+Glenn]

They'd only be in turmoil if this were a contest. And it's not.

Why do people keep on saying this? The amount of attention paid to high number cachers and high number caching clearly indicates to me that it is a contest.

 

Locally, and you can see this in the local forums, there are always threads congratulating people their 100th, 300th, 700th or whatever finds. Gold ammo cans are given on 1,000th finds.

 

This is not a contest sponsored by an organization with rules and prizes, but a contest nevertheless. Persuit of this mythical prize creates unpleasant situations. It is very easy to say something like "cache for yourself and don't worry about other's number" but it is quite hard to do that in practice.

 

Personally I don't see a solution.

 

Paul

One solution would be to not let anyone (including the actual cacher's account) see the numbers, I bet this is why Waymarking doesn't have "numbers". But then again, looking at the popularity of Waymarking vs. Geocaching and the number of complains when locationless (and any future virtual, earthcache, etc.) caches became "non-smiley", "non-scoring contest" Waymarking, I think the PTB realize that while it is too much of a "contest" for some, eliminating smileys/scoring would probably cut the popularity of geocaching and the site greatly. My theory as to why they do not re-allow the virtuals, locationless, etc. is both because they don't want to cry "failure" on the Waymarking site (and certainly there's some activity on there) and because I think the heavy log load on easy virtuals and locationless probably started to jam up the geocaching site and caused the switch to Waymarking.

<snip>

I don't know the official reason Waymarking doesn't have a ranking page now. However, when the site was first open to Groundspeak Premium Members there was a ranking page. You could see who was #1 and how you ranked against other Waymarking in both number of Waymarks found and submitted. Like I said before I don't know why the ranking page was removed but I remeber that shortly after the BLOG catagory was added the numbers in both rankings skyrocketed.

[+mtn-man]

So your saying move this to the rants section?

No, I was just attempting to steer the discussion toward a "non-angsty" direction. Feel free to add grief if you want, as long as it is within the forum guidelines. I just realize this is a game with no winner and feel like we should be congratulating both of them on their personal accomplishments rather than looking for reasons to beat them both down.

[+Ambrosia]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

I can't stand the word "turmoil". *ack* *angst*

 

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her. And goodness, that was on the 3rd, and she still hasn't logged the cache yet.

[Clan Riffster]

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her.

Find by phone? Maybe I'm just particularily dense today, but I have no idea what that means. Can you elaborate?

[+brodiebunch]

Has Geocaching become similar to "Logan's Run"?

 

There, when you reach 30yo, you go to "Carousel".

 

When you reach 17000 in Geocaching do you go there too?

[+Ambrosia]

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her.

Find by phone? Maybe I'm just particularily dense today, but I have no idea what that means. Can you elaborate?

Sorry, didn't mean to cause any "turmoil" there.

 

I talked about it in this thread.

 

If anyone's bored, here's my log.

 

The only problem with the find by phone, is that I can't post any pictures. What, do I get a picture of me on the phone at home?

[+Ambrosia]

I totally coined a new term.

 

When does it get in the glossery?

[Clan Riffster]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause any "turmoil" there.

No turmoil, I was just felling thick headed. (it's normal for me) Thanx for the new term!

[+Ambrosia]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause any "turmoil" there.

No turmoil, I was just felling thick headed. (it's normal for me) Thanx for the new term!

Eh, I was the thick headed one. I forgot that I mentioned that in another thread, not this one. I'm getting all my threads mixed up.

 

*still giggling over creating a new term*

[+cachew nut]

 

Humm... Where exactly did you read this? I hope it was not here in the forums and that you took it as truth!

Read my post again, and you will see that I read about it in local cache logs. I did not mention forums at all, but are you saying that if it is posted in the forums then it can't be true?

[+SerenityNow]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

I can't stand the word "turmoil". *ack* *angst*

 

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her. And goodness, that was on the 3rd, and she still hasn't logged the cache yet.

 

Excuse me???? A find by phone??? We did see someone log an event that way and were a bit put off by that. We are not folks that hold others to hard and fast rules but we truly have never heard of a "find by phone". How does that work?

[+SerenityNow]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

I can't stand the word "turmoil". *ack* *angst*

 

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her. And goodness, that was on the 3rd, and she still hasn't logged the cache yet.

 

Excuse me???? A find by phone??? We did see someone log an event that way and were a bit put off by that. We are not folks that hold others to hard and fast rules but we truly have never heard of a "find by phone". How does that work?

 

Never mind.... Just read the note on the cache page by Ambrosia!

[+Tharagleb]

Oh man! I have a bunch of CCCA coins I was gonna ebay! Now they are just so much junk.

[+Kacky]

Congrats to both teams, but TEAMS is the operative word here. Having hunted both ways, it sure goes faster with more than one set of eyes. Still fun either way though!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Oh man! I have a bunch of CCCA coins I was gonna ebay! Now they are just so much junk.

 

Man, too bad you missed your opportunity to make a profit off of her accomplishments, but since they're junk now just mail them to me, I am sure I can find some use for them.

 

Ed

[+Ambrosia]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

I can't stand the word "turmoil". *ack* *angst*

 

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her. And goodness, that was on the 3rd, and she still hasn't logged the cache yet.

 

Excuse me???? A find by phone??? We did see someone log an event that way and were a bit put off by that. We are not folks that hold others to hard and fast rules but we truly have never heard of a "find by phone". How does that work?

 

Never mind.... Just read the note on the cache page by Ambrosia!

You had a bit of turmoil, there! Sorry.

[+SerenityNow]

Interesting.

 

The original post made no comment, except to note that Team Alamo has passed CCCooperAgency. A few people congratulated them in this topic, but many are trying to find angst in the original post. When I read it, I did not see angst, just that "turmoil at the top" meant a change in the order as the two are now neck and neck with each other. Yet, people see "turmoil" and begin angst ridden numbers talk.

 

Congrats to both Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency for all their personal accomplishments and for finding something in their life that they really enjoy. While some folks here are finding issues and creating grief, they are finding caches and having fun. So was I yesterday! Seven finds and about 5 hours having a blast at a geo-event. Man, was the food good and the conversation fun!

 

Maybe this topic could be turned into a congrats topic instead? Good to see a few have tried that.

I can't stand the word "turmoil". *ack* *angst*

 

I was just happy to talk to CCCooperAgency on the phone the other day, and do a "find by phone" with her. And goodness, that was on the 3rd, and she still hasn't logged the cache yet.

 

Excuse me???? A find by phone??? We did see someone log an event that way and were a bit put off by that. We are not folks that hold others to hard and fast rules but we truly have never heard of a "find by phone". How does that work?

 

Never mind.... Just read the note on the cache page by Ambrosia!

You had a bit of turmoil, there! Sorry.

Hehehehehehe Guess I did!

[+Clothahump]

 

I figure those who get wrapped up worrying about someone else's numbers, and elevating those with the huge numbers, probably get wrapped up also worrying about which celebraty is sleeping with whom, whose marriage is on the rocks, and how much will Tom get for his next movie?

 

Yeah, but the real question is: How many finds does Tom have?

[+mtn-man]

I figure those who get wrapped up worrying about someone else's numbers, and elevating those with the huge numbers, probably get wrapped up also worrying about which celebraty is sleeping with whom, whose marriage is on the rocks, and how much will Tom get for his next movie?

Yeah, but the real question is: How many finds does Tom have?

Five.

[SlytherinAlex]

I think the rules should be changed so that when each cacher reaches 16,700 finds they have to stop caching until the rest of us catch up.

Or take a break for a couple of days. Throw all their cache find logs into a database and sort by GC number. Then go back and delete the many hundreds of caches logs where the same cache has been logged multiple times.

[+sbell111]

[+Sagefox]

 

Humm... Where exactly did you read this? I hope it was not here in the forums and that you took it as truth!

Read my post again, and you will see that I read about it in local cache logs. I did not mention forums at all, but are you saying that if it is posted in the forums then it can't be true?

 

Your post:

It was no contest from the moment I read local cache logs being logged while the cacher was at an event in another state. And now with a 6500+ lead over the next contender, it's still no contest!

 

Your quote can be interpreted in different ways and it would have been nicer of me to ask for a clarification before responding but these topics move along quickly… sorry about that.

 

Did you ever follow-up on this to confirm your assumption? Right now I'm assuming that the logs you refer to were the web page logs. If so, did you go to the cache site to see if the date of the cache find was different than the date being posted on the web page and different from the date of the event? I would imagine mega loggers often get the dates wrong.

 

Or, did the team you were checking on have multiple members that might be caching in different areas but logging under the same account?

[+Wacka]

As of 9/8/2006

 

1. TeamAlamo - 16700

 

1. CCCooperAgency - 16625

Wow. CCCA has been the worldwide leader since I've been caching (2002). It's weird to see somebody else on top. Congrats to both.

A lot of the topics criticizing cachers with a high number of found it logs refer to CCCA and questionable logging practices. I've seen little written about about TeamAlamo and it's never been anything bad. This makes me wonder if TeamAlamo played more on the up-and-up and if they will come under closer scrutiny now that they're at the top of the list. I use the word "they" since I don't know TeamAlamo and don't remember if they are a he, she, individual, or group.

 

I'm happy to see Team Alamo on the top of the list, since I know him personally and he lives only about 10 miles away. Nice to see the #1 be this side of the MIssissippi now!

Lee ( TeamAlamo) has found about 99.99999% of his caches as a solo cacher. Of course, most of the time, he's with a group of cachers.

It was fun to see his beat up Garmin C60 something (don't know which one he has) and realize it might be the most used GPSr on the planet!

[+5¢]

I just noticed, TeamAlamo's events attended actually add up to the number of events listed on the 5 pages of events.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

 

Humm... Where exactly did you read this? I hope it was not here in the forums and that you took it as truth!

Read my post again, and you will see that I read about it in local cache logs. I did not mention forums at all, but are you saying that if it is posted in the forums then it can't be true?

 

Your post:

It was no contest from the moment I read local cache logs being logged while the cacher was at an event in another state. And now with a 6500+ lead over the next contender, it's still no contest!

 

Your quote can be interpreted in different ways and it would have been nicer of me to ask for a clarification before responding but these topics move along quickly… sorry about that.

 

Did you ever follow-up on this to confirm your assumption? Right now I'm assuming that the logs you refer to were the web page logs. If so, did you go to the cache site to see if the date of the cache find was different than the date being posted on the web page and different from the date of the event? I would imagine mega loggers often get the dates wrong.

 

Or, did the team you were checking on have multiple members that might be caching in different areas but logging under the same account?

 

If I'm right in guessing at what Cachew Nut is talking about it's this: 2 caches from the Chicago area were taken to an out of state event where one was logged with a note asking if it could be logged as a find and the other was actually logged as a find. The find log resulted in the cache getting locked down for a period of time. None of it was done with the cache owners permission. The find log was subsequently deleted and the cache was unlocked. None of it was an assumption- it was all documented in the online logs and was perfectly clear that the cacher knew what they were doing. Coming so soon after the controversy over GW4 certainly didn't help anything.

[+forman]

I just noticed, TeamAlamo's events attended actually add up to the number of events listed on the 5 pages of events.

 

And this means what?

[+Sagefox]

I just noticed, TeamAlamo's events attended actually add up to the number of events listed on the 5 pages of events.

 

And this means what?

 

I think it means that Alamo is not logging event caches multiple times to get smiles for unpublishable caches like they do in some places.

[+StarBrand]

My goal is 500 by my 5th Anniversary. - My Great-Grandchildren might get up to 16,000.

 

Congrats.

[+forman]

I just noticed, TeamAlamo's events attended actually add up to the number of events listed on the 5 pages of events.

 

And this means what?

 

I think it means that Alamo is not logging event caches multiple times to get smiles for unpublishable caches like they do in some places.

 

Hey Ed! How you been doing? I do not log events multiple times either. That is kinda lame tho.

[+Sagefox]

If I'm right in guessing at what Cachew Nut is talking about it's this: 2 caches from the Chicago area were taken to an out of state event where one was logged with a note asking if it could be logged as a find and the other was actually logged as a find. The find log resulted in the cache getting locked down for a period of time. None of it was done with the cache owners permission. The find log was subsequently deleted and the cache was unlocked. None of it was an assumption- it was all documented in the online logs and was perfectly clear that the cacher knew what they were doing. Coming so soon after the controversy over GW4 certainly didn't help anything.

 

I get [it] now. Thanks. If that is what happened than it's fair game for forum chatter.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[+Sagefox]

Hey Ed! How you been doing?

 

Hi Don!

[+cachew nut]

 

Humm... Where exactly did you read this? I hope it was not here in the forums and that you took it as truth!

Read my post again, and you will see that I read about it in local cache logs. I did not mention forums at all, but are you saying that if it is posted in the forums then it can't be true?

 

Your post:

It was no contest from the moment I read local cache logs being logged while the cacher was at an event in another state. And now with a 6500+ lead over the next contender, it's still no contest!

 

Your quote can be interpreted in different ways and it would have been nicer of me to ask for a clarification before responding but these topics move along quickly… sorry about that.

 

Did you ever follow-up on this to confirm your assumption? Right now I'm assuming that the logs you refer to were the web page logs. If so, did you go to the cache site to see if the date of the cache find was different than the date being posted on the web page and different from the date of the event? I would imagine mega loggers often get the dates wrong.

 

Or, did the team you were checking on have multiple members that might be caching in different areas but logging under the same account?

 

If I'm right in guessing at what Cachew Nut is talking about it's this: 2 caches from the Chicago area were taken to an out of state event where one was logged with a note asking if it could be logged as a find and the other was actually logged as a find. The find log resulted in the cache getting locked down for a period of time. None of it was done with the cache owners permission. The find log was subsequently deleted and the cache was unlocked. None of it was an assumption- it was all documented in the online logs and was perfectly clear that the cacher knew what they were doing. Coming so soon after the controversy over GW4 certainly didn't help anything.

 

And let's not forget six fake logs from Texas and one from California, all in the same day. It's all in the logs and it's not up to me to call anyone out on this, or even disclose who this is, it's all searchable. But, if we are all playing this game by the accepted "rulebook", then that player's score is disqualified until the records conform to what everyone else is playing, IMO. Either that, or everyone else is disqualified except for that one person. No contest.

 

Since there is no "rulebook" and they are not playing the same game and just racking up bogus find logs, then there is no turmoil, because one game score is for real finds and the other game score is for bogus finds. Two different games and everybody wins, you see? The game has evolved, again. It's kinder and gentler now.

Edited September 12, 2006 by cachew nut

[TEAM NICKELBACKERS]

As of 9/8/2006

 

1. TeamAlamo - 16700

 

1. CCCooperAgency - 16625

 

I think the fact that CCCA has hidden more makes them more valuable. The more caches out there, the better for all the rest of us.

[+hndlbr]

to me each cache has fond memories and has it's own significace. let's just keep caching. I know cc has a significant # of hides, so does she win?

Edited September 12, 2006 by hndlbr

[+cachew nut]

The more caches out there, the better for all the rest of us.

Good point! Active caches have more value than archived caches, IMO. I wonder if there is a quick way to tally active-only hidden caches?

[+Sagefox]

 

And let's not forget six fake logs from Texas and one from California, all in the same day.

 

O.K. Now you are up to 7. My calculator can't show me what percentage of 16,500 that is.

 

My point is that it is probably easy find a few questionable finds in anyone's profile. But do that with a high profile cacher, sensationalize it a little bit and we're off to the races. People get sucked into this trap easily.

 

It was no contest from the moment I read local cache logs being logged while the cacher was at an event in another state. And now with a 6500+ lead over the next contender, it's still no contest!

 

165 questionable posts would be 1% of the find count in your quote. Even if were four times this amount it is still a long way from 6500. But your quote appears to suggest it is bogus finds that have somehow put one or two cachers that far ahead of the nearest challengers. That is sensationalizing.

[+conradv]

 

And let's not forget six fake logs from Texas and one from California, all in the same day.

 

O.K. Now you are up to 7. My calculator can't show me what percentage of 16,500 that is.

 

My point is that it is probably easy find a few questionable finds in anyone's profile. But do that with a high profile cacher, sensationalize it a little bit and we're off to the races. People get sucked into this trap easily.

 

It was no contest from the moment I read local cache logs being logged while the cacher was at an event in another state. And now with a 6500+ lead over the next contender, it's still no contest!

 

165 questionable posts would be 1% of the find count in your quote. Even if were four times this amount it is still a long way from 6500. But your quote appears to suggest it is bogus finds that have somehow put one or two cachers that far ahead of the nearest challengers. That is sensationalizing.

 

I'm a relative newbie here, but in my mind, any "bogus" finds are incomprehendable, be it whatever percentage of the total. I'm not here for the "numbers game", I'm here to have fun.

 

Taking it to that extreme just to be ahead of the next guy is just laughable. I'm not accusing anyone, but people really need to look at themselves a little closer if they consider posting bogus logs for a game with no "rules" as a healthy thing to do.

[+Ambrosia]

I gotta be perfectly honest here. We've hashed these things out before in many threads. Nothing has changed.

 

I can't begin to try and judge people and try and get into their minds and decide what they are thinking and why they do the things they do. That's why I don't sit around in a thread and talk about something I know nothing about.

 

This thread is making my tummy hurt. And I know, I know. I could stop reading it, and perhaps I will. I'm just sadly obsessive and it's hard to stop. So I'd just rather it die a quick death.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know either CCC or Team Alamo, but I still gotta congratulate them on setting the bar. Out of my 400 or so finds, I can think of one that some might consider questionable. Both myself and the cache owner were OK with it, so it'll stay as it is. If fate deems it necessary that I live long enough to have over 16,000 finds, and a handful are questionable, I think I'll still sleep well at night.

 

The higher you are to the top, the more folks want to knock you down.

[+sbell111]

Remember when this thread was interesting?

 

 

Me neither.

[+Kacky]

Remember when this thread was interesting?

 

 

Me neither.

I like you SBell so maybe you can help me understand why people type this. It feels like walking up to strangers who are talking to each other and tapping them on the shoulder to tell them their conversation bores you.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Kacky

[+sbell111]

Remember when this thread was interesting?

 

 

Me neither.

I like you SBell so maybe you can help me understand why people type this. It feels like walking up to strangers who are talking to each other and tapping them on the shoulder to tell them their conversation bores you.

That's a good analogy, except for the fact that we aren't strangers and this wasn't a private conversation.

[+briansnat]

I'm a relative newbie here, but in my mind, any "bogus" finds are incomprehendable, be it whatever percentage of the total. I'm not here for the "numbers game", I'm here to have fun.

 

Taking it to that extreme just to be ahead of the next guy is just laughable. I'm not accusing anyone, but people really need to look at themselves a little closer if they consider posting bogus logs for a game with no "rules" as a healthy thing to do.

 

It might be incomprehendable to you, but its quite common. You might find it laughable, but some people who do it are lauded as "All that is good about this sport".

[+Kacky]

Remember when this thread was interesting?

 

 

Me neither.

I like you SBell so maybe you can help me understand why people type this. It feels like walking up to strangers who are talking to each other and tapping them on the shoulder to tell them their conversation bores you.

That's a good analogy, except for the fact that we aren't strangers and this wasn't a private conversation.

 

Semantics. I still think it's hurtful.

[+sbell111]

If everything that could be perceived as hurtful was removed from this thread, it would only have one post.

 

EDIT: I before E except after C.

Edited September 12, 2006 by sbell111