Jump to content

<_< Complaining about a remote cache placement


Kit Fox

Recommended Posts

Wow! While I don't begrudge the FTF for having his own opinion, after reading the cache page myself, I'm not sure I understand it. His 'rant' would have made more sense to me as a simple note posted by someone who had no intention of attempting it.

 

The cache page seems to make it very clear what to expect and how to prepare yourself, even suggesting this could be an overnighter if one wished. Too bad I'm about 3000 miles east of the cache, or I'd be one of the few who will attempt this cache, and have a great time doing it.

Link to comment

...besides, the cache placer's name should give you a clue! Up here in Alaska, Ridgeseeker's caches almost always require a vertical travel distance that's about equal to the horizontal travel. Stunning views are a hallmark of his caches, and he's such a nice guy he'll offer to guide you to the cache if you want to go!

 

4+ terrain caches are not for the faint of spirit, and are worthy of high praise - not whining.

Link to comment

Looks like an amazing place and a cache well worth the trip! To complain about this cache, geeeshh! I'd gladly do it if I were closer!

 

This one does sound like a great cache that we would love to try for us as well. The 4.5 terrain rating pretty much tells me what i need to know but the owner went farther and added much more to the cache description thereby letting cachers know exactly what to expect. To be honest, i probably wouldn't have given as much of this information if it were my cache. The FTFer had no right to complain since it sounds like he read the description and therefore should have just skipped the cache alltogether. :mad:

Link to comment

...besides, the cache placer's name should give you a clue! Up here in Alaska, Ridgeseeker's caches almost always require a vertical travel distance that's about equal to the horizontal travel. Stunning views are a hallmark of his caches, and he's such a nice guy he'll offer to guide you to the cache if you want to go!

 

4+ terrain caches are not for the faint of spirit, and are worthy of high praise - not whining.

Well said. If somone does not like extreme terrain caches, all they need to do is avoid caches with a Terrain rating over 3.0 or 3.5.

Link to comment

Hmm... I keep reading people post "Every cache owner wants people to find their cache." If I wanted to have lots of people find my caches, I'd put out all lampost magnetic caches. Few of my caches get ten finds a year. None of mine are extreme, but most people love them when they find them. That's their purpose. One of my geocaching siblings (there are four of us in this sport), set out a number of caches requiring all day hikes in the desert and mountains around Las Vegas. That's his preference. No one has ever complained that they only get one find a year (except, perhaps, travel bug owners.)

I have had finders say that more people should hunt for (some of) my caches. If you enjoy a two mile hike with a great view, by all means do. If not, I'm not losing any sleep over it. There are lots of guard rails a few miles off, along the highway.

Link to comment

I think it was a very nice post as long as he stuck to describing his adventure; but the whining that followed kind of ruined it. I'm a little amused that he considers a cache that required only a 0.2 mi. hike to be "way deep into a remote area".

 

Still, kudos to the cache hider for placing it and to the "old man of 60+ years old" for going out to find it.

Link to comment

I thought the guy was frank in what he said. His response was direct, but restrained. I'd be one-sided by calling him a whiner.

 

At least, he completed his journey. I've aborted a few 4+ star terrain caches before (while "cursing" at their inaccessibility :mad: ).

Edited by budd-rdc
Link to comment

I truly wish that there were caches like this in my area.

 

As most of you have said the cache page did describe the cache well. I see no reason to complain. The not about 1%'s, this not being what caching is about, the placement keeping children out of the hobby, etc. makes me wonder what exactly a person with 1700+ caches thinks the hobby is?

 

I've placed one cache. In a city area with micros everywhere. I have had only three visitors to that cache, I do not expect all that many and I would hope that I end up with some dnf. It is a cache hunt, key word being hunt, not walk up and stumble into. Long treks through the woods, difficult terrain, difficult navigation, etc. make the hunt more rewarding once it is over.

 

Then again, apparently, that is not the case for some.

Link to comment

I am sorry, but I do place caches on occasion that are for the few hardy outdoors types that like a hard to reach location. I do not expect them to be found often. I much prefer to get one log three paragraphs long than 100 TNLNSL logs. If one person enjoys the hike I count the cache as a success.

 

If you want to log 100 urban micros in a day that's fine. Please don't think that everyone else finds that exciting.

I tried that once, lasted about two hours and gave up. For me the urban caches are a way to scratch the itch 'till I can hunt for or hide a cache with more of a challenge. If you prefer to take a stroll in the park, or hike only on groomed trails that's fine to. I may join you for a nice easy walk with a cache at the end.

 

All that said, I think the gentleman's log was fine. He expressed his opinion and described his journey. The small negative content will not stop those who wish to hunt these types of caches from enjoying the challenge. I am sorry he didn't enjoy the cache but you can't make everyone happy.

 

I only wish the cache was not 2100 miles from here. It sounds like a grand adventure.

Link to comment

I am sorry, but I do place caches on occasion that are for the few hardy outdoors types that like a hard to reach location. I do not expect them to be found often. I much prefer to get one log three paragraphs long than 100 TNLNSL logs. If one person enjoys the hike I count the cache as a success.

 

If you want to log 100 urban micros in a day that's fine. Please don't think that everyone else finds that exciting.

I tried that once, lasted about two hours and gave up. For me the urban caches are a way to scratch the itch 'till I can hunt for or hide a cache with more of a challenge. If you prefer to take a stroll in the park, or hike only on groomed trails that's fine to. I may join you for a nice easy walk with a cache at the end.

 

All that said, I think the gentleman's log was fine. He expressed his opinion and described his journey. The small negative content will not stop those who wish to hunt these types of caches from enjoying the challenge. I am sorry he didn't enjoy the cache but you can't make everyone happy.

 

I only wish the cache was not 2100 miles from here. It sounds like a grand adventure.

 

The finder read the cache description and saw it was a 4.5 difficulty,, seems easy to figure out what to expect so why did he go after it in the first place? I did think his log sounded fine until the last couple of paragraphs where he started telling how wrong the placement was. His line, "On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement", is uncalled for as it is his opinion and nobody elses!

Link to comment

I think after reading the cache page and the log that the owner did a great job with the cache page.

 

The rating and the sentence "There is no trail for most of the distance and "trail blazing" at steep angles with loose gound is required, so NO KIDS." tells me just what to expect.

 

Sorry the finder didn't enjoy it, but the excursion could hardly have been a suprise if he read the listing.

 

Ed

Link to comment

His line, "On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement", is uncalled for as it is his opinion and nobody elses!

 

Um.. if not for 'your opinion', then what exactly is a log for? Writing my opinions of the cache!

 

Would you prefer your finders not to let you know they were disappointed with the cache? There is another thread on this. I would much rather prefer finders be honest about their experiences than make up crap just to be 'nice'.

 

Scrambling over rock slide area is very dangerous and not ecologically freindly at all. IMO, the FTF poster was perfectly justified in posting what he did.

Link to comment

His line, "On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement", is uncalled for as it is his opinion and nobody elses!

 

Um.. if not for 'your opinion', then what exactly is a log for? Writing my opinions of the cache!

 

Would you prefer your finders not to let you know they were disappointed with the cache? There is another thread on this. I would much rather prefer finders be honest about their experiences than make up crap just to be 'nice'.

 

Scrambling over rock slide area is very dangerous and not ecologically freindly at all. IMO, the FTF poster was perfectly justified in posting what he did.

 

True, one can express themselves in a log. The point is, this cacher was rude. Perhaps a private E-mail to the hider with his concerns might have been more appropriate. Instead this guy insulted the cache hider, and did so in a public way. His view of the cache attempts to make it sound bad, when really this guy was biting off more than he wanted to chew trying to find it, and got irritated.

 

In addition, do we know that he was required to walk over a rock slide area, or was he doing like many of us do on occasion and follow the Direct-To arrow to closely?

 

On that note, I hope your future posts will be better thought out. :mad:

Link to comment

His line, "On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement", is uncalled for as it is his opinion and nobody elses!

 

Um.. if not for 'your opinion', then what exactly is a log for? Writing my opinions of the cache!

 

Would you prefer your finders not to let you know they were disappointed with the cache? There is another thread on this. I would much rather prefer finders be honest about their experiences than make up crap just to be 'nice'.

 

Scrambling over rock slide area is very dangerous and not ecologically freindly at all. IMO, the FTF poster was perfectly justified in posting what he did.

I actually disagree with the opinion of the finder, since the hider made the expectations clear. However, I haven't tried the cache, so who knows how dangerous it really was? I can just disagree at this point.

 

I agree with you that it is OK for him to express his opinion, just as it is OK for people to refute it, in a civil manner, of course. :mad:

 

I don't think the adventurous types will be deterred by his comments. In fact, judging by the reactions on this thread, this has ended up on many people's To Do Lists. I'm a bit surprised that it ended up in the forums - I expect the "Been There, Done That" types to just shrug it off.

Link to comment

I don't think the "old man of 60 plus" has a leg to stand on about this cache complaint.

 

If all you want is an easy cache with a warm shawl thrown over your lap, there are lots of those. They

have difficulty ratings of "one" or "one and a half".

 

Reading the finder's lengthy complaint about how "dangerous and hard" everything was....went through my head like the nail of some shrew wife's nagging.

 

Kudos to the cache owner for putting a cache together to weed out the young and infirm. And clearly labeling the difficulty as such.

 

Chuckwagon

Link to comment

Kit Fox why did you feel you needed to post a note arguing with that cacher...just curious. Or was it just to start an argument?

 

I thought logs were a history of the cache and people could read them to see how others did? If they have some criticism then its okay.

 

"Then to post here to have everyone see what you wrote, a bit self serving.

 

"Remote cache placements are great. They usually weed out 99% of the lazy cachers. "

 

This just seems like you want to provoke something.

 

Kit fox said:

"I don't buy the argument that brutally honest logs will stifle the placing of new caches. I got two "critical logs" on one of my first cache placements. Which happened to be a hard to find micro, in a nice, unknown park. The fact that the cache was a "needle in a haystack," is why I got the critical logs.

 

Did I quite caching because of this minor setback? Absolutely not, I stepped up to the plate, hid a larger cache, in a better location (same park). I've since hidden 80 more caches, and consider my mistake a valuable lesson.

 

If a simple criticism of a first cache (not an attack on their character) causes someone to quit caching, then they were to thin skinned to hide caches in the first place. I remember very fondly the email lashing I received from a cache owner when I was honest in my log."

 

Seems you were honest in logs in the past, I feel it is not fair losel2 does not get to repond.

Link to comment

This is not a post about whether the CACHE FINDER's comments were whiney or justified. I wasn't there. However:

 

1. He FOUND THE CACHE. He was there. That gives him a right to his opinion whether we agree with it or not.

 

2. There were comments about "weeding out" certain types of cachers. (the note in the online cache log and comments made in this thread). My impression of geocaching is that it includs all folks. Some caches will not be accessible to all because they are more challenging than others. This cache is that way and appropriately rated. I hope that cache hiders aren't trying to "weed" out other cachers. Kind of makes the "elitist" statements ring true.

 

3. In reference to the comment above about the "easy cache and warm shawl," see comment 1 in this post.

Edited by boda
Link to comment

Kit Fox why did you feel you needed to post a note arguing with that cacher...just curious. Or was it just to start an argument?

 

I thought logs were a history of the cache and people could read them to see how others did? If they have some criticism then its okay.

 

"Then to post here to have everyone see what you wrote, a bit self serving.

 

"Remote cache placements are great. They usually weed out 99% of the lazy cachers. "

 

This just seems like you want to provoke something.

 

 

Mr. Hooper,

 

The owner is a friend of mine, and he was inspired to hide caches like his first three, after finding my cache Eisen Faust.

 

The only reason I "jumped in," is because the finder made direct reference to my cache, and argued that this type of cache is bad, because it will get fewer finds.

 

I suppose that this cache is much like that of “Eisen-Faust.” And like that cache, I doubt that many will be falling all over themselves to be going after this cache. As you know, only one person has found “Eisen-Faust” so far and that person was you.

 

When I place a cache out, I want people to find my caches. It seems that with your cache, you have gone out of your way to make this cache as difficult as you can so that no one will venture out to find it. You have instilled a huge dangerous and difficult factor of traversing .20 miles of rock / land slide area. Then you have placed the cache way deep into a remote area. Again, I believe that with this placement of the cache, that there will be very few to venture to find this cache. Perhaps, only me.

 

I doubt that many will visit this one. On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement.

 

He told the cache hider that his placement was bad. The hider has hidden three fully stocked ammo cans, in scenic areas, yet their placement is bad? :laughing:

Link to comment
Scrambling over rock slide area is very dangerous and not ecologically freindly at all. IMO, the FTF poster was perfectly justified in posting what he did.

 

Now that is comedy. The cache page specifically mentions the talus slope crossing. How do you hurt solid rock that constantly moves downhill?

 

 

This is not a post about whether the CACHE FINDER's comments were whiney or justified. I wasn't there. However:

 

1. He FOUND THE CACHE. He was there. That gives him a right to his opinion whether we agree with it or not.

 

2. There were comments about "weeding out" certain types of cachers. (the note in the online cache log and comments made in this thread). My impression of geocaching is that it includs all folks. Some caches will not be accessible to all because they are more challenging than others. This cache is that way and appropriately rated. I hope that cache hiders aren't trying to "weed" out other cachers. Kind of makes the "elitist" statements ring true.

 

3. In reference to the comment above about the "easy cache and warm shawl," see comment 1 in this post.

 

Actually, the cache was placed for cachers who like to visit remote areas, and admire nice scenery. What it will do is weed out 99% of those cachers who only hunt "Park and Grabs," rather than "Park and Hikes."

 

Would you consider Iron Mountain an Elitest cache?

 

Distance: 14 miles round trip on trail and cross-country

Gain: 7200' total, 6600' out plus 600' on return

Time: 10-12 hours round trip

Rating: Class 1, very strenuous

 

I've been doing cardio excercises five times a week, with extra weight inside my backpack just to prepare for this cache. Will I feel like an elitest for being one of the few cachers to actually find it? Absolutely!!! :laughing:

Link to comment

The complainer was wrong for whining publicly in the cache log...

 

The complainer wrote a lengthy note in the cache logs expressing his "wrongness" and admitting

to being a "jerk" as he put it.

 

So ....................case closed.

 

Kit fox was wrong for jumping in and insulting other cachers with:

 

"Remote cache placements are great. They usually weed out 99% of the lazy cachers."

 

I see he rephrased it in the thread to:

"Actually, the cache was placed for cachers who like to visit remote areas, and admire nice scenery. What it will do is weed out 99% of those cachers who only hunt "Park and Grabs," rather than "Park and Hikes."

 

Why did you not phrase it that way in the log?

Link to comment
Scrambling over rock slide area is very dangerous and not ecologically freindly at all. IMO, the FTF poster was perfectly justified in posting what he did.

 

Now that is comedy. The cache page specifically mentions the talus slope crossing. How do you hurt solid rock that constantly moves downhill?

 

 

This is not a post about whether the CACHE FINDER's comments were whiney or justified. I wasn't there. However:

 

1. He FOUND THE CACHE. He was there. That gives him a right to his opinion whether we agree with it or not.

 

2. There were comments about "weeding out" certain types of cachers. (the note in the online cache log and comments made in this thread). My impression of geocaching is that it includs all folks. Some caches will not be accessible to all because they are more challenging than others. This cache is that way and appropriately rated. I hope that cache hiders aren't trying to "weed" out other cachers. Kind of makes the "elitist" statements ring true.

 

3. In reference to the comment above about the "easy cache and warm shawl," see comment 1 in this post.

 

Actually, the cache was placed for cachers who like to visit remote areas, and admire nice scenery. What it will do is weed out 99% of those cachers who only hunt "Park and Grabs," rather than "Park and Hikes."

 

Would you consider Iron Mountain an Elitest cache?

 

Distance: 14 miles round trip on trail and cross-country

Gain: 7200' total, 6600' out plus 600' on return

Time: 10-12 hours round trip

Rating: Class 1, very strenuous

 

I've been doing cardio excercises five times a week, with extra weight inside my backpack just to prepare for this cache. Will I feel like an elitest for being one of the few cachers to actually find it? Absolutely!!! :laughing:

 

Total elevation is 7200? Heck in Colorado we live at 4900 to 5280, come out here and cache a hard one if you are a true elistist :blink:

Link to comment

 

Kit fox was wrong for jumping in and insulting other cachers with:

 

"Remote cache placements are great. They usually weed out 99% of the lazy cachers."

 

I see he rephrased it in the thread to:

"Actually, the cache was placed for cachers who like to visit remote areas, and admire nice scenery. What it will do is weed out 99% of those cachers who only hunt "Park and Grabs," rather than "Park and Hikes."

 

Why did you not phrase it that way in the log?

 

No need to rephrase anything, they are "one and the same."

 

Note to disabled cachers, i'm not calling anyone disabled lazy, i'm referring to those cachers who would rather find 50 to 100 park and grabs in the same time it would take to find one "park and hike" cache.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I've been doing cardio excercises five times a week, with extra weight inside my backpack just to prepare for this cache. Will I feel like an elitest for being one of the few cachers to actually find it? Absolutely!!! :laughing:

I agree with you 100%... there's nothing better than finding a remote, hard to find cache with only a couple of visits-- one that you worked hard to get to and that most people either couldn't or wouldn't do. We've only found a few 4.5 terrains, but every one of them have been among our favorites. (I know you found Scab Island, Kit Fox, and we're hoping to make that one a milestone cache, too! :blink: ) I can't see how someone can go after a 4.5 terrain with all of those warnings and then be upset or put off by the hide. Sure, that person has a right to post their opinions in their log... but is it appropriate? In this case, I think it was in bad taste.

 

Oh, and BTW Kit Fox, I think you're gonna get a chance to be among the elite few that don't vote Democrat on Tuesday... congrats! ;);):lol:

Link to comment

Hmmm...

Perhaps one of your critical logs might warrant a note on the cache page like this:

 

Urban cache placements are great. They usually weed out 99% of the whiny cachers. Many visits don't mean a cache is bad by any stretch of the imagination. Look at Rollback the Micro for example, it has had three-hundred finds in four years.

 

Kit Fox,

 

Saying a cache isn't good, because you had an easy time getting to it, is very selfish. Didn,t you happen to notice that the terrain rating was 1.5 stars? This cache was supposed to be a "numbers cache," it was placed in an easily accessible spot for those of us cachers that see the fun in raising a lamppost skirt to retrieve a micro.

 

I will be hunting new caches in a week or two, and rather than complaining about the location, i'm going to enjoy myself, and take lots of pictures.

 

My point is that this cacher didn't like your cache. Period. He has as much right to voice his opinion as you do. If you don't like negative cache logs then why do you leave them yourself?

Link to comment

This is not a post about whether the CACHE FINDER's comments were whiney or justified. I wasn't there. However:

 

1. He FOUND THE CACHE. He was there. That gives him a right to his opinion whether we agree with it or not.

 

2. There were comments about "weeding out" certain types of cachers. (the note in the online cache log and comments made in this thread). My impression of geocaching is that it includs all folks. Some caches will not be accessible to all because they are more challenging than others. This cache is that way and appropriately rated. I hope that cache hiders aren't trying to "weed" out other cachers. Kind of makes the "elitist" statements ring true.

 

3. In reference to the comment above about the "easy cache and warm shawl," see comment 1 in this post.

 

Actually, the cache was placed for cachers who like to visit remote areas, and admire nice scenery. What it will do is weed out 99% of those cachers who only hunt "Park and Grabs," rather than "Park and Hikes."

 

Would you consider Iron Mountain an Elitest cache?

 

Distance: 14 miles round trip on trail and cross-country

Gain: 7200' total, 6600' out plus 600' on return

Time: 10-12 hours round trip

Rating: Class 1, very strenuous

 

I've been doing cardio excercises five times a week, with extra weight inside my backpack just to prepare for this cache. Will I feel like an elitest for being one of the few cachers to actually find it? Absolutely!!! :D

Well, since you asked, this comment that I quote below struck me wrong. I have no problem with people creating hard caches. My family owns caches that only get one or two cachers a year. I don't mind if you make a cache that takes three days to backpack to. Great! But congratulating someone for "weeding out the young and infirm" just strikes me as offensive.

 

Kudos to the cache owner for putting a cache together to weed out the young and infirm. And clearly labeling the difficulty as such.

 

Chuckwagon

Link to comment

Well, since you asked, this comment that I quote below struck me wrong. I have no problem with people creating hard caches. My family owns caches that only get one or two cachers a year. I don't mind if you make a cache that takes three days to backpack to. Great! But congratulating someone for "weeding out the young and infirm" just strikes me as offensive.

 

Kudos to the cache owner for putting a cache together to weed out the young and infirm. And clearly labeling the difficulty as such.

 

Chuckwagon

 

 

I agree. In the cold light of day, my statement seems just entirely too harsh. I suppose it was the lengthy diatribe that the 60 plus year old man posted complaining that the sound of the wind in the trees and the rushing water, etc. did not do much for him on the cache. Then he rambled on and on about how he was scared he might have fallen on the slippery shale slide rock...etc. etc.

 

Even the guy himself admitted he was a TOTAL jerk for posting such a piece.

 

Now, I am glad there are caches that all people can ATTEMPT......young, old, infirm, divorced, happily married, single, upstanding, misfit......etc.

 

What I think is totally out of line............is for one of these individuals to use their infirmity, youth, advanced age, marital status, social morals or whatever......to post a whining note about how difficult and terrible the cache was placed due to their infirmity, youth, advanced age, marital status, social morals, or whatever.

 

A 4.5 difficulty DEFINITELY cuts down on the chances of many, many cachers. I don't think the idea of geocaching is to place a "motorized ramp" from the parking area to the cache site in a 4.5 stash. There are probably some people that think so......but I am not one of them.

 

Chuckwagon :D

Link to comment

Well, since you asked, this comment that I quote below struck me wrong. I have no problem with people creating hard caches. My family owns caches that only get one or two cachers a year. I don't mind if you make a cache that takes three days to backpack to. Great! But congratulating someone for "weeding out the young and infirm" just strikes me as offensive.

 

Kudos to the cache owner for putting a cache together to weed out the young and infirm. And clearly labeling the difficulty as such.

 

Chuckwagon

 

 

I agree. In the cold light of day, my statement seems just entirely too harsh. I suppose it was the lengthy diatribe that the 60 plus year old man posted complaining that the sound of the wind in the trees and the rushing water, etc. did not do much for him on the cache. Then he rambled on and on about how he was scared he might have fallen on the slippery shale slide rock...etc. etc.

 

Even the guy himself admitted he was a TOTAL jerk for posting such a piece.

 

Now, I am glad there are caches that all people can ATTEMPT......young, old, infirm, divorced, happily married, single, upstanding, misfit......etc.

 

What I think is totally out of line............is for one of these individuals to use their infirmity, youth, advanced age, marital status, social morals or whatever......to post a whining note about how difficult and terrible the cache was placed due to their infirmity, youth, advanced age, marital status, social morals, or whatever.

 

A 4.5 difficulty DEFINITELY cuts down on the chances of many, many cachers. I don't think the idea of geocaching is to place a "motorized ramp" from the parking area to the cache site in a 4.5 stash. There are probably some people that think so......but I am not one of them.

 

Chuckwagon :D

Ok, I figured! Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much feel the same way. :D

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

I can see both sides of this one, and the verdict is pretty clear.

 

The searcher got into a situation during the hunt that he found frightening, and lashed out at the cache owner. A perfectly human response, but unfair, because the owner certainly made it clear that this cache hunt was very challenging. And the searcher has apparently retracted his initial statement and apologized. Good for him.

 

If there is a message here, it is that these challenging cache hunts should be clearly labeled with appropriate ratings and warnings. This one certainly is so labeled.

 

The issue of appropriate labels and warnings applies to more than just challenging terrain. Many cachers do not enjoy searches where they are likely to be observed by people in the area. This is sometimes called a "high muggle factor". I, for one, would appreciate such cache locations being identified as such. The main thing is for cache owners to include appropriate information in the cache description, so that searchers can determine if this is a cache they really want to do.

 

And if the cache is aggressively hidden in an unlikely place in a rocky valley where GPS reception is almost nil, with no useful hints, that is NOT a 1.5 difficulty, or a 2, or a 3.

 

Call it like it is.

 

FWIW,

CharlieP

Link to comment

This thread was very telling. Kit Fox, you are a strong proponent of cache log honesty. Imagine my surprise when you attacked this cacher for a negative log on your cache.

 

First it shows that you are not the least bit interested in "honest" logs unless you agree with the particular brand of honesty that is being dispensed.

 

Second, it illustrates the point of subjectivity when "honestly" logging a cache perfectly.

Link to comment

Well the First finder edited his log, and I removed my rebuttal log, it's time to put this thread to rest.

 

Thanks to all those who weighed their opinions on this topic. Now where did that thread lock go?

 

Nice now you want it to go away? You started this negative thread

Link to comment

This thread was very telling. Kit Fox, you are a strong proponent of cache log honesty. Imagine my surprise when you attacked this cacher for a negative log on your cache.

 

First it shows that you are not the least bit interested in "honest" logs unless you agree with the particular brand of honesty that is being dispensed.

 

Second, it illustrates the point of subjectivity when "honestly" logging a cache perfectly.

Oh please. As if there were no difference between being honest and being mean, unkind, inappropriate, negative or a jerk. Apparently, the cacher that posted the offending log agrees with Kit Fox, since he edited his log to include a very sincere apology. You can be honest while still being civil.

 

The situation has been resolved. How about moving on instead of just jumping in to attack what you perceive to be someones vulnerability?

Link to comment

This thread was very telling. Kit Fox, you are a strong proponent of cache log honesty. Imagine my surprise when you attacked this cacher for a negative log on your cache.

 

First it shows that you are not the least bit interested in "honest" logs unless you agree with the particular brand of honesty that is being dispensed.

 

Second, it illustrates the point of subjectivity when "honestly" logging a cache perfectly.

Oh please. As if there were no difference between being honest and being mean, unkind, inappropriate, negative or a jerk. Apparently, the cacher that posted the offending log agrees with Kit Fox, since he edited his log to include a very sincere apology. You can be honest while still being civil.

 

The situation has been resolved. How about moving on instead of just jumping in to attack what you perceive to be someones vulnerability?

Don't you think it is unfair for kit fox to drag this issue into the forums and then delete his log entry.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...