<_< Complaining about a remote cache placement

[+Kit Fox]

 

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

 

Mr Hooper,

 

Once again, your worthless attempt to antagonize me, was duly noted. Your posts are nothing more than an attempt to belittle others. Congrats, you will be the first poster that I add to my ignore list .

 

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.

 

Too bad you didn't actually read the thread. This was not a log on my cache, it was on a friend's cache.

 

I got involved when the finder went on a diatribe about how caches like Eagle Anvil, (as well as the direct reference to my cache Eisen Faust) made for poor placements, due to their remoteness, and high terrain rating. The finder went so far as to attempt to discourage the hider, by posting this, ""On that note, I hope your future caches will have better placement"

 

An ammo box filled with goodies, in a scenic area, with no muggle factor is anything but a bad placement. We need more cacher placers like Gone2Camp.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Kit Fox

[Trinity's Crew]

I wasn't going to post again since you asked to have this thread closed, but regardless of who's cache it was it shows your hypocrisy when it comes to "honest" logs.

 

Edit spelling

Edited November 5, 2006 by Trinity's Crew

[+Team Noltex]

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.

 

So which is it? You bash him for posting the log or you bash him for removing it. Pick one or the other, not both.

[Trinity's Crew]

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.

 

So which is it? You bash him for posting the log or you bash him for removing it. Pick one or the other, not both.

 

I never bashed Kit Fox for removing the note from the log. I think it was the right thing to do. My posts have been a little harsh, but my point is (and always has been) one man's honesty in a log is another man's rudeness. It just depends on your point of view.

[+Team Noltex]

Well, when it was pointed out to him, the cacher who posted the log agreed that it was rude, not honest, and he changed it, much to his credit. I applaud his integrity and HONESTY in admitting that his log was too harsh, which has been the point all along.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

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.

 

I don't. Since the original log was changed the note was no longer relevent and needed to be deleted, as it was.

[+mtn-man]

Thanks.