+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I agree. I also think the old ammo box covered with sticks is trite. Quote
CoyoteRed Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Of course, the title of SDOEL was created by posters like you as an insult to be stapled to anyone who is against 'those cachers' who try to have any kinds of caches that they do not like declared verboten. Hey, great come back! Good one, really! You got anything constructive to add? Quote
CoyoteRed Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I agree. I also think the old ammo box covered with sticks is trite. So, what's your point? Who's claiming that "the old ammo box covered with sticks" is always fresh and wonderful? Quote
+Retcon Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Now, if we can just figure out what's worse: An ammo can covered in sticks in a parking lot, or a micro in a lamp post in the middle of the forest. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 What is "lame?" Pretty much the lack of application of imagination and thought in creating an entertaining cache is the most common element of a cache being thought lame. So, therefore, it would follow that the SDOEL would, well, staunchly defend the lack of use of imagination and thought. The Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame? You talkin' 'bout me? Please be more specific. Clan Riffster was very clear, but your vague wording can be interpreted at least two different ways: When you say "so therefore, it would follow that the SDOEL would, well, staunchly defend the lack of use of imagination and thought," are you (A) representing my position as being in defense of the right of lame caches to exist, or are you ( representing my position as being in outright opposition to the application of creativity in the design of geocaches? There is a huge difference. (A) is analogous to defending freedom of speech. ( is analogous to supporting the suppression of speech. (A) describes tolerance. ( is completely irrational. If (A), then thank you. If (, then this proves that you have not, in fact, read all the statements I have made in this very thread. Furthermore, considering the statement you made in the post I'm quoting, "...tend to support the right of ANY rule-abiding cache to exist, no matter how uncreative or predictable..." you answered your own question. Which question? You mean my question to CR that he refuses to answer? Is this supposed to tell me who he was referring to when he talked about someone shouting down those who make even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides? This is backed up by other statements you've made in this very thread. Don't bother asking "which one." Don’t tell me what I can and cannot ask. If you’re too lazy (or afraid) to look up and quote the posts you want to argue against, then why should I do it for you? You can pretty much blindly pick any post on the subject and it would set as an example. Okay ... tell you what: I’m feeling generous. I will go ahead and make up for your laziness, and I will pick one of my previous posts on the subject. Read this one, and then tell me whether the correct answer above is (A) or (: I can only speak for myself, of course, but just because I regularly defend the right of less-than-exciting caches to exist doesn’t mean that I prefer them, or even that I want to encourage them. I have never "shouted down" anyone who "suggested that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides," as you say. Quite the contrary, I think the more thought and effort one applies to ones hide, the better the cache. Tolerance and preference are two completely different ideas. For example: I can’t stand unsweetened iced tea myself, but I don’t whine just because it happens to be on the menu. I don’t care to listen to hip-hop or country/western while in my car, yet neither do I roll my eyes at those who do, nor do I insist that the world would be better off without those radio stations available on the dial. All other things being equal, if I only had time for one cache this afternoon I’d much rather go after the challenging / fun / expertly crafted / historical / clever / educational / comical / amazing cache over there at the east end of the park, than the ohmygodnotanotherfreakinglamppostskirt at the west end. Wouldn’t you? That’s a matter of preference. Our apparent difference is that while hunting that very cool cache I wouldn’t be resenting the enjoyment simultaneously experienced by the folks who chose to go the other way, as you seem to do. I’m not bothering them, they’re not bothering me. That’s a matter of tolerance. Again, you said: “Careful: Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.” This is the comment I was asking you to defend. You responded by repeatedly ignoring my request. I simply asked who you were referring to. If you weren’t thinking of me when you wrote that comment (and don’t worry, if you weren’t thinking of me, my fragile ego can probably take it), then who, exactly, did you mean? I’m still very curious. I’ve been closely following this debate with interest for quite a while now, and I have yet to hear anyone come out so squarely against the application of creativity as you describe. I have heard no one express a preference for lameness. I have not read a single post by anyone who is against the existence of cool, fun caches. If it did happen I must have missed it. So whaddya think, CoyoteRed? Am I (A)? Or am I (? Quote
+CaptRussell Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe that's why (the other) CR thought your query was funny. You talkin' 'bout me? Quote
+AZBuckeye04 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 As someone new to caching, have 1 approved and 1 pending cache, the issue of permission is a difficult one. In Lee County, Florida, to place a cache in a park, there is actually a geocache permitting process, which is quite easy. But I would guess that 80% of the caches I have found did not have formal permission. For most locations that would be close to impossible. For liability reasons most people don't want people "loitering" on their property. The highway dept would prefer nothing on road right-of-ways. Getting government employees to approval anything is a real challenge when the course of least resistance is to say no. I suspect very few LPC's had owner permission to place them there. If we had to get formal permission for every cache, the sport would be in real trouble. Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". If you take the time to approach a business owner (or the like) in a positive, respectful manner, with a good reasoning and explanation of the game, I think you stand a good chance of getting permission. I know this method has worked for me. Personally, I see no problem with a carefully placed cached in any public place without permission. I would not place anything on posted land. The stealth element is critical to the sport. Caches should be placed where no one will see them, and they should be logged without being detected. As a libertarian I believe that I have a right to use public land so long as I do not cause problems. (from one of my earlier posts) Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches: "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. As with most activities in life, geocaching is a safe fun activity so long as all involved use a little common sense. Unfortunately there is a good amount of people who don't follow common sense when out caching. Reading through the log entries on a few caches can quickly prove that. Jared Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo. This kind of comment is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum.... Nope. Sorry. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument. This is more of a red herring fallacy, or perhaps a specific version of non sequitur. Mostly, though, it is just an irrelevant interjection with no value to the discussion. I agree. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe that's why (the other) CR thought your query was funny. You talkin' 'bout me? Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". ...Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game.Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information. As with most activities in life, geocaching is a safe fun activity so long as all involved use a little common sense.Unfortunately there is a good amount of people who don't follow common sense when out caching. Reading through the log entries on a few caches can quickly prove that.Is this just a throwaway comment, or is it actually about the topic of whether LPCs should be banninated. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". ...Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game I'm not sure how you could possibly keep tabs on what stories every newspaper in the country has published about geocaching. Also why did you say "amazingly few?" That makes it sounds like you would expect more negative articles than we get. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information. I've always felt pretty comfortable using the ol' Frisbee Rule. Did that come from Criminal? The vast majority of caches I've found have been in places where I would have felt perfectly comfortable tossing a Frisbee without first asking anyone for permission. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". ...Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game I'm not sure how you could possibly keep tabs on what stories every newspaper in the country has published about geocaching. Negative articles tend to get mentioned in the forums very quickly. I feel pretty confident that we are aware of the bulk of them.Also why did you say "amazingly few?" That makes it sounds like you would expect more negative articles than we get.It is true that I would expect that a game that is under the radar for Joe Public, but is played in the public arena would get more negative press than we do. Edited February 18, 2007 by sbell111 Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I've always felt pretty comfortable using the ol' Frisbee Rule. Did that come from Criminal? ...I'm fairly positive that it did. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information. I've always felt pretty comfortable using the ol' Frisbee Rule. Did that come from Criminal? The vast majority of caches I've found have been in places where I would have felt perfectly comfortable tossing a Frisbee without first asking anyone for permission. People don't throw frisbees where you find LPCs. When I picture people throwing frisbees, I see a beach or a nice park. Those places are great spots for caches! Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) People don't throw frisbees where you find LPCs. When I picture people throwing frisbees, I see a beach or a nice park. Those places are great spots for caches! I don't know, you can camp in Wal-Mart's parking lot. I guess you could throw a frisbee around. Years ago, when Wal-Mart wasn't open on Sunday morning, they used to have go-kart racing in the parking lot (maybe it was K-Mart). Edited February 18, 2007 by sbell111 Quote
+Too Tall John Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Geocaching is not 'under seige by local, state, or federal laws put in place because one too many LEOs had to deal with illegally placed caches'. In fact, the concept of 'illegally placed caches' is not as easy to legally wrap your head around as some would have you believe. The simple truth is that the government would not be able to easily enact a law that outlaws caches such as the one in Portsmouth. With the Portsmouth Police Chief making blanket statements that anyone found hiding anything on private property will be arrested, I would suggest that the seige has begun, and that the government doesn't have to enact new laws, the laws they need are already there! As far as not being able to wrap our minds around 'illegally placed caches' goes, umm.... no. It's pretty basic. Any cache placed is placed with the intent that others will find it. Doing so without the permission of the land owner is trespassing, and inviting others to trespass too! Last I checked, trespassing is illegal. Sounds simple to me. This entire thread (and the half a dozen similarly spawned ones) is much ado about nothing. It is little more than a few people taking an opportunity to try to wipe out the kinds of caches that they don't like. Ok, here's the thing. The only thing I have against LPCs is that the majority of them are placed illegally without permission. (Why did I change the wording there? Both are true, but I really don't want to start up with the whole "can't wrap your mind around it" thing!) I work at a retreat center. Today I took a group geocaching as part of their retreat. (I love my job!) As we're hiking through the woods, one girl starts throwing a fit. "I'm cold!... My pants are wet!... Why do we need these snowshoes?... (To help keep you above the snow, thus keeping your pants drier...) We're going to get stranded out here!... Why does this have to be so far out in the woods?!... OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" Her dad took her back to the lodge after 1/4 mile of screaming. I'm sure she thought this cache was pretty lame. I, however think it's pretty cool. That made me, in her eyes, a charter member of the SDOEL club. In some way, I bet each of us can think of something we love that someone we know thinks is lame. There's nothing wrong with that. If we all liked the same things, life would be pretty dull. So, with this philosophy, I'd agree with you on this: The topic of banning LPCs is, indeed, much ado about nothing. Saying that concerns about what might happen to this sport we all love is "much ado about nothing" however is IMO shortsighted. Edited February 18, 2007 by Too Tall John Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 People don't throw frisbees where you find LPCs. That's not the point of the Frisbee Rule. People don't throw Frisbees in the forest either. That doesn't mean I would feel the need to ask anyone for permission before making an idiot of myself trying to fling my Wham-O right through the middle of a thick half-acre stand of young hardwoods in a public park. Neither would I feel guilty about hiding an ammo can in such a place. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Geocaching is not 'under seige by local, state, or federal laws put in place because one too many LEOs had to deal with illegally placed caches'. In fact, the concept of 'illegally placed caches' is not as easy to legally wrap your head around as some would have you believe. The simple truth is that the government would not be able to easily enact a law that outlaws caches such as the one in Portsmouth.With the Portsmouth Police Chief making blanket statements that anyone found hiding anything on private property will be arrested, I would suggest that the seige has begun, and that the government doesn't have to enact new laws, the laws they need are already there! People say many things on the spur of the moment and reporters have been known to get things slightly wrong. Have all the geocachers in the Portsmouth area been rounded up and thrown in the klink, yet? As far as not being able to wrap our minds around 'illegally placed caches' goes, umm.... no. It's pretty basic. Any cache placed is placed with the intent that others will find it. Doing so without the permission of the land owner is trespassing, and inviting others to trespass too! Last I checked, trespassing is illegal. Sounds simple to me. In your scenario, the landowner would have to press charges, the police souldn't arrest people arbitrarily for being in Meier's parking lot.If you can't wrap your mind around that...Careful. Those forum guidelines can be pesky things. This entire thread (and the half a dozen similarly spawned ones) is much ado about nothing. It is little more than a few people taking an opportunity to try to wipe out the kinds of caches that they don't like.Ok, here's the thing. The only thing I have against LPCs is that the majority of them are placed illegally without permission. (Why did I change the wording there? Both are true, but I really don't want to start up with the whole "can't wrap your mind around it" thing!) It is your opinion that they are illegal or that permission is always required. Many would argue that you are wrong. Edited February 18, 2007 by sbell111 Quote
+Too Tall John Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 As far as not being able to wrap our minds around 'illegally placed caches' goes, umm.... no. It's pretty basic. Any cache placed is placed with the intent that others will find it. Doing so without the permission of the land owner is trespassing, and inviting others to trespass too! Last I checked, trespassing is illegal. Sounds simple to me. In your scenario, the landowner would have to press charges, the police souldn't arrest people arbitrarily for being in Meier's parking lot. In my scenario, trespassing is illegal. I'm not really talking about if the landowner has to press charges or not. Oh, if the police think they have reason to detain you they can. It may or may not lead to an arrest, but either way, I'm told the back seat of the cruiser is just as uncomfortable. If you can't wrap your mind around that...Careful. Those forum guidelines can be pesky things. Sorry, wasn't really thinking about how that sounded. Didn't mean to offend, original post edited. This entire thread (and the half a dozen similarly spawned ones) is much ado about nothing. It is little more than a few people taking an opportunity to try to wipe out the kinds of caches that they don't like.Ok, here's the thing. The only thing I have against LPCs is that the majority of them are placed illegally without permission. (Why did I change the wording there? Both are true, but I really don't want to start up with the whole "can't wrap your mind around it" thing!) It is your opinion that they are illegal or that permission is always required. Many would argue that you are wrong. Setting up an activity that invites others onto someone else's private property without permission is trespassing, which is illegal. Black and white. People argued that the world was flat, too. It didn't make it true. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 So, with this philosophy, I'd agree with you on this: The topic of banning LPCs is, indeed, much ado about nothing. Saying that concerns about what might happen to this sport we all love is "much ado about nothing" however is IMO shortsighted. LPCs will never be banned but hopefully they will die off as more people realize that a large percentage of people don't really enjoy them. Caching is more fun when you actually have a little bit of a challenge to find something. Driving up to a light post offers zero challenge for anyone that has found one of these. I wonder if Groundspeak could make a difficulty rating of "0" for LPCs? Regarding the concerns, the fact is that many people don't get permission and a small percentage of those people get caught. I really appreciate when people state that they have permission in their cache description. It makes me feel a lot more comfortable about finding the cache. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 People don't throw frisbees where you find LPCs. That's not the point of the Frisbee Rule. People don't throw Frisbees in the forest either. That doesn't mean I would feel the need to ask anyone for permission before making an idiot of myself trying to fling my Wham-O right through the middle of a thick half-acre stand of young hardwoods in a public park. Neither would I feel guilty about hiding an ammo can in such a place. I don't play Frisbee golf, but if it's anything like my golf game used to be than I would be throwing a frisbee through the woods. I never feel guilty about placing a cache in a park once I know that it's OK with the park rules. Anyhow, I don't think it is predominantly the caches in parks that are causing the issues with the LEOs... Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 LPCs will never be banned but hopefully they will die off as more people realize that a large percentage of people don't really enjoy them. Caching is more fun when you actually have a little bit of a challenge to find something. Challenging caches are always better for me than lame caches, but I still say I'd rather have a lame cache to find than no cache at all. You don't have to agree with that, but you must understand that when you try to hope those caches away you're 'hoping away' something that I and others sometimes enjoy. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs to die off. Driving up to a light post offers zero challenge for anyone that has found one of these. I wonder if Groundspeak could make a difficulty rating of "0" for LPCs? I see your point, but: The first LPC I ever attempted had me stumped for at least 20 minutes. Many first-timers have a similar experience. That doesn't sound like zero difficulty to me -- unless those ratings only apply to experienced cachers. Do they? Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 LPCs will never be banned but hopefully they will die off as more people realize that a large percentage of people don't really enjoy them. Caching is more fun when you actually have a little bit of a challenge to find something. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs to die off. It's not just me! Also when I said die off, I meant die like a passing fad. Driving up to a light post offers zero challenge for anyone that has found one of these. I wonder if Groundspeak could make a difficulty rating of "0" for LPCs? I see your point, but: The first LPC I ever attempted had me stumped for at least 20 minutes. Many first-timers have a similar experience. That doesn't sound like zero difficulty to me -- unless those ratings only apply to experienced cachers. Do they? I did say "offers zero challenge for anyone that has found one of these." Also isn't it more accurate to rate the difficulty of a cache based on the majority of cachers that will find it? Are the majority of cachers newbies that have never found an LPC? Quote
+AZBuckeye04 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". ...Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game. According to princeton.edu numerous - amounting to a large indefinite number; "numerous times"; "the family was numerous" Since I cannot count the exact number of articles (I've probably read a handful or more from South Carolina alone) then to me it's indefinite (meaning vague or not clearly defined or stated). Seems to be a good word for my statement. Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information. adequate - lawfully and reasonably sufficient. IMHO just being a citizen is not "sufficient for a specific requirement" (i.e., permission to hide ANY container (LPC or other)). As with most activities in life, geocaching is a safe fun activity so long as all involved use a little common sense.Unfortunately there is a good amount of people who don't follow common sense when out caching. Reading through the log entries on a few caches can quickly prove that.Is this just a throwaway comment, or is it actually about the topic of whether LPCs should be banninated. It's neither. Very few of my comments have been 100% on topic which is why I offered to start a new thread but no one responded yet the conversation has seemed to shift toward the realm of "permission" issues instead of banning. Besides, it seemed right on topic with geomann1's remark. Quote
Xsighted Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I did say "offers zero challenge for anyone that has found one of these." Also isn't it more accurate to rate the difficulty of a cache based on the majority of cachers that will find it? Are the majority of cachers newbies that have never found an LPC? NEWBIE HERE! But i know where to NOT look now. Quote
Clan Riffster Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Of course, the title of SDOEL was created by posters like you as an insult to be stapled to anyone who is against 'those cachers' who try to have any kinds of caches that they do not like declared verboten. If memory serves, the title Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame was created by me, as a snarky descriptor of those rare folks who feel that every cache, no matter how carpy, has some intrinsic value, and who defend the hiders of such stinkers with their dying breath. I've never called for a ban on any cache type, although I might initiate a campaign against really smart people hiding puzzles. Them dang things make my brain hurt! Maybe that's why (the other) CR thought your query was funny. You talkin' 'bout me? This place is fraught with CR's! Quote
CoyoteRed Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 So whaddya think, CoyoteRed? I think you went off on a tangent in order to save a little face. But to answer your query directly so you won't have 10 more posts hounding me for an answer, yes, it's A. I don't think anyone with decent reading comprehension would have gotten a different impression. After all, you defend the lack of use of imagine and thought, not demand it. I would have thought it obvious what I meant. Just don't get on your high horse just yet. I take exception to your status as a charter member of the SDOEL being equal to defending the freedom of speech. Once you get past the grade school understanding of free speech you realize there are limitations to that, as well. That's not to mention it doesn't exist on the servers of Groundspeak--they control what can and can't be said. You are allowed on post (speak) here only by the good graces of Jeremy Irish & Co. It's the same with any type of cache or hide. You have no "rights" to place lame caches, you are only allowed to until TPTB decide otherwise. Past actions by TPTB seem to prove my point as when they want to do away with something, it's gone. Not exactly the same as the Gold Standard Freedom of Speech issue you were alluding to, now is it? Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 LPCs will never be banned but hopefully they will die off as more people realize that a large percentage of people don't really enjoy them. Caching is more fun when you actually have a little bit of a challenge to find something.Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs to die off. It's not just me! Also when I said die off, I meant die like a passing fad. I like the sound of that a little better. Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) So whaddya think, CoyoteRed?I think you went off on a tangent in order to save a little face. I never had any face to begin with. Just ask Samuel Clemens. But to answer your query directly so you won't have 10 more posts hounding me for an answer, yes, it's A. I don't think anyone with decent reading comprehension would have gotten a different impression. After all, you defend the lack of use of imagine and thought, not demand it. Thank you. Precisely! I "defend the lack of use of imagine and thought, not demand it." That's eloquent, CR. Beautiful. Mind if I steal that one? Now all we have to do is figure out how to effectively 'splain it to Clan Riffster, the one who keeps hearing mysterious "shouting" in his head, so he can drop his strawman. I would have thought it obvious what I meant. Same here, but, based on past experience, you had me wondering. Just don't get on your high horse just yet. I take exception to your status as a charter member of the SDOEL being equal to defending the freedom of speech. Once you get past the grade school understanding of free speech you realize there are limitations to that, as well. That's not to mention it doesn't exist on the servers of Groundspeak--they control what can and can't be said. You are allowed on post (speak) here only by the good graces of Jeremy Irish & Co. It's the same with any type of cache or hide. You have no "rights" to place lame caches, you are only allowed to until TPTB decide otherwise. Past actions by TPTB seem to prove my point as when they want to do away with something, it's gone. Not exactly the same as the Gold Standard Freedom of Speech issue you were alluding to, now is it? I wouldn't want it any other way. I agree with that analysis 100%. Don't get so excited. You're not arguing there against anything I actually said. Try breathing into a paper bag. I didn't say "equal." I said "analogous." Further, I said "analogous to defending freedom of speech" not "analogous to freedom of speech." Jeez, who's on a high horse now? Edited February 18, 2007 by KBI Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". ...Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game.According to princeton.edunumerous - amounting to a large indefinite number; "numerous times"; "the family was numerous" Since I cannot count the exact number of articles (I've probably read a handful or more from South Carolina alone) then to me it's indefinite (meaning vague or not clearly defined or stated). Seems to be a good word for my statement. Thanks for the definition. Given the scope of geocaching, I submit that the number of negative articles has not been 'large'. Therefore, the amount of negative articles could not have been 'numerous', by your definition. This little bit of nothing reminds me of a professor in B-school that had the position that the phrase 'a number of' could mean any number, including zero. 'A number of Presidents of the United States are on record supporting geocaching and our God given right to play the game wherever we please.' Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information.adequate - lawfully and reasonably sufficient. IMHO just being a citizen is not "sufficient for a specific requirement" (i.e., permission to hide ANY container (LPC or other)).Many people would argue that just about any LPM fits your definition of adequate. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Of course, the title of SDOEL was created by posters like you as an insult to be stapled to anyone who is against 'those cachers' who try to have any kinds of caches that they do not like declared verboten.If memory serves, the title Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame was created by me, as a snarky descriptor of those rare folks who feel that every cache, no matter how carpy, has some intrinsic value, and who defend the hiders of such stinkers with their dying breath. I've never called for a ban on any cache type, although I might initiate a campaign against really smart people hiding puzzles. Them dang things make my brain hurt! I guess I was only half right, huh? Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 ... Just don't get on your high horse just yet. I take exception to your status as a charter member of the SDOEL being equal to defending the freedom of speech. Once you get past the grade school understanding of free speech you realize there are limitations to that, as well. That's not to mention it doesn't exist on the servers of Groundspeak--they control what can and can't be said. You are allowed on post (speak) here only by the good graces of Jeremy Irish & Co. It's the same with any type of cache or hide. You have no "rights" to place lame caches, you are only allowed to until TPTB decide otherwise. Past actions by TPTB seem to prove my point as when they want to do away with something, it's gone. Not exactly the same as the Gold Standard Freedom of Speech issue you were alluding to, now is it?Umm, your post kind of went sideways, didn't it? I guess the only response to it can be that TPTB haven't decided to use the Coyote Red standard when listing caches. For that, I thank them. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 ... Just don't get on your high horse just yet. I take exception to your status as a charter member of the SDOEL being equal to defending the freedom of speech. Once you get past the grade school understanding of free speech you realize there are limitations to that, as well. That's not to mention it doesn't exist on the servers of Groundspeak--they control what can and can't be said. You are allowed on post (speak) here only by the good graces of Jeremy Irish & Co. It's the same with any type of cache or hide. You have no "rights" to place lame caches, you are only allowed to until TPTB decide otherwise. Past actions by TPTB seem to prove my point as when they want to do away with something, it's gone. Not exactly the same as the Gold Standard Freedom of Speech issue you were alluding to, now is it? Umm, your post kind of went sideways, didn't it? Or, as he describes it himself, he "went off on a tangent in order to save a little face." I guess the only response to it can be that TPTB haven't decided to use the Coyote Red standard when listing caches. For that, I thank them. The day that happens is the day I sell my GPS. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. So now I have to pretend that they aren't completely worthless? Ever heard of free speech? Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. So now I have to pretend that they aren't completely worthless? Ever heard of free speech? Take a quick read of Coyote Red's post. Apparently, there is no such thing as free speech. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. So now I have to pretend that they aren't completely worthless? Ever heard of free speech? Did I say that? Did I say you shouldn't have an opinion, or that you shouldn't frequently and loudly express your opinion in these forums? No. What I said is that it's silly to let the mere existence of those hides bother you in the first place. Do you prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla? Fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Do you have the right to march in front of the grocery store (on public property) with a crowd of your friends carrying picket signs protesting the fact that vanilla ice cream is available for sale there? Absolutely. That's free speech, and I'll defend with my own blood your right to do so. Would such a protest be silly? Would it be strange for someone to be deeply troubled at the mere availability if vanilla ice cream? I say yes -- and that's MY opinion. Edited February 18, 2007 by KBI Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. So now I have to pretend that they aren't completely worthless? Ever heard of free speech? Did I say that? Did I say you shouldn't have an opinion, or that you shouldn't frequently and loudly express your opinion in these forums? No. What I said is that it's silly to let the mere existence of those hides bother you in the first place. Do you prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla? Fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Do you have the right to march in front of the grocery store (on public property) with a crowd of your friends carrying picket signs protesting the fact that vanilla ice cream is available for sale there? Absolutely. That's free speech, and I'll defend with my own blood your right to do so. Would such a protest be silly? Would it be strange for someone to be deeply troubled at the mere availability if vanilla ice cream? I say yes -- and that's MY opinion. Yes, you told me how I should feel. Anyhow, the difference is that all the ice cream is not labeled so we don't know which one is vanilla until we buy it. We have been through this a million times but there is no easy way to slice out LPCs from our PQs without slicing out some non-LPCs too. Also your analogy of picketing over vanilla ice cream is absurd. Furthermore, your implication that I am deeply troubled over this is another total exaggeration. I really appreciate the truth being completely distorted. Edited February 18, 2007 by TrailGators Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. A large percentage of LPCs are rated 1.5 and 2 because people think they are tricky to find. So I'd have to filter out 1/1 and 1.5/1 and 2/1 caches also. That pretty much kills urbans. Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Yes, you told me how I should feel. No, I DIDN'T tell you how you "should" feel. I said that the way you DO seem to feel is SILLY. Can't you see the difference? If you want to be silly, knock yourself out. That's your choice, and like I said, I'll defend that choice. Anyhow, the difference is that all the ice cream is not labeled so we don't know which one is vanilla until we buy it. We have been through this a million times but there is no easy way to slice out LPCs from our PQs without slicing out some non-LPCs too. I disagree. I've never had a problem separating the good stuff from the lame stuff, and I don't even use PQs. Also your analogy of picketing over vanilla ice cream is absurd. Thank you. It was supposed to be absurd. That's one way analogies help you to see logical fallacies -- by magnifying them. Furthermore, your implication that I am deeply troubled over this is another total exaggeration. You mean like when you say "We have been through this a million times?" I really appreciate the truth being completely distorted. You mean like when you told me that I wanted you to pretend that [those hides] aren't completely worthless? They're worthless to you. That's fine -- that's your opinion. They're not worthless to everybody. Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 You don't even remember what you've said: Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. A large percentage of LPCs are rated 1.5 and 2 because people think they are tricky to find. So I'd have to filter out 1/1 and 1.5/1 and 2/1 caches also. That pretty much kills urbans. A large percentage? Really? In my experience, it is a very small percentage of LPCs that are rated higher than 1/1. Perhaps this is a local anomaly. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 You don't even remember what you've said: Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. How about 'You shouldn't let them bother you.' Is that more to your liking? Quote
+TrailGators Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. A large percentage of LPCs are rated 1.5 and 2 because people think they are tricky to find. So I'd have to filter out 1/1 and 1.5/1 and 2/1 caches also. That pretty much kills urbans. A large percentage? Really? In my experience, it is a very small percentage of LPCs that are rated higher than 1/1. Perhaps this is a local anomaly. There's no way to pull data to actually find out. Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. A large percentage of LPCs are rated 1.5 and 2 because people think they are tricky to find. So I'd have to filter out 1/1 and 1.5/1 and 2/1 caches also. That pretty much kills urbans. A large percentage? Really? In my experience, it is a very small percentage of LPCs that are rated higher than 1/1. Perhaps this is a local anomaly. There's no way to pull data to actually find out. Actually, it would be fairly simple to pull that data for a defined area. All one would have to do is take a look at his/her finds, identify the LPCs, and check the ratings. Then it's just a matter of taking a quick look at the non-found micros to identify LPCs not found. Quote
+FamilyDNA Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If I were strongly opposed to finding LPCs, I would merely filter out all the 1/1 micros from my searches. While this would leave just a couple LPCs in my PQs, most would certainly be gone. After I had found every cache that is returned by my PQs, I would go back and take a look at the 1/1 micros. A quick read of the cache page and glance at the map should be a big help to identifying any ones that I might be interested in finding. Of course, there are so many caches that are not 1/1 micros that I likely wouldn't get around to this analysis for a very long time. A large percentage of LPCs are rated 1.5 and 2 because people think they are tricky to find. So I'd have to filter out 1/1 and 1.5/1 and 2/1 caches also. That pretty much kills urbans. A large percentage? Really? In my experience, it is a very small percentage of LPCs that are rated higher than 1/1. Perhaps this is a local anomaly. There's no way to pull data to actually find out. Actually, it would be fairly simple to pull that data for a defined area. All one would have to do is take a look at his/her finds, identify the LPCs, and check the ratings. Then it's just a matter of taking a quick look at the non-found micros to identify LPCs not found. Out of curiosity, I did this. From 10 LPCs I have found (starting from closest to my house) the ratings are: 3 are 1/1 3 are 1.5/1 2 are 2/1 1 is 1/1.5 1 is 1.5/1.5 Quote
+sbell111 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) I suspect that your findings may be caused either by a localized issue or sample size error. Of the last 40 LPCs I've found, 28 were 1/1s, 7 were 1.5/1s. Identifying the hiders of the misrated LPCs might help you ignore the bulk of them. Adjusting my previous plan to weed out micros rated 1/1.5 or less would still leave me a honking lot of caches to find and only leave 1/8 of the LPCs in the mix. A quick read of the cache page before taking off after one will likely reduce your chances of finding a LPC even further. Of course, that goes back to the earlier plan which was suggested: merely reading the cache page prior to hitting GOTO will greatly reduce anyone's chances of being disappointed. Edited February 18, 2007 by sbell111 Quote
+KBI Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 You don't even remember what you've said: Just also keep in mind that until then, those hides aren't bothering you. Or more accurately, they shouldn't bother you. How about 'You shouldn't let them bother you.' Is that more to your liking? Thanks, sbell111. Me are learn talk explain good better you help me. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.