Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+TrailGators]

There are a few cachers, like this one who have found well over 1000 caches in a year, and who have contributed greatly to the number of new caches in this area.

I did not mean to imply there weren't any. I know there are. My point is that they are definitely NOT the norm. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

 

I just wanted to know where he got his numbers, that's all. I know the 'urban' areas I cache are not 70% micros. At least I don't think so...

 

(Maybe I'll do a quick check myself...)

You are missing the point. If 99% of all caches in some areas were micros then that would be OK to the defenders.... Let me know if this assumption is not true.

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), then an area with 99% micros would fall in to one of the following categories:

• The area cannot support more than a very small percentage of non-micros
  
• The geocachers in the area greatly prefer micros
  
• Those area geocachers who prefer non-micros are not motivated to hide very many caches.
  

Either way, I would not have an issue with it. Why should I?

What if there were only a handful of cachers that were hiding hundreds of micros? Would that make any difference?

[+KBI]

There is nothing left for me to say.

You could answer my Big Question.

What's the point? Am I a glutton for punishment?

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that you are evidently unwilling (or unable) to defend the weak argument you keep repeating.

 

Here is the question, one more time:

 

There are plenty of folks who prefer drive-up urban hides over long hikes in the woods. Should they also expect you to go out into the rural areas and make sure there are enough drive-ups out there to “properly balance” the hides? Shouldn’t you hide some easy micros out there in order to please them so they won’t have to be disappointed by all your “lame nature hikes?”

 

You are demanding asking consideration from others. Where is your consideration for them?

 

[EDIT: Can't trust the freaking Microsoft spell-ckecker]

Edited April 20, 2007 by KBI

[+egami]

It seemed like "demanding" fit to me.

[+KBI]

It seemed like "demanding" fit to me.

<whispering> I agree, but if I allow him the distraction of debating that relatively meaningless point he'll never get around to defending his strange pronouncements about people being "inconsidrate" just because they don't tailor their hides to satisfy his preferences. </whispering>

[+Miragee]

<snip>

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), . . . <snip>

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

[+sbell111]

There are a few cachers, like this one who have found well over 1000 caches in a year, and who have contributed greatly to the number of new caches in this area.

I did not mean to imply there weren't any. I know there are. My point is that they are definitely NOT the norm. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

 

I just wanted to know where he got his numbers, that's all. I know the 'urban' areas I cache are not 70% micros. At least I don't think so...

 

(Maybe I'll do a quick check myself...)

You are missing the point. If 99% of all caches in some areas were micros then that would be OK to the defenders.... Let me know if this assumption is not true.

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), then an area with 99% micros would fall in to one of the following categories:

• The area cannot support more than a very small percentage of non-micros
  
• The geocachers in the area greatly prefer micros
  
• Those area geocachers who prefer non-micros are not motivated to hide very many caches.
  

Either way, I would not have an issue with it. Why should I?

What if there were only a handful of cachers that were hiding hundreds of micros? Would that make any difference?

No. I think that would be covered in scenario #3.

[+egami]

KBI-

 

 

I am eagering awaiting...

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

<snip>

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), . . . <snip>

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

Wow. You're in TrailGator's area, also. Has he counseled you regarding the error of your ways?

[+egami]

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

 

This brings up an intriguing viewpoint about myself I've never noticed...I am getting reading to do place some caches once my family gets relocated and the dust settles from the move (which could be a LONG time if we decide to build lol).

 

At any rate...one thing I've noticed is that I tend to have a different frame of mind about placing a cache that looking for one. I am pretty open when I am looking in that I really don't care what kind of cache it is...but when I thinking about them I seem to have a pretty high standard about what I want the cache to be.

 

Not meant to derail...that reply just got me thinking.

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+KBI]

KBI-

 

 

I am eagering awaiting...

You really think he might actually tackle the question at some point? I'm losing optimism, myself.

[+egami]

You really think he might actually tackle the question at some point? I'm losing optimism, myself.

 

I'd tell you what I honestly think, but I admire the persistance and besides we are starting a pool for what page of the thread that occurs on...I took page 452.

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

<snip>

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), . . . <snip>

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

Wow. You're in TrailGator's area, also. Has he counseled you regarding the error of your ways?

On second thought, I think that you might have follwed TrailGator's plan when hiding that cache.

 

My position has always been 'Hide what you like to find', but TG's is 'Hide what other's would like'.

[+tozainamboku]

What is true is that it cost $5 - $10 to stock and hide an ammo can. Plus time to find a hidding place and perhaps time spent painting and camouflaging it. A lamp post hide cost only a few cents at most and much less effort to find a lamp post skirt that lifts up to put it under. So perhaps the people who like LPCs hide dozens and the ammo can hider hides only 1 or two. So to some people it looks like the LPCs have an unfair advantage in being placed. In addition, some people would like to reward the person who spent $5 - $10 and spent more time and effort more than rewarding the person who hid an inexpensive cache with mininmal effort.

 

To others, the cost and effort of the hider isn't as important as the intention of the hider in placing the cache. The lamp post hider has hidden the LPC because they enjoy caching in urban areas. They use LPCs because there are not many places to hide caches in an urban environment that work as well as an LPC. Lamp post hides often last a long time because muggles don't go around checking under lamp post skirts. They can be found by geocachers, even in high muggle areas, without calling attention to the cache. The ammo can hider want to share a great hike or location and want to provide trade items for cacher who like to trade. People are hiding the caches they like to find and hope that others like to find.

[+TrailGators]

There is nothing left for me to say.

You could answer my Big Question.

What's the point? Am I a glutton for punishment?

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that you are evidently unwilling (or unable) to defend the weak argument you keep repeating.

 

Here is the question, one more time:

 

There are plenty of folks who prefer drive-up urban hides over long hikes in the woods. Should they also expect you to go out into the rural areas and make sure there are enough drive-ups out there to "properly balance" the hikes? Shouldn't you hide some easy micros out there in order to please them so they won't have to be disappointed by all your "lame nature hikes?"

 

You are demanding asking consideration from others. Where is your consideration for them?

This has been brought up before. Rural areas typically have nice hiking areas that host higher terrain caches. So if someone doesn't like my "lame nature hike" as you put it, then all they have to do is filter out terrain>1.5 in their PQ! It's very easy to do. But if they don't like caches hidden under a pile of sticks/rocks, then they are out of luck because they don't have lamp posts in the woods.

[+sbell111]

What is true is that it cost $5 - $10 to stock and hide an ammo can. Plus time to find a hidding place and perhaps time spent painting and camouflaging it. A lamp post hide cost only a few cents at most and much less effort to find a lamp post skirt that lifts up to put it under. So perhaps the people who like LPCs hide dozens and the ammo can hider hides only 1 or two. So to some people it looks like the LPCs have an unfair advantage in being placed. In addition, some people would like to reward the person who spent $5 - $10 and spent more time and effort more than rewarding the person who hid an inexpensive cache with mininmal effort. ...

Don't the 'ammo can' hiders already get rewarded through:

• happy logs
  
• similar caches (cacher-see, cacher-do)
  
• 'Best of' or 'Must do' nominations (If the cache actually is good, not just big)
  

[+sbell111]

There is nothing left for me to say.

You could answer my Big Question.

What's the point? Am I a glutton for punishment?

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that you are evidently unwilling (or unable) to defend the weak argument you keep repeating.

 

Here is the question, one more time:

 

There are plenty of folks who prefer drive-up urban hides over long hikes in the woods. Should they also expect you to go out into the rural areas and make sure there are enough drive-ups out there to "properly balance" the hikes? Shouldn't you hide some easy micros out there in order to please them so they won't have to be disappointed by all your "lame nature hikes?"

 

You are demanding asking consideration from others. Where is your consideration for them?

This has been brought up before. Rural areas typically have nice hiking areas that host higher terrain caches. So if someone doesn't like my "lame nature hike" as you put it, then all they have to do is filter out terrain>1.5 in their PQ! It's very easy to do. But if they don't like caches hidden under a pile of sticks/rocks, then they are out of luck because they don't have lamp posts in the woods.

Of course, it has been shown that you can also filter in caches that you know that you'll like. Yet, this thread keeps chugging along...

[+Miragee]

<snip>

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), . . . <snip>

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

Wow. You're in TrailGator's area, also. Has he counseled you regarding the error of your ways?

No . . . but he has found my crappy urban micros . . .

[+sbell111]

No . . . but he has found my crappy urban micros . . .

'TFTC' ????

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it.

 

If everyone is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding (I have been presented with no evidence to make me believe that this isn't true), . . . <snip>

I am guilty of hiding caches I would not like looking for . . .

 

Why?

 

Because, my more rural and hiking caches got very few visits. I wanted to get some "Found It" emails in my InBox. That was my "reward" for hiding a cache.

 

Even though I would filter out some of my own caches from my GSAK database, I'm not ready to Archive them because some people still seek them and find them . . . and then I get a "Found It" email.

Wow. You're in TrailGator's area, also. Has he counseled you regarding the error of your ways?

No . . . but he has found my crappy urban micros . . .

 

Yes I have! Karen can vouch that I never tell people what to hide. We both rave about certain caches. We also know that when the hiking gets tougher, less and less people can make it to those caches. But they are truly inspiring caches worth the effort to get in shape to do. Sometimes we hike with a man that's in his 70s that I have a hard time keeping up with... Edited April 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I need a price check on aisle twelve.

Edited April 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

There is nothing left for me to say.

You could answer my Big Question.

What's the point? Am I a glutton for punishment?

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that you are evidently unwilling (or unable) to defend the weak argument you keep repeating.

 

Here is the question, one more time:

 

There are plenty of folks who prefer drive-up urban hides over long hikes in the woods. Should they also expect you to go out into the rural areas and make sure there are enough drive-ups out there to "properly balance" the hikes? Shouldn't you hide some easy micros out there in order to please them so they won't have to be disappointed by all your "lame nature hikes?"

 

You are demanding asking consideration from others. Where is your consideration for them?

This has been brought up before. Rural areas typically have nice hiking areas that host higher terrain caches. So if someone doesn't like my "lame nature hike" as you put it, then all they have to do is filter out terrain>1.5 in their PQ! It's very easy to do. But if they don't like caches hidden under a pile of sticks/rocks, then they are out of luck because they don't have lamp posts in the woods.

Not true. The North Georgia Mountains, near me, are full of beautiful views and wooded mountain skylines. It is a very rural area. They also have lots of parking lots. Every state park, nature center, trail head, mountain overlook, and small town supermarket has plenty of lamp posts, guard rails and dumpsters. I'm sure your favorite hiking area is very similar. Besides, you're just making excuses. You want ammo cans in a parking lots? Go figure out how to place a skirt lifter in or near the hiking trails! Fair is fair! Or is your opinion and preference somehow more important than other people's?

 

I think it's very inconsiderate of you to completely ignore the preferences of those who prefer skirt lifter hides, and to not place more skirt-lifters in the areas that are "out of balance" with way too many long-hike-non-micro caches. Or is your opinion and preference somehow more important than other people's?

[+TrailGators]

There is nothing left for me to say.

You could answer my Big Question.

What's the point? Am I a glutton for punishment?

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that you are evidently unwilling (or unable) to defend the weak argument you keep repeating.

 

Here is the question, one more time:

 

There are plenty of folks who prefer drive-up urban hides over long hikes in the woods. Should they also expect you to go out into the rural areas and make sure there are enough drive-ups out there to "properly balance" the hikes? Shouldn't you hide some easy micros out there in order to please them so they won't have to be disappointed by all your "lame nature hikes?"

 

You are demanding asking consideration from others. Where is your consideration for them?

This has been brought up before. Rural areas typically have nice hiking areas that host higher terrain caches. So if someone doesn't like my "lame nature hike" as you put it, then all they have to do is filter out terrain>1.5 in their PQ! It's very easy to do. But if they don't like caches hidden under a pile of sticks/rocks, then they are out of luck because they don't have lamp posts in the woods.

Not true. The North Georgia Mountains, near me, are full of beautiful views and wooded mountain skylines. It is a very rural area. They also have lots of parking lots. Every state park, nature center, trail head, mountain overlook, and small town supermarket has plenty of lamp posts, guard rails and dumpsters. I'm sure your favorite hiking area is very similar. Besides, you're just making excuses. You want ammo cans in a parking lots? Go figure out how to place a skirt lifter in or near the hiking trails! Fair is fair! Or is your opinion and preference somehow more important than other people's?

 

I think it's very inconsiderate of you to completely ignore the preferences of those who prefer skirt lifter hides, and to not place more skirt-lifters in the areas that are "out of balance" with way too many long-hike-non-micro caches. Or is your opinion and preference somehow more important than other people's?

 

My opinion is just my opinion. I never said it was more important than anybody's. I have you to thank you for putting those words in my mouth. The subject of this thread was one type of urban cache and I don't like it.

[+sbell111]

I imagine that you'll learn to live with them.

[+KBI]

My opinion is just my opinion. I never said it was more important than anybody's.

FINALLY!! AN ANSWER!! (Was that so hard?)

 

You would prefer that there be fewer skirt lifter micros. Many, many cachers enjoy those micros. Some actually prefer them over hikes. Their preference is opposite of yours. Their preference, however, and as you have now admitted, is equal in importance to yours. Those people don't belittle you for preferring to cache in the woods, do they? Such a complaint would be irrational, would it not? There is therefore no reason for you to belittle them for their preference either.

 

While you have every right to your opinion, your whining on the matter is therefore irrational, and your arguments for convincing others to adjust their game play in order to satisfy your preference and suit your personal convenience have failed.

 

I'll start hiding more clever and interesting full-size caches in your city and suburbs when you start hiding more skirt-lifter micros in my mountains.

[+TrailGators]

My opinion is just my opinion. I never said it was more important than anybody's.

FINALLY!! AN ANSWER!! (Was that so hard?)

 

You would prefer that there be fewer skirt lifter micros. Many, many cachers enjoy those micros. Some actually prefer them over hikes. Their preference is opposite of yours. Their preference, however, and as you have now admitted, is equal in importance to yours. Those people don't belittle you for preferring to cache in the woods, do they? Such a complaint would be irrational, would it not? There is therefore no reason for you to belittle them for their preference either.

 

While you have every right to your opinion, your whining on the matter is therefore irrational, and your arguments for convincing others to adjust their game play in order to satisfy your preference and suit your personal convenience have failed.

 

I'll start hiding more clever and interesting full-size caches in your city and suburbs when you start hiding more skirt-lifter micros in my mountains.

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

 

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

[+sbell111]

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them .....

Sure you can. Edited April 20, 2007 by sbell111

[Sadie]

<snip> I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

Ouch! I suppose "these people" should be subject to some sort of genocide to rid the world of their substandard contributions?

[+egami]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

 

When you've gone on for so many replies about how much you despise them then you've kind of earned that label.

[+TrailGators]

<snip> I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

Ouch! I suppose "these people" should be subject to some sort of genocide to rid the world of their substandard contributions?

Good grief... I just want to filter them out of my PQs. They are contributing to the ones that enjoy them.

 

 

This is off-topic but it is so awesome that I thought I would share it will all of you because it's the bigger picture that really matters....

[+TrailGators]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

 

When you've gone on for so many replies about how much you despise them then you've kind of earned that label.

Never used the word despise either. I said I don't like them. Anyhow, I won't say it anymore....

[+KBI]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

Like I said, I call 'em as I see 'em. Maybe you like the word "griping" better? Still sounds like whining to me, but whatever makes you happy. I'll be happy to adjust my debating language to suit YOUR listening preference.

 

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

No, that doesn't work:

 

If I want to filter out hiking caches, using a filter that removes all terrain greater than 1.5 might also cause me to miss out on some great urban micros that happen to have a bit of terrain or be mis-rated. Missing out on even a few micro caches I might like is unacceptable to me.

 

Your suggestion also implies that I should use PQs. I don’t use PQs, and don’t want to learn how. That is unacceptable to me.

 

And don't tell me that I should recognize that the cache is way off in the woods by looking at a map, or by the fact that, while driving to the cache, the road suddenly ends ten miles from the coords with nothing but trees in front of me. That is an inconvenient method, and is unacceptable to me.

 

Nor should you try to tell me to read the cache page first. I would rather play golf. That solution is unacceptable as well.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that I’m being unreasonable, or are you going to start putting out some easy micros in my nearby mountains like I asked you to do?

Edited April 20, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

Like I said, I call 'em as I see 'em. Maybe you like the word "griping" better? Still sounds like whining to me, but whatever makes you happy. I'll be happy to adjust my debating language to suit YOUR listening preference.

 

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

No, that doesn't work:

 

If I want to filter out hiking caches, using a filter that removes all terrain greater than 1.5 might also cause me to miss out on some great urban micros that happen to have a bit of terrain or be mis-rated. Missing out on even a few micro caches I might like is unacceptable to me.

 

Your suggestion also implies that I should use PQs. I don't use PQs, and don't want to learn how. That is unacceptable to me.

 

And don't tell me that I should recognize that the cache is way off in the woods by looking at a map, or by the fact that, while driving to the cache, the road suddenly ends ten miles from the coords with nothing but trees in front of me. That is an inconvenient method, and is unacceptable to me.

 

Nor should you try to tell me to read the cache page first. I would rather play golf. That solution is unacceptable as well.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that I'm being unreasonable, or are you going to start putting out some easy micros in my nearby mountains like I asked you to do?

You are just full of venom aren't you...

[+KBI]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me....

And by the way, who called you Satan? Did someone here actually use that name to describe you? If not, are you the only one who is allowed to make inferences and use descriptive language?

 

I'm going to have to ask you to either:

• Apologize to me for implying that I called you Satan, or
  
• Stop complaining about the very accurate descriptive words people are using to characterize your comments.
  

Fair is fair.

[+KBI]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

Like I said, I call 'em as I see 'em. Maybe you like the word "griping" better? Still sounds like whining to me, but whatever makes you happy. I'll be happy to adjust my debating language to suit YOUR listening preference.

 

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

No, that doesn't work:

 

If I want to filter out hiking caches, using a filter that removes all terrain greater than 1.5 might also cause me to miss out on some great urban micros that happen to have a bit of terrain or be mis-rated. Missing out on even a few micro caches I might like is unacceptable to me.

 

Your suggestion also implies that I should use PQs. I don't use PQs, and don't want to learn how. That is unacceptable to me.

 

And don't tell me that I should recognize that the cache is way off in the woods by looking at a map, or by the fact that, while driving to the cache, the road suddenly ends ten miles from the coords with nothing but trees in front of me. That is an inconvenient method, and is unacceptable to me.

 

Nor should you try to tell me to read the cache page first. I would rather play golf. That solution is unacceptable as well.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that I'm being unreasonable, or are you going to start putting out some easy micros in my nearby mountains like I asked you to do?

You are just full of venom aren't you...

Just following your example, dude. How'd I do?

[+TrailGators]

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me.... Anyhow, I already asked you to knock off the whining comments.

Like I said, I call 'em as I see 'em. Maybe you like the word "griping" better? Still sounds like whining to me, but whatever makes you happy. I'll be happy to adjust my debating language to suit YOUR listening preference.

 

But you are still forgetting something. You can easily ignore hiking caches by filtering out terrains>1.5 and I cannot filter out LPCs or (even better) people that spew them.....

No, that doesn't work:

 

If I want to filter out hiking caches, using a filter that removes all terrain greater than 1.5 might also cause me to miss out on some great urban micros that happen to have a bit of terrain or be mis-rated. Missing out on even a few micro caches I might like is unacceptable to me.

 

Your suggestion also implies that I should use PQs. I don't use PQs, and don't want to learn how. That is unacceptable to me.

 

And don't tell me that I should recognize that the cache is way off in the woods by looking at a map, or by the fact that, while driving to the cache, the road suddenly ends ten miles from the coords with nothing but trees in front of me. That is an inconvenient method, and is unacceptable to me.

 

Nor should you try to tell me to read the cache page first. I would rather play golf. That solution is unacceptable as well.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that I'm being unreasonable, or are you going to start putting out some easy micros in my nearby mountains like I asked you to do?

You are just full of venom aren't you...

Just following your example, dude. How'd I do?

You mean besides totally exagerrating the truth to make your argument look valid.......

[Clan Riffster]

Okay. Quick PQ of Moline, IL (zip 61265) shows 508 active caches within 40 miles of that zip. 204 are micros, 304 are all others.

 

So, I guess I will buy the "40%" micros

Wow. Even a small town like Moline has been saturated with micros. Since micros only account for 25% of the total available types, (Large/Regular/Small/Micro), 40% sure looks like spew to me. Hopefully, at least some of those 204 were hidden in a creative manner.

 

...vs ONE attacker. You. If you look, I said you are in the minority. Are you even going to argue THAT now???

I'm left wondering if I should question your powers of observation, or your mathmatical abilities. I've seen many more than ONE person stating the inherent value of creativity.

 

Okay, demanding, asking, whatever. I would say that you are in the minority on this issue, looking at the past few hundred posts.

Since what he's asking is that folks employ at least a hint of creativity, I hardly think that puts him in any "minority".

Most folks I know actually like creativity.

 

I am pretty open when I am looking in that I really don't care what kind of cache it is...but when I thinking about them I seem to have a pretty high standard about what I want the cache to be.

Careful Egami. Your creative side is showing. Can't have that around here. We might hurt the esteem of the non-creative folks.

 

You mean besides totally exagerrating the truth to make your argument look valid.......

Not KBI? Surely? Say it ain't so!

[+KBI]

Just following your example, dude. How'd I do?

You mean besides totally exagerrating the truth to make your argument look valid.......

What part did I exaggerate?

 

Also: got my apology ready yet? Or are we back to being okay with using whatever descriptive terms apply?

[+sbell111]

Okay. Quick PQ of Moline, IL (zip 61265) shows 508 active caches within 40 miles of that zip. 204 are micros, 304 are all others.

 

So, I guess I will buy the "40%" micros

Wow. Even a small town like Moline has been saturated with micros. Since micros only account for 25% of the total available types, (Large/Regular/Small/Micro), 40% sure looks like spew to me. Hopefully, at least some of those 204 were hidden in a creative manner.

 

It's spew unless all sizes have exactly the same representation? That's just crazy talk.

[+sbell111]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

[+tozainamboku]

Okay. Quick PQ of Moline, IL (zip 61265) shows 508 active caches within 40 miles of that zip. 204 are micros, 304 are all others.

 

So, I guess I will buy the "40%" micros

Wow. Even a small town like Moline has been saturated with micros. Since micros only account for 25% of the total available types, (Large/Regular/Small/Micro), 40% sure looks like spew to me. Hopefully, at least some of those 204 were hidden in a creative manner.

 

It's spew unless all sizes have exactly the same representation? That's just crazy talk.

Isn't it just plain obvious that there should be equal number of each size, just as there should be equal numbers of each cache type (we need more multis and letterbox hybrids to stop the traditional cache spew). And there should be equal numbers for each terrain and difficulty combination too. Or perhaps the old timers could tell us about when everything was a traditional cache and size wasn't specified. Lets bring back the good old days.

[+TrailGators]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

Wasn't that movie awesome! Makes you forget about this trivial stuff.... Edited April 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Okay. Quick PQ of Moline, IL (zip 61265) shows 508 active caches within 40 miles of that zip. 204 are micros, 304 are all others.

 

So, I guess I will buy the "40%" micros

Wow. Even a small town like Moline has been saturated with micros. Since micros only account for 25% of the total available types, (Large/Regular/Small/Micro), 40% sure looks like spew to me. Hopefully, at least some of those 204 were hidden in a creative manner.

 

It's spew unless all sizes have exactly the same representation? That's just crazy talk.

Isn't it just plain obvious that there should be equal number of each size, just as there should be equal numbers of each cache type (we need more multis and letterbox hybrids to stop the traditional cache spew). And there should be equal numbers for each terrain and difficulty combination too. Or perhaps the old timers could tell us about when everything was a traditional cache and size wasn't specified. Lets bring back the good old days.

I don't know about you, but I've had it up to here with traditional-spew.

[+sbell111]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

Did you like the movie?

It wasn't worth eight bucks to see the same tired plot dragged out yet again. Plus, the popcorn was stale.

[+TrailGators]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

Did you like the movie?

It wasn't worth eight bucks to see the same tired plot dragged out yet again. Plus, the popcorn was stale.

Same tired plot? That kind of movie has never been shown on our left-wing news. It was refreshing to see the viewpoint of the brave men and women over there. I'd pay to watch that movie over and over again.

[+KBI]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

I'm still waiting for the apology ...

 

(He didn't seem to mind me apologizing to him when it was called for. I guess the double-standard thing applies to everything -- opinions, preferences, debating rules ...)

[Clan Riffster]

KBI, I know this is way off topic, but would you be upset if I borrowed your signature line for my next T-shirt?

It absolutely rings with truth.

[+KBI]

KBI, I know this is way off topic, but would you be upset if I borrowed your signature line for my next T-shirt?

It absolutely rings with truth.

Which one, the one at the bottom of my posts, or the one under my ... um ... what was the question?

[+KBI]

And who do I make the check out to to get a red one in Large?

[+TrailGators]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

I'm still waiting for the apology ... (He didn't seem to mind me apologizing to him when it was called for. I guess the double-standard thing applies to everything -- opinions, preferences, debating rules ...)

Sbell already said that I apologized...Anyhow, I am willing to apologize if anything that I said made it sound like I hate LPCs or dislike people that hide them. The simple fact is that I do not like LPCs. The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. This is my opinion. If people don't want to do it then there's nothing I else can do because they are free to do what they want. OK?

[+KBI]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

I'm still waiting for the apology ... (He didn't seem to mind me apologizing to him when it was called for. I guess the double-standard thing applies to everything -- opinions, preferences, debating rules ...)

Sbell already said that I apologized...Anyhow, I am willing to apologize if anything that I said made it sound like I hate LPCs or dislike people that hide them...

No, it was this:

 

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me....

And by the way, who called you Satan? Did someone here actually use that name to describe you? If not, are you the only one who is allowed to make inferences and use descriptive language?

 

I'm going to have to ask you to either:

• Apologize to me for implying that I called you Satan, or
  
• Stop complaining about the very accurate descriptive words people are using to characterize your comments.
  

Fair is fair.

 

The fact that you made an unfair inference didn't offend me. That's just faulty logic, and you're welcome to do that all you like. What offended me was your double standard: You scolded me for using the word "whining" to describe your griping, and you've made it clear at other times that you hold the rest of us to a high standard of debate etiquette -- which is fine -- but then you did the same thing to me that you don’t like others doing to you. I did not call you Satan.