Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+Miragee]

Well . . . I went out this afternoon and hid two more caches. I hope they don't go on anyone's "Ignore List." If a cacher wants to get a little exercise and wants to see some nice views, I think they will like the locations I chose. I hope they write logs longer than TNLNSL TFTC.

 

 

and

 

 

The sad thing is that these two new caches will get way fewer visitors than if I had gone the other direction and placed a couple of "Skirt Lifters."

[Trinity's Crew]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently I was wrong.

Yes, you were.

 

Yes. I realize that now. You're opinion is more important than the opinions of others... in your opinion.

 

You may want to shed some light on why the opinion of a person who wants geocaching banned is less worthy than yours.

Because their initial data was faulty. They had incorrect, preconceived notions regarding what geocaching was, and these notions ran contrary to their beliefs regarding public land use. Once I sat down with them and eliminated their preconceptions, they were OK with the concept. Any opinion based upon faulty data has less worth than an opinion formed by fact.

 

Regardless of how you believe you arrived at any opinion, the interpretation of "facts" is colored by one's own perceptions.

 

Also, for the record, I believe that deriding cachers whose hides don't meet your personal standard of acceptable is misguided. I'm sure you won't mind my attempts to educate you, eliminating your existing misguided stereotypes.

No, I don't mind at all. Which of my many misguided stereotypes would you like to eliminate? Educate away.

 

The one that dismisses caches that don't personally appeal to you as being universally "lame".

 

Edit: Clarity.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+KBI]

(Anything you wanna say here, Riffster?)

Sure.

• The infield fly rule was a bad idea.
  
• NASCAR is a bunch of guys driving cars covered in bumper stickers, turning left at high speed
  
• Grizzly bears are not your friend
  
• PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals
  
• Every 13 seconds, a lawful gun owner prevents a crime
  
• Nacho cheese can improve just about any food
  
• The most corrupt organization on the planet is the United Nations
  
• Lame caches are lame
  
• Tella Tubbies should be beaten....often
  
• Unlike CSI, police departments don't have a machine that you can drop an eyelash in to get an ID in 5 minutes
  
• Dogs have owners...cats have staff
  

Sorry, that's the best I could come up with on short notice.

Finally, some stuff we can agree on! (What, nothin 'bout Rosie?)

 

You may want to shed some light on why the opinion of a person who wants geocaching banned is less worthy than yours.

Because their initial data was faulty. They had incorrect, preconceived notions regarding what geocaching was, and these notions ran contrary to their beliefs regarding public land use.

That wasn't the question, Riff. Not at all. You misunderstood.

 

Based on that, it sounds like I may have misinterpreted your answer just like I did CoyoteRed’s.

 

(And the question was originally directed at TrailGators anyway, but I’m still very interested in your answer.)

 

I wasn't talking about people with misconceptions who, once educated, accept that geocaching isn't bad for land they manage. I was talking about people who think ALL geocaching is LAME. People who believe that searching for hidden containers of trinkets with GPS is a total waste of time, and that people who do so are idiots who would do society a favor by redirecting their energies toward something more practical. People who feel the same way about ANY geocache as you feel about skirt lifters. I’ve met a couple folks who feel this way. They really do exist.

 

My question, again: If you feel skirt lifter cache hiders and finders should bow to your stated aversion to their caches by no longer hiding or finding them, then shouldn’t you demonstrate the same courtesy you demand of others by abandoning ALL geocaching activities for the benefit of those opinionated muggles?

 

Edit: spellingness

Edited April 19, 2007 by KBI

[+KBI]

I just got a nice note from a lurker of this thread, and with that person's permission I am quoting it here because it echoes my position on all of this in a way that is much better written than anything I've been able to manage myself:

 

I enjoy your posts on the subject of "lame" caches. I really can't understand why people feel they have a right to dictate what others should like.

 

I have no problem with encouraging people to hide better caches, but for the most part I don't see encouragement. I see a lot of negativity and complaining, much of it bordering on insulting when this subject comes up.

 

Like you I'm not a big fan of LPCs. Like you I bristle at the prospect of having a vocal few attempting to modify GC guidelines. It's funny really. I understand that you're not really defending "lame" caches; you're defending the rights of cachers to place whatever they want, wherever they want provided it meets the guidelines. You top that off with a smattering of trying to coax the complainers to be tolerant and civil when discussing what is basically a gift from a stranger. How can anybody seriously argue with that?

 

I tend not to post much on this subject because you cover it pretty well, but sometimes I get a little irritated by the haters. Keep up the good work!

And no, I haven't gotten any PMs or emails from anyone who disagrees with me. If I do, I'll be happy to post them as well -- with permission, of course.

[+TrailGators]

Well . . . I went out this afternoon and hid two more caches. I hope they don't go on anyone's "Ignore List." If a cacher wants to get a little exercise and wants to see some nice views, I think they will like the locations I chose. I hope they write logs longer than TNLNSL TFTC.

 

 

and

 

 

The sad thing is that these two new caches will get way fewer visitors than if I had gone the other direction and placed a couple of "Skirt Lifters."

What are you talking about? That is the best solution to LPCs!

[+KBI]

The sad thing is that these two new caches will get way fewer visitors than if I had gone the other direction and placed a couple of "Skirt Lifters."

What are you talking about? That is the best solution to LPCs!

I like having both. Let's have both! And lots of other kinds, too!

[Clan Riffster]

Yes. I realize that now. You're opinion is more important than the opinions of others.

And there was much rejoicing.

 

Regardless of how you believe you arrived at any opinion, the interpretation of "facts" is colored by one's own perceptions.

Perhaps. Let us look at how I "believe" I arrived at the "opinion" in question:

It is my "opinion" that geocaches on public lands are generally not allowed to be buried. I formed this "opinion" by reading the guidelines and the Geocachers Creed. Perhaps I misinterpreted these "facts"? Perhaps you can show me how my "perceptions" colored my interpretation? The two people in question were adamantly opposed to geocaching, because they believed that caches were buried, and didn't want people digging up their properties. Perhaps I was wrong in not letting them maintain their "opinions"? After all, their "opinions" had value, did they not?

 

The one that dismisses caches that don't personally appeal to you as being universally "lame".

But that's not one of my stereotypes. If you reverse that statement, I.e; "Lame caches don't appeal to me", then you might be able to accurately address the issue at hand. So long as you argue a fallacy, neither of us learns anything.

 

My question, again: If you feel skirt lifter cache hiders and finders should bow to your stated aversion to their caches by no longer hiding or finding them, then shouldn’t you demonstrate the same courtesy you demand of others by abandoning ALL geocaching activities for the benefit of those opinionated muggles?

Where your question fall off course is when you manipulate my beliefs for your benefit. I don't think the hiders of carp should bow to my stated aversion. If I did believe this, then I could answer your question, but since I do not, I have to treat this as a clever bit of misdirection.

[+TrailGators]

The sad thing is that these two new caches will get way fewer visitors than if I had gone the other direction and placed a couple of "Skirt Lifters."

What are you talking about? That is the best solution to LPCs!

I like having both. Let's have both! And lots of other kinds, too!

I like caches like the ones they show in the banner photos! Aren't those photos great! I keep checking and they never have any photos of people caching in parking lots. Hmmm, I wonder why?

[+KBI]

(Still working on an answer to my question?)

The one about some Joe Blow wanting to end geocaching? Are you serious?

Yes. Very.

First of all I need to know if Joe Blow is a wino because I met a wino one time that didn't like us caching near his spread. I'm sure that he wanted geocaching to end. But seriously, my "dislike" of LPCs has nothing to do with disliking or disrespecting anyone. Has the politically correct crap finally hit the point that we can't even dislike a freaking Altoids tin hidden in a parking lot without stepping on someone's toes?

 

How many times do I have to say it: I just want a way to help remove as many of them as possible from my PQs without getting rid of the good urbans....

 

You also made it clear, based on your Rosie O'Donnell post and others, that you believe and hope that enough griping about skirt lifter hides from you and your kind will shame people into actually pulling them:

 

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

There are tons of people that like freaking Rosey O'Donnell. What's that prove? If enough people gripe about Rosey will they finally take her off the air?

Hence my original question:

 

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours? If enough people gripe about the pointlessness of this entire hobby, should we all give it up and cease all geocaching immediately just to make them happy?

 

Of course we shouldn't. We shouldn't care what they think -- we should continue hiding and finding caches as we please no matter who tells us we're wasting our time. That's what I'm hoping to hear you say. Is that your answer, TG? Or do you wish to maintain the position that other people's views of lameness are less valid than yours, and that YOUR version of the game is the only proper one?

 

I understand you want a convenient and effective way to ignore the skirt lifters. It's obvious, however, that you're also not happy unless you're complaining about their mere existence. All I'm doing is trying to encourage you not to complain. Skirt lifters aren't going away.

[+KBI]

My question, again: If you feel skirt lifter cache hiders and finders should bow to your stated aversion to their caches by no longer hiding or finding them, then shouldn’t you demonstrate the same courtesy you demand of others by abandoning ALL geocaching activities for the benefit of those opinionated muggles?

Where your question fall off course is when you manipulate my beliefs for your benefit. I don't think the hiders of carp should bow to my stated aversion. If I did believe this, then I could answer your question, but since I do not, I have to treat this as a clever bit of misdirection.

There was no misdirection. As I said, the question was originally directed at TrailGators, and the wording was chosen based on his comments.

 

I'm happy to hear your answer: "I don't think the hiders of carp should bow to my stated aversion." (I'm making an assumption here about what your fish-word means, but I don't think we have any misdirection there, do we? )

 

That is a respectable position, Riffster. Regardless whether you value my approval of your statement, I like it.

 

Let’s see ... CoyoteRed, Clan Riffster ... that's two (former?) complainers who have now admitted that cache hiders need not cater to the creativity demands of LPC complainers, and that hiders deserve the courtesy of being allowed to place whatever they want and wherever they want in peace, provided it meets the guidelines.

 

 

 

What say you, TrailGators? There are people out there who detest ALL caches the way you detest skirt lifters. Is it not reasonable of them to expect you to voluntarily abandon ALL geocaching the way you are attempting to convince hiders and finders of skirt lifters to voluntarily abandon them – just because you detest skirt lifters?

 

If not, then can you allow that skirt lifters are just as acceptable -- without complaint -- as any other geocache?

 

Or would you rather stick with the derisive comments?

[+TrailGators]

(Still working on an answer to my question?)

The one about some Joe Blow wanting to end geocaching? Are you serious?

Yes. Very.

First of all I need to know if Joe Blow is a wino because I met a wino one time that didn't like us caching near his spread. I'm sure that he wanted geocaching to end. But seriously, my "dislike" of LPCs has nothing to do with disliking or disrespecting anyone. Has the politically correct crap finally hit the point that we can't even dislike a freaking Altoids tin hidden in a parking lot without stepping on someone's toes?

 

How many times do I have to say it: I just want a way to help remove as many of them as possible from my PQs without getting rid of the good urbans....

 

You also made it clear, based on your Rosie O'Donnell post and others, that you believe and hope that enough griping about skirt lifter hides from you and your kind will shame people into actually pulling them:

 

Let's be honest. There are a ton of people that don't like these hides. There are also a ton of people that "tolerate" these hides.

While we're being honest: There are also a ton of people that enjoy these hides very much, and seek them out. They like them a lot, and they say so -- with their words, and with their actions. Don't you read the logs? Oh, that's right -- we've established that you don't do that. Well, maybe if you did you'd see the evidence.

There are tons of people that like freaking Rosey O'Donnell. What's that prove? If enough people gripe about Rosey will they finally take her off the air?

Hence my original question:

 

If some confirmed muggle out there thinks ALL geocaching is lame, not just the skirt lifters, is his opinion any less valid than yours? If enough people gripe about the pointlessness of this entire hobby, should we all give it up and cease all geocaching immediately just to make them happy?

 

Of course we shouldn't. We shouldn't care what they think -- we should continue hiding and finding caches as we please no matter who tells us we're wasting our time. That's what I'm hoping to hear you say. Is that your answer, TG? Or do you wish to maintain the position that other people's views of lameness are less valid than yours, and that YOUR version of the game is the only proper one?

 

I understand you want a convenient and effective way to ignore the skirt lifters. It's obvious, however, that you're also not happy unless you're complaining about their mere existence. All I'm doing is trying to encourage you not to complain. Skirt lifters aren't going away.

If you can get rid of Rosey, I won't complain anymore.... Edited April 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+The Jester]

Hmmm.... It seems that there is one call for banning these cache in this thread now:

...

Has anyone else made suggestions that might either prevent lame, parking-lot micros from being approved in the first place, or a way to filter them out of PQs?

...

Preventing a cache from being approved equals banning in my book.

[+KBI]

If you can get rid of Rosey, I won't complain anymore....

If you can't address my simple question, I give up.

 

Are you afraid to answer? Do you have an answer? Do you understand the question? What's the deal?

 

Or is that your way of saying you really don't believe that it's right to complain any further?

[+TrailGators]

If you can get rid of Rosey, I won't complain anymore....

If you can't address my simple question, I give up.

 

Are you afraid to answer? Do you have an answer? Do you understand the question? What's the deal?

 

Or is that your way of saying you really don't believe that it's right to complain any further?

KBI I'll answer that question if you answer this one first....How do you keep someone in a state of suspense?

[Trinity's Crew]

Yes. I realize that now. You're opinion is more important than the opinions of others.

And there was much rejoicing.

It's interesting that you would manipulate my quote that way. I did SAY it. That is a fact. Twisting my words to suit your needs is very telling indeed.

 

Regardless of how you believe you arrived at any opinion, the interpretation of "facts" is colored by one's own perceptions.

Perhaps. Let us look at how I "believe" I arrived at the "opinion" in question:

It is my "opinion" that geocaches on public lands are generally not allowed to be buried. I formed this "opinion" by reading the guidelines and the Geocachers Creed. Perhaps I misinterpreted these "facts"? Perhaps you can show me how my "perceptions" colored my interpretation? The two people in question were adamantly opposed to geocaching, because they believed that caches were buried, and didn't want people

digging up their properties. Perhaps I was wrong in not letting them maintain their "opinions"? After all, their"opinions" had value, did they not?

 

What does that have to do with someone who is completely informed and still believes that geocaching is lame and should be banned?

 

The one that dismisses caches that don't personally appeal to you as being universally "lame".

But that's not one of my stereotypes. If you reverse that statement, I.e; "Lame caches don't appeal to me", then you might be able to accurately address the issue at hand. So long as you argue a fallacy, neither of us learns anything.

There can be no real concensus on the definition of lame and that is the fallacy of your argument.

 

I don't think the hiders of carp should bow to my stated aversion. If I did believe this, then I could answer your question, but since I do not, I have to treat this as a clever bit of misdirection.

 

Good. Then my work here is done.

[Clan Riffster]

Let’s see <edit for brevity>

Perhaps another subtle bit of misdirection? Start with an initial premise then add bits to suit your needs? I would prefer:

"Clan Riffster ... that's one complainer who has admitted that cache hiders need not cater to the creativity demands of LPC complainers, and that hiders deserve the courtesy of being allowed to place whatever they want and wherever they want, provided it meets the guidelines.

 

If not, then can you allow that skirt lifters are just as acceptable as any other geocache?

 

Or would you rather stick with the derisive comments?"

 

By tossing in "former", "in peace", and "without complaint", you give readers the impression that I've stopped complaining. As long as folks keep placing carp, I'll keep fussing about it. I don't ask that you take up your torch and pitchfork to join me in my whining, but I certainly have no intention of censoring myself just to satisfy the wants and needs of folks void of imagination.

[+Always & Forever 5]

As long as folks keep placing carp, I'll keep fussing about it. I don't ask that you take up your torch and pitchfork to join me in my whining, but I certainly have no intention of censoring myself just to satisfy the wants and needs of folks void of imagination.

And so the cycle continues. Don't you get tired of fussing over things you have no control over? Like, people placing lame (in YOUR mind) caches?

 

Life's too short...

[Clan Riffster]

Twisting my words to suit your needs is very telling indeed.

Wasn't that a direct quote? As far as I know, "twisting" involves changing bits and pieces of a quote until you have something to suit your needs. (Kinda like the New York Times with their "Bush Lied" nonsense. The fact that Bush told the truth was utterly irrelevant to them, and to all the Bush haters who wanted a catchy bumper sticker) Copy/paste doesn't exactly qualify as "twisting". Or does it?

 

What does that have to do with someone who is completely informed and still believes that geocaching is lame and should be banned?

Wasn't this your original premise?:

"Based on your posts on the matter I assume you would ignore or dismiss the opinion of someone who believes geocaching should be banned as ill-informed or misguided"

(Another copy/paste. I hope I don't get accused of "twisting" again)

Your initial premise made no mention of folks who were "completely informed". My arguments were based upon two folks who were not "completely informed", remember? Those are the arguments you claimed were "misguided" and "ill informed" according to your statement. Since I've seen no retraction, I reckon you still see opinions based upon incorrect data as being every bit as valid as opinions based upon correct data. Since you seem to place such value on courtesy, can you please stick to one ill conceived argument at a time? Trying to follow your constantly switching positions is disorienting.

 

There can be no real concensus on the definition of lame and that is the fallacy of your argument.

As long as I only apply that definition to my own wants and needs, I don't need any consensus do I? Am I not entitled to say, "I think this is lame"? without first seeking the approval of Trinity Crew? If so, where is the fallacy? Wasn't this your statement?:

"The one <stereotype> that dismisses caches that don't personally appeal to you as being universally "lame"." You took my initially stated belief system, which is "Lame caches don't appeal to me", then twisted it into your reversed statement. Because your reversed statement is a deliberate untruth, I'd say the fallacy was on your side of the fence, not mine.

 

Good. Then my work here is done.

Thank Gaia.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

Don't you get tired of fussing over things you have no control over? Like, people placing lame caches?

Not really. I don't accept that I have "no" control over the growing lameness problem. I prefer to think that I have "almost no" control.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Not really. I don't accept that I have "no" control over the growing lameness problem. I prefer to think that I have "almost no" control.

In fact, though, you truly have no control over people placing lame caches, no matter how you prefer to think of it.

 

Sometimes I prefer to think of myself as omnipotent, but then my wife points out reasons how I'm not...

[Clan Riffster]

Dern! Does that mean I should toss out my, "Yes, I'm omniscient" T-shirt?

[Mushtang]

Don't you get tired of fussing over things you have no control over? Like, people placing lame caches?

Not really. I don't accept that I have "no" control over the growing lameness problem. I prefer to think that I have "almost no" control.

But you ARE the growing lameness problem, for you. The caches that you see as "lame" are enjoyed by quite a lot of people, and they don't think of them as "lame" at all. So for them it's not a problem.

 

It's only a problem to those that dislike those kinds. The people that enjoy hiding and finding them may even think the kinds of caches you like the most are lame.

 

It wouldn't matter to you if they did, so what makes you think it matters to them what you think? You're not going to reduce the number of LPCs by complaining about them. I'm surprised you still haven't figured that out.

[Mushtang]

Dern! Does that mean I should toss out my, "Yes, I'm omniscient" T-shirt?

If you were, wouldn't you know if you should or not?

[+sbell111]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

Let's explain this with a simple math problem. Let's say every cacher out there has an ideal cache (10) and a least favorite cache (1) and there are only 2 urban caches in the world and only 10 cachers. Each of the 10 cachers visits these 2 caches and has some enjoyment (1-10), which we measure with a survey of all the cachers. Here are the results:

Cache A: 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 2, 5

Cache B: 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2

Now there are two new cachers in town that each want to hide a cache:

Sbell and KBI: Hide 10 more caches like Cache B because one person liked it.

TrailGators and CR: Each hide another cache like Cache A because far more people really seem to enjoy that kind.

Now you do the math....

What math?

 

If two new cachers were to move to that town and it is assumed that they like Caches like Cache B, of course they should hide caches like Cache B.

 

This game works when people hide caches like they like to find.

[cfauld]

I did my very first Skirt Lifter yesterday, and my son and I had a great time with it. It was at a Rest stop on the Interstate, and with the large number of light poles, we had to move around a bit to make sure we had the right one. There was no great mystery or difficulty, just a fun thing to do on a long trip, and an excuse to get out and stretch the legs.

 

As many have said, I am sure the "Coolness" of light poles will get quite dull as time goes on, but I see no point in attempting a ban on them. For now, my kids think they are cool. There is another rest stop cache that is also a light pole, and I am sure we will hit that one too on another trip.

[Trinity's Crew]

Twisting my words to suit your needs is very telling indeed.

Wasn't that a direct quote? As far as I know, "twisting" involves changing bits and pieces of a quote until you have something to suit your needs. (Kinda like the New York Times with their "Bush Lied" nonsense. The fact that Bush told the truth was utterly irrelevant to them, and to all the Bush haters who wanted a catchy bumper sticker) Copy/paste doesn't exactly qualify as "twisting". Or does it?

Yes, what you did qualifies as "twisting". It was deliberately taken out of context and truncated to obfuscate the meaning.

What does that have to do with someone who is completely informed and still believes that geocaching is lame and should be banned?

Wasn't this your original premise?:

"Based on your posts on the matter I assume you would ignore or dismiss the opinion of someone who believes geocaching should be banned as ill-informed or misguided"

(Another copy/paste. I hope I don't get accused of "twisting" again)

Your initial premise made no mention of folks who were "completely informed". My arguments were based upon two folks who were not "completely informed", remember? Those are the arguments you claimed were "misguided" and "ill informed" according to your statement. Since I've seen no retraction, I reckon you still see opinions based upon incorrect data as being every bit as valid as opinions based upon correct data. Since you seem to place such value on courtesy, can you please stick to one ill conceived argument at a time? Trying to follow your constantly switching positions is disorienting.

I never said they were ill-informed or misguided. I assumed YOU thought they were misguided or ill-informed. Up to that point I couldn't fathom that you could actually think your opinion on an issue was more important than that of another person. You took care of that for me. You were quick to point out that I shouldn't make assumptions. Your example of the "two misinformed people" came up after you told me that my assumptions were incorrect. What does my apparently incorrect assumption of your possible motivation for dismissing others opinions as being unworthy have to do with anything?

There can be no real concensus on the definition of lame and that is the fallacy of your argument.

As long as I only apply that definition to my own wants and needs, I don't need any consensus do I? Am I not entitled to say, "I think this is lame"? without first seeking the approval of Trinity Crew? If so, where is the fallacy? Wasn't this your statement?:

"The one <stereotype> that dismisses caches that don't personally appeal to you as being universally "lame"." You took my initially stated belief system, which is "Lame caches don't appeal to me", then twisted it into your reversed statement. Because your reversed statement is a deliberate untruth, I'd say the fallacy was on your side of the fence, not mine.

The problem is that "lame" proclamations aren't usually couched with any caveats. You are perfectly free to proclaim that you think any cache is lame, but there is a big difference between saying "I, Clan Riffster, think that LPCs are lame." and saying "LPCs are lame." See, the first statement could be true, if you feel that way. The the second statement isn't true since it is only an opinion masquerading as a fact.

BTW, I typed "LPCs are lame." in the previous statement. Maybe you'd like to cut and paste it in your next post.

Good. Then my work here is done.

Thank Gaia.

 

Based on your more recent posts, I guess I'll just have to keep trying.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I did my very first Skirt Lifter yesterday, and my son and I had a great time with it. It was at a Rest stop on the Interstate, and with the large number of light poles, we had to move around a bit to make sure we had the right one. There was no great mystery or difficulty, just a fun thing to do on a long trip, and an excuse to get out and stretch the legs.

 

As many have said, I am sure the "Coolness" of light poles will get quite dull as time goes on, but I see no point in attempting a ban on them. For now, my kids think they are cool. There is another rest stop cache that is also a light pole, and I am sure we will hit that one too on another trip.

No. Impossible. Too many others on this thread have said that NOBODY like LPC's. So, you must be mistaken. I think you need to re-evaluate your likes and dislikes, and you will find out you truly dislike this type of cache. And, therefore, they should all be banned.

 

You'll be much happier if you admit that you hate them.

 

[+sbell111]

Regardless of how you believe you arrived at any opinion, the interpretation of "facts" is colored by one's own perceptions.

Perhaps. Let us look at how I "believe" I arrived at the "opinion" in question:

It is my "opinion" that geocaches on public lands are generally not allowed to be buried. I formed this "opinion" by reading the guidelines and the Geocachers Creed. Perhaps I misinterpreted these "facts"?

Perhaps this is a good place to mention the the 'creed' is merely the opinion of a relatively few cachers. It is not 'fact'.

 

You may now return to your ranting, already in progress.

[Trinity's Crew]

Regardless of how you believe you arrived at any opinion, the interpretation of "facts" is colored by one's own perceptions.

Perhaps. Let us look at how I "believe" I arrived at the "opinion" in question:

It is my "opinion" that geocaches on public lands are generally not allowed to be buried. I formed this "opinion" by reading the guidelines and the Geocachers Creed. Perhaps I misinterpreted these "facts"?

Perhaps this is a good place to mention the the 'creed' is merely the opinion of a relatively few cachers. It is not 'fact'.

 

You may now return to your ranting, already in progress.

 

Thanks, Sbell. Sometimes there is so much low hanging fruit I can't pick it all.

[+sbell111]

I did my very first Skirt Lifter yesterday, and my son and I had a great time with it. It was at a Rest stop on the Interstate, and with the large number of light poles, we had to move around a bit to make sure we had the right one. There was no great mystery or difficulty, just a fun thing to do on a long trip, and an excuse to get out and stretch the legs.

 

As many have said, I am sure the "Coolness" of light poles will get quite dull as time goes on, but I see no point in attempting a ban on them. For now, my kids think they are cool. There is another rest stop cache that is also a light pole, and I am sure we will hit that one too on another trip.

No. Impossible. Too many others on this thread have said that NOBODY like LPC's. So, you must be mistaken. I think you need to re-evaluate your likes and dislikes, and you will find out you truly dislike this type of cache. And, therefore, they should all be banned.

 

You'll be much happier if you admit that you hate them.

 

Poor cfauld and his uninformed children. Perhaps one day they will truly understand how much they despised that cache.

[+sbell111]

Is this an appropriate time to mention that my wife is completely and totally informed abour geocaching? Strangely, she firmly believes that the game is stupid and that everyone who plays it is obviously mentally deficient. A recent poll of our household found that my opinion was NOT more important than hers.

 

Go figure.

Edited April 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

Havn't read the whole thread so i may be bringing up old hat here.

 

I used to agree that people only placed LPCs because they are what they were used to finding and that they really didn't know any different. I'm sure that is still the case at times but these days i think a little differently. Numbers don't lie and it's very evident that a simple parking lot cache usually gets alot more traffic than a nice, well thought out, harder to get to area cache. I think people hide them simply because the cache gets more finds and therefore, they get more find emails. Numbers are what they are after so TNLN logs suffice nicely.

 

LPCs are not our favorite types of cache hides but on the other hand, they sure don't take anything away from us having fun. Allthough we like rural caching better, we still find these goofy little things when they come out. The way i see it, LPCs are here to stay, at least until commercial property owners complain or people somehow get hurt doing them. Yes they are lame to many of us but they just aren't something we should be getting our panties in a bunch over!

[Trinity's Crew]

Yes they are lame to many of us but they just aren't something we should be getting our panties in a bunch over!

 

I was wondering what that lump I was sitting on was.

[+KBI]

KBI I'll answer that question if you answer this one first....How do you keep someone in a state of suspense?

You're not going to answer the question. I see that now. I can accept that.

 

Maybe you're afraid to answer because you're fully aware that it is an intentional logical trap designed to force you to choose between:

(1) admitting that your opinion, your preference, and your definition of "lame" are no more meaningful or valuable than anyone else's, even a muggle, in which case your arguments lose their self-importance; or

(2) claiming that your opinion, your preference, and your definition of "lame" ARE more meaningful or valuable than another person's, in which case your arguments lose credibility.

 

Or maybe you no longer have a strong opinion on the matter at all. Maybe I’ve actually convinced you to substantially modify your opinion, but instead of admitting as much you've decided to switch from Debater Mode to Troll Mode just for fun. Otherwise, why would you ask such a question?

 

If Troll Mode is in fact the case, I believe I’ll stop the feedings now, just to be on the safe side.

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps this is a good place to mention the the 'creed' is merely the opinion of a relatively few cachers. It is not 'fact'.

Their existence is a fact. My interpretation of them is my "opinion".

[+KBI]

By tossing in "former", "in peace", and "without complaint", you give readers the impression that I've stopped complaining. As long as folks keep placing carp, I'll keep fussing about it. I don't ask that you take up your torch and pitchfork to join me in my whining, but I certainly have no intention of censoring myself just to satisfy the wants and needs of folks void of imagination.

As I've said before: you are welcome to continue your boorish whining about your fellow cachers. That is your right.

 

I don't promote it, but I will defend it.

[Clan Riffster]

But will you defend my boorish whining? Just trying to determine if there's anything you won't defend.

[+KBI]

Don't you get tired of fussing over things you have no control over? Like, people placing lame caches?

Not really. I don't accept that I have "no" control over the growing lameness problem. I prefer to think that I have "almost no" control.

But you ARE the growing lameness problem, for you. The caches that you see as "lame" are enjoyed by quite a lot of people, and they don't think of them as "lame" at all. So for them it's not a problem.

 

It's only a problem to those that dislike those kinds. The people that enjoy hiding and finding them may even think the kinds of caches you like the most are lame.

 

It wouldn't matter to you if they did, so what makes you think it matters to them what you think? You're not going to reduce the number of LPCs by complaining about them. I'm surprised you still haven't figured that out.

I think it's lame to allow oneself to get frustrated or upset over the mere existence of a particular type of cache.

 

That's not good, but ... I prefer to think that I have "almost no" control over that particular growing lameness problem.

[+KBI]

But will you defend my boorish whining? Just trying to determine if there's anything you won't defend.

I just said I would, didn't I?

 

I strongly disagree with your efforts to keep yourself miserable, but I respect your opinion.

 

I challenge no one’s right to their opinion. I defend the right of opinion.

 

Because it's right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and because you're my friend.

[+TrailGators]

KBI I'll answer that question if you answer this one first....How do you keep someone in a state of suspense?

You're not going to answer the question. I see that now. I can accept that.

 

Maybe you're afraid to answer because you're fully aware that it is an intentional logical trap designed to force you to choose between:

(1) admitting that your opinion, your preference, and your definition of "lame" are no more meaningful or valuable than anyone else's, even a muggle, in which case your arguments lose their self-importance; or

(2) claiming that your opinion, your preference, and your definition of "lame" ARE more meaningful or valuable than another person's, in which case your arguments lose credibility.

 

Or maybe you no longer have a strong opinion on the matter at all. Maybe I've actually convinced you to substantially modify your opinion, but instead of admitting as much you've decided to switch from Debater Mode to Troll Mode just for fun. Otherwise, why would you ask such a question?

 

If Troll Mode is in fact the case, I believe I'll stop the feedings now, just to be on the safe side.

You didn't answer my question first......

[+TrailGators]

Besides, TV is a business. Those shows exist only to make money. You're back to equating cache hides with consumer goods and services again, and we've already established that that argument is unsound.

We never proved that at all. You ignored my premise. I said that all cachers are customers. They invest their time and gas to get pleasure from each cache. The profit to the hider is the amount of enjoyment that his cache brings to each finder. In that sense, some caches have very high profits and some have an overall zero profit or even negative profit. So if we could see the overall profit of each kind of cache we would see that certain kinds are much better than others.

I'm confused. You appear to be making the point that a cache's purpose is to please peaople and if a particular cache doesn't please people that it should not be placed. This flies in the face of your stand just a few posts up that it should have nothing to do with whether people like a particular cache.

 

Are you really saying that all caches should please you?

Let's explain this with a simple math problem. Let's say every cacher out there has an ideal cache (10) and a least favorite cache (1) and there are only 2 urban caches in the world and only 10 cachers. Each of the 10 cachers visits these 2 caches and has some enjoyment (1-10), which we measure with a survey of all the cachers. Here are the results:

Cache A: 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 2, 5

Cache B: 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2

Now there are two new cachers in town that each want to hide a cache:

Sbell and KBI: Hide 10 more caches like Cache B because one person liked it.

TrailGators and CR: Each hide another cache like Cache A because far more people really seem to enjoy that kind.

Now you do the math....

What math?

 

If two new cachers were to move to that town and it is assumed that they like Caches like Cache B, of course they should hide caches like Cache B.

 

This game works when people hide caches like they like to find.

What math? I gave you a straightforward hypothetical survey. According to the survey the first type of cache had an average enjoyment rating of 5.8 and was not enjoyed by only 10% of the finders. The second cache had an average enjoyment rating of 1.9 and was not enjoyed by 90% of the finders. So are you saying that the new cachers that moved to town and had no experience and knew nothing about the game would not learn something from the survey?

[+Miragee]

Hmmm.... It seems that there is one call for banning these cache in this thread now:

...

Has anyone else made suggestions that might either prevent lame, parking-lot micros from being approved in the first place, or a way to filter them out of PQs?

...

Preventing a cache from being approved equals banning in my book.

No . . . not necessarily. The "Limiting Question or Questions" on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" could be more of an "educational" question.

 

When I first started caching I found caches in uninspired locations in GladWare that contained stupid trinkets and wet log books. I thought that was the norm. If I had decided to place a cache after finding only a few caches, I might have placed a cache just like those . . .

 

If a "Limiting Questions" were "educational" maybe a new cacher would think more about the location. On the Waymarking Site, there are submissions that cannot be made until the person has done their homework and can answer the question correctly. The first WiFi Waymark I tried to submit had so many limiting questions you needed to have an IT education to answer them . . .

 

"Is this a location you really want to bring others to?" could be the question. Even if the cache is under the lightpole skirt next to the dumpster, maybe someone would reply "Yes" so that lame cache will still get submitted for Approval.

 

Also, as I have stated, my least favorite caches of all time have not been LPCs. I don't mind them at all because they are easy to find. The ones I don't want to be placed are difficult-to-find caches near barking dogs . . .

[+TrailGators]

Hmmm.... It seems that there is one call for banning these cache in this thread now:

...

Has anyone else made suggestions that might either prevent lame, parking-lot micros from being approved in the first place, or a way to filter them out of PQs?

...

Preventing a cache from being approved equals banning in my book.

No . . . not necessarily. The "Limiting Question or Questions" on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" could be more of an "educational" question.

 

When I first started caching I found caches in uninspired locations in GladWare that contained stupid trinkets and wet log books. I thought that was the norm. If I had decided to place a cache after finding only a few caches, I might have placed a cache just like those . . .

 

If a "Limiting Questions" were "educational" maybe a new cacher would think more about the location. On the Waymarking Site, there are submissions that cannot be made until the person has done their homework and can answer the question correctly. The first WiFi Waymark I tried to submit had so many limiting questions you needed to have an IT education to answer them . . .

 

"Is this a location you really want to bring others to?" could be the question. Even if the cache is under the lightpole skirt next to the dumpster, maybe someone would reply "Yes" so that lame cache will still get submitted for Approval.

 

Also, as I have stated, my least favorite caches of all time have not been LPCs. I don't mind them at all because they are easy to find. The ones I don't want to be placed are difficult-to-find caches near barking dogs . . .

I agree with you but I'm sure some these people don't want mentorship or education...Ignorance is bliss to them.

[+KBI]

KBI I'll answer that question if you answer this one first....How do you keep someone in a state of suspense?

... or maybe you no longer have a strong opinion on the matter at all. Maybe I've actually convinced you to substantially modify your opinion, but instead of admitting as much you've decided to switch from Debater Mode to Troll Mode just for fun. Otherwise, why would you ask such a question?

 

If Troll Mode is in fact the case, I believe I'll stop the feedings now, just to be on the safe side.

You didn't answer my question first......

I rest my case.

[+KBI]

SCOREBOARD:

 

CoyoteRed: Admits that nobody's opinion or definition of lame is any less important than his own.

Clan Riffster: Admits that he prefers boorish whining to peaceful acceptance.

TrailGators: Prefers complaining over accepting anyone's advice, and would rather sling blonde jokes than debate.

Everyone else: Wonders what there is to complain about in the first place; says "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em."

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...Ignorance is bliss to them.

Not ignorance at all; we may just choose to cache differently than you do, and don't need your 'mentoring' to 'educate' us or regulate our game play!

[+TrailGators]

...Ignorance is bliss to them.

Not ignorance at all; we may just choose to cache differently than you do, and don't need your 'mentoring' to 'educate' us or regulate our game play!

I was referring to newbies and not oldbies when I said that. However, your point about many oldbies is exactly why I am asking for a way to ignore all cache hides from people that cache differently than me. If we had caching categories like Park&Grabs, Scenic Hikes, Clever Camo, etc. that would be another way to do it.

[+TrailGators]

SCOREBOARD:

TrailGators: Prefers complaining over accepting anyone's advice, and would rather sling blonde jokes than debate.

If you quit asking loaded questions and I will answer them. I have offered several suggestions that would help. I guess you somehow overlooked my inputs. The jokes are to lighten things up. You guys are way too serious.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps this is a good place to mention the the 'creed' is merely the opinion of a relatively few cachers. It is not 'fact'.

Their existence is a fact. My interpretation of them is my "opinion".

The existence of my wife's opinion of the game is fact, also. What's your point?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...Ignorance is bliss to them.

Not ignorance at all; we may just choose to cache differently than you do, and don't need your 'mentoring' to 'educate' us or regulate our game play!

I was referring to newbies and not oldbies when I said that. However, your point about many oldbies is exactly why I am asking for a way to ignore all cache hides from people that cache differently than me. If we had caching categories like Park&Grabs, Scenic Hikes, Clever Camo, etc. that would be another way to do it.

Yes! I want the same kind of screening for movies, books and television shows that I might not like!

 

One way that I know I will like a movie is if the critics hate it and have nothing good t say about it - that often will be just right for me!

 

Same here... I know what I like, but have no idea what you will like.

 

Oh yeah - I want commercials banned too, except for the ones I like.

 

Good luck with that!!