Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+sbell111]

Yesterday I loaded my GPSr with all the caches in a particular area. I had three DNFs on Regular-sized caches that have gone missing . . .

 

I also saw this guy:

 

 

As I worked my way back home, I was very happy to find two caches . . . one that might be called a "lame micro" and another that turned out to be an LPC . . .

 

Just a different perspective . . .

Where's that 'caching armed' thread when I need it?

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators -

 

In a number of threads, you have mentioned the 'best of' list for caches in your area. Why don't you start a 'best micros' list, also. This would allow you to totally ignore low difficulty or terrain micros unless they are on the list. Since the list would be micro-only, the micros wouldn't be overshadowed by ammo boxes placed at the end of scenic hikes.

Nobody is bookmarking micros so how would I collect this data? Anyhow the SD Consensus Favorites is keeping me busy enough. If a micro makes that list I'll find it.

[+sbell111]

TrailGators -

 

In a number of threads, you have mentioned the 'best of' list for caches in your area. Why don't you start a 'best micros' list, also. This would allow you to totally ignore low difficulty or terrain micros unless they are on the list. Since the list would be micro-only, the micros wouldn't be overshadowed by ammo boxes placed at the end of scenic hikes.

Nobody is bookmarking micros so how would I collect this data? Anyhow the SD Consensus Favorites is keeping me busy enough. If a micro makes that list I'll find it.

I guess you missed my point. I suggested that you could start such a list and ask those cachers in your area to contribute to it.

 

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

Edited April 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

I'll do a favorite if I get near one. There are only 50 and they are scattered all over the county. San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states so it makes sense to find those when I'm near one. I also like having the freedom to cache in many different areas of the county. There are many caches that haven't made the favorites list that are good caches to me. I like viewing these caches on the website with the map enhancements GS has added. Then I like downloading them on a moments notice when an opportunity to cache arises. So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

[+KBI]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

[+Always & Forever 5]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

Well, he really doesn't. He just tells people how he thinks they should cache.

 

I think there's a difference there...somewhere...

 

...well, maybe not.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+KBI]

Thanks KBI for calling the dogs off.

No need to thank me, just return the favor sometime. Next time you see someone accusing me of being a troll, or of twisting things just for the sake of bickering, you can link them to the post where I defended you.

[+Always & Forever 5]

San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states...

I'm not sure two (DE and RI) can be classified as many... but I agree it is pretty big.

[+KBI]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

Well, he really doesn't. He just tells people how he thinks they should cache.

 

I think there's a difference there...somewhere...

 

...well, maybe not.

He was sounding so reasonable until he got to that very last bit. That was when I almost sprayed coffee.

 

Still, I think there's been progress. On both sides.

[+sbell111]

I'll do a favorite if I get near one. There are only 50 and they are scattered all over the county. San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states so it makes sense to find those when I'm near one. I also like having the freedom to cache in many different areas of the county. There are many caches that haven't made the favorites list that are good caches to me. I like viewing these caches on the website with the map enhancements GS has added. Then I like downloading them on a moments notice when an opportunity to cache arises. So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

I'm not telling you how to cache. I offered a suggestion that you might possibly have liked and would potentially help you. I really could care less whether you choose to implement it.

 

That being said, I don't know how much your arguments that changes should be made should be respected if you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

[+TrailGators]

San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states...

I'm not sure two (DE and RI) can be classified as many... but I agree it is pretty big.

I stand corrected. But it is has almost the same land area as Connecticut. Any any rate, it is large and offers a diverse array of caching from the ocean, to the cities, to the mountains and to the desert.

[+TrailGators]

That being said, I don't know how much your arguments that changes should be made should be respected if you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

So if I don't do it your way, I'm refusing to do even "a little bit?" Twist-a-roonie.... I guess you haven't been paying attention to what I said that I am doing.... Edited April 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Always & Forever 5]

...from the ocean, to the cities, to the mountains and to the desert.

(C'mon, everybody sing!) God bless America, land that I love...!

 

[+tozainamboku]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

Well, he really doesn't. He just tells people how he thinks they should cache.

 

I think there's a difference there...somewhere...

 

...well, maybe not.

He was sounding so reasonable until he got to that very last bit. That was when I almost sprayed coffee.

 

Still, I think there's been progress. On both sides.

I don't see him telling other people how to cache. What I see is that he asks for suggestions on avoiding caches he doesn't like. sbell111 gives him a suggestion and he complains because it doesn't match the way he likes to cache. I suspect that some of the complainers complain because they have chosen a way to cache that makes it hard to filter out "lame" caches. I remember when I complained once that people were hiding lame caches in they area around my house that I was trying to keep clear. Someone told me that I didn't have to keep an area clear and that if I chose to do so I shouldn't complain about the kinds of caches I found. If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

Edited April 23, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

Well, he really doesn't. He just tells people how he thinks they should cache.

 

I think there's a difference there...somewhere...

 

...well, maybe not.

But I don't "tell" I "ask," so there is a big difference...As least you sort of see it. I'm not sure about the others with the coffee stains on the front of shirts...

[+TrailGators]

So please don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

<--- [almost chokes, then clears throat loudly]

Well, he really doesn't. He just tells people how he thinks they should cache.

 

I think there's a difference there...somewhere...

 

...well, maybe not.

He was sounding so reasonable until he got to that very last bit. That was when I almost sprayed coffee.

 

Still, I think there's been progress. On both sides.

I don't see him telling other people how to cache. What I see is that he asks for suggestions on avoiding caches he doesn't like. sbell111 gives him a suggestion and he complains because it doesn't match the way he likes to cache. I suspect that some of the complainers complain because they have chosen a way to cache that makes it hard to filter out "lame" caches. I remember when I complained once that people were hiding lame caches in they area around my house that I was trying to keep clear. Someone told me that I didn't have to keep an area clear and that if I chose to do so I shouldn't complain about the kinds of caches I found. If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

[+sbell111]

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

Who is telling you how to cache?

[+TrailGators]

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

Who is telling you how to cache?

you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

I'm not going to do what you told me I "should" do.

 

If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

He's telling me that I need to look at maps so I can delete caches that "may" have a cache that I don't like. I'm not going to waste my time doing this either.

 

I would rather just quit urban caching if it going to become a chore and that is what you both are telling me to do. But I think there are better ways. We just have to be more creative...

[+sbell111]

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

Who is telling you how to cache?

you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

I'm not going to do what you told me I "should" do.

 

If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

He's telling me that I need to look at maps so I can delete caches that "may" have a cache that I don't like. I'm not going to waste my time doing this either.

 

I would rather just quit urban caching if it going to become a chore and that is what you both are telling me to do. But I think there are better ways. We just have to be more creative...

I think that it's a pretty big stretch to take Toz' post as a direct order to TrailBlazers to take any action at all.

[+TrailGators]

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

Who is telling you how to cache?

you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

I'm not going to do what you told me I "should" do.

 

If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

He's telling me that I need to look at maps so I can delete caches that "may" have a cache that I don't like. I'm not going to waste my time doing this either.

 

I would rather just quit urban caching if it going to become a chore and that is what you both are telling me to do. But I think there are better ways. We just have to be more creative...

I think that it's a pretty big stretch to take Toz' post as a direct order to TrailBlazers to take any action at all.

It wasn't a "direct order" any more than any of my suggestions to other people to try to be more creative....

[+sbell111]

Now you guys are telling me how to cache. But it's OK for you to do it... Anyhow, if I can ignore the cachers that hide caches that are vastly different than the ones that I enjoy finding then I won't need to spend extra time at my PC going through google earth everytime I want to go caching. Plus there are a lot more caches I want to eliminate than just the ones that "may" be under a lamp post in a parking lot.

Who is telling you how to cache?

you aren't even willing to do a little bit to relieve your own unhappiness.

I'm not going to do what you told me I "should" do.

 

If you choose to find 1/1 micros that you select by using maps and not delete the caches just because the look like they're in a parking lot, they you can't really complain if you find parking lot caches.

He's telling me that I need to look at maps so I can delete caches that "may" have a cache that I don't like. I'm not going to waste my time doing this either.

 

I would rather just quit urban caching if it going to become a chore and that is what you both are telling me to do. But I think there are better ways. We just have to be more creative...

I think that it's a pretty big stretch to take Toz' post as a direct order to TrailBlazers to take any action at all.

It wasn't a "direct order" any more than any of my suggestions to other people to try to be more creative....

I'm not even sure if the post in question was directed at you. It's possible that you are a little vain.

[+sbell111]

BTW, is it your position that you can rant about everything that's wrong with the game but no one can point you in the direction to avoid your angst?

 

Surely, this is not your position.

[+TrailGators]

BTW, is it your position that you can rant about everything that's wrong with the game but no one can point you in the direction to avoid your angst?

 

Surely, this is not your position.

You are correct, it is not my position. If people point me in the right direction I will be all ears. But you are like a broken record and keep repeating a direction that I don't want to go in. Would you agree that there are other directions?

[+sbell111]

BTW, is it your position that you can rant about everything that's wrong with the game but no one can point you in the direction to avoid your angst?

 

Surely, this is not your position.

You are correct, it is not my position. If people point me in the right direction I will be all ears. But you are like a broken record and keep repeating a direction that I don't want to go in. Would you agree that there are other directions?

Ummm, my last suggestion was brand new and right down your alley, in my opinion.

[Mushtang]

BTW, is it your position that you can rant about everything that's wrong with the game but no one can point you in the direction to avoid your angst?

 

Surely, this is not your position.

You are correct, it is not my position. If people point me in the right direction I will be all ears. But you are like a broken record and keep repeating a direction that I don't want to go in. Would you agree that there are other directions?

I've often wanted to tell you where to go, but forum guidelines suggest that I don't.

[vagabond]

San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states...

I'm not sure two (DE and RI) can be classified as many... but I agree it is pretty big.

 

not really when compared to San Bernardino county or Riverside county

 

edit to add

San Bernardino County is the largest county in the contiguous United States by area, containing more land than each of nine states. The county is larger in area than the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware combined.

 

Riverside county

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 18,915 square kilometers (7,303 mi²)

 

Edited April 23, 2007 by vagabond

[+sbell111]

I bought my wife the first season of Emergency! on DVDs the other day. She really seemed to like the gift. I don't guess that fact has anything to do with this thread, but they are filled with useless California trivia.

[+Renegade Knight]

Speaking of useless trivia.

 

This thread is about as much fun as LPC's and yet is as popular as most LPC's are in reality. Amazing how tha works.

[+TrailGators]

San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states...

I'm not sure two (DE and RI) can be classified as many... but I agree it is pretty big.

 

not really when compared to San Bernardino county or Riverside county

 

edit to add

San Bernardino County is the largest county in the contiguous United States by area, containing more land than each of nine states. The county is larger in area than the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware combined.

 

Riverside county

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 18,915 square kilometers (7,303 mi²)

 

I didn't know that! That is the most interesting post in this entire thread.

[vagabond]

I bought my wife the first season of Emergency! on DVDs the other day. She really seemed to like the gift. I don't guess that fact has anything to do with this thread, but they are filled with useless California trivia.

 

Trivia is fun

[+tozainamboku]

I think San Diego county has more lamp posts than San Bernardino county, but I could be wrong. Victorville and Barstow have grown a lot in the past few years and I'm pretty sure there are a least a couple of new WalMarts.

[+Bad_CRC]

 

 

 

yikes. That would scare me enough to make me think twice about looking under bark in the woods.

 

maybe lamp posts aren't all bad.

[+The Jester]

Hmmm... It seems there are two discussions blended into one here. Some are talking about features that if implemented might make filtering out caches easier - IN THE FUTURE. Others are taking about work-arounds within the existing system, while admitting it isn't perfect. Discussing what you COULD do with an inhanced system does nothing to help with which caches to hunt next weekend, while ideas to work within the existing system can help - but only if you're willing to try them out.

 

I guess I have no sympathy for someone who complains about hard-to-weed-out caches they don't like, but is unwilling to do any work/chores needed to avoid them. There have been several different ideas shared that work for the people using them, but if they're too much effort then you're stuck with the caches you won't weed out. If as much time was spent reading cache pages, viewing maps and photos as is spent complaining, building hypothetical examples to keep this arguement going and snipping at each word typed then most of the caches you wouldn't like could be eliminated from your hunt list. Personally I find the time I spend working out the caches & routes I'll take is enjoyable and part of the sport. I'm sorry you don't and I have no ideas left on how to "solve" the problem of these caches without some work involved.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Edited due to remembering Mama's advice regarding not being able to say something nice about someone...

Edited April 24, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[Noiseguy]

18 pages of posts, points and counterpoints. Tell me again how many opinions where changed for all that argument?

 

I thought the thread was for airing opinions about LPCs?!?

[+KBI]

I guess I have no sympathy for someone who complains about hard-to-weed-out caches they don't like, but is unwilling to do any work/chores needed to avoid them. There have been several different ideas shared that work for the people using them, but if they're too much effort then you're stuck with the caches you won't weed out. If as much time was spent reading cache pages, viewing maps and photos as is spent complaining, building hypothetical examples to keep this arguement going and snipping at each word typed then most of the caches you wouldn't like could be eliminated from your hunt list.

Agreed.

 

Have you also noticed that the folks who like to look down their noses at "numbers hounds" are the same folks who use the fact that they target huge numbers of caches as an excuse for not wanting to read cache page descriptions? The person who recently implied that it is more acceptable to only be interested in finding one or two caches in an afternoon of hiking (while happy, misguided beings are instead busy racking up twenty or thirty easy urban finds in town) apparently thinks it's too much trouble to read up on those two hiking caches beforehand to make sure they're going to be adequately amusing:

 

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

He makes fun of people for finding so many ‘almost anything easy’ caches that they use stickers instead of pens, but he is apparently targeting such a huge number of caches to hunt for himself – and on a regular basis – that the 30 seconds of reading required to research each cache candidate would be overwhelming.

 

He rolls his eyes at those who "love the numbers," yet he apparently takes on so many numbers himself that even a PQ which excludes all 1/1 hides doesn’t leave him with enough to do.

 

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

I'll do a favorite if I get near one. There are only 50 and they are scattered all over the county. San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states so it makes sense to find those when I'm near one.

TrailGators doesn’t want to limit himself to "only 50" recommended caches. This from the person who gives people a hard time for wanting to run up their numbers, and preaches that two per day should be enough for anybody.

 

TrailGators doesn’t want to travel inconvenient distances. This from the person who gives people a hard time for enjoying caches simply because they’re conveniently located nearby – or as he puts it: "Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time?"

[Trinity's Crew]

I guess I have no sympathy for someone who complains about hard-to-weed-out caches they don't like, but is unwilling to do any work/chores needed to avoid them. There have been several different ideas shared that work for the people using them, but if they're too much effort then you're stuck with the caches you won't weed out. If as much time was spent reading cache pages, viewing maps and photos as is spent complaining, building hypothetical examples to keep this arguement going and snipping at each word typed then most of the caches you wouldn't like could be eliminated from your hunt list.

Agreed.

 

Have you also noticed that the folks who like to look down their noses at "numbers hounds" are the same folks who use the fact that they target huge numbers of caches as an excuse for not wanting to read cache page descriptions? The person who recently implied that it is more acceptable to only be interested in finding one or two caches in an afternoon of hiking (while happy, misguided beings are instead busy racking up twenty or thirty easy urban finds in town) apparently thinks it's too much trouble to read up on those two hiking caches beforehand to make sure they're going to be adequately amusing:

 

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

He makes fun of people for finding so many ‘almost anything easy’ caches that they use stickers instead of pens, but he is apparently targeting such a huge number of caches to hunt for himself – and on a regular basis – that the 30 seconds of reading required to research each cache candidate would be overwhelming.

 

He rolls his eyes at those who "love the numbers," yet he apparently takes on so many numbers himself that even a PQ which excludes all 1/1 hides doesn’t leave him with enough to do.

 

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

I'll do a favorite if I get near one. There are only 50 and they are scattered all over the county. San Diego County has thousands of caches and is larger than many states so it makes sense to find those when I'm near one.

TrailGators doesn’t want to limit himself to "only 50" recommended caches. This from the person who gives people a hard time for wanting to run up their numbers, and preaches that two per day should be enough for anybody.

 

TrailGators doesn’t want to travel inconvenient distances. This from the person who gives people a hard time for enjoying caches simply because they’re conveniently located nearby – or as he puts it: "Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time?"

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

In my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[vtmtnman]

Learned something new-

 

San Bernadino county is the largest county in the US by land area.

 

Who knew.

[+Always & Forever 5]

[Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

Yep. Hard to argue those facts. I'd say game, set, and match goes to KBI.

 

Can we go caching now??

[+KBI]

TrailGators;

 

As you know I am doing my best to see your side of this debate, but it is difficult for me to work up any sympathy for your cause when you refuse to offer the same consideration to others that you demand FROM them.

 

Consider these two posts:

 

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

- versus -

 

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

I'll do a favorite if I get near one ... don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

This is a clear contradiction in fairness, TG. Your double standard is showing again.

 

It's okay for you to belittle those who choose to play differently, clearly implying that they should prefer to play your way, but it's not okay for someone to make similar suggestions to you – even when they’re only trying to help you get what you want?

 

If you’re going to whine gripe about those who target large numbers of caches, don’t expect sympathy when your stated reason for rejecting a suggestion (researching caches in advance) is the overwhelming size of the volume of caches you choose to target yourself.

 

If you’re going to belittle the way other people play, don’t expect sympathy when you get cranky because someone, in an effort to help you, offers a suggestion for changing your own strategy.

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators;

 

As you know I am doing my best to see your side of this debate, but it is difficult for me to work up any sympathy for your cause when you refuse to offer the same consideration to others that you demand FROM them.

 

Consider these two posts:

 

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

- versus -

 

Of course if the 'SD Consensus Favorites' is keeping you busy enough, clearly you don't need any help nor should you have any issue with LPCs, since you have a solution the 'keeps you busy enough'.

I'll do a favorite if I get near one ... don't tell me how to cache. I don't tell other people how to do it.

This is a clear contradiction in fairness, TG. Your double standard is showing again.

 

It's okay for you to belittle those who choose to play differently, clearly implying that they should prefer to play your way, but it's not okay for someone to make similar suggestions to you – even when they're only trying to help you get what you want?

 

If you're going to whine gripe about those who target large numbers of caches, don't expect sympathy when your stated reason for rejecting a suggestion (researching caches in advance) is the overwhelming size of the volume of caches you choose to target yourself.

 

If you're going to belittle the way other people play, don't expect sympathy when you get cranky because someone, in an effort to help you, offers a suggestion for changing your own strategy.

I wasn't trying to belittle anybody. I was factually stating how some people cache. People actually cache this way. Are you accusing me of making things up? Many people DO love the number and can tolerate all kinds of caches. I've heard them with me own ears. Anyhow, that is not the way I prefer to cache. So many of the caches that these folks tolerate, I really don't enjoy and that was the subject of this thread. Also please don't twist things around and claim that I'm looking for sympathy. Does that help your case? Edited April 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I wasn't trying to belittle anybody. I was factually stating how some people cache.

You may not realize it, but that’s NOT how it sounds. Your paragraph on urban cache hunters and how they compare to your preferred method of play is dripping with your personal bias. I don't care how you choose to cache, but it still apparently bothers you a great deal that others hunt those skirt lifters you detest.

 

BTW -- no response to this post?

[+TrailGators]

I wasn't trying to belittle anybody. I was factually stating how some people cache.

You may not realize it, but that's NOT how it sounds. Your paragraph on urban cache hunters and how they compare to your preferred method of play is dripping with your personal bias. I don't care how you choose to cache, but it still apparently bothers you a great deal that others hunt those skirt lifters you detest.

 

BTW -- no response to this post?

It doesn't bother me how they cache at all. I even congratulate them them on a regular basis. HOw do I state the facts without you using the facts to assume my opinion> The point was that everyone has a different style. We need a way to easily segregate caches that fir different styles. Look at Waymarking to see how they accomplish this and quit attacking me....

[+KBI]

I wasn't trying to belittle anybody. I was factually stating how some people cache.

You may not realize it, but that's NOT how it sounds. Your paragraph on urban cache hunters and how they compare to your preferred method of play is dripping with your personal bias. I don't care how you choose to cache, but it still apparently bothers you a great deal that others hunt those skirt lifters you detest.

 

BTW -- no response to this post?

It doesn't bother me how they cache at all. I even congratulate them them on a regular basis. HOw do I state the facts without you using the facts to assume my opinion> The point was that everyone has a different style. We need a way to easily segregate caches that fir different styles. Look at Waymarking to see how they accomplish this and quit attacking me....

Still no response to this post?

[+TrailGators]

I wasn't trying to belittle anybody. I was factually stating how some people cache.

You may not realize it, but that's NOT how it sounds. Your paragraph on urban cache hunters and how they compare to your preferred method of play is dripping with your personal bias. I don't care how you choose to cache, but it still apparently bothers you a great deal that others hunt those skirt lifters you detest.

 

BTW -- no response to this post?

It doesn't bother me how they cache at all. I even congratulate them them on a regular basis. HOw do I state the facts without you using the facts to assume my opinion> The point was that everyone has a different style. We need a way to easily segregate caches that fir different styles. Look at Waymarking to see how they accomplish this and quit attacking me....

Still no response to this post?

That post is a complete lie. I do not look down on anyone. Everyone has different caching styles, I've said this several times. Those styles are not mine. You want to demonize me and then have the balls to ask me agree to your complete distortions of the truth. Is a fricking Altoids tin worth ripping anyone to shreds? You've gone way over the line. I'm done talking to you.

[+KBI]

Still no response to this post?

That post is a complete lie. I do not look down on anyone. Everyone has different caching styles, I've said this several times. Those styles are not mine. You want to demonize me and then have the balls to ask me agree to your complete distortions of the truth. Is a fricking Altoids tin worth ripping anyone to shreds? You've gone way over the line. I'm done talking to you.

Wow.

 

That wasn't the point at all. I was merely trying to determine whether the number of caches you regularly target for consideration is really as extremely high as you usually describe, and if not, whether maybe you should reconsider some of the solutions that have been offered.

 

If you don’t want to debate anymore, that’s okay. I think I’ve made my point pretty clear by now anyway.

 

I went caching today – some with my brother, some by myself – and I used my previously described method of pre-caching research to great effect. I spent about 10 minutes with the cache pages and maps available on this website and was able to come up with a great list of targets. I ruled out a few hides based on lukewarm logs and bland-sounding descriptions. I also found a several surprise gems that I was glad not to miss. 12 finds total – the entire afternoon was very entertaining. No PQ! I cache non-paperless. (It drives my brother crazy.)

 

If you just can’t get that to work for you, that’s fine. Like I said before, I hope you get the filtering enhancement you want, I hope it works for you, and I hope you’re eventually able to cache as happy and satisfied as I do.

 

Let me know next time you’re going to be in my area. I’ll show you how I plan my cache outings, and ... I'll buy lunch.

[+sbell111]

Reading over the last several posts, I was reminded of those people who complain that the game isn't like it used to be. They state that caches used to be better. Their primary target for this lameness is easy urban micros; most typically LPCs, but not always.

 

I typically counter with my plan which is basically to use PQs to remove micros with low difficulty or terrain until after everything else is found. This generally would still leave these individuals with thousands of caches in their areas to find.

 

What I remembered while I was reading the last several posts is not just that early on all the caches were not great and that some were just plain bad, but also that there were very few caches to choose from so we went after every cache in our area and were thankful for it, even if it was a stinker. When I started I only had maybe three or four caches within 30 miles of me to go after. Of course, I looked for all of them.

 

I have no sympathy for people who still have hundreds or thousands of caches to look for after they quickly sort out the ones that they likely won't like. I have even less sympathy for those that refuse to even use the tools provided to get bypass the caches that they are likely to not enjoy.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I have no sympathy for people who still have hundreds or thousands of caches to look for after they quickly sort out the ones that they likely won't like. I have even less sympathy for those that refuse to even use the tools provided to get bypass the caches that they are likely to not enjoy.

Bravo. I don't care much for LPCs, but beggars can't be choosers. There are 56 caches within 50 miles of my home, and 12 of them are mine. I would love to have to sort through tons of caches to find the "good" ones.

 

Count your blessing and stop moaning.

[+TrailGators]

 

I have no sympathy for people who still have hundreds or thousands of caches to look for after they quickly sort out the ones that they likely won't like. I have even less sympathy for those that refuse to even use the tools provided to get bypass the caches that they are likely to not enjoy.

Bravo. I don't care much for LPCs, but beggars can't be choosers. There are 56 caches within 50 miles of my home, and 12 of them are mine. I would love to have to sort through tons of caches to find the "good" ones.

 

Count your blessing and stop moaning.

Nobody is moaning. I am asking for a ignore cacher feature. Is that moaning? Also, even if I only had a handful of caches around me, I wouldn't be excited about running around parking lots lifting up lamp skirts.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I have no sympathy for people who still have hundreds or thousands of caches to look for after they quickly sort out the ones that they likely won't like. I have even less sympathy for those that refuse to even use the tools provided to get bypass the caches that they are likely to not enjoy.

Bravo. I don't care much for LPCs, but beggars can't be choosers. There are 56 caches within 50 miles of my home, and 12 of them are mine. I would love to have to sort through tons of caches to find the "good" ones.

 

Count your blessing and stop moaning.

Nobody is moaning. I am asking for a ignore cacher feature. Is that moaning? Also, even if I only had a handful of caches around me, I wouldn't be excited about running around parking lots lifting up lamp skirts.

First of all that was addressed to you personally, nor for that matter most of the regular posters, but a comment on the tone of some of the folks that post to the threads like this one. They only whine and moan, and even when a suggestion is given, they still whine and moan.

 

Secondly I can't say I would be excited about about running around parking lots lifting up lamp skirts either, but if and when one is placed around here I still would, for one reason. Up here a lot of folks come to me with questions and concerns about caching, therefore I want first hand knowledge of every cache around here.

 

Thirdly if I were in a much denser cache environment in would probably ignore LCP.

 

As far as the ignore cacher feature, I don't know. I'd probably never use if I had it, so I don't think I should say anything one way or the other.

 

I just hate hearing cachers whine about how bad it is to have to chose from all these caches. Not that you were. Like sbell said, use the tools to sort through them.