Jump to content

Do you feel Geocaching has changed over the years?


Recommended Posts

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

 

Why is it so hard to admit that are at least a couple of lame caches out there? I mean lame that we all can agree upon. Are you telling me moldy, water-logged Gladware caches found in a parking lot is truly loved by the majority of seekers?

 

I totally understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but this blanket defense of caches that most anyone would call lame is really weakening the "anti-lame" argument.

Link to comment

I have stated many times that I know what a lame cache is. I can't define it for anyone else because my perception is my reality, and ONLY my reality.

 

I am not defending unmaintained caches. I don't have to worry about these. We have tools in place to identify them. Log a "Needs Maintenance" or even an "SBA" if you need to. A reviewer will take over from there. :blink:

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
I won't define it for anyone else because it's my definition of lame.

 

 

Hmmmm.....That's very close to my definition of what it is to be Agnostic. Just replace "lame" with God. :D

 

 

I didn't realize until now that I'm a Geocaching Agnostic as well. Hey, I'm nothing if not consistant. :D

 

 

I've certainly been to many a lame cache, but I save most of my negative comments (if I even bother to make them) about particular caches and cachers for offline. Plausable deniability is a good thing. :blink:

Link to comment

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

 

In the situation that you dredged up, the finder fabricated his whole log (later admitted to the cache owner). He whined about a 4.5 star terrain cache, because (A it was too remote), and (B the terrain was too hard for most cachers, himself included. ) He defined the cache as not being good, because of A and B. The owner was a friend of mine, and it was his first cache. He hid a fully stocked ammo can, in a scenic locale (hardly the definition of a bad cache, for the majority of cachers). I foolishly jumped in the middle, to lend my friend support. I deleted my log, after thinking about it. That is the last time I ever got in the middle of someone else's beef.

Link to comment

...I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003.

...I'm sure this happened because lots of people can't or won't hike.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003.

...This happened. People would just find it and drop it. I did this sometimes to keep cool bugs/coins in caches to provide an incentive to find the cache. Plus bugs are like hot potatoes to me. I always feel guilty when I have one to get rid of it.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003 but it could have.

 

Just because you don't have a memory of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I do.

Link to comment

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

 

In the situation that you dredged up, the finder fabricated his whole log (later admitted to the cache owner). He whined about a 4.5 star terrain cache, because (A it was too remote), and (B the terrain was too hard for most cachers, himself included. ) He defined the cache as not being good, because of A and B. The owner was a friend of mine, and it was his first cache. He hid a fully stocked ammo can, in a scenic locale (hardly the definition of a bad cache, for the majority of cachers). I foolishly jumped in the middle, to lend my friend support. I deleted my log, after thinking about it. That is the last time I ever got in the middle of someone else's beef.

Fair enough. I mentioned that you may have deleted the note. You apparently did delete it. I was still surprised that you even posted it to begin with. In addition, you started a thread in these forums to highlight the fact that a cacher actually complained about a cache that didn't fit your definition of "lame".

 

I apologize for bringing up an old topic, but it highlights the fact that "lame" is truly in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, the cacher in question had what he believed to be legitimate complaints about a cache he didn't like. Perhaps after reading your note he realized that he was off-base and had overstepped his bounds in his complaints. In my opinion he did overstep his bounds. Of course in my opinion we ALL overstep our bounds when we take it upon ourselves to chastise others for our personal dislikes if we aren't willing to consider everyone's personal dislikes with the same respect.

 

Edit: Added blue part

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

 

In the situation that you dredged up, the finder fabricated his whole log (later admitted to the cache owner). He whined about a 4.5 star terrain cache, because (A it was too remote), and (B the terrain was too hard for most cachers, himself included. ) He defined the cache as not being good, because of A and B. The owner was a friend of mine, and it was his first cache. He hid a fully stocked ammo can, in a scenic locale (hardly the definition of a bad cache, for the majority of cachers). I foolishly jumped in the middle, to lend my friend support. I deleted my log, after thinking about it. That is the last time I ever got in the middle of someone else's beef.

Fair enough. I mentioned that you may have deleted the note. You apparently did delete it. I was still surprised that you even posted it to begin with. In addition, you started a thread in these forums to highlight the fact that a cacher actually complained about a cache that didn't fit your definition of "lame".

 

I apologize for bringing up an old topic, but it highlights the fact that "lame" is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

Agreed

 

The fact is, the cacher in question had what he believed to be legitimate complaints about a cache he didn't like. Perhaps after reading your note he realized that he was off-base and had overstepped his bounds in his complaints. In my opinion he did overstep his bounds. Of course in my opinion we ALL overstep our bounds when we take it upon ourselves to chastise others for our personal dislikes if we aren't willing to consider everyone's personal dislikes with the same consideration.

 

Edit: Added blue part

 

I learned a lesson from that incident.

 

My personal mission now, is hide caches that have a purpose (scenic location, places of historical value, and fun.) Here is my latest contribution to geocaching F6F-5K Hellcat Drone Wrecksite

Link to comment

<snip>

Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport.

That one bugs me. Lame is subjective. Kit Fox knows this. He lambasted a cacher in these forums for having the audacity to write a negative log about a cache. I was somewhat taken aback since KF is one of the most vocal supporters of "honest" logs. However, in this instance, the "honesty" didn't fit KF's definition.

 

In all fairness I should mention that Kit Fox did modify (or maybe even deleted) the note he posted on the cache page. I assumed that he had realized that lame means different things to different people. Now I'm not so sure...

 

Edit: Added The stuff between the ()

 

In the situation that you dredged up, the finder fabricated his whole log (later admitted to the cache owner). He whined about a 4.5 star terrain cache, because (A it was too remote), and (B the terrain was too hard for most cachers, himself included. ) He defined the cache as not being good, because of A and B. The owner was a friend of mine, and it was his first cache. He hid a fully stocked ammo can, in a scenic locale (hardly the definition of a bad cache, for the majority of cachers). I foolishly jumped in the middle, to lend my friend support. I deleted my log, after thinking about it. That is the last time I ever got in the middle of someone else's beef.

Fair enough. I mentioned that you may have deleted the note. You apparently did delete it. I was still surprised that you even posted it to begin with. In addition, you started a thread in these forums to highlight the fact that a cacher actually complained about a cache that didn't fit your definition of "lame".

 

I apologize for bringing up an old topic, but it highlights the fact that "lame" is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

Agreed

 

The fact is, the cacher in question had what he believed to be legitimate complaints about a cache he didn't like. Perhaps after reading your note he realized that he was off-base and had overstepped his bounds in his complaints. In my opinion he did overstep his bounds. Of course in my opinion we ALL overstep our bounds when we take it upon ourselves to chastise others for our personal dislikes if we aren't willing to consider everyone's personal dislikes with the same consideration.

 

Edit: Added blue part

 

I learned a lesson from that incident.

 

My personal mission now, is hide caches that have a purpose (scenic location, places of historical value, and fun.) Here is my latest contribution to geocaching F6F-5K Hellcat Drone Wrecksite

 

I'm sure I would really like your caches. I probably shouldn't have dredged up the old topic. I felt that it illustrated my point about lame being subjective and threw it out there without thinking it through. Again, I apologize. I was off-base and out of bounds.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
How many times do you use the words 'I', 'me', or 'my' in a day. Does it get tiring?
Resorting to personal attacks again? :D

__ would rather continue the discussion... :blink:

Not an attack, just an observation. You used those words something like a dozen times in your post. As a result of the way that you express your point, you kind of come off somewhat selfish.

 

'Those people place caches that I don't like.'

Just stick to the issues and knock off the personal BS. I can only offer my own opinions and feelings. I can try to mix in some other pronouns for you besides I, me, my, he and you. So if you want, I can certainly give you some more she it? :D:D

I don't think personal issues can be taken completely out of it. After all, your entire argument is about your personal likes and dislikes and how you don't wish to make any effort to avoid things you don't like and that you want the site to change to accomodate you.

Link to comment
  • No longer does a "found it" equate to actually finding a physical cache, and signing the logbook. Now anyone can log a find, by being in the "right" location. I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.It certainly happened in 2002, with cache owner permission.
  • Geocachers can log virtual caches from other countries without ever leaving the comfort of their home. I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.That complaint is as old as virtuals, themselves. In fact, baed on a thread about it in 2002, I googled the answers to three or four of them and emailed my answers to the virt owners (without ever specifically mentioning that I visited the cache). Each one OK'd my answer and gave me the go ahead to log my find. Of course, I never made the logs.
  • Cachers can log 100 attended logs on an event page, because they found "temporary caches," that were never approved on GC.com. I don't remember happening back in 2003.This has been a common practice ever since the 'permanence' guideline was established in 2002.
  • Great caches that require the least amount of effort, are immediately skipped and ignored, whereas a lamppost micro in a parking lot will get 100 "found it" logs versus the "hike to" cache that will get 3 "found it" logs. I'm sure this happened because lots of people can't or won't hike.of for many other reasons, most of which boils down to the cacher deciding to hunt whatever cache the cacher decides to hunt for whatever reason, none of which is anyone's business but his.
  • Lame caches are quickly defended as being a gift to the sport. I don't remember happening back in 2003.While I'm not sure what 'lame' is, I believe that the argument is self-evident and I don't see why it wouldn't have been made.
  • Travel bugs and geocoins are rarely moved from geocache to geocache, but they are discovered by "icon hunters." This happened. People would just find it and drop it. I did this sometimes to keep cool bugs/coins in caches to provide an incentive to find the cache. Plus bugs are like hot potatoes to me. I always feel guilty when I have one to get rid of it.This has been complained about ever since the introduction of TBs.
  • Any honest but negative logs directed at a poor cache placement turns you into an "evil cacher" or a "cache cop." I don't remember happening back in 2003 but it could have.Again, this is a kind of 'low hanging fruit' argument. I can't imagine why it wouldn't have been made back then and, of course, I'm too lazy to do a search.
  • In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity. I can understand Kit Fox's frustration. I'm hopeful that geocaching will adapt and listen to it's non-numbers oriented customers. The awards idea should help. An "ignore cacher" idea could also help. :blink: I find this to be a lame argument used to demonize anyone who disagrees with the arguer. I've seen no evidence that geocachers have more or less 'morality and integrity' than the average person. This was true on day one and it is true today.

Link to comment
In the situation that you dredged up, the finder fabricated his whole log (later admitted to the cache owner). He whined about a 4.5 star terrain cache, because (A it was too remote), and (B the terrain was too hard for most cachers, himself included. ) He defined the cache as not being good, because of A and B. ...
Doesn't this prove that everyone has their own definition of 'lame'?
Link to comment

...I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003, but it could have.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003.

...I'm sure this happened because lots of people can't or won't hike.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003.

...This happened. People would just find it and drop it. I did this sometimes to keep cool bugs/coins in caches to provide an incentive to find the cache. Plus bugs are like hot potatoes to me. I always feel guilty when I have one to get rid of it.

...I don't remember happening back in 2003 but it could have.

 

Just because you don't have a memory of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I do.

I know that. Geocaching is at different stages depending on where you go. These changes start in some areas and spread to other areas. Then they grow. So these items were rare at one time and are now commonplace in many areas. To me that's a change. It's kind of like having a flower bed and then watching the weeds pop up. The weeds were always there but you couldn't see them. :shocked:
Link to comment
How many times do you use the words 'I', 'me', or 'my' in a day. Does it get tiring?
Resorting to personal attacks again? :(

__ would rather continue the discussion... :shocked:

Not an attack, just an observation. You used those words something like a dozen times in your post. As a result of the way that you express your point, you kind of come off somewhat selfish.

 

'Those people place caches that I don't like.'

Just stick to the issues and knock off the personal BS. I can only offer my own opinions and feelings. I can try to mix in some other pronouns for you besides I, me, my, he and you. So if you want, I can certainly give you some more she it? ;):(

I don't think personal issues can be taken completely out of it. After all, your entire argument is about your personal likes and dislikes and how you don't wish to make any effort to avoid things you don't like and that you want the site to change to accomodate you.

Be honest. What you said went clearly beyond that. :o I see that you also missed my joke. You really need to lighten up... ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

From my point of view there's been many changes in geocaching. Some are good and some are not, depending on your point of view. When we first started you could depend on a cache taking you to some exciting place you didn't know about, not always, but many times. Most caches were rural then, today urban takes the numbers. In the early days one watched for a new cache to pop up, today you sort through thousands of caches to find the gem. I think the number of "gem" caches (gems to me may not be gems to anybody else) is close to what they were then. There might even be more of them. The sorting out which might be the gem is more difficult, and the sorting process often does not result in finding the gem.

 

I haven't tracked it, but my guess we're finding close the same number of caches we found in 2001 today as we did then. However it's been a couple of years since we've found a WOW cache, one that takes me to a new and wonderful place.

 

All that said there's more people enjoying caching that's probably a good thing.

 

Byron

Link to comment
...today you sort through thousands of caches to find the gem. I think the number of "gem" caches (gems to me may not be gems to anybody else) is close to what they were then. There might even be more of them. The sorting out which might be the gem is more difficult, and the sorting process often does not result in finding the gem.
Very well put. This is exactly what I am experiencing too. :shocked: The solution is to start creating must-do/favorites lists for each area. These lists exist but I wish they were easy to find for any location whenever you are traveling and suddenly have a little free time. :(
Link to comment

I don't know if it did or did not. However, I like it just as it is and it gives me something to do instead of sitting around the house dealing with Bi-Polar manic depressive episodes. I think there are great people in this sport and cant wait until I get some time to go meet some of them. Even though I am a complete noob, as you could tell by my last thread, I love it!

Link to comment
Of course in my opinion we ALL overstep our bounds when we take it upon ourselves to chastise others for our personal dislikes if we aren't willing to consider everyone's personal dislikes with the same respect.

Well put. It constantly amazes me how many people consistently fail to see the self-evidence of this basic truth. I call it the 'entitlement' mentality: "The world should modify itself to suit ME. I deserve it simply because I'm me. It's much too inconvenient for me to do the work myself. Why aren't people thinking more about MY needs? Why do they keep letting their own selfish preferences get in the way of making the world more acceptable for ME?"

 

Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule? Why are so many people incapable of offering others the same respect and consideration they demand FROM others?

Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree. If you find enough must-dos and favorite caches you begin to get a sense for what a wide cross-section of people really enjoy. So why not try to emulate these kinds of caches? I'm sure that this is truly how most of us want to be treated while we are out caching.... :unsure:
Link to comment
  • In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity. I can understand Kit Fox's frustration. I'm hopeful that geocaching will adapt and listen to it's non-numbers oriented customers. The awards idea should help. An "ignore cacher" idea could also help. :unsure: I find this to be a lame argument used to demonize anyone who disagrees with the arguer. I've seen no evidence that geocachers have more or less 'morality and integrity' than the average person. This was true on day one and it is true today.

This is one of the few forum posts that I have ever found to be personally offensive: the claim that "Geocaching is losing its morality and integrity." The claim was made in response to the general defense of the right of so-called "lame" caches to exist. I view this as an indirect personal attack -- against many of us, not just me.

 

Hiders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Finders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Defenders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

 

Morality: If there is any morality issue here at all, it is the 'morality' of challenging others' preferences, the 'morality' of demanding more from what is already a free gift from a fellow player, and the 'morality' of the premise that one's own opinion or preference is somehow more valid -- or more valuable -- than another person's. What could possibly be "immoral" about hiding, finding or defending a cache that some people happen not to enjoy? I was once actually told, in another thread, that I was on my way to Hell as a result of my defense of certain caches. Sorry, but I just don't see it. If I'm evil for defending certain cache types, I must be insane as well.

 

Integrity: Who is being dishonest here? Who is lying? I haven't seen it. (I'm not talking about deception of the 'clever camouflage' or 'puzzle red herring' variety. I mean the malicious dishonesty implied in the poster's rant.) I've seen lots of hypocrisy, selfishness and unnecessary negativity, but I've seen no place where outright deceit has become a problem in the game -- no more than has always existed in Geocaching (and everything else), that is.

Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree. If you find enough must-dos and favorite caches you begin to get a sense for what a wide cross-section of people really enjoy. So why not try to emulate these kinds of caches? I'm sure that this is truly how most of us want to be treated while we are out caching.... :unsure:
I think you just suggested that people hide caches other than what they would like to, just to please others. While I guess that this would jibe with the quoted post if people didn't like that kind of cache that they would have placed, given that the caches that you tend to rail against are often embraced by 'the masses', I find your post to be quite ironic.
Link to comment
  • In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity. I can understand Kit Fox's frustration. I'm hopeful that geocaching will adapt and listen to it's non-numbers oriented customers. The awards idea should help. An "ignore cacher" idea could also help. :unsure: I find this to be a lame argument used to demonize anyone who disagrees with the arguer. I've seen no evidence that geocachers have more or less 'morality and integrity' than the average person. This was true on day one and it is true today.

This is one of the few forum posts that I have ever found to be personally offensive: the claim that "Geocaching is losing its morality and integrity." The claim was made in response to the general defense of the right of so-called "lame" caches to exist. I view this as an indirect personal attack -- against many of us, not just me.

 

Hiders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Finders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Defenders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

 

Morality: If there is any morality issue here at all, it is the 'morality' of challenging others' preferences, the 'morality' of demanding more from what is already a free gift from a fellow player, and the 'morality' of the premise that one's own opinion or preference is somehow more valid -- or more valuable -- than another person's. What could possibly be "immoral" about hiding, finding or defending a cache that some people happen not to enjoy? I was once actually told, in another thread, that I was on my way to Hell as a result of my defense of certain caches. Sorry, but I just don't see it. If I'm evil for defending certain cache types, I must be insane as well.

 

Integrity: Who is being dishonest here? Who is lying? I haven't seen it. (I'm not talking about deception of the 'clever camouflage' or 'puzzle red herring' variety. I mean the malicious dishonesty implied in the poster's rant.) I've seen lots of hypocrisy, selfishness and unnecessary negativity, but I've seen no place where outright deceit has become a problem in the game -- no more than has always existed in Geocaching (and everything else), that is.

I'm sure that Kit Fox was talking about some of the very questionable practices that have been discussed in these forums (pocket caches, logging caches that aren't there, etc.). My opinion is that you will always have people that do that. All we can as individuals to to continue to follow our own moral compasses. :blink: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity.
I can understand Kit Fox's frustration. I'm hopeful that geocaching will adapt and listen to it's non-numbers oriented customers. The awards idea should help. An "ignore cacher" idea could also help. :unsure:
I find this to be a lame argument used to demonize anyone who disagrees with the arguer. I've seen no evidence that geocachers have more or less 'morality and integrity' than the average person. This was true on day one and it is true today.
This is one of the few forum posts that I have ever found to be personally offensive: the claim that "Geocaching is losing its morality and integrity." The claim was made in response to the general defense of the right of so-called "lame" caches to exist. I view this as an indirect personal attack -- against many of us, not just me.

 

Hiders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Finders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Defenders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

 

Morality: If there is any morality issue here at all, it is the 'morality' of challenging others' preferences, the 'morality' of demanding more from what is already a free gift from a fellow player, and the 'morality' of the premise that one's own opinion or preference is somehow more valid -- or more valuable -- than another person's. What could possibly be "immoral" about hiding, finding or defending a cache that some people happen not to enjoy? I was once actually told, in another thread, that I was on my way to Hell as a result of my defense of certain caches. Sorry, but I just don't see it. If I'm evil for defending certain cache types, I must be insane as well.

 

Integrity: Who is being dishonest here? Who is lying? I haven't seen it. (I'm not talking about deception of the 'clever camouflage' or 'puzzle red herring' variety. I mean the malicious dishonesty implied in the poster's rant.) I've seen lots of hypocrisy, selfishness and unnecessary negativity, but I've seen no place where outright deceit has become a problem in the game -- no more than has always existed in Geocaching (and everything else), that is.

I'd like to go on record that I am in complete agreement with KBI's post.

 

Due to a temporary bit of lazy posting on my pary, it appeared that I made the 'morality and integrity' statement. In fact, it was made by someone else earlier in the thread. I only snagged the verbiage to post a reply against that and other statements. I believe that I corrected the quotes at the top of this post.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :unsure:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :blink:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.

 

I also find your original statement to be quite ironic.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :unsure:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :blink:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.
I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

 

Got it now?

Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :unsure:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :blink:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.
I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

 

Got it now?

Again, I cannot accept your apology, as it stands. Perhaps others can, but I cannot.
Link to comment
  • In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity. I can understand Kit Fox's frustration. I'm hopeful that geocaching will adapt and listen to it's non-numbers oriented customers. The awards idea should help. An "ignore cacher" idea could also help. :unsure: I find this to be a lame argument used to demonize anyone who disagrees with the arguer. I've seen no evidence that geocachers have more or less 'morality and integrity' than the average person. This was true on day one and it is true today.

This is one of the few forum posts that I have ever found to be personally offensive: the claim that "Geocaching is losing its morality and integrity." The claim was made in response to the general defense of the right of so-called "lame" caches to exist. I view this as an indirect personal attack -- against many of us, not just me. Hiders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

Finders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

 

Defenders of uninspired caches are immoral and dishonest?

 

Morality: If there is any morality issue here at all, it is the 'morality' of challenging others' preferences, the 'morality' of demanding more from what is already a free gift from a fellow player, and the 'morality' of the premise that one's own opinion or preference is somehow more valid -- or more valuable -- than another person's. What could possibly be "immoral" about hiding, finding or defending a cache that some people happen not to enjoy? I was once actually told, in another thread, that I was on my way to Hell as a result of my defense of certain caches. Sorry, but I just don't see it. If I'm evil for defending certain cache types, I must be insane as well.

 

Integrity: Who is being dishonest here? Who is lying? I haven't seen it. (I'm not talking about deception of the 'clever camouflage' or 'puzzle red herring' variety. I mean the malicious dishonesty implied in the poster's rant.) I've seen lots of hypocrisy, selfishness and unnecessary negativity, but I've seen no place where outright deceit has become a problem in the game -- no more than has always existed in Geocaching (and everything else), that is.

 

You took that line way out of context.

 

I was referring to cachers that log fake "finds," on non-exisitant caches, and those that log caches that don't exist on geocaching.com (temp caches.) Not people who hide mediocre caches. Someone can still hide lame caches, and maintain good morals and integrity. Their standards of geocaching play are different then mine.

Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :unsure:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :blink:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.
I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

 

Got it now?

 

 

 

head-in-sand.jpg

 

 

ostrich.gif

Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :unsure:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :blink:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.
I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

 

Got it now?

 

 

 

head-in-sand.jpg

 

 

ostrich.gif

 

2e9d8d24-12ea-438e-abf4-f2b9db6ca154.jpg
Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I think some people blow things way out of proportion in these threads.... :laughing:
I accept your apology.
I wasn't apologizing. Since it went over your head.....I was referring to both you and KBI.... :laughing:
In that case, it grieves me to say that I found your apology lacking and cannot accept it.
I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

I wasn't apologizing.

 

Got it now?

 

 

 

head-in-sand.jpg

 

 

ostrich.gif

 

2e9d8d24-12ea-438e-abf4-f2b9db6ca154.jpg

Don't be so hard on yourself.
Link to comment
  • In a nutshell, Geocaching is losing it's morality and integrity.

You took that line way out of context.

 

I was referring to cachers that log fake "finds," on non-exisitant caches, and those that log caches that don't exist on geocaching.com (temp caches.) Not people who hide mediocre caches. Someone can still hide lame caches, and maintain good morals and integrity. Their standards of geocaching play are different then mine.

Fair enough. I was hoping to hear that, actually. As you say, those descriptions hardly apply to people who hide mediocre caches. Thanks for the clarification. :laughing:

 

In that case: while I agree with you that people who (1) log fake "finds" on non-exisitant caches, and (2) log caches that don't exist on geocaching.com are being dishonest, they are in fact only being dishonest with themselves. Neither of those things infringes on my rights or affects by ability to enjoy geocaching.

 

I completely disagree, however that either of those two activites qualifies as "immoral."

Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree.

Then you agree that one should show the same respect for others' preferences that one demands FROM others?

 

You agree that if cacher A insists that cacher B place caches designed specifically to satisfy the entertainment needs of cacher A, that cacher B should expect the very same courtesy from cacher A?

Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I am in complete agreement with KBI's post.

 

Due to a temporary bit of lazy posting on my pary, it appeared that I made the 'morality and integrity' statement. In fact, it was made by someone else earlier in the thread. I only snagged the verbiage to post a reply against that and other statements. I believe that I corrected the quotes at the top of this post.

Thanks for fixing that. I was being lazy too. It didn't even occur to me that it might look like I was quoting those words from one of your posts. Sorry. :laughing:

Link to comment
I'd like to go on record that I am in complete agreement with KBI's post.

 

Due to a temporary bit of lazy posting on my pary, it appeared that I made the 'morality and integrity' statement. In fact, it was made by someone else earlier in the thread. I only snagged the verbiage to post a reply against that and other statements. I believe that I corrected the quotes at the top of this post.

Thanks for fixing that. I was being lazy too. It didn't even occur to me that it might look like I was quoting those words from one of your posts. Sorry. :laughing:

No worries.

Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree.

Then you agree that one should show the same respect for others' preferences that one demands FROM others?

 

You agree that if cacher A insists that cacher B place caches designed specifically to satisfy the entertainment needs of cacher A, that cacher B should expect the very same courtesy from cacher A?

Keep reading. TrailGators' apologized for that post here. He came off the apology in kind of a snarky way in a later post, but you can accept it if you want to.

Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree.

Then you agree that one should show the same respect for others' preferences that one demands FROM others?

 

You agree that if cacher A insists that cacher B place caches designed specifically to satisfy the entertainment needs of cacher A, that cacher B should expect the very same courtesy from cacher A?

Respect is earned. I don't hand it out like candy. However, I will always try be polite to others until they are rude to me. Plus nobody is "insisting" anything. Show me where anybody has "insisted" or demanded" anything in this thread. The OP asked if things have gotten better or worse. IMHO urban caching has gotten worse and higher terrain caches are pretty much the same but there are more of them.
Link to comment
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree.
Then you agree that one should show the same respect for others' preferences that one demands FROM others?

 

You agree that if cacher A insists that cacher B place caches designed specifically to satisfy the entertainment needs of cacher A, that cacher B should expect the very same courtesy from cacher A?

Respect is earned. I don't hand it out like candy. However, I will always try be polite to others until they are rude to me. Plus nobody is "insisting" anything. Show me where anybody has "insisted" or demanded" anything in this thread. The OP asked if things have gotten better or worse. IMHO urban caching has gotten worse and higher terrain caches are pretty much the same but there are more of them.
Am I wrong to take away from that post that you only respect people who make decisions that you agree with?
Link to comment

Respect is earned. I don't hand it out like candy. However, I will always try be polite to others until they are rude to me. Plus nobody is "insisting" anything. Show me where anybody has "insisted" or demanded" anything in this thread. The OP asked if things have gotten better or worse. IMHO urban caching has gotten worse and higher terrain caches are pretty much the same but there are more of them.

A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :laughing:

 

Anyway, on the issue off cache placement for others, I'm somewhere in the middle. I place the caches that I think would be fun for me, but at the same time I realize that the cache is not for me. It's for the other cachers out there. If I want it to be a success I need it be something they will like. Now that does mean I will lower my standards and hide a cache that is what I would call a 'bad' cache.

 

The cache is for others, but that's my name on it.

Link to comment
A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :laughing:
I respect lots of people including you and most people in these threads. However, I do not respect people that twist my (or others) words around to make themselves look good at the expense of others. That is a lack of respect on their part. It's ironic that some these people that have a holier than thou attitude, when it comes to being respectful when they are overtly disrespectful themselves. Golden rule...Yea right....Give me a fricking break... :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :(
I respect lots of people including you and most people in these threads. However, I do not respect people that twist my (or others) words around to make themselves look good at the expense of others. That is a lack of respect on their part. It's ironic that some these people that have a holier than thou attitude, when it comes to being respectful when they are overtly disrespectful themselves. Golden rule...Yea right....Give me a fricking break... :laughing:

 

 

 

You seem to have lost touch with the source of your angst.

 

 

Ok folks the revised page 4 summary. Added content is bolded:

 

To summarize our "Geocaching Tree of Angst" so far:

 

We have an atmosphere rich with CO2 that is represented by one atom of "Entitlement" ( C ) and two atoms of "Expectation." (O2) :laughing:

 

We have a rich medium for the growth of angst in our soil, which is represented by a common/general, "unawareness that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people." :D

 

The water (H2O) that nourishes the tree is either actual or perceived (H2) negative interaction (O) between geocachers. :blink:

 

Our tree is furtilized by misconception, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding (MMM) whether actual or deliberate. :D

 

The roots of our tree are based in actual participation and experience in geocaching as an activity.... Hiding, finding, & moving trackables. :huh:

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about." :D

 

From there our "Tree of Angst" branches out in many directions. Some branches sprout from the trunk and some branches think they are attacking the trunk from the other side, but are seemingly unaware that they are part of the same tree. :D

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF :D:laughing:

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

Link to comment
A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :laughing:
I respect lots of people including you and most people in these threads. However, I do not respect people that twist my (or others) words around to make themselves look good at the expense of others. That is a lack of respect on their part. It's ironic that some these people that have a holier than thou attitude, when it comes to being respectful when they are overtly disrespectful themselves. Golden rule...Yea right....Give me a fricking break... :laughing:

You seem to have lost touch with the source of your angst.
Snoogans, although we may not agree at times, you have been humorous and respectful with your posts. I have chuckled at your jokes many times. I appreciate that. :laughing: I totally agree that misunderstanding is a key driving force of angst. So if I have misunderstood somebody then please let me know how... :D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :laughing:
I respect lots of people including you and most people in these threads. However, I do not respect people that twist my (or others) words around to make themselves look good at the expense of others. That is a lack of respect on their part. It's ironic that some these people that have a holier than thou attitude, when it comes to being respectful when they are overtly disrespectful themselves. Golden rule...Yea right....Give me a fricking break... :laughing:

You seem to have lost touch with the source of your angst.
Snoogans, although we may not agree at times, you have been humorous and respectful with your posts. I have chuckled at your jokes many times. I appreciate that. :laughing: I totally agree that misunderstanding is a key driving force of angst. So if I have misunderstood somebody then please let me know how... :D

 

 

I didn't post that because I thought you misunderstood. This thread is about how geocaching has changed over the years. The only real change I see is more caches, more cachers and a much improved geocache listing service.

 

 

Geocaching as an activity hasn't changed much.

 

 

From the gc.com faq page:

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

 

Perception IS reality. The fact remains that our perceptions of geocaching change with experience, but the guidelines for how it's played change much slower. As yet, the guidelines and very few rules that exist don't seem to support the sense entitlement and unrealistic expectation that causes so much angst.

Link to comment
A wise man once told me, "In order to get respect, you have to give respect." I've always found that to be true :laughing:
I respect lots of people including you and most people in these threads. However, I do not respect people that twist my (or others) words around to make themselves look good at the expense of others. That is a lack of respect on their part. It's ironic that some these people that have a holier than thou attitude, when it comes to being respectful when they are overtly disrespectful themselves. Golden rule...Yea right....Give me a fricking break... :laughing:
I assume that you were making a thinly veiled reference to my post:
Whether one is religious or not: Who can argue with the Golden Rule?
I agree.
Then you agree that one should show the same respect for others' preferences that one demands FROM others?

 

You agree that if cacher A insists that cacher B place caches designed specifically to satisfy the entertainment needs of cacher A, that cacher B should expect the very same courtesy from cacher A?

Respect is earned. I don't hand it out like candy. However, I will always try be polite to others until they are rude to me. Plus nobody is "insisting" anything. Show me where anybody has "insisted" or demanded" anything in this thread. The OP asked if things have gotten better or worse. IMHO urban caching has gotten worse and higher terrain caches are pretty much the same but there are more of them.
Am I wrong to take away from that post that you only respect people who make decisions that you agree with?
Clearly, I was making an honest effort to get you to clarify your statement. I'm wondering if you would do us all a favor and answer my question.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...