Jump to content

Peanut Butter jars


Recommended Posts

Take a look at the stats of many of the posters. Thousands of posts, hundreds of finds and a dozen or two hides (if any). The mere recognition of this will likely get me flamed big time.

And rightly so.

 

If you come in here and claim some kind of superiority based on a comparison of find/hide stats, coupled with a demand that nobody challenge that claim, you'd better be wearing some heavy Nomex pajamas ... and a good helmet.

 

Flame on. I'll take the advice of people who actually hide caches over people who squawk about it on the forums. Not a question of superiority, just common sense. Feel free to challenge the claim that action is a much better indicator of expertise than is words.

Link to comment
Take a look at the stats of many of the posters. Thousands of posts, hundreds of finds and a dozen or two hides (if any). The mere recognition of this will likely get me flamed big time.
And rightly so.

 

If you come in here and claim some kind of superiority based on a comparison of find/hide stats, coupled with a demand that nobody challenge that claim, you'd better be wearing some heavy Nomex pajamas ... and a good helmet.

Flame on. I'll take the advice of people who actually hide caches over people who squawk about it on the forums. Not a question of superiority, just common sense. Feel free to challenge the claim that action is a much better indicator of expertise than is words.
I think you will find that some of the 'forum regulars' are very experienced geocachers (whatever that means). When you challenge someone that is clearly very knowledgeable, it makes you look kinda like a fool.

 

You also have clearly been trying to make the argument that if someone has a whole lot of forum posts (like me!) that they must be 'armchair geaocachers' and not to be taken seriously. It more likely means that they have jobs that require them to be in the office, where they can log plenty of internet time. Due to their passion for geocaching, they spend that time in these forums.

 

(The funny thing is, I look at you stats and your forum posts and I think "noob". After all, you've only been playing since 2003 and your forum posts don't show a great understanding of the game's concepts.)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Take a look at the stats of many of the posters. Thousands of posts, hundreds of finds and a dozen or two hides (if any). The mere recognition of this will likely get me flamed big time.
And rightly so.

 

If you come in here and claim some kind of superiority based on a comparison of find/hide stats, coupled with a demand that nobody challenge that claim, you'd better be wearing some heavy Nomex pajamas ... and a good helmet.

Flame on. I'll take the advice of people who actually hide caches over people who squawk about it on the forums. Not a question of superiority, just common sense. Feel free to challenge the claim that action is a much better indicator of expertise than is words.
I think you will find that some of the 'forum regulars' are very experienced geocachers (whatever that means). When you challenge someone that is clearly very knowledgeable, it makes you look kinda like a fool.

 

You also have clearly been trying to make the argument that if someone has a whole lot of forum posts (like me!) that they must be 'armchair geaocachers' and not to be taken seriously. It more likely means that they have jobs that require them to be in the office, where they can log plenty of internet time. Due to their passion for geocaching, they spend that time in these forums.

 

(The funny thing is, I look at you stats and your forum posts and I think "noob". After all, you've only been playing since 2003 and your forum posts don't show a great understanding of the game's concepts.)

 

Yeah IceCreamMan your stats and forujm posts make you look real silly. You been a geaocacher for only 4 years and it looks like you don't understanging the concepts of it. Why don't you just apology?

 

What size peanut buter jar do you using?

Link to comment

It's messed up anyway, and it actually proves the comment I made earlier. Even if you just look at my logged finds, that's over 900. For those that DO play the stats game, there are only about 4000 out of over 1 million cachers in the world with over 900 finds. In my state, there are only 25 cachers over 900 finds. My true find count puts me WELL into the top 10 cachers for my state. Even my logged finds puts me in the top 1/2 of one percent of all cachers. Yet apparently, in certain parts of the country (coughJAXcough) 900 finds is so easy to do that one with so few finds is considered "inexperienced".

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Again, you try to shoot down an area that you have never cached. Try caching here, you will find it different than you think.

Link to comment
Take a look at the stats of many of the posters. Thousands of posts, hundreds of finds and a dozen or two hides (if any). The mere recognition of this will likely get me flamed big time.
And rightly so.

 

If you come in here and claim some kind of superiority based on a comparison of find/hide stats, coupled with a demand that nobody challenge that claim, you'd better be wearing some heavy Nomex pajamas ... and a good helmet.

Flame on. I'll take the advice of people who actually hide caches over people who squawk about it on the forums. Not a question of superiority, just common sense. Feel free to challenge the claim that action is a much better indicator of expertise than is words.
I think you will find that some of the 'forum regulars' are very experienced geocachers (whatever that means). When you challenge someone that is clearly very knowledgeable, it makes you look kinda like a fool.

 

You also have clearly been trying to make the argument that if someone has a whole lot of forum posts (like me!) that they must be 'armchair geaocachers' and not to be taken seriously. It more likely means that they have jobs that require them to be in the office, where they can log plenty of internet time. Due to their passion for geocaching, they spend that time in these forums.

 

(The funny thing is, I look at you stats and your forum posts and I think "noob". After all, you've only been playing since 2003 and your forum posts don't show a great understanding of the game's concepts.)

 

I guess that everyone is permitted to set their own standards. If having 572 hidden caches, with about 30-40% archived for not being maintained, and another large percentage MOC is what it takes to impress this person, then that's his prerogative. If it takes 5000+ finds to make him listen to someone, then that's his prerogative. I know that I could not maintain 572 caches (of course, the same could be said of certain other people.) It seems a rather dismal archival rate.

I can't say that these statistics impress me that much. In the fora, I listen to what people have to say.

Oh, well.

Link to comment
I think you will find that some of the 'forum regulars' are very experienced geocachers

Um. I believe I've said that.

 

(whatever that means).

I means, like, you know "experienced geocachers". Doesn't seem like an ambiguous term. Perhaps we should have stat on the number of posts actually read as well as written.

 

When you challenge someone that is clearly very knowledgeable, it makes you look kinda like a fool.

"Challenge" is a bit strong. I questioned how informed an opinion of a given container is when the opinionator has only hidden 20 caches. Seems pretty reasonable. Also seems far fetched to say they are "clearly very knowledgeable". They certainly may know enough to hold up a piece of an intellegent conversation and they would no doubt have some relevant input. But to leap from that to pronouncing which containers are "substandard" and which are "reputable" seems somewhat, shall we say, foolish.

 

You also have clearly been trying to make the argument that if someone has a whole lot of forum posts (like me!) that they must be 'armchair geaocachers' and not to be taken seriously.

That's a bit farther than I would take it, but it's gotta be tough to keep up those kind of numbers and limit yourself to talking about thing you know about. It's clearly tough for many of the people posting on this thread anyway.

 

It more likely means that they have jobs that require them to be in the office, where they can log plenty of internet time. Due to their passion for geocaching, they spend that time in these forums.

Well it's a nice perk to get paid to play on the internet but I fail to see how it imparts any "experience". My job requires me to actually work, you know, at my job.

 

(The funny thing is, I look at you stats and your forum posts and I think "noob". After all, you've only been playing since 2003 and your forum posts don't show a great understanding of the game's concepts.)

 

Well, I try my best.

Link to comment
I guess that everyone is permitted to set their own standards. If having 572 hidden caches, with about 30-40% archived for not being maintained

Because archiving a cache means it's not being maintained? Hmm. Interesting concept. Are caches to be immortal?

 

and another large percentage MOC

Hmmm. Not sure I know what's wrong with that. Are Members only caches a sign of some nasty character trait?

 

I know that I could not maintain 572 caches

 

A mans gotta know his limitations. That's why I don't try to maintain 572 caches.

Link to comment

Nope. No one ever said that a cache has to be immortal.

What I said is that we each get to choose whose opinions we value. Hiders of disposable caches do not rank high on my list. These must be some great places to hide caches!

Myself, I do not hide disposable caches. I seek a good place. And I maintain my caches. I've had to archive one due to the unavailability of the location due to major reconstruction of the park. It's been many months, and the reconstrution does not seem to be anywhere near to being finished.

Your prerogative as to whose opinions you value. And mine as well.

Edited by Harry Dolphin
Link to comment

 

And this list goes on.

Nope. No one ever said that a cache has to be immortal.

What I said is that we each get to choose whose opinions we value. Hiders of disposable caches do not rank high on my list. These must be some great places to hide caches!

Myself, I do not hide disposable caches. I seek a good place. And I maintain my caches. I've had to archive one due to the unavailability of the location due to major reconstruction of the park. It's been many months, and the reconstrution does not seem to be anywhere near to being finished.

Your prerogative as to whose opinions you value. And mine as well.

 

So, what you are saying is that because caches are archived, he does not maintain them? I don't get it. If they were not maintained, then the page would still be active. Archiving a cache is not poor maintenance. If the spot is taken over by construction (which happens a lot here in Florida) then the cache needs to be archived. If you move from one area to another and you can not maintain it, then archive it. If another cacher finds a really cool spot, but your cache is in the way and out of the kindness of your heart you archive yours to make room for a new one. This kind of cacher does maintain their caches. I fail to see your point here.

Link to comment

What size peanut buter jar do you using?

 

Heck, whadu I know. I've only got experience hiding caches. You might want to ask one of the experts who know all about talking about hiding caching.

 

Maybe if you had more experience talking, you would not say things like that, which is counter productive for any real point you wish to make, even if it's a good point.

Link to comment

Someone is selling Peanut Buter jars on EBAY to use for geocaching. I don't know but I think he's a docter. Is this right? I heard somewhere they are dangerous.

 

what i really want to know is this:

 

what planet are you from?

 

I know you are makeing fun of me. I don't make fun of you other geocachers.

 

Besides, I think you are getting way off topics.

Link to comment

 

And this list goes on.

Nope. No one ever said that a cache has to be immortal.

What I said is that we each get to choose whose opinions we value. Hiders of disposable caches do not rank high on my list. These must be some great places to hide caches!

Myself, I do not hide disposable caches. I seek a good place. And I maintain my caches. I've had to archive one due to the unavailability of the location due to major reconstruction of the park. It's been many months, and the reconstrution does not seem to be anywhere near to being finished.

Your prerogative as to whose opinions you value. And mine as well.

 

So, what you are saying is that because caches are archived, he does not maintain them? I don't get it. If they were not maintained, then the page would still be active. Archiving a cache is not poor maintenance. If the spot is taken over by construction (which happens a lot here in Florida) then the cache needs to be archived. If you move from one area to another and you can not maintain it, then archive it. If another cacher finds a really cool spot, but your cache is in the way and out of the kindness of your heart you archive yours to make room for a new one. This kind of cacher does maintain their caches. I fail to see your point here.

 

Or because someone with a peanut allergy has keeled over there and the smell is getting really bad.

Link to comment

Wow! This thread has run the gamut. First a question about a problem that no one knows has ever occurred. Then posters opining on the quality of containers they've never used. Escalating to posters criticizing the cache quality of areas they never cached in. Now its reached the point of posters criticizing the hides of people whose caches they've never found.

 

But hey, that's just another week on the gc.com forums. It's all about the numbers... of posts.

Link to comment

It's messed up anyway, and it actually proves the comment I made earlier. Even if you just look at my logged finds, that's over 900. For those that DO play the stats game, there are only about 4000 out of over 1 million cachers in the world with over 900 finds. In my state, there are only 25 cachers over 900 finds. My true find count puts me WELL into the top 10 cachers for my state. Even my logged finds puts me in the top 1/2 of one percent of all cachers. Yet apparently, in certain parts of the country (coughJAXcough) 900 finds is so easy to do that one with so few finds is considered "inexperienced".

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Again, you try to shoot down an area that you have never cached. Try caching here, you will find it different than you think.

 

It is interesting that this thread has gone from it's original topic of Peanut Butter allergy awareness to the current topic of someones suitability to have an opinion of their own based on their find count or even more bizarre, two unrelated stats, cache find vs forum post count.

 

How do you where Mopar has and hasn't cached? Are you stalking him? Maybe you missed this post on page 2 of this thread where Mopar states that he has stopped logging caches online over 2 years ago.

 

1000 caches in say Jacksonville, FL is more like 150 miles of driving over the course of a nice weekend, hopping out of the car ever 600ft or so to grab a hide-a-key or film canister off a dumpster.

 

Which you know because you've found so many there.

Ahhh, see the problem with judging by find counts?

 

Look again at mine. You'll see I stopped logging online over 2yrs ago, yet I still cache. Did a bunch just today. Nobody but me has any idea what or how many I have or have not found.

 

Additionally, some caches have Team accounts where they log their finds and don't always make a found log with their personal account. There are also those who decide the want a new username and don't relog their old cache finds.

 

This is just a suggesting to make life a little easier for you. Let go of the numbers. People in your area may see find numbers and be-all and end-all of caching ability but in reality they are in no way an accurate representation of ones caching or posting ability.

Link to comment

.

After reading this thread for the past couple of days, I came across one of our local caches. A finder logged that the cache container was ruined and said "I happened to have had an empty peanut butter jar with me so I replaced the container." ROTFL. Uh oh. Here we go again. :laughing:

 

.

Link to comment

I have a few Caches made from Metamucil bottles...Now I'm afraid if someone touches it....they gotta go...and can't get home in time.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA! loved it! Only good post in this stupid thread.

I disagree. This one was pretty good about the time. I cant get that banana out of my head.

 

Of course you disagree. That's how you have close to 1400 posts compared to my 60 or so, yet we joined about the same time.

Link to comment

Of course you disagree. That's how you have close to 1400 posts compared to my 60 or so, yet we joined about the same time.

Nope. I have more time here than you. :laughing:

 

It is also worth noting that i have never posted because of that stupid number to the left. Besides the occasional humorous post i would say most of my posts have substance to them.

 

I cant understand why that bothers people so much. :anibad:

Edited by knight2000
Link to comment
Are all threads this negative?

 

Yes, they are. It's been my standard practice to stay off the forums. I ended up on this thread because a friend of mine knew it would get be going, wanted to stir the pot, and sent me the link (thanks a bunch fed).

 

Take a look at the stats of many of the posters. Thousands of posts, hundreds of finds and a dozen or two hides (if any). The mere recognition of this will likely get me flamed big time.

 

I recommend looking for a local group with forums. They tend to be a little more sane and civil.

This is ironic, since while reading through this thread, I've started to cringe every time I see that you're posting. :lol: (Look, ma! I used a smilie! :unsure::lol: )

Link to comment

Since when has hiding caches been the only way to judge the suitablity of containers for caching? I've found almost 2000 caches, there are some containers I've never used in a hide but I can tell are not good containers (at least here in the Great North Wet) because of the condition they are in when I find them.

Link to comment

Of course you disagree. That's how you have close to 1400 posts compared to my 60 or so, yet we joined about the same time.

Nope. I have more time here than you. :unsure:

 

It is also worth noting that i have never posted because of that stupid number to the left. Besides the occasional humorous post i would say most of my posts have substance to them.

 

I cant understand why that bothers people so much. :lol:

 

I'm not sure anyone said it "bothers" them. It was mentioned as an observation. Perhaps I missed the post where someone said it bothered them.

 

Why does it bother people to have their post to find ration mentioned?

Link to comment

This is ironic, since while reading through this thread, I've started to cringe every time I see that you're posting. :lol: (Look, ma! I used a smilie! :unsure::lol: )

 

Me too. My friends have orders to shoot me and hide my body if my post count ever exceed my hide count.

 

Smilie? Is that like flame retardant?

Link to comment

Since when has hiding caches been the only way to judge the suitablity of containers for caching? I've found almost 2000 caches, there are some containers I've never used in a hide but I can tell are not good containers (at least here in the Great North Wet) because of the condition they are in when I find them.

 

Not the only way, but a good way. Finding caches certainly can bring problems with a particular container to light, but most of the problems people have put forth with these containers have been speculative (no one mentioning an actual problem, just bloviating on what the problems would be) and more long term in nature - criters will eat them or they'll crack, etc. Things that would usually be more apparent to some one dealing with a cache over the long term (i.e. the hider).

 

You don't have to find too many pill bottles to know they aren't water tight (unless your in AZ or NM), but how does finding a cache tell you whether the sun will make it brittle in a year? Unless perhaps you've found one that had been out a while and was brittle. But here again. People who've actually found containers in that circumstance have said it wasn't a problem. Even you qualify your criticism based on your EXPERIENCE. If only other posters on this thread did the same. But then limiting their posts to what they know about might cut into their post count.

 

For the most part, people with actual experience with the containers have been positive. People with little hiding or finding experience but lots of posting experience have been negative. But why should this thread be any different than the rest of threads on this forum.

Link to comment

.

After reading this thread for the past couple of days, I came across one of our local caches. A finder logged that the cache container was ruined and said "I happened to have had an empty peanut butter jar with me so I replaced the container." ROTFL. Uh oh. Here we go again. :unsure:

 

.

 

That must be the cache where I found the dead cacher with the unused epi-pen in his hand. Good thing there were lots of pine needles around to cover him up with.

Link to comment

.

After reading this thread for the past couple of days, I came across one of our local caches. A finder logged that the cache container was ruined and said "I happened to have had an empty peanut butter jar with me so I replaced the container." ROTFL. Uh oh. Here we go again. :unsure:

 

.

 

That must be the cache where I found the dead cacher with the unused epi-pen in his hand. Good thing there were lots of pine needles around to cover him up with.

Its against guidelines to bury a cacher isnt it?

Link to comment

.

After reading this thread for the past couple of days, I came across one of our local caches. A finder logged that the cache container was ruined and said "I happened to have had an empty peanut butter jar with me so I replaced the container." ROTFL. Uh oh. Here we go again. :unsure:

 

.

 

That must be the cache where I found the dead cacher with the unused epi-pen in his hand. Good thing there were lots of pine needles around to cover him up with.

Its against guidelines to bury a cacher isnt it?

 

Well, I wasn't planning on posting the hide. It's not like I'm all about the numbers.

Link to comment

.

After reading this thread for the past couple of days, I came across one of our local caches. A finder logged that the cache container was ruined and said "I happened to have had an empty peanut butter jar with me so I replaced the container." ROTFL. Uh oh. Here we go again. :unsure:

 

.

 

That must be the cache where I found the dead cacher with the unused epi-pen in his hand. Good thing there were lots of pine needles around to cover him up with.

Its against guidelines to bury a cacher isnt it?

 

Well, I wasn't planning on posting the hide. It's not like I'm all about the numbers.

 

Now that's funny no matter which side of this thread you agree with [:lol:]

Link to comment

You don't have to find too many pill bottles to know they aren't water tight (unless your in AZ or NM), but how does finding a cache tell you whether the sun will make it brittle in a year?

 

Hmm... My pill bottle cache has been out for two and a half years, and never a complaint about it being wet. Sometimes, it depends where and how you hide it. And sometimes common sense means more than experience?

Link to comment

You don't have to find too many pill bottles to know they aren't water tight (unless your in AZ or NM), but how does finding a cache tell you whether the sun will make it brittle in a year?

 

Hmm... My pill bottle cache has been out for two and a half years, and never a complaint about it being wet.

Hmm... I don't think I said bottles were substandard containers, not reputable, and that they couldn't make an effective container (in fact my AZ/NM asside suggests the opposite). I merely stated they were not water tight. Does "common sense" tell you they are? If so your common sense might benefit from an actual experience with H2O.

 

Sometimes, it depends where and how you hide it.

Holy smokes Bullwinkle, who'da thunk it? You mean it might depend on where and how you hide a container as to whether it works or not? (perhaps that's why I nearly always find magnetics around some kind of ferrous metal) Just how might one come by such knowledge? Obviously we're not all as fortunate as some and born with common sense caching knowledge. Perhaps we could pick up such knowledge via experience? hmmm.

 

And sometimes common sense means more than experience?

 

Or we could just talk about it on the forums until it all becomes clear. That's the way the ancient Greeks did it. And they kicked the Persian's butts. Or at least I saw it in a movie once.

Link to comment

It is also worth noting that i have never posted because of that stupid number to the left. Besides the occasional humorous post i would say most of my posts have substance to them.

.

 

That must be the cache where I found the dead cacher with the unused epi-pen in his hand. Good thing there were lots of pine needles around to cover him up with.

Its against guidelines to bury a cacher isnt it?

 

I guess this is another one right :unsure:

Link to comment
Since when has hiding caches been the only way to judge the suitablity of containers for caching? I've found almost 2000 caches, there are some containers I've never used in a hide but I can tell are not good containers (at least here in the Great North Wet) because of the condition they are in when I find them.
Not the only way, but a good way. Finding caches certainly can bring problems with a particular container to light, but most of the problems people have put forth with these containers have been speculative (no one mentioning an actual problem, just bloviating on what the problems would be) and more long term in nature - criters will eat them or they'll crack, etc. Things that would usually be more apparent to some one dealing with a cache over the long term (i.e. the hider).
Again, geocaching is not rocket science. Also, it's important to remember that the game borrows heavily on skills that many of us have been using for years. My point is, there are many, many ways that a person could become knowledgable of the skills necessary to express a learned opinion. Two of those are by hiding and finding caches, but that certainly isn't the only two.
You don't have to find too many pill bottles to know they aren't water tight (unless your in AZ or NM), but how does finding a cache tell you whether the sun will make it brittle in a year? Unless perhaps you've found one that had been out a while and was brittle. But here again. People who've actually found containers in that circumstance have said it wasn't a problem. Even you qualify your criticism based on your EXPERIENCE. If only other posters on this thread did the same. But then limiting their posts to what they know about might cut into their post count.
Actually, there are a number of different types of pill bottles. Some of them are quite water resistant, not all of them certainly, but some.
For the most part, people with actual experience with the containers have been positive. People with little hiding or finding experience but lots of posting experience have been negative. But why should this thread be any different than the rest of threads on this forum.
Back up the truck. You have held yourself up as the poster boy for experience in the game plus limited posting experience, yet you have been the most negative person in the thread, in my opinion.

 

I honestly don't understand why you think that lots of posts equates to limited knowledge. Please, please explain that one.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...