Why I enjoy lamp post hides

[CoyoteRed]

CoyoteRed may feel that his definition of "interesting" is the one we should all accept. Sounds like the definition of a snob...

What is interesting is that you're assuming I've presented my idea of "interesting." You're attacking a notion and you don't even know what it is. You're not the only one. I believe you're the third person I'm now asking what you think my idea of quality (not lame, whatever) is. So, what is it?

 

BTW, nice name calling.

[+sbell111]

CoyoteRed may feel that his definition of "interesting" is the one we should all accept. Sounds like the definition of a snob...

What is interesting is that you're assuming I've presented my idea of "interesting." You're attacking a notion and you don't even know what it is. You're not the only one. I believe you're the third person I'm now asking what you think my idea of quality (not lame, whatever) is. So, what is it?

 

BTW, nice name calling.

Of course, you've been asked on a number of times to provide us with your definitions. You've failed to do that, but continue to deride the contributions of others.

 

I can't for the life of me figure out how this debating style is useful.

Edited August 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

I can't for the life of me figure out how this debating style is useful.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people reading threads like this would say the same thing about the entire debate, all styles included.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I like simple lamp post caches not because they are bad, but because when they are near other simple lamp post caches they are comically bad. I like tacky caches simply because they are tacky. (Plus they give me an excuse to play with my Garmin, and to log a smiley.)

 

If my appreciation for lamp post caches – my ability to enjoy pretty much any cache out there, no matter how unsophisticated – makes me abnormal, then I don’t want to be normal. If I were normal I apparently wouldn’t enjoy this hobby nearly as much.

 

 

Is it just me?

Nope. The caches I like are the ones I can find . . . This weekend I found quite a few, but could not find eight . . . And, it turns out all of those were there . . .

 

So, now I have 255 "Didn't Find it" logs . . .

 

Sure, a lamp post hide is not creative, but what good is a creative cache if a cacher like me (or a newbie cacher) cannot find it . . . ? I appreciate the lamp post hides to balance out the DNFs I invariably get when I attempt urban caching.

[+sbell111]

I can't for the life of me figure out how this debating style is useful.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people reading threads like this would say the same thing about the entire debate, all styles included.

agreed

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

I like simple lamp post caches not because they are bad, but because when they are near other simple lamp post caches they are comically bad. I like tacky caches simply because they are tacky. (Plus they give me an excuse to play with my Garmin, and to log a smiley.)

 

If my appreciation for lamp post caches – my ability to enjoy pretty much any cache out there, no matter how unsophisticated – makes me abnormal, then I don’t want to be normal. If I were normal I apparently wouldn’t enjoy this hobby nearly as much.

 

Is it just me?

Nope. The caches I like are the ones I can find . . . This weekend I found quite a few, but could not find eight . . . And, it turns out all of those were there . . .

 

So, now I have 255 "Didn't Find it" logs . . .

 

Sure, a lamp post hide is not creative, but what good is a creative cache if a cacher like me (or a newbie cacher) cannot find it . . . ? I appreciate the lamp post hides to balance out the DNFs I invariably get when I attempt urban caching.

I am the opposite. I love a good challenge. I also like puzzle caches. I also think you get more adept at finding tricky hides the more you do them.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

Nope. The caches I like are the ones I can find . . . This weekend I found quite a few, but could not find eight . . . And, it turns out all of those were there . . .

 

So, now I have 255 "Didn't Find it" logs . . .

 

Sure, a lamp post hide is not creative, but what good is a creative cache if a cacher like me (or a newbie cacher) cannot find it . . . ? I appreciate the lamp post hides to balance out the DNFs I invariably get when I attempt urban caching.

I am the opposite. I love a good challenge. I also like puzzle caches. I also think you get more adept at finding tricky hides the more you do them.

That's fine . . . you enjoy a good challenge, I don't. Is that the wrong way to play this game?

 

I enjoy finding the tricky hides -- when I can find them -- even if it is because I got a hint that enabled me to find them. I don't like all the DNFs I get when I cache in urban areas. I would rather hike to an easy-to-find ammo can than spend time on a street corner looking for something and not finding it.

 

Is my preference, related to my abilities, the wrong way to cache?

[+wandererrob]

I feel this post shows honesty and pushes me a bit closer to appreciation of this hide type.

 

It seems in many of the LPC threads, one side says they hate them, and the others spend their time defending rights, and freedom of speech, etc. FINALLY someone just explains why they like them in an intelligent way.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

I couldn't say it better myself. I'm not about to have an epiphany and start seeking LPCs, but I'll admit that's the first time I've ever seen one's appreciation for them so well explained.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

Nope. The caches I like are the ones I can find . . . This weekend I found quite a few, but could not find eight . . . And, it turns out all of those were there . . .

 

So, now I have 255 "Didn't Find it" logs . . .

 

Sure, a lamp post hide is not creative, but what good is a creative cache if a cacher like me (or a newbie cacher) cannot find it . . . ? I appreciate the lamp post hides to balance out the DNFs I invariably get when I attempt urban caching.

I am the opposite. I love a good challenge. I also like puzzle caches. I also think you get more adept at finding tricky hides the more you do them.

That's fine . . . you enjoy a good challenge, I don't. Is that the wrong way to play this game?

 

I enjoy finding the tricky hides -- when I can find them -- even if it is because I got a hint that enabled me to find them. I don't like all the DNFs I get when I cache in urban areas. I would rather hike to an easy-to-find ammo can than spend time on a street corner looking for something and not finding it.

 

Is my preference, related to my abilities, the wrong way to cache?

Put down your dukes. I didn't say it was the wrong way to cache.... Edited August 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

<snip>

Nope. The caches I like are the ones I can find . . . This weekend I found quite a few, but could not find eight . . . And, it turns out all of those were there . . .

 

So, now I have 255 "Didn't Find it" logs . . .

 

Sure, a lamp post hide is not creative, but what good is a creative cache if a cacher like me (or a newbie cacher) cannot find it . . . ? I appreciate the lamp post hides to balance out the DNFs I invariably get when I attempt urban caching.

I am the opposite. I love a good challenge. I also like puzzle caches. I also think you get more adept at finding tricky hides the more you do them.

That's fine . . . you enjoy a good challenge, I don't. Is that the wrong way to play this game?

 

I enjoy finding the tricky hides -- when I can find them -- even if it is because I got a hint that enabled me to find them. I don't like all the DNFs I get when I cache in urban areas. I would rather hike to an easy-to-find ammo can than spend time on a street corner looking for something and not finding it.

 

Is my preference, related to my abilities, the wrong way to cache?

 

Yes it is. I know this because I do it the same way, and I seldom do things the right way, hence, it's wrong.

[+TrailGators]

Is my preference, related to my abilities, the wrong way to cache?

Yes it is. I know this because I do it the same way, and I seldom do things the right way, hence, it's wrong.

He said it, not me....

 

 

What would be wrong (or really right ) would be to create a huge LPC multi that used 50 lamp posts. Lift walk lift walk lift walk......Bwa ha ha!!

[+Miragee]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

[+TrailGators]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

That's funny! Team Adelos, Duganrm and I joked about doing it one time and he went and actually did it!

[Mushtang]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

That's funny! Team Adelos, Duganrm and I joked about doing it one time and he went and actually did it!

Yeah, but he only has 12 lamp posts. Pffft. Amateur. One of the more handsome cachers in the game made one that used 31 lamp posts.

[+TrailGators]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

That's funny! Team Adelos, Duganrm and I joked about doing it one time and he went and actually did it!

Yeah, but he only has 12 lamp posts. Pffft. Amateur. One of the more handsome cachers in the game made one that used 31 lamp posts.

Yeah....Pfffft.....but his is still active...nah nah!

 

P.S. 31 is pretty funny!

[Mushtang]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

That's funny! Team Adelos, Duganrm and I joked about doing it one time and he went and actually did it!

Yeah, but he only has 12 lamp posts. Pffft. Amateur. One of the more handsome cachers in the game made one that used 31 lamp posts.

Yeah....Pfffft.....but his is still active...nah nah!

 

P.S. 31 is pretty funny!

But with mine you get to draw a really neat picture of the Groundspeak guy on your GPSr screen.

[+TrailGators]

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

That's funny! Team Adelos, Duganrm and I joked about doing it one time and he went and actually did it!

Yeah, but he only has 12 lamp posts. Pffft. Amateur. One of the more handsome cachers in the game made one that used 31 lamp posts.

Yeah....Pfffft.....but his is still active...nah nah!

 

P.S. 31 is pretty funny!

But with mine you get to draw a really neat picture of the Groundspeak guy on your GPSr screen.

That is a cool idea. Maybe you could spell out a word next time like....."LAME!" I think it would only take 20 to do that!

 

P.S. I'm just joking!

[Mushtang]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

[+TrailGators]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

Since when did you start not liking things that are predictable? Pull into a parking lot. Spot another lamp post..... Edited August 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

I feel this post shows honesty and pushes me a bit closer to appreciation of this hide type.

 

It seems in many of the LPC threads, one side says they hate them, and the others spend their time defending rights, and freedom of speech, etc. FINALLY someone just explains why they like them in an intelligent way.

 

Thanks for the post.

I couldn't say it better myself. I'm not about to have an epiphany and start seeking LPCs, but I'll admit that's the first time I've ever seen one's appreciation for them so well explained.

Ditto

 

and Kudos!

[+Too Tall John]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

Umm... I think he just tried to pay you a compliment (see quote below), why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

That is a cool idea.

It's a start, right?

[+TrailGators]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

Umm... I think he just tried to pay you a compliment (see quote below), why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

That is a cool idea.

It's a start, right?

It was a start Too Tall.

[+tozainamboku]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

I like "kitschy" jokes

[+TrailGators]

P.S. I'm just joking!

Of course you are. It's too bad that your "jokes" are so predictable.

I like "kitschy" jokes

...and that is coming from the Good Humor man...

[+The Jester]

CoyoteRed may feel that his definition of "interesting" is the one we should all accept. Sounds like the definition of a snob...

What is interesting is that you're assuming I've presented my idea of "interesting." You're attacking a notion and you don't even know what it is. You're not the only one. I believe you're the third person I'm now asking what you think my idea of quality (not lame, whatever) is. So, what is it?

 

BTW, nice name calling.

We don't need to define what you find "interesting" - you've supplied what you find is "bad", "lame", or "trache", that's enough to see what you look down on - "if it sound's like a duck, it probably is a duck".

 

I won't say I agree completely with KBI on why LPC's are/can be fun, I'm closer to Jhwk, but I like how he explained himself.

 

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

[4wheelin_fool]

I can't for the life of me figure out how this debating style is useful.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people reading threads like this would say the same thing about the entire debate, all styles included.

 

Well I'm sure there are some people who would consider the entire debate sort of lame, while others would think it is kitsch.

 

 

It's been done!

 

Lamp Post Cache

 

Thats actually kind of funny. I just wonder if there is a LPC night cache out there that uses modified firetacks..

[+KBI]

Thanks to everyone who has responded so positively to this thread so far.

 

Some of you share my caching preferences and some of you don’t, with varying degrees in between, but ... the favorable response to my explanation itself has been almost unanimous. This tells me I have apparently (and finally!) found the right words to express something that I’ve been trying to say for many months now. My previous attempts to express myself were obviously too clumsy and weak. Maybe that was because I never really thought it through thoroughly enough until now.

 

This "kitsch" explanation does not represent a change in my caching preference. I have felt this way all along – it’s just that in the past I was unable to express my preferences in an understandable form.

 

Neither does this thread represent a “new” honesty, as some have implied. Again, I have tried to say the very same thing many times before, but apparently I have finally hit the nail on the head (instead of my thumb).

 

This I like, because I believe good debate breeds accurate understanding, and accurate understanding breeds tolerance. I have never seen any reason why people with varying caching preferences cannot coexist in peace without being treated rudely by others or having their behaviors challenged, criticized, and even threatened with ban.

 

I have the fortunate ability to appreciate unsophisticated caching for what it is without actually looking down my nose at it, being bothered by it, or harassing those who cause it. I do not see lameness as good or bad; I simply see it as a necessary part of Geocaching, which is a reflection of humanity, and humanity will always and forever be a necessary mix of highbrow and lowbrow. For there to be sophisticates there must necessarily be non-sophisticates. Each defines the other, as each can only be identified as relative to the other.

 

And this brings me to another point: When I said: "For kitsch to exist, therefore, there must first be snobs 3001043[/snapback]" it was not my intent to actually call anyone here a snob. My sincere apologies to anyone who was offended – as usual my explanation was clumsy. What I should have said is this: Any cache hide can be seen as wonderful by its creator or his peers, but in order to identify it as kitsch, one must first be a snob. If I was calling anyone a snob, it was me.

 

I can appreciate and enjoy the artfulness, or lack of artfulness, in any cache. Fortunately for me I can even appreciate and enjoy the lack of artfulness in those cases where certain others will instead roll their eyes and scoff while complaining that the owner failed to entertain them – I can enjoy that lack of artfulness without being rude. I have enjoyed enough superior caches to know when I’m looking at an inferior one, but nothing about the inferior ones makes be want to control, ban, or change them in any way.

 

I can find entertainment in ANY geocache. I only wish that all cachers had the capacity to enjoy the game as much as I do.

 

Kitsch is not THE reason I enjoy lame hides. It is only one of the many reasons I am able to enjoy them, but it has proved to be the most difficult one to explain.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I have never seen any reason why people with varying caching preferences cannot coexist in peace without being treated rudely by others or having their behaviors challenged, criticized, and even threatened with ban.

 

I've never viewed this whole subject matter as a debate, because it's all opinion anyway. You can't tell me I'm wrong because I think Arcade Fire is the best band to come out in ages. You can tell what band YOU think is better, and we can go back and forth, but neither of us is wrong. I think that's why you haven't found folks to debate you.

 

I like the OP because FINALLY someone stated an intelligent reason for the critters, rather than focusing on why others don't like them.

 

Why is an opinion about what we like in caches such a taboo subject? We can discuss favorite/least favorite music, movies, food etc and no one assumes we're asking for a ban on Britney Spears. (okay, maybe I am calling for a ban on Britney) But let someone say they don't like a LPC and people feel challenged, threatened, abused etc. I hope the discussion can be advanced as it was in the OP. Let's not be scared to discuss hide types, likes and dislikes, methods, etc. I mean, if we can't talk about caches it sorta limits the scope of these forums.

 

We are not our caches.

[+Ambrosia]

CoyoteRed may feel that his definition of "interesting" is the one we should all accept. Sounds like the definition of a snob...

What is interesting is that you're assuming I've presented my idea of "interesting." You're attacking a notion and you don't even know what it is. You're not the only one. I believe you're the third person I'm now asking what you think my idea of quality (not lame, whatever) is. So, what is it?

 

BTW, nice name calling.

We don't need to define what you find "interesting" - you've supplied what you find is "bad", "lame", or "trache", that's enough to see what you look down on - "if it sound's like a duck, it probably is a duck".

 

I won't say I agree completely with KBI on why LPC's are/can be fun, I'm closer to Jhwk, but I like how he explained himself.

 

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

Thank you. It's sort of a blog, really.

[+Miragee]

One of the most fun caches I saw recently was very kitschy.

 

 

I actually couldn't log a "Found it" on it however, because we didn't find the real log . . .

[+Team Cotati]

One of the most fun caches I saw recently was very kitschy.

 

 

I actually couldn't log a "Found it" on it however, because we didn't find the real log . . .

 

Odd, that looks more like a fence post to me. Perhaps if we could see a little farther up....?

Edited August 10, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

One of the most fun caches I saw recently was very kitschy.

 

 

I actually couldn't log a "Found it" on it however, because we didn't find the real log . . .

I think the word "kitschy" is kitschy....

 

 

You didn't go back and log it? The hidey spot was very clever!

[+KBI]

I have never seen any reason why people with varying caching preferences cannot coexist in peace without being treated rudely by others or having their behaviors challenged, criticized, and even threatened with ban.

I've never viewed this whole subject matter as a debate, because it's all opinion anyway. You can't tell me I'm wrong because I think Arcade Fire is the best band to come out in ages. You can tell what band YOU think is better, and we can go back and forth, but neither of us is wrong. I think that's why you haven't found folks to debate you.

I agree with your statement about opinions, but not with your statement about the debate.

 

Who could argue with anyone’s right to their opinion? Who is to say that another person’s opinion is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect?’

 

That point, however, has nothing to do with my position in the recent debate.

 

As I have stated many times: I have no problem with people stating their opinions. What annoys me is when certain folks go beyond that and try to claim that their own preferences are somehow better, more proper, or more correct, and that those who exercise different preferences are somehow damaging the entire game. These complainer-types tend to demand a certain level of consideration from ALL cachers. They insist that every cache -- or a minimum acceptable percentage of all caches -- meet their arbitrary minimum level of acceptable entertainment, and when they don’t get what they feel they’re entitled to they criticize the cache finders, and the cache hider those finders encourage, for not respecting their preference for quality. They do this while simultaneously refusing to respect the preferences of others – people who, for example, might actually prefer quantity over quality.

 

Not everyone agrees with the idea that both preferences are equally valid. Some want to impose their vision of 'proper' caching on everyone else.

 

I like the OP because FINALLY someone stated an intelligent reason for the critters, rather than focusing on why others don't like them.

I have done both. I've just been "lame" in my past efforts to express myself regarding the "for."

 

And thank you for the compliment.

 

Why is an opinion about what we like in caches such a taboo subject?

It’s not – as long as it is merely an opinion, and not an attempt to modify how other cachers exercise their own opinion-driven preferences. That, of course, is only my opinion. Anyone is welcome to try to convince me to change my mind.

 

Let's not be scared to discuss hide types, likes and dislikes, methods, etc. I mean, if we can't talk about caches it sorta limits the scope of these forums.

 

We are not our caches.

I agree. One hundred percent.

 

I think public whining about lameness in other peoples rule-compliant caches, or about their different-yet-benign caching behavior, is pointless and rude ... but that’s just me. There is no law against being pointless and rude.

 

Feel free to tell me you don’t like my cache because it didn’t adequately entertain you. That’s fine. That’s merely expressing your opinion, and I will defend your right to do so. Just please don’t start telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy hiding it; that I shouldn’t hide any more like it; or that the folks who enjoy finding it are wrong for enjoying it, or for seeking out more like it. That’s infringing on someone else’s opinion, and that’s where I think some folks go a bit too far.

 

I have frequently invited those people who disagree with me to try to convince me that the act of trying to impose their version of the game on others is a good thing. Thus far I remain unconvinced.

[+Renegade Knight]

Kitsch. ...

Is it just me?

 

No you are not alone. The whole Kitsch thing caught me from another angle. I find a lot of people fit what you describe as Kitsch. There are men who are little more than reflections of the world around them but empty shells. I find that I really don't have much use for except every now and then one shows some potential in becoming a real person. Then I find it enjoyable to encourage them. Women who are nothing more than Kitsch I find I'm hard wired to enjoy them for no better reason than they exist, but like the men those who show promise of becoming real become a lot more interesting.

 

Strangly enough there is so much more that goes into my enjoyment of a Kitschy cache than Kitschy people that I can't describe the caches nearly as well as the people.

[+KBI]

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

Thank you. It's sort of a blog, really.

That's actually another reason I enjoy ALL caching. I almost always enjoy writing the online logs. When there's nothing special about the cache itself, it can sometimes be a challenge to make the log sound interesting, but ... that's a challenge I enjoy.

[+KBI]

I find a lot of people fit what you describe as Kitsch. There are men who are little more than reflections of the world around them but empty shells.

One of my favorite quotes:

 

"No person is completely worthless; at the very least, one can always serve as a bad example."

 

I suppose the same could be said for so-called "worthless" geocaches.

[+Ambrosia]

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

Thank you. It's sort of a blog, really.

That's actually another reason I enjoy ALL caching. I almost always enjoy writing the online logs. When there's nothing special about the cache itself, it can sometimes be a challenge to make the log sound interesting, but ... that's a challenge I enjoy.

Hey, it's the longest log in Washington State right now according to INATN.

[+KBI]

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

Thank you. It's sort of a blog, really.

That's actually another reason I enjoy ALL caching. I almost always enjoy writing the online logs. When there's nothing special about the cache itself, it can sometimes be a challenge to make the log sound interesting, but ... that's a challenge I enjoy.

Hey, it's the longest log in Washington State right now according to INATN.

I don't know about you, but that's a T-shirt I'D be proud to wear.

[+Ambrosia]

I really liked Ambrosia's log and sentiment.

Thank you. It's sort of a blog, really.

That's actually another reason I enjoy ALL caching. I almost always enjoy writing the online logs. When there's nothing special about the cache itself, it can sometimes be a challenge to make the log sound interesting, but ... that's a challenge I enjoy.

Hey, it's the longest log in Washington State right now according to INATN.

I don't know about you, but that's a T-shirt I'D be proud to wear.

[+Dooley Noted]

Kitsch is German for "Worthless"

 

Personally, I have a couple of LPC hides, but one of the things I like to do is find a good place to hide a cache RIGHT NEAR a lamp post, so the cacher first thinks it is a LPC, when in fact, it is not. A few of my hides are of this type, and were done so purposely.

 

One of these hides, however, got muggled, and so I made the replacement a LPC, since it was basically the same coordinates....

[+KBI]

Kitsch is German for "Worthless"

According to all the German-to-English online translators I tried: "kitsch" in German means "kitsch" in English.

 

You are probably correct about the German version, but the word "kitsch" has developed its own specific and well-accepted meaning in English, and is apparently considered to be an English word in its own right, with its own definition that is more-than-subtly different from that of the original German (although see the Columbia entry below).

 

According to the Oxford online dictionary:

Kitsch is rubbishy or tasteless pseudo-art of any kind. It is most easily recognizable in the products of the souvenir trade, especially those attempting to capitalize on ‘high’ art (Mona Lisa ashtrays, busts of Beethoven, etc.) or on religion (flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark); and is found in many forms of popular entertainment—the films of Cecil B. De Mille, much ‘Easy Listening’ music. It is harder to identify in written works, but the sentimental doggerel found in greetings cards is one obvious example, while the trashier end of the science fiction and sword-and-sorcery fiction markets provide many more pretentious cases.

 

According to the Columbia University online encyclopedia:

Kitsch [Ger.,=trash], term most frequently applied since the early 20th cent. to works considered pretentious and tasteless. Exploitative commercial objects such as Mona Lisa scarves and abominable plaster reproductions of sculptural masterpieces are described as kitsch, as are works that claim artistic value but are weak, cheap, or sentimental. A museum of kitsch was opened in Stuttgart.

 

Kitsch is German for "Worthless"

No geocache is completely worthless; at the very least, it can always serve as a bad example.

[+KBI]

Personally, I have a couple of LPC hides, but one of the things I like to do is find a good place to hide a cache RIGHT NEAR a lamp post, so the cacher first thinks it is a LPC, when in fact, it is not. A few of my hides are of this type, and were done so purposely.

The unexpected surprises and twists are my favorite.

[+The Jester]

No geocache is completely worthless; at the very least, it can always serve as a bad example smilie on your found list.

Fixed it.

[+KBI]

No geocache is completely worthless; at the very least, it can always serve as a bad example smilie on your found list.

Fixed it.

Good job. I like your version better.

[+TrailGators]

Personally, I have a couple of LPC hides, but one of the things I like to do is find a good place to hide a cache RIGHT NEAR a lamp post, so the cacher first thinks it is a LPC, when in fact, it is not. A few of my hides are of this type, and were done so purposely.

The unexpected surprises and twists are my favorite.

 

I like those too, but unfortunately my Google scan of the area probably made me hit the ignore button because I steer clear of KCs (Kitschy caches). Edited August 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Personally, I have a couple of LPC hides, but one of the things I like to do is find a good place to hide a cache RIGHT NEAR a lamp post, so the cacher first thinks it is a LPC, when in fact, it is not. A few of my hides are of this type, and were done so purposely.

The unexpected surprises and twists are my favorite.

I like those too, but unfortunately my Google scan of the area probably made me hit the ignore button because I steer clear of KCs (Kitschy caches).

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

 

It's a dilemma; a difficult compromise either way. For some cachers it seems to be an agonizing decision.

 

Fortunately for me I am mentally defective, and the choice is therefore easy. I have never properly learned how to dislike the so-called "lame" caches. I have always been able to find enjoyment in pretty much every geocache I do; the guarantee of being disappointed, therefore, does not exist for me in choice number (2).

 

Like Jhwk, I happily go after ALL of them

[Mushtang]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, and end up enjoying, to different extents, all the caches that I do find, even those that are likely to disappoint others?

 

Fixed

 

I go with option (2).

[+Miragee]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, and end up enjoying, to different extents, all the caches that I do find, even those that are likely to disappoint others?

Fixed

 

I go with option (2).

I went with Option (2) myself today. I enjoyed all the caches I found, including an LPC that someone had written, in the log, which had been happily signed by many people, WORST CACHE EVER.

 

The cache I didn't like was the one I spent half an hour looking for and couldn't find . . .

 

I guess some cache owners enjoy getting DNF logs in their email InBox, otherwise they would provide a useful hint for a cache that has had many DNFs and has needed a lifeline call for nearly every "Found it" log . . .

[+TrailGators]

Personally, I have a couple of LPC hides, but one of the things I like to do is find a good place to hide a cache RIGHT NEAR a lamp post, so the cacher first thinks it is a LPC, when in fact, it is not. A few of my hides are of this type, and were done so purposely.

The unexpected surprises and twists are my favorite.

I like those too, but unfortunately my Google scan of the area probably made me hit the ignore button because I steer clear of KCs (Kitschy caches).

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

 

It's a dilemma; a difficult compromise either way. For some cachers it seems to be an agonizing decision.

 

Fortunately for me I am mentally defective, and the choice is therefore easy. I have never properly learned how to dislike the so-called "lame" caches. I have always been able to find enjoyment in pretty much every geocache I do; the guarantee of being disappointed, therefore, does not exist for me in choice number (2).

 

Like Jhwk, I happily go after ALL of them

There are more than just two options. I do #3:

(3) Skip the ones I think I might not like. Then do the any of the ones I skipped only if they are recommended.

[+TrailGators]

I guess some cache owners enjoy getting DNF logs in their email InBox, otherwise they would provide a useful hint for a cache that has had many DNFs and has needed a lifeline call for nearly every "Found it" log . . .

If it's a difficult cache they do expect that. If it's an easy cache then the coords are probably off.