Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Find Counts

Recommended Posts

I see you've been learning from TrailGators: "When you've lost the argument ... get silly!!!"

 

I have not lost the argument.. The ball is clearly in your court. You've made the claim that it's stealing, yet you've not shown any victims. In a rather humorous turn of events, you've placed yourself squarely on our side of the argument. The question is, how can you get out?

 

1) You've declared "Stealing"

2) There are no victims

 

<Ready hands the ball to KBI>

Share this post


Link to post

I see you've been learning from TrailGators: "When you've lost the argument ... get silly!!!"

I have not lost the argument.. The ball is clearly in your court. You've made the claim that it's stealing, yet you've not shown any victims ...

You are seriously confused – and what‘s really funny is this: If stealing doesn’t produce victims, as you say, then it is YOU who has lost the debate; if there are no victims, then there is no abuse, and therefore there was never any reason for you to call for a change to the website.

 

But, just for fun, let’s continue.

 

 

... In a rather humorous turn of events, you've placed yourself squarely on our side of the argument. The question is, how can you get out?

 

1) You've declared "Stealing"

2) There are no victims

 

<Ready hands the ball to KBI>

Huh? Are you serious?

 

Assuming you ARE still serious about this ...

 

I DID identify the victims of the stealing. If you didn't see it in the post that doesn't mean it wasn't there:

(B) The theft in each example, however small, harms the victim because the thief has stolen something of value from him: a pepperoni slice, a pencil, a cup of soft drink.

Did you read it this time? Was it clear enough for you?

 

So, wanna try again? Here is your challenge:

Now, in order for this analogy to apply to the practice of multilogging temp caches at events, you will need to show me that multilogging causes both effects:

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(B) Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

Your analogy demonstrates stealing. In your analogy the victims suffer real, measurable and tangible loss. What is it about temp cache logging at geo-events that causes real, measurable and tangible loss, Ready? Who is the victim, and what, exactly, is being stolen from them?

Well?

Share this post


Link to post

I see you've been learning from TrailGators: "When you've lost the argument ... get silly!!!"

I have not lost the argument.. The ball is clearly in your court. You've made the claim that it's stealing, yet you've not shown any victims ...

You are seriously confused – and what‘s really funny is this: If stealing doesn’t produce victims, as you say, then it is YOU who has lost the debate; if there are no victims, then there is no abuse, and therefore there was never any reason for you to call for a change to the website.

 

But, just for fun, let’s continue.

 

 

... In a rather humorous turn of events, you've placed yourself squarely on our side of the argument. The question is, how can you get out?

 

1) You've declared "Stealing"

2) There are no victims

 

<Ready hands the ball to KBI>

Huh? Are you serious?

 

Assuming you ARE still serious about this ...

 

I DID identify the victims of the stealing. If you didn't see it in the post that doesn't mean it wasn't there:

(<_< The theft in each example, however small, harms the victim because the thief has stolen something of value from him: a pepperoni slice, a pencil, a cup of soft drink.

Did you read it this time? Was it clear enough for you?

 

So, wanna try again? Here is your challenge:

Now, in order for this analogy to apply to the practice of multilogging temp caches at events, you will need to show me that multilogging causes both effects:

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

Your analogy demonstrates stealing. In your analogy the victims suffer real, measurable and tangible loss. What is it about temp cache logging at geo-events that causes real, measurable and tangible loss, Ready? Who is the victim, and what, exactly, is being stolen from them?

Well?

 

Just as you have said MANY MANY times in previous posts (as you are very aware of the question), I will now pose it to you. I'm sure you will have no problems answering it this time... As stated in my original question:

 

How was the pencil's removal, the pepperoni's digestion, or the extra soft drink of any harm to any person? It was stealing, I will grant you that, but how did it cause any harm to anyone? Show me where there was any harm to any person. There were hundreds of pencils left at the office, so I bet the boss didn't even know it was missing. The extra soft drink refill didn't show up on any reports, so the people who could have been harmed didn't have a clue.

 

Where's the victim KBI? You've failed to show me a victim!

Share this post


Link to post

I see you've been learning from TrailGators: "When you've lost the argument ... get silly!!!"

I have not lost the argument.. The ball is clearly in your court. You've made the claim that it's stealing, yet you've not shown any victims ...

You are seriously confused – and what's really funny is this: If stealing doesn't produce victims, as you say, then it is YOU who has lost the debate; if there are no victims, then there is no abuse, and therefore there was never any reason for you to call for a change to the website.

 

But, just for fun, let's continue.

 

 

... In a rather humorous turn of events, you've placed yourself squarely on our side of the argument. The question is, how can you get out?

 

1) You've declared "Stealing"

2) There are no victims

 

<Ready hands the ball to KBI>

Huh? Are you serious?

 

Assuming you ARE still serious about this ...

 

I DID identify the victims of the stealing. If you didn't see it in the post that doesn't mean it wasn't there:

( <_< The theft in each example, however small, harms the victim because the thief has stolen something of value from him: a pepperoni slice, a pencil, a cup of soft drink.

Did you read it this time? Was it clear enough for you?

 

So, wanna try again? Here is your challenge:

Now, in order for this analogy to apply to the practice of multilogging temp caches at events, you will need to show me that multilogging causes both effects:

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

( :) Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

Your analogy demonstrates stealing. In your analogy the victims suffer real, measurable and tangible loss. What is it about temp cache logging at geo-events that causes real, measurable and tangible loss, Ready? Who is the victim, and what, exactly, is being stolen from them?

Well?

 

Just as you have said MANY MANY times in previous posts (as you are very aware of the question), I will now pose it to you. I'm sure you will have no problems answering it this time... As stated in my original question:

 

How was the pencil's removal, the pepperoni's digestion, or the extra soft drink of any harm to any person? It was stealing, I will grant you that, but how did it cause any harm to anyone? Show me where there was any harm to any person. There were hundreds of pencils left at the office, so I bet the boss didn't even know it was missing. The extra soft drink refill didn't show up on any reports, so the people who could have been harmed didn't have a clue.

 

Where's the victim KBI? You've failed to show me a victim!

ReadyOrNot you are starting to scare me because you are sounding exactly like KBI! <_<:) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

 

Well, a smiley could be argued to be at least as valuable as a slice of peperoni or a pencil. I think we can agree that a smiley, slice o' pep, and a pencil are of a VERY small value, one could say equal. You failed to answer one very specific question. I asked "Who is the victim" in each of those scenarios, or if there really was a victim. When something is of such low value, it's very difficult to assign someone as "The Victim" because noone is really victimized. Who is victimized by the pencil being gone? Who is victimized by the pepperoni being eaten? I think you can agree that there isn't any victim, yet you called it "Stealing"... How can you call it stealing if there is no victim? <_<

I see you've been learning from TrailGators: "When you've lost the argument ... get silly!!!"

 

Wow...the answers don't come as quickly as the harassing questions. You must be slipping KBI!

Share this post


Link to post

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

 

Well, a smiley could be argued to be at least as valuable as a slice of peperoni or a pencil. I think we can agree that a smiley, slice o' pep, and a pencil are of a VERY small value, one could say equal. You failed to answer one very specific question. I asked "Who is the victim" in each of those scenarios, or if there really was a victim. When something is of such low value, it's very difficult to assign someone as "The Victim" because noone is really victimized. Who is victimized by the pencil being gone? Who is victimized by the pepperoni being eaten? I think you can agree that there isn't any victim, yet you called it "Stealing"... How can you call it stealing if there is no victim? <_<

 

I'm laughing at the bold text above. How did you determine this? If you can charge $15.00 for a pizza with 8 slices, or $1.00 for a pack of 50 pencils, how much is taken from someone if an extra smiley is logged?

 

Clearly you're not only ignoring KBIs points, but you're changing them to suit your own arguments.

 

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

The smiley, however, has no value loss to the owner of an event cache, therefore it's much closer to your example of Fry's (although not exactly because there is wear and tear on the equipment and I'm not sure if that was your point of the example or if it was meant to show as hurting nobody since nobody was waiting to play the game).

 

So from this side of the argument, KBI clearly showed that each of your other examples had a loss in value to the owner of the stolen items, but the additional log results in no loss in value to anyone that we can figure out. This, apparently, is what KBI is asking you to help him see. He wants to know who is dealing with a loss in value, time, money, anything, because of an additional smiley being logged?

 

I think I got that right, if I've misunderstood I'll let KBI add to my summary when he posts again.

Share this post


Link to post

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

 

Well, a smiley could be argued to be at least as valuable as a slice of peperoni or a pencil. I think we can agree that a smiley, slice o' pep, and a pencil are of a VERY small value, one could say equal. You failed to answer one very specific question. I asked "Who is the victim" in each of those scenarios, or if there really was a victim. When something is of such low value, it's very difficult to assign someone as "The Victim" because noone is really victimized. Who is victimized by the pencil being gone? Who is victimized by the pepperoni being eaten? I think you can agree that there isn't any victim, yet you called it "Stealing"... How can you call it stealing if there is no victim? <_<

 

I'm laughing at the bold text above. How did you determine this? If you can charge $15.00 for a pizza with 8 slices, or $1.00 for a pack of 50 pencils, how much is taken from someone if an extra smiley is logged?

 

Clearly you're not only ignoring KBIs points, but you're changing them to suit your own arguments.

 

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

The smiley, however, has no value loss to the owner of an event cache, therefore it's much closer to your example of Fry's (although not exactly because there is wear and tear on the equipment and I'm not sure if that was your point of the example or if it was meant to show as hurting nobody since nobody was waiting to play the game).

 

So from this side of the argument, KBI clearly showed that each of your other examples had a loss in value to the owner of the stolen items, but the additional log results in no loss in value to anyone that we can figure out. This, apparently, is what KBI is asking you to help him see. He wants to know who is dealing with a loss in value, time, money, anything, because of an additional smiley being logged?

 

I think I got that right, if I've misunderstood I'll let KBI add to my summary when he posts again.

Must be ALOT since we've heard nothing but complaint when asking for truth in numbers. "ohhh, they want to steal my bonus smileys". Must be worth something or why would anyone want to log them?

 

oh wait...I forgot...for the memories! Yeah, that's it...the memories (as if a note wouldn't remind you of those).

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
No reply? Why haven't you answered the question (ooh, wait. We're past all that)....I'm far too lazy to post it all here for you, but I KNOW you know where to find it (you've posted it a few times). Read it with an open mind, it's there in black and white, no need to try to bend it in any fashion.
Good grief. I hope you realize that my life doesn't revolve around these forums. When I'm not in here, I'm in the real world doing something else.

 

You'll note that I took a several hour break yesterday when I went to Bishop Niedergeses' funeral. I then left the office for the evening at 3:30. I had more important things to do once I got home to even think about this silly place.

Ummmmm, no! read it again, sbell thought that Jeremy didn't say what he said. What I find completely amazing is that he's the one that quoted Jeremy's posts a couple times and even used them in his arguments (ironic since he didn't even realize what they said).
You're taking the position that he changed the topic of his post in midstream to reverse his previously held position on the logging of temporary caches. In my opinion, it's much more likely that the topic stayed the same and he merely shorthanded the subject of the second sentence.

 

Either way, he clearly stated that temporary cache listings were bad and it is acceptable for these temporary caches to be logged to the event page. He likely believes that this practice is silly. (He also doesn't like drive-by micros, preferring a hike to a regular-sized cache. Strangely, drive-by micros are still allowed. Huh. I also have found drive-by micros that he has logged. He's a complicated critter, isn't he.)

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
... It is clear that TPTB are not going to redesign the site to create a bonus log. That's not what they envisioned nor is it what many and perhaps most people envision. However, they also said that they are not going to police things unless it gets really nuts. I think some people take the non-policing as approval. However, TPTB have stated that it's 'selfish' that people would do that. I agree with this opinion. <_<
To my knowledge, TPTB have never said that it was selfish to log temporary event caches to the event page. Please identify the post where this comment was made.

 

(By the way, what Jeremy posted was that he believed that the creation of individual cache pages for temporary event caches was selfish. He further suggested that it would be appropriate to log these to the event page, since they were part of the event.)

here's where you said Jeremy didn't say it was selfish. I said he did and you continued to deny that, even posting Jeremy's post. Are you now saying you never said Jeremy didn't state this? Jeremy never changed anything...he said it was silly and selfish (which is what you said he didn't say).

 

I'm sorry if I rushed you sbell, not fun having someone shoot demands at you continually, is it? But I do love how you try to twist this around to make it seem you knew what you were talking about.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

 

Well, a smiley could be argued to be at least as valuable as a slice of peperoni or a pencil. I think we can agree that a smiley, slice o' pep, and a pencil are of a VERY small value, one could say equal. You failed to answer one very specific question. I asked "Who is the victim" in each of those scenarios, or if there really was a victim. When something is of such low value, it's very difficult to assign someone as "The Victim" because noone is really victimized. Who is victimized by the pencil being gone? Who is victimized by the pepperoni being eaten? I think you can agree that there isn't any victim, yet you called it "Stealing"... How can you call it stealing if there is no victim? <_<

 

I'm laughing at the bold text above. How did you determine this? If you can charge $15.00 for a pizza with 8 slices, or $1.00 for a pack of 50 pencils, how much is taken from someone if an extra smiley is logged?

 

Clearly you're not only ignoring KBIs points, but you're changing them to suit your own arguments.

 

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

The smiley, however, has no value loss to the owner of an event cache, therefore it's much closer to your example of Fry's (although not exactly because there is wear and tear on the equipment and I'm not sure if that was your point of the example or if it was meant to show as hurting nobody since nobody was waiting to play the game).

 

So from this side of the argument, KBI clearly showed that each of your other examples had a loss in value to the owner of the stolen items, but the additional log results in no loss in value to anyone that we can figure out. This, apparently, is what KBI is asking you to help him see. He wants to know who is dealing with a loss in value, time, money, anything, because of an additional smiley being logged?

 

I think I got that right, if I've misunderstood I'll let KBI add to my summary when he posts again.

Must be ALOT since we've heard nothing but complaint when asking for truth in numbers. "ohhh, they want to steal my bonus smileys". Must be worth something or why would anyone want to log them?

 

oh wait...I forgot...for the memories! Yeah, that's it...the memories (as if a note wouldn't remind you of those).

What is "alot"?

 

So you recognize the fact that a lot of people enjoy logging the bonus caches, and they'd be sad if they couldn't log them anymore. If you're still supporting a change to the site to keep them from doing this then it seems that you're okay with taking away their enjoyment.

 

Why do this? I'm curious if you'll either gain something, or if you'll stop losing something. If there's a benefit to you I don't see what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
here's where you said Jeremy didn't say it was selfish. I said he did and you continued to deny that, even posting Jeremy's post. Are you now saying you never said Jeremy didn't state this? Jeremy never changed anything...he said it was silly and selfish (which is what you said he didn't say).

 

I'm sorry if I rushed you sbell, not fun having someone shoot demands at you continually, is it? But I do love how you try to twist this around to make it seem you knew what you were talking about.

While I find most of your post to be incomprehensible, I'll try to respond.

 

You are again twisting his posts to try to make them fit your worldview. Did you read the two threads? What is your position on this post:

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.
Did you have a chance to review the thread from which this post came? Is it your position the Jeremy believe that it is perfectly fine to log these temporary caches to the event page, but doing so is selfish? Why would he have those opposing views? Isn't it much more likely that his selfish comment was regarding the creation of individual cache pages for temporary caches? After all, that would be in keeping with his other comments, wouldn't it?

 

Perhaps if you were to read the threads that I've linked and do your own search to see what else is out there, you would not stick so tightly to your preconceptions.

Share this post


Link to post

 

(A) Prove to me that multilogging benefits the cacher by providing him with something tangible. This is debatable; how much is a smiley worth? I say exactly zero cents, but there are of course non-monetary benefits. Can those benefits be characterized as tangible? That is the debatable part. I say no, but your opinion may differ.

(<_< Prove to me that multilogging harms the victim by stealing something tangible from him. When multilogging happens, who is the victim? Not me – I have never lost anything tangible because an event was multilogged. Have you, ReadyOrNot? What did you lose? Cash? Food? Office supplies? If not, then who IS the victim? Who is this poor person experiencing tangible, material loss at the hands of these multilog criminals? This is the question that strangely annoys so many of you, yet this is the question that, after nine pages of screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth has STILL not been answered.

 

 

 

Well, a smiley could be argued to be at least as valuable as a slice of peperoni or a pencil. I think we can agree that a smiley, slice o' pep, and a pencil are of a VERY small value, one could say equal. You failed to answer one very specific question. I asked "Who is the victim" in each of those scenarios, or if there really was a victim. When something is of such low value, it's very difficult to assign someone as "The Victim" because noone is really victimized. Who is victimized by the pencil being gone? Who is victimized by the pepperoni being eaten? I think you can agree that there isn't any victim, yet you called it "Stealing"... How can you call it stealing if there is no victim? <_<

 

I'm laughing at the bold text above. How did you determine this? If you can charge $15.00 for a pizza with 8 slices, or $1.00 for a pack of 50 pencils, how much is taken from someone if an extra smiley is logged?

 

Clearly you're not only ignoring KBIs points, but you're changing them to suit your own arguments.

 

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

The smiley, however, has no value loss to the owner of an event cache, therefore it's much closer to your example of Fry's (although not exactly because there is wear and tear on the equipment and I'm not sure if that was your point of the example or if it was meant to show as hurting nobody since nobody was waiting to play the game).

 

So from this side of the argument, KBI clearly showed that each of your other examples had a loss in value to the owner of the stolen items, but the additional log results in no loss in value to anyone that we can figure out. This, apparently, is what KBI is asking you to help him see. He wants to know who is dealing with a loss in value, time, money, anything, because of an additional smiley being logged?

 

I think I got that right, if I've misunderstood I'll let KBI add to my summary when he posts again.

Must be ALOT since we've heard nothing but complaint when asking for truth in numbers. "ohhh, they want to steal my bonus smileys". Must be worth something or why would anyone want to log them?

 

oh wait...I forgot...for the memories! Yeah, that's it...the memories (as if a note wouldn't remind you of those).

What is "alot"?

 

So you recognize the fact that a lot of people enjoy logging the bonus caches, and they'd be sad if they couldn't log them anymore. If you're still supporting a change to the site to keep them from doing this then it seems that you're okay with taking away their enjoyment.

 

Why do this? I'm curious if you'll either gain something, or if you'll stop losing something. If there's a benefit to you I don't see what it is.

Gee Mushtang...I believe I was commenting on KBI's question which is right here in this quote for all to see. He asked what a smiley was worth...my answer is it must be a LOT since so many would cry if they were taken from them. Are you stuck in the past, or not keeping up? Nothing was said about taking anything from anyone. (in this debate at least)

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mushtang...I believe I was commenting on KBI's question which is right here in this quote for all to see. He asked what a smiley was worth...my answer is it must be a LOT since so many would cry if they were taken from them. Are you stuck in the past, or not keeping up? Nothing was said about taking anything from anyone. (in this debate at least)

You know, if you stuck to the topic and stopped making personal remarks, this thread would be much more civil. Heck, it would even be in keeping with the forum guidelines.

 

Is this thread still about the removal of find counts from the cache pages? Anything else is off-topic and should be taken to another thread, OT, or PM.

 

Personally, I am against the removal of these find counts because many people find them useful and the removal would serve no purpose other than to cause angst for those that find them to be useful and TPTB.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Did you have a chance to review the thread from which this post came? Is it your position the Jeremy believe that it is perfectly fine to log these temporary caches to the event page, but doing so is selfish? Why would he have those opposing views? Isn't it much more likely that his selfish comment was regarding the creation of individual cache pages for temporary caches? After all, that would be in keeping with his other comments, wouldn't it?

 

Even if Jeremy DID mean that logging the temporary caches was selfish, he didn't decide that they weren't allowed. There's nothing really opposing about someone finding a behavior silly (even selfish) and not caring if it takes place.

 

In fact, that's MY take on logging temporary caches on gc.com. I think it's pretty silly (maybe not selfish), but it doesn't hurt what I'm doing, so it can go on as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Just as you have said MANY MANY times in previous posts (as you are very aware of the question), I will now pose it to you. I'm sure you will have no problems answering it this time... As stated in my original question:

 

How was the pencil's removal, the pepperoni's digestion, or the extra soft drink of any harm to any person? It was stealing, I will grant you that, but how did it cause any harm to anyone? Show me where there was any harm to any person. There were hundreds of pencils left at the office, so I bet the boss didn't even know it was missing. The extra soft drink refill didn't show up on any reports, so the people who could have been harmed didn't have a clue.

 

Where's the victim KBI? You've failed to show me a victim!

Okay, now I think maybe I see where this is going. I’m slow, but I get it eventually.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this current line of so-called debate has absolutely nothing to do with any on-topic discussion of your proposals or their supporting motivations; your current goal is simply to ‘punish’ me by ‘giving me a taste of my own medicine.’

 

You are making a show of ‘pretending’ not to hear the response I give when you repeatedly ask your clarifying question. You want me to feel as uncomfortable with my argument as you apparently did with yours.

 

Don’t worry. If you wanted me to feel frustrated, you needn’t have worried. That ship sailed days ago.

 

On the other hand, you have caused me no discomfort. Quite the opposite: there is still much entertainment value here for me. What has attracted my interest about the current exchange is this delicious irony: In order to play the part of the ‘questioning skeptic’ in your little, um, ‘drama’ (heh) you could have chosen pretty much any scenario for your analogy. The one you chose, however, makes my original point WAY better than ANY long-winded post I have made so far!

 

By comparing victims of actual theft to the “victims” of your non-existent “abuse,” you have just proved there is no abuse when cachers log temp caches at events.

 

You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

If there is no abuse, then there is no reason to go mucking around with the way the site displays find counts.

 

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason I came into this discussion in the first place was to voice my initial objection to the stated reasons for these unnecessary changes, and to ask a few questions to see whether maybe you guys really had a valid beef. In the many debates in which I have participated in these forum threads, I have never seen change proposals get shot down faster than yours and Trailgators. Your hyper-defensiveness, your childish personal insults, and your outright refusal to defend YOUR OWN PROPOSAL have done more damage to your cause than a thousand “ain’t gonna happen” posts from OpinionNate OR Jeremy could ever do.

 

Thanks. This has been fun.

 

Have a great Thanksgiving!

 

- KBI

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mushtang...I believe I was commenting on KBI's question which is right here in this quote for all to see. He asked what a smiley was worth...my answer is it must be a LOT since so many would cry if they were taken from them. Are you stuck in the past, or not keeping up? Nothing was said about taking anything from anyone. (in this debate at least)

You know, if you stuck to the topic and stopped making personal remarks, this thread would be much more civil. Heck, it would even be in keeping with the forum guidelines.

 

Is this thread still about the removal of find counts from the cache pages? Anything else is off-topic and should be taken to another thread, OT, or PM.

 

Personally, I am against the removal of these find counts because many people find them useful and the removal would serve no purpose other than to cause angst for those that find them to be useful and TPTB.

Heck, if you even knew what the topic was, you'd be ahead. No one wants the find counts to disappear, everyone gave up on that as a bad idea a looong time ago...even asked for this to be closed a few times. It's free play now. But glad you're keeping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mushtang...I believe I was commenting on KBI's question which is right here in this quote for all to see. He asked what a smiley was worth...my answer is it must be a LOT since so many would cry if they were taken from them. Are you stuck in the past, or not keeping up? Nothing was said about taking anything from anyone. (in this debate at least)

You know, if you stuck to the topic and stopped making personal remarks, this thread would be much more civil. Heck, it would even be in keeping with the forum guidelines.

 

Is this thread still about the removal of find counts from the cache pages? Anything else is off-topic and should be taken to another thread, OT, or PM.

 

Personally, I am against the removal of these find counts because many people find them useful and the removal would serve no purpose other than to cause angst for those that find them to be useful and TPTB.

Heck, if you even knew what the topic was, you'd be ahead. No one wants the find counts to disappear, everyone gave up on that as a bad idea a looong time ago...even asked for this to be closed a few times. It's free play now. But glad you're keeping up.

My understanding is that no thread in the 'on-topic' forums is 'free play'.

Share this post


Link to post

OP has asked several times for this thread to be closed...did you miss him stating this? If TPTB won't close it, it would seem "free play" to me. Besides, all the badgering that was being done...do you TRULY believe that was OP? Hardly!

 

Also, since you must have missed it, everyone has stated several times this isn't the best idea and came up with the OTHER idea in the other thread which you've been in several times.

 

ON TOPIC....oh, there isn't one!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

OP has asked several times for this thread to be closed...did you miss him stating this? If TPTB won't close it, it would seem "free play" to me. Besides, all the badgering that was being done...do you TRULY believe that was OP? Hardly!

 

Also, since you must have missed it, everyone has stated several times this isn't the best idea and came up with the OTHER idea in the other thread which you've been in several times.

 

ON TOPIC....oh, there isn't one!

If you don't believe that the topic is worth responding to, stop posting in it. If everyone believes that it is not worthy of discussion, it will drop off the page. There is no need for it to be locked and the fact that it is open is not reason to post off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mushtang...I believe I was commenting on KBI's question which is right here in this quote for all to see. He asked what a smiley was worth...my answer is it must be a LOT since so many would cry if they were taken from them. Are you stuck in the past, or not keeping up? Nothing was said about taking anything from anyone. (in this debate at least)

You know, if you stuck to the topic and stopped making personal remarks, this thread would be much more civil. Heck, it would even be in keeping with the forum guidelines.

 

Is this thread still about the removal of find counts from the cache pages? Anything else is off-topic and should be taken to another thread, OT, or PM.

 

Personally, I am against the removal of these find counts because many people find them useful and the removal would serve no purpose other than to cause angst for those that find them to be useful and TPTB.

No one wants the find counts to disappear, everyone gave up on that as a bad idea a looong time ago...

As far as I’m concerned the primary debate ended at post #465.

 

If the moderators agree with your (and my) assessment, the thread will soon be closed.

 

Until then: Sbell is correct about the thread topic. The giudelines support no "free play" format. Please stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post

Did you have a chance to review the thread from which this post came? Is it your position the Jeremy believe that it is perfectly fine to log these temporary caches to the event page, but doing so is selfish? Why would he have those opposing views? Isn't it much more likely that his selfish comment was regarding the creation of individual cache pages for temporary caches? After all, that would be in keeping with his other comments, wouldn't it?

Even if Jeremy DID mean that logging the temporary caches was selfish, he didn't decide that they weren't allowed. There's nothing really opposing about someone finding a behavior silly (even selfish) and not caring if it takes place.

 

In fact, that's MY take on logging temporary caches on gc.com. I think it's pretty silly (maybe not selfish), but it doesn't hurt what I'm doing, so it can go on as far as I'm concerned.

I've said the same thing. I personally don't see the attraction, but why should I let it bother me? What does it hurt?

 

It's like when my wife and daughter spend half an hour ohhing and ahhing at a People Magazine. I have no interest in Hollywood-type gossip and I think People Magazine is a complete waste of time, but it doesn't hurt anything or anybody when they read it and it makes them happy. I'm not about to go outside and post an updateable "[number] People Magazines Have Been Read In This House" sign in the yard to warn away any non-existent victims of the non-abusive magazine reading.

 

That would be almost as inane as the OP's proposal to change the entire Geocaching.com format just to satisfy a handful of hand-wringing nosey busybodies.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it comical that those who railed against the topic now want to discuss the topic....

Share this post


Link to post

I find it comical that those who railed against the topic now want to discuss the topic....

There is a difference between not agreeing with the proposal and not wanting to discuss the proposal.

 

Clearly, I am willing to discuss the proposal that find counts be removed from the cache pages, even though I believe that it is not a good idea because it would serve no positive purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry...please, carry on. Should be a breeze getting everyone left to agree with you, you're all on the same side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post

OP has asked several times for this thread to be closed...

This debate ended at post #465.

 

The Mods must have taken off early for Thanksgiving.

 

I have a great idea: If we all volunteer to stop posting to this thread it will sink off the page!

 

C'mon, let's do it!

 

Next one to post is a rotten egg!!

Share this post


Link to post

Color me rotten. lol

 

Hey, I'm all for it. You have a good Thanksgiving. I'm off in search of holiday treats!!

 

You too sbell....happy Tday!

Share this post


Link to post
You'll note that I took a several hour break yesterday when I went to Bishop Niedergeses' funeral.
Sorry to hear about the Bishop.

Share this post


Link to post
You'll note that I took a several hour break yesterday when I went to Bishop Niedergeses' funeral.
Sorry to hear about the Bishop.

Thanks. He was a great guy. Cathy knew him all her life and we were lucky enough to get him to officiate at our wedding, even though he was technically retired and winding down his official duties.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

How can they be a victim if they don't even know the pencil is missing and is has absolutely no effect on them? This sounds familiar doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Did you have a chance to review the thread from which this post came? Is it your position the Jeremy believe that it is perfectly fine to log these temporary caches to the event page, but doing so is selfish? Why would he have those opposing views? Isn't it much more likely that his selfish comment was regarding the creation of individual cache pages for temporary caches? After all, that would be in keeping with his other comments, wouldn't it?

 

Even if Jeremy DID mean that logging the temporary caches was selfish, he didn't decide that they weren't allowed. There's nothing really opposing about someone finding a behavior silly (even selfish) and not caring if it takes place.

 

In fact, that's MY take on logging temporary caches on gc.com. I think it's pretty silly (maybe not selfish), but it doesn't hurt what I'm doing, so it can go on as far as I'm concerned.

I think he did mean that but like you said he's has bigger fish to fry.

 

Anyhow, I lost track what this thread was about. I agree with the OP that the behavior would stop if their was no reward (find count) but I don't think they will ever do this. There was a huge 'uproar' when they tried doing it 5 years ago. But that's not where it has to end. There are friendly ways to win friends and influence people. For example, by not doing it we can set an example. Maybe explaining why we don't do it in a non-threatening manner would help....

Share this post


Link to post
In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.
How can they be a victim if they don't even know the pencil is missing and is has absolutely no effect on them? This sounds familiar doesn't it?
Whether or not you are aware that an object has been taken, does not affect whether it is missing.

 

If I have a box of pencils in my desk drawer and you take one of them. I have lost the use of that pencil, whether I ever realize that you stole from me, or not.

 

I can't for the life of me imagine what that has to do with your suggestion that find counts should be removed from the call list.

Share this post


Link to post

You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

 

Lets not forget that you called it theft... You can try to wiggle out of this, but, you are right.. It is done.. And you've got pie on your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Did you have a chance to review the thread from which this post came? Is it your position the Jeremy believe that it is perfectly fine to log these temporary caches to the event page, but doing so is selfish? Why would he have those opposing views? Isn't it much more likely that his selfish comment was regarding the creation of individual cache pages for temporary caches? After all, that would be in keeping with his other comments, wouldn't it?
Even if Jeremy DID mean that logging the temporary caches was selfish, he didn't decide that they weren't allowed. There's nothing really opposing about someone finding a behavior silly (even selfish) and not caring if it takes place.

 

In fact, that's MY take on logging temporary caches on gc.com. I think it's pretty silly (maybe not selfish), but it doesn't hurt what I'm doing, so it can go on as far as I'm concerned.

I think he did mean that but like you said he's has bigger fish to fry.

 

Anyhow, I lost track what this thread was about. I agree with the OP that the behavior would stop if their was no reward (find count) but I don't think they will ever do this.

By only removing the find counts from the cache pages, I don't believe that the OP's goal of deterring the logging of temporary event caches would be attained. Removing all log totals would be required. Obviously, this is an idea that would not be acceptable to most cachers, or TPTB.
There was a huge 'uproar' when they tried doing it 5 years ago. But that's not where it has to end. There are friendly ways to win friends and influence people. For example, by not doing it we can set an example. Maybe explaining why we don't do it in a non-threatening manner would help....
Agreed.

 

It actually reminds me that most of the people that disagreed with the OP's scheme don't log temporary event caches and have not allowed themselves to be bothered by others who choose to log them.

Share this post


Link to post

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

How can they be a victim if they don't even know the pencil is missing and is has absolutely no effect on them? This sounds familiar doesn't it?

If I steal $1,000 from your bank account, and you don't know about it, does that mean you're not a victim?

 

(yes I realize that your answer will probably be to ignore the question and answer "I'd know about it", but my question is still valid)

Share this post


Link to post
You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

Lets not forget that you called it theft... You can try to wiggle out of this, but, you are right.. It is done.. And you've got pie on your face.
Could you please explain what you are going on about.

Share this post


Link to post

Give it rest guys - Go enjoy Thanksgiving!!

 

See you on Friday - after the sales......

Share this post


Link to post
You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

Lets not forget that you called it theft... You can try to wiggle out of this, but, you are right.. It is done.. And you've got pie on your face.
Could you please explain what you are going on about.

Near as I can tell he's trying to gradually and subtly move to our side of this debate without anybody noticing so he can be on the side that has already won.

 

His logic is distorted and confusing enough that it just might work! (Unless, of course, anybody happens to notice that he was the OP.)

 

Good luck, Ready!

Share this post


Link to post
Give it rest guys - Go enjoy Thanksgiving!!

 

See you on Friday - after the sales......

Staples has a 500GB external HD on sale for $79! :D They also have a 4GB USB Flash Drive for $17! :D Yes, I'll admit it. I'm a geek! ;) Have a Happy Thanksgiving! :D

Share this post


Link to post

In your scenario the victim would be the owners of the pepperoni slice and the pencil, who have to pay to replace them without the benefit they would have gained from the stolen ones.

 

How can they be a victim if they don't even know the pencil is missing and is has absolutely no effect on them? This sounds familiar doesn't it?

If I steal $1,000 from your bank account, and you don't know about it, does that mean you're not a victim?

 

(yes I realize that your answer will probably be to ignore the question and answer "I'd know about it", but my question is still valid)

 

I'm certainly going to be aware eventually that $1000 is missing from my account.. That's funny.. $1000 - 1000 finds.. TPTB said they would do something on 1000 finds, but not 10.. Hmmmmm.. This is getting interesting isn't it..

Share this post


Link to post
You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

Lets not forget that you called it theft... You can try to wiggle out of this, but, you are right.. It is done.. And you've got pie on your face.
Could you please explain what you are going on about.

Near as I can tell he's trying to gradually and subtly move to our side of this debate without anybody noticing so he can be on the side that has already won.

 

His logic is distorted and confusing enough that it just might work! (Unless, of course, anybody happens to notice that he was the OP.)

 

Good luck, Ready!

 

KBI.. To show my good will, I'll let you off the hook (just this once)..

 

Have a great thanksgiving!

 

Happy Holidays everyone.... I'm off to get my brand new Vista Hcx for only $219 from REI.. Then I can actually start caching again (woohoo!)

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post
You have done my job for me; you have just ended this debate for good.

 

I rest my case. (Ahhh, that feels good.)

Lets not forget that you called it theft... You can try to wiggle out of this, but, you are right.. It is done.. And you've got pie on your face.
Could you please explain what you are going on about.

Near as I can tell he's trying to gradually and subtly move to our side of this debate without anybody noticing so he can be on the side that has already won.

 

His logic is distorted and confusing enough that it just might work! (Unless, of course, anybody happens to notice that he was the OP.)

 

Good luck, Ready!

 

KBI.. To show my good will, I'll let you off the hook (just this once)..

That's a relief.

 

I was beginning to have serious trouble identifying which side of this debate you're currently on: Pro-ReadyOrNot or Anti-ReadyOrNot.

 

Sounds like we're both on the same side now. Welcome!

 

 

Have a great thanksgiving!

 

Happy Holidays everyone.... I'm off to get my brand new Vista Hcx for only $219 from REI.. Then I can actually start caching again (woohoo!)

I bought mine yesterday at the same sale price. That's an awesome price.

 

The Vista HCx received about twice as many satellites as my Vista C, AND at twice the signal strength -- and that was from inside my house! Yay!!

 

I can't wait to see how well it does in my metal-shielded "cubicle" where the older Vista doesn't work at all ...

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post
Glad to see the topic ending well. :D

 

turkeyday.jpg

:D;)

In honor of the Pilgrams (since they were Puritans), I will not log any temporary event caches on Thanksgiving :D

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly think that it is fine the way it is. If people fidget with their numbers just so other people "look up" to them that's their problem. If they waste their free time by clicking Found It! buttons that's fine by me -- once again... their problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we lock this 3 year old thread since there's a new one also at the top of the page?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...