Find Counts

[+tozainamboku]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

[+KBI]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

[+sbell111]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

Please DO keep attacking me personally instead of defending your statements with reasoned logic. It's the best free entertainment I've enjoyed in months -- AND it's the fastest way to acomplish your thread-lock request!!

 

Careful you don't get banned again in the process, though.

 

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life. Just relaying my experience. If you're allowed to sit in here and completely derail a thread, which I've asked the moderators to close 3 times now (this is my thread, I can close it can't I?).. You've had your question answered KBI. Yet you continue to sit in here and harass.. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is attacking who.

Posts like this are what is off-topic and should cease.

 

If you want your thread to be closed, 'report' your own post and include a note that you wish to have your thread closed. It will be locked before you know it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

Please DO keep attacking me personally instead of defending your statements with reasoned logic. It's the best free entertainment I've enjoyed in months -- AND it's the fastest way to acomplish your thread-lock request!!

 

Careful you don't get banned again in the process, though.

 

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life. Just relaying my experience. If you're allowed to sit in here and completely derail a thread, which I've asked the moderators to close 3 times now (this is my thread, I can close it can't I?).. You've had your question answered KBI. Yet you continue to sit in here and harass.. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is attacking who.

Posts like this are what is off-topic and should cease.

 

If you want your thread to be closed, 'report' your own post and include a note that you wish to have your thread closed. It will be locked before you know it.

 

Done that 3 times now, but thanks for the advice. What's off-topic is totally de-railing someone's thread with complete nonsense for 8 pages.. that's what's offensive. Do you have anything more to add?

[+sbell111]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

The practice of logging temporary event caches to the event page stems from a time when the 'attended' log didn't exist. At that time, all events were 'found'. The fact that TPTB changed the name of that log didn't create an impetus to change the logging activity.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

The practice of logging temporary event caches to the event page stems from a time when the 'attended' log didn't exist. At that time, all events were 'found'. The fact that TPTB changed the name of that log didn't create an impetus to change the logging activity.

 

It's hard to have a conversation when someone is trying to derail your conversation isn't it sbell?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

The practice of logging temporary event caches to the event page stems from a time when the 'attended' log didn't exist. At that time, all events were 'found'. The fact that TPTB changed the name of that log didn't create an impetus to change the logging activity.

 

Sorry Sbell111... You claim a fact, but it isn't a fact, it's purely your opinion.. Answer my question... Why don't you answer my question? You keep avoiding the question and don't answer it. All you have to do is answer one simple question the exact way that I want you to answer it and then I'll leave you alone ok? Does this feel like bullying to you Sbell?

[+sbell111]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

The practice of logging temporary event caches to the event page stems from a time when the 'attended' log didn't exist. At that time, all events were 'found'. The fact that TPTB changed the name of that log didn't create an impetus to change the logging activity.

It's hard to have a conversation when someone is trying to derail your conversation isn't it sbell?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Further, personal comments between posters should be taken to PM. Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

Sbell, it's been nearly 30 seconds and you still haven't answered my question. Are you trying to avoid the question? Maybe it's because you don't have an answer to the question. Come on, it's a simple request, just answer the question.. Why won't you answer the question?

 

Are you feeling it yet?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log. The Found It and an Attended logs are meant to keep track of your geocaching activity. Cache owners are certainly free to add additional non-geocaching activities to events or even to geocaches. ALRs are now explicitly allowed on unknown caches. I guess the proper way to add non-geocaching activities is to have an ALR that you must report this in your log. For example, have an event with temporary caches and say "Your Attended log will be deleted if you don't mention how many of the temporary caches your found". I suspect some cache owners prefer awarding of bonuses which are totally voluntary to forcing people to log "I didn't look for any temporary caches" or "I looked for the temporary caches but I don't remember which ones I found" and having to delete logs of cachers who don't comply with the ALR.

The practice of logging temporary event caches to the event page stems from a time when the 'attended' log didn't exist. At that time, all events were 'found'. The fact that TPTB changed the name of that log didn't create an impetus to change the logging activity.

It's hard to have a conversation when someone is trying to derail your conversation isn't it sbell?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Further, personal comments between posters should be taken to PM.

 

No, this is in regard to logging finds sbell. Are you trying to avoid the question? Why won't you answer the question? Do you find it difficult to have a real debate while I'm doing this to you?? All you have to do is answer the question and I'll leave you alone.. It's just a simple request.

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

[Mushtang]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

Or just tired of answering....it did get pretty bad.

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

[+sbell111]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

Perhaps I can help. What is your question?

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

Perhaps I can help. What is your question?

 

The question is: "It has 3 legs, but cannot talk. 4 arms, but cannot eat doritos on Tuesdays. It has white hair and a green shirt, but has difficulty eating chinese food because of the high levels of MSG. What am I?"

[+sbell111]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

Perhaps I can help. What is your question?

 

The question is: "It has 3 legs, but cannot talk. 4 arms, but cannot eat doritos on Tuesdays. It has white hair and a green shirt, but has difficulty eating chinese food because of the high levels of MSG. What am I?"

A geocacher posting to the geocaching forums?

[+ReadyOrNot]

A geocacher posting to the geocaching forums?

 

This debate cannot continue until this question has been answered to my satisfaction!

[Mushtang]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

Perhaps I can help. What is your question?

 

The question is: "It has 3 legs, but cannot talk. 4 arms, but cannot eat doritos on Tuesdays. It has white hair and a green shirt, but has difficulty eating chinese food because of the high levels of MSG. What am I?"

You're an excellent post to link to the next time you complain about someone going off topic. That's what you are.

[+sbell111]

A geocacher posting to the geocaching forums?

 

This debate cannot continue until this question has been answered to my satisfaction!

A geocacher posting off-topic in the geocaching forums in violation of the forum guidelines?

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life.

Oh, why not? Why not throw up yet another claim, another personal attack at that, then refuse to support it?

 

This is FUN!!

 

(What was this thread about again?)

 

Just answer my question KBI? You won't answer it because you don't have an answer do you? All you have to do is answer my question and I'll be happy and content. Please?

He did, several times. You just didn't see it. I'm not, of course, going to show you where he answered it, or even repeat his answer. You must not be paying attention.

 

 

Now you're just avoiding the question. It is vital that the question be answered.

Perhaps I can help. What is your question?

 

The question is: "It has 3 legs, but cannot talk. 4 arms, but cannot eat doritos on Tuesdays. It has white hair and a green shirt, but has difficulty eating chinese food because of the high levels of MSG. What am I?"

You're an excellent post to link to the next time you complain about someone going off topic. That's what you are.

 

You and your brother derailed this thread.. There is no topic anymore. I've requested that it be closed.. so in the mean-time.. Enjoy!

[+TrailGators]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log.

This was my point too. We have very simple English here to go by. The word "attended" should be understood by everyone that has a basic understanding of the English language. 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.

[+sbell111]

... 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.)

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log.

This was my point too. We have very simple English here to go by. The word "attended" should be understood by everyone that has a basic understanding of the English language. 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.

Yes, they certainly have. A link was brought up in a recent thread that discussed this same topic. I will try to find it before they close this thread....

[+Rockin Roddy]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log.

This was my point too. We have very simple English here to go by. The word "attended" should be understood by everyone that has a basic understanding of the English language. 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.

 

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

[+TrailGators]

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that log says 'Attended'. It may be legitimate for an event owner to say "You may attend this event more than once. In addition to the standard definition of attend, this event can be attended by finding a temporary cache hidden at this event". However if TPTB wanted to allow cache owners to award bonus smileys, wouldn't they have a Bonus log. You could attend the event one time, and then use the Bonus log to log temporary caches or, if the event owner allowed, that you participated in the three legged race. TPTB probably won't implement the Bonus log.

This was my point too. We have very simple English here to go by. The word "attended" should be understood by everyone that has a basic understanding of the English language. 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.

 

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

Here is the quote:

[+Rockin Roddy]

Just as I thought! Where on earth do you find it saying anything about individual cache pages in that sbell?

[+sbell111]

... 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.

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

I posted the quote. Jeremy commented that he felt that creating cache pages for individual temporary event caches was selfish. Ragarding the logging of these temporary caches to the event's cache page, he had this to say:

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... 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.

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

I posted the quote. Jeremy commented that he felt that creating cache pages for individual temporary event caches was selfish. Ragarding the logging of these temporary caches to the event's cache page, he had this to say:

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.

 

Read a few posts up please....

[+sbell111]

... 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.

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

Here is the quote:

Just as I thought! Where on earth do you find it saying anything about individual cache pages in that sbell?

Not shockingly, when you parse out part of a quote and ignore the rest and you ignore the post that he was responding to, it takes on different meaning. Here's the entire post:

I'm not buying your argument. if bandwith was the problem, they wouldn't approve all the 1/1 city micros on a daily basis.

 

Burden on the approvers. I know an instance where the local approvers approved over 100 caches the night before a big cache event. Guess what, most of these caches are still active months later. They didn't dissappear with the wind like the so called temp caches.

I don't care if you buy that person's argument, because it isn't my argument. My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

You will note that in his first paragraph, Jeremy specifically referenced the cache listing. He was arguing against the creation of individual cache pages for temporary event caches. He wasn't arguing against temporary event caches.

 

His quote, in it's entirety, combined wqith the quote that I referenced just above tells a much different story, doesn't it?

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

... 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.

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

Here is the quote:

Just as I thought! Where on earth do you find it saying anything about individual cache pages in that sbell?

Not shockingly, when you parse out part of a quote and ignore the rest and you ignore the post that he was responding to, it takes on different meaning. Here's the entire post:

I'm not buying your argument. if bandwith was the problem, they wouldn't approve all the 1/1 city micros on a daily basis.

 

Burden on the approvers. I know an instance where the local approvers approved over 100 caches the night before a big cache event. Guess what, most of these caches are still active months later. They didn't dissappear with the wind like the so called temp caches.

I don't care if you buy that person's argument, because it isn't my argument. My reasoning (not argument) is that a cache listing is meant to be hidden for a certain timeframe that is far longer than the weekend or day of an event. The whole objective to listing caches on a web site is for others to go out and find them. Creating a small window of opportunity for a listing is counter to the entire intent of the web site.

 

Wanting to throw up a bunch of temporary caches so you can log them as a "find" is the height of selfishness, IMO. You are well aware that the "cache" is just a part of the event, like a three legged race.

You will note that in his first paragraph, Jeremy specifically referenced the cache listing. He was arguing against the creation of individual cache pages for temporary event caches. He wasn't arguing against temporary event caches.

 

I guess you're right...if you completely IGNORE the last part! Are you just wanting to not see what is said there?

[+TrailGators]

... 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.

I think he said it was "the height of selfishness" but I think he was refering to logging temporary caches (not to the cache page though). You posted the quotes in a previous thread when I asked.

I posted the quote. Jeremy commented that he felt that creating cache pages for individual temporary event caches was selfish.

I don't think so. So you think that he meant that it's the height of selfish to create temp cache pages but it's OK to log them? That doesn't make sense. I think his point was that logging the temp caches was 'height of selfishness.' Caches are meant to be permanent. There is even a guideline stating this.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Jeremy says no to making seperate cache pages and then goes on to say it's "The height of selfishness" to throw out temps....sounds like he said it was selfish to me.

 

All this time, you have argued about this very thing...and never even knew what it said? You even quoted it several times!

[+sbell111]

Jeremy says no to making seperate cache pages and then goes on to say it's "The height of selfishness" to throw out temps....sounds like he said it was selfish to me.

 

All this time, you have argued about this very thing...and never even knew what it said? You even quoted it several times!

I have every reason to believe that the subject of his second sentence is the same as the subject to his first sentence.

 

BTW, did you notice the other quote?

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.

In that thread (and quote) he was clearly stating that he didn't care if people logged multiple temporary event caches to the event page, but did not want individual cache listings to be created for these caches. Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Jeremy says no to making seperate cache pages and then goes on to say it's "The height of selfishness" to throw out temps....sounds like he said it was selfish to me.

 

All this time, you have argued about this very thing...and never even knew what it said? You even quoted it several times!

I have every reason to believe that the subject of his second sentence is the same as the subject to his first sentence.

 

BTW, did you notice the other quote?

 

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.

 

In other words, you didn't read it fully and only thought it said what you wanted it to say?

 

It's RIGHT there sbell, it's in plain words. You even posted the quote, so no parsing at all.

 

Yes, sbell, I read it SEVERAL times in several threads. He said it was the height of selfishness, but he didn't care what others did. He also said somewhere in there that his opinion didn't necessarily sway how the site should be run.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

Jeremy says no to making seperate cache pages and then goes on to say it's "The height of selfishness" to throw out temps....sounds like he said it was selfish to me.

 

All this time, you have argued about this very thing...and never even knew what it said? You even quoted it several times!

I have every reason to believe that the subject of his second sentence is the same as the subject to his first sentence.

 

BTW, did you notice the other quote?

I personally don't care if people log more than once, but please do not post temporary cache listings for events.

In other words, you didn't read it fully and only thought it said what you wanted it to say?

 

It's RIGHT there sbell, it's in plain words. You even posted the quote, so no parsing at all.

It looks like you are trying to bend his post to meen what you want it to.

 

By the way, did you forget part of my post?

 

I think that that post makes his feelings towards teh logging of temporary event caches absolutely clear. Multiple logs are fine, but seperate listings for temporary cache is not.

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Oh, wow.

 

Look, you're still arguing.

 

 

michelle

[+Rockin Roddy]

OMG sbell, are you ACTING like you don't get it...or do you truly not see what is right in front of you?

 

You have the post, why not put a link to the whole thread for all to read (again).

 

Sure, he said do what you want, but he thought it was selfish (and I believe silly was thrown in earlier in the thread). He also said he didn't want to make seperate temp cache pages, let them log to the event page if they must log event caches (which he compared to a three-legged race...merely an activity at the event).

Edited November 20, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

[4wheelin_fool]

Are you guys seriously trying to bait Jeremy to come in here and clarify an opinion which is pretty clear already?

 

And how do you know that he doesn't have you all on ignore?

[+Rockin Roddy]

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).

[+KBI]

I personally don't care if people log more than once ....

Poor Jeremy. He doesn't realize he's supposed to be an abuse victim when people log an event cache more than once. Who wants to explain it to him?

 

Are you guys seriously trying to bait Jeremy to come in here and clarify an opinion which is pretty clear already?

He can't. He's too busy trying to figure out why he's suddenly missing a bunch of pencils.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I personally don't care if people log more than once ....

Poor Jeremy. He doesn't realize he's supposed to be an abuse victim when people log an event cache more than once. Who wants to explain it to him?

 

Are you guys seriously trying to bait Jeremy to come in here and clarify an opinion which is pretty clear already?

He can't. He's too busy trying to figure out why he's suddenly missing a bunch of pencils.

 

I'll explain to my ex-coworker at pizza hut (when I was 16) that when they fired him for eating a pepporoni, that he didn't really get fired, because KBI doesn't view eating a single pepporoni as causing anyone any real harm. I think I follow your logic perfectly, thanks!

 

Seriously though, he was hurt by him eating that pepporoni? Yet they fired him for theft... Go figure..

Edited November 21, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+KBI]

I'll explain to my ex-coworker at pizza hut (when I was 16) that when they fired him for eating a pepporoni, that he didn't really get fired, because KBI doesn't view eating a single pepporoni as causing anyone any real harm. I think I follow your logic perfectly, thanks!

Wow ... I've been so busy I even missed one of my own posts! When did I say that?

 

Or ... are you demonstrating your desperation by putting words in someone else's mouth?

 

Or ... are you implying that when a cacher logs a temp cache at an event it is the equivalent of stealing a pizza from Pizza Hut?

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'll explain to my ex-coworker at pizza hut (when I was 16) that when they fired him for eating a pepporoni, that he didn't really get fired, because KBI doesn't view eating a single pepporoni as causing anyone any real harm. I think I follow your logic perfectly, thanks!

Wow ... I've been so busy I even missed one of my own posts! When did I say that?

 

Or ... are you demonstrating your desperation by putting words in someone else's mouth?

 

Or ... are you implying that when a cacher logs a temp cache at an event it is the equivalent of stealing a pizza from Pizza Hut?

 

I'll make it easy for you, ready?

 

1) Who is being hurt by someone eating a single pepporoni while making a pizza.

or

2) Who is being hurt when someone "borrows" a pencil from work and doesn't return it?

or

3) A sign is posted that says, "1 re-fill per customer". Who is being hurt by getting an extra re-fill?

or

4) You go to your local fry's store and decide to demo guitar hero 3. A sign reads, "limit to 10 minutes per customer". Noone is in line behind you, who is being hurt by playing for 30 minutes?

 

Feel free to answer either question.. I feel we need to take this one step at a time so we don't get off track. Judge, please give me a little time to develop this, I believe its worth seeing where this goes.

Edited November 21, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

Are you guys seriously trying to bait Jeremy to come in here and clarify an opinion which is pretty clear already?

 

And how do you know that he doesn't have you all on ignore?

I don't think that's necessary because most of us understand plain english.

 

I bet Jeremy is burned out on these threads. How much drama can one person take. It's like Chinese water torture...

[+KBI]

I'll explain to my ex-coworker at pizza hut (when I was 16) that when they fired him for eating a pepporoni, that he didn't really get fired, because KBI doesn't view eating a single pepporoni as causing anyone any real harm. I think I follow your logic perfectly, thanks!

Wow ... I've been so busy I even missed one of my own posts! When did I say that?

 

Or ... are you demonstrating your desperation by putting words in someone else's mouth?

 

Or ... are you implying that when a cacher logs a temp cache at an event it is the equivalent of stealing a pizza from Pizza Hut?

 

I'll make it easy for you, ready?

 

1) Who is being hurt by someone eating a single pepporoni while making a pizza.

or

2) Who is being hurt when someone "borrows" a pencil from work and doesn't return it?

or

3) A sign is posted that says, "1 re-fill per customer". Who is being hurt by getting an extra re-fill?

or

4) You go to your local fry's store and decide to demo guitar hero 3. A sign reads, "limit to 10 minutes per customer". Noone is in line behind you, who is being hurt by playing for 30 minutes?

 

Feel free to answer either question.. I feel we need to take this one step at a time so we don't get off track. Judge, please give me a little time to develop this, I believe its worth seeing where this goes.

Fair enough. Sounds like fun. I’ll give it a shot.

 

Let’s start with number 4 (you’ll see why):

 

4) You go to your local Fry's store and decide to demo Guitar Hero Three (a computer game). A sign reads, "Limit 10 minutes per customer". No one is in line behind you, so who is being hurt by playing for 30 minutes?

 

My answer: Nobody is hurt – as long as the store owner doesn’t mind. Nobody is losing anything, so there is little chance the store owner will care. If the store owner doesn't care, this example is a different analogy from the other three.

 

Unless, however, the store owner feels it might cost him a sale should you get your fill of the free demo and forgo your purchase of the game, in which case see below.

 

Now let’s look at the other three:

 

1) An employee eats a single pepperoni while making a pizza.

2) An employee "borrows" a pencil from work and doesn't return it.

3) A sign is posted that says, "One re-fill per customer." A customer gets an extra re-fill.

 

My answer: Each of these is a clear example of stealing.

 

(A) The theft in each example, however small, benefits the thief by providing him with something tangible: a pepperoni slice, a pencil, a cup of soft drink.

( 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.

 

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?

Edited November 21, 2007 by KBI

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

(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?

Edited November 21, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+KBI]

(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!!!"

[+TrailGators]

(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!!!"

I see that KBI is still delusional. Anyhow, I figured out that the only victims are the people who have read KBI's posts...