Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Cedar Grove Seekers
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

What I don't like is that around here there are a lot of people using the "phone-a friend" method. so if they can't find a cache this call a friend.

There's a perfect example of something that doesn't impact my caching experience at all. Your example ONLY matters if you're worried about the numbers.
Link to comment

If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

 

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

Link to comment
Can't a sufficient number of occurrences of even 'no impact' lies (and cultural acceptance thereof) serve to promote an environment in which more of the 'high impact' lies find the space they need to exist? Wouldn't this mean that in the extreme, no lie is truly 'benign'?

What is the "sufficient number" for you? It would have to get pretty ridiculous for me to be bothered.

 

I haven't seen but just a very few rare cases of provably bogus find logs; none of them has ever actually caused me any inconvenience, and many of them were benign to everyone, and I ignored them. The epidemic you speculate has not happened, and I do not see it happening; I say we cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

 

I think the level of degradation is debatable... It probably wouldn't degrade my game all that much, because I don't care all that much. But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean that it won't affect someone else.. As long as someone else is affected, is that not degradation?

 

I mentioned earlier two lines in a bank. I'm in line A, KBI is in line B. Someone enters the bank and cuts into KBI's line. This affects KBI, but it does not affect me.

 

1) KBI is affected, but can choose how he lets it affect him

2) The line cutter is not affecting my line at all, but it's still wrong to cut in line

3) I will probably say something to the line cutter out of principal, apparently this makes me a bad person according to some

Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

 

I thought it was "Ironic" actually..

Link to comment
Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.
I don't know for sure if the logs do indicate that the caches are missing. All I know is that I didn't find some caches.
As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.
I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure. Second, I don't feel like being teh bad guy on this issue. Sending that email would almost certainly result in angst coming my way from the precious 'finders', the cache owner, or all of the above.

 

Life's too short to volunteer for that kind of drama over a silly game.

Yet you'd sit in here and rail about this...this drama isn't so bad?

Railing? How am I railing? My posts have been completely calm.

Not doing your part only adds to the problem. Possibly, since you DID notice (as you said in your comment) you COULD have said something to the OWNER of the cache (how would that get you caught up in the drama??). The owner then can do whatever they see fit.

I disagree. My stiring the pot over what may possibly be nothing at all would increase the drama and my own angst load. Taking no action minimzes both. The 'problem' isn't 'added to' because my DNF logs serve to warn future cachers that the caches may be missing.

As an ex-drug user (scripts due to some serious injuries), if you aren't doing something to help the addict, you are enabling that addict!

Again, I disagree. I needn't be responsible for every other person on the planet.

 

If I pass by an addict panhandling on my way home from work, am I duty bound to 'fix' them? I think not. Nor am I duty bound to butt into the cacher/cache owner relationship held by previous finders/hiders of the caches that I look for.

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

 

My parents also taught me to think for myself, and not to blindly parrot some rote dogma that someone else believes no matter what.

 

I do agree with you on one point: I don't think you and I can get past this difference. :blink:

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

 

I think the level of degradation is debatable... It probably wouldn't degrade my game all that much, because I don't care all that much. But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean that it won't affect someone else.. As long as someone else is affected, is that not degradation?

 

I mentioned earlier two lines in a bank. I'm in line A, KBI is in line B. Someone enters the bank and cuts into KBI's line. This affects KBI, but it does not affect me.

 

1) KBI is affected, but can choose how he lets it affect him

2) The line cutter is not affecting my line at all, but it's still wrong to cut in line

3) I will probably say something to the line cutter out of principal, apparently this makes me a bad person according to some

If someone -- anyone -- is affected, then the line cutting is not benign.

 

If the line cutting is not benign, then your analogy is irrelevant.

Link to comment

Can't a sufficient number of occurrences of even 'no impact' lies (and cultural acceptance thereof) serve to promote an environment in which more of the 'high impact' lies find the space they need to exist? Wouldn't this mean that in the extreme, no lie is truly 'benign'?

I don't think so. This thread has certainly pointed out that some cache owners are willing to go to the ends of the earth to chase down fakers and delete their logs. As long as the bulk of cache owners are willing to delete bogus logs, we have no fear of the slippery slope.

 

If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

 

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

You are out of line.
Link to comment

 

Let me re-word the statement and kill this red herring:

 

Who is talking about numbers? Why is it that those people do not see phony logs as an issue are the ones who are always bringing up numbers? It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. It's a practical issue.

To the contrary, Brian... I do see phony logs as an issue, but ONLY in a very practical sense of the resulting inconvenience to others, and I still maintain that some significant portion of the actual "phony" log problem is the incentive produced by the public display of the numbers. Dump the public display, remove the incentive. Better for all except those who have any particular interest in the numbers (for whatever reason).
Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

See that?His ad hominem fallacy (lie) hurt me! That ginger ale really did burn! It just struck me the right (or wrong) way. Sorry. :o

Link to comment

Can't a sufficient number of occurrences of even 'no impact' lies (and cultural acceptance thereof) serve to promote an environment in which more of the 'high impact' lies find the space they need to exist? Wouldn't this mean that in the extreme, no lie is truly 'benign'?

I don't think so. This thread has certainly pointed out that some cache owners are willing to go to the ends of the earth to chase down fakers and delete their logs. As long as the bulk of cache owners are willing to delete bogus logs, we have no fear of the slippery slope.

 

If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

 

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

You are out of line.

He said it Sbell. He said lying is okay sometimes.. I'm assuming if he believes that, he will probably teach his kids that... Do you concur?

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

 

I think the level of degradation is debatable... It probably wouldn't degrade my game all that much, because I don't care all that much. But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean that it won't affect someone else.. As long as someone else is affected, is that not degradation?

 

I mentioned earlier two lines in a bank. I'm in line A, KBI is in line B. Someone enters the bank and cuts into KBI's line. This affects KBI, but it does not affect me.

 

1) KBI is affected, but can choose how he lets it affect him

2) The line cutter is not affecting my line at all, but it's still wrong to cut in line

3) I will probably say something to the line cutter out of principal, apparently this makes me a bad person according to some

If someone -- anyone -- is affected, then the line cutting is not benign.

 

If the line cutting is not benign, then your analogy is irrelevant.

 

It is benign to anyone in Line A, but it is not benign to those line B... You said it, if ANYONE is affected, it is not benign.. Plenty of people in this thread have shows how others are affected.. YOU may not be affected, but that doesn't mean its benign. Not letting it affect you is an admirable trait, and I respect that, but the face that you don't let it affect you does not make it benign.

 

Agree?

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :blink:

Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

 

I thought it was "Ironic" actually..

I thought it was a blatant violation of the forum guidelines.

Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

See that?His ad hominem fallacy (lie) hurt me! That ginger ale really did burn! It just struck me the right (or wrong) way. Sorry. :o

:o

Link to comment
If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

I know some will perceive this as an inappropriate post, but it caused ginger ale to squirt out of my nose! :blink:

It is an ad hominem fallacy, which is why I ignored it. Glad you got something out of it, though! :o

 

I thought it was "Ironic" actually..

I thought it was a blatant violation of the forum guidelines.

 

I wish you would get over yourself Sbell... Even KBI understands the relationship of my comment to the discussion. I think the fact that you dislike my opinions are clear, but let's stay with the discussion and not make it personal.

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :blink:

 

Not really.. If your wife is overweight and you lead her to believe that she is not, then down the road, that could lead to heart disease, diabetes and other problems. Lying may seem like a good thing in the short term, but in the long term, it can have negative effects.*

 

* Sbell: I am not implying that KBI's wife is overweight. Please do not report this post

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

 

I think the level of degradation is debatable... It probably wouldn't degrade my game all that much, because I don't care all that much. But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean that it won't affect someone else.. As long as someone else is affected, is that not degradation?

 

I mentioned earlier two lines in a bank. I'm in line A, KBI is in line B. Someone enters the bank and cuts into KBI's line. This affects KBI, but it does not affect me.

 

1) KBI is affected, but can choose how he lets it affect him

2) The line cutter is not affecting my line at all, but it's still wrong to cut in line

3) I will probably say something to the line cutter out of principal, apparently this makes me a bad person according to some

If someone -- anyone -- is affected, then the line cutting is not benign.

 

If the line cutting is not benign, then your analogy is irrelevant.

 

It is benign to anyone in Line A, but it is not benign to those line B... You said it, if ANYONE is affected, it is not benign.. Plenty of people in this thread have shows how others are affected..

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :o

Well if I tell her the dress DOESN'T make her look fat when it actually DOES make her look fat and one of her friends sees her in that same dress and tells her it isn't particularly flattering, you can bet I'LL be hurting later! :o

 

Edit: Changed emoticon from :blink: to :o for those who could not glean the tone of my post from the content.

Edit: Also removed the "party" reference for clarity.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.
Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.
If the mechanic skipped the inspection there is absolutely no way for him to know whether his lie is benign. He won't know until there is a headline in the newspaper and a registered letter in his mailbox. He must therefore assume that his lie is potentially harmful, and therefore he must err on the safe side by assuming that it IS harmful.

 

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone. I even gave you two examples recently, and you agreed with me.

There are, also examples given of cache logs that can cause harm.

 

You seem to hold your entire argument up on the fact that there are cache logs that don't do harm, so not all cache logs are bad. Along the same lines, you must remember, that not all cache logs are benign. The breakdown in the analogy happens when you completely dismiss malignant cache logs.

Sorry, but I've already repeated myself there far more than I should have. Go waste somebody elses' time.
Waste of time? A waste of time is to throw up your hands and walk away.

 

Let me put my statement another way:

 

You say

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone
I say just because there are examples of benign false cache logs doesn't mean that all false cache logs are benign. I know you agree with this statement. Your dismissal of the analogy just because there is another factor (benign false logs) is in error. It is like Joe Shmoe saying the following analogy isn't true:

 

1 is to 3 as 4 is to 12.

 

"Why isn't it true Joe?"

 

"Well, there's a whole other factor involved. A factor of 4!"

 

:blink:

Link to comment

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

In order for the 'lies' to degrade the game, they must affect more than just the 'liars' own morality. The premise of the thread is that they are somehow degrading the actual game. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

Let's take a closer look at my most recent example. If we assume that the prior online loggers were totally lying and never found the caches, how did that degrade the game? I was the next cacher along. If it those lies were to 'harm' anyone, it would have been me. However, I was not harmed and my perception of the game was not degraded. No future degregation can possibly take place since my DNFs serve to flag the caches as possibly being missing.

 

Even if I were to believe that my caching day was ruined because of these false finds, how would that degrade the game? I would still log my DNFs and future cachers would be warned that the caches might not be there.

 

The game would live on, undegraded.

 

I think the level of degradation is debatable... It probably wouldn't degrade my game all that much, because I don't care all that much. But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean that it won't affect someone else.. As long as someone else is affected, is that not degradation?

 

I mentioned earlier two lines in a bank. I'm in line A, KBI is in line B. Someone enters the bank and cuts into KBI's line. This affects KBI, but it does not affect me.

 

1) KBI is affected, but can choose how he lets it affect him

2) The line cutter is not affecting my line at all, but it's still wrong to cut in line

3) I will probably say something to the line cutter out of principal, apparently this makes me a bad person according to some

If someone -- anyone -- is affected, then the line cutting is not benign.

 

If the line cutting is not benign, then your analogy is irrelevant.

I agree, except that the person/people must actually be affected.

 

For instance, let's take another look at the bank example.

 

Customer A is the second person in line A. Customer B gets in line behind customer A and customer A tells her that Customer C went to the rest room and asked her to hold her place in line.

 

ReadyOrNot then gets in Line B. Customer C returns from the rest room and gets back in line in front of Customer A.

 

ReadyOrNot blows a gasket over the perceived cutting and forcibly removes Customer A from line, getting himself arrested in the process.

 

In this scenario, ReadyOrNot allowed his experience to be degraded. However, it was his misunderstanding of the situation that caused his angst, not the reality of the situation.

 

The reality of the situation is that ReadyOrNot would not have actually been affected by the situation even if Customer C actually cut into the other line. Similarly, no future cachers that considered looking for those caches that I DNFd would ever be actually affected if the previous finder was lying.

Link to comment

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

 

I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)

Link to comment
Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.
I don't know for sure if the logs do indicate that the caches are missing. All I know is that I didn't find some caches.
As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.
I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure. Second, I don't feel like being teh bad guy on this issue. Sending that email would almost certainly result in angst coming my way from the precious 'finders', the cache owner, or all of the above.

 

Life's too short to volunteer for that kind of drama over a silly game.

Yet you'd sit in here and rail about this...this drama isn't so bad?

Railing? How am I railing? My posts have been completely calm.

Not doing your part only adds to the problem. Possibly, since you DID notice (as you said in your comment) you COULD have said something to the OWNER of the cache (how would that get you caught up in the drama??). The owner then can do whatever they see fit.

I disagree. My stiring the pot over what may possibly be nothing at all would increase the drama and my own angst load. Taking no action minimzes both. The 'problem' isn't 'added to' because my DNF logs serve to warn future cachers that the caches may be missing.

As an ex-drug user (scripts due to some serious injuries), if you aren't doing something to help the addict, you are enabling that addict!

Again, I disagree. I needn't be responsible for every other person on the planet.

 

If I pass by an addict panhandling on my way home from work, am I duty bound to 'fix' them? I think not. Nor am I duty bound to butt into the cacher/cache owner relationship held by previous finders/hiders of the caches that I look for.

 

You are right, railing might have been a BIT strong. I think you get my point though!

 

How could writing a note to the owner (via email) cause you any more angst? You did your part and you're done with it. It's up to the owner now, but at least you gave the owner a heads-up!

 

My addict point is on target. If you give that panhandler money KNOWING (s)he is an addict (you'd have to know this was an addict, or have strong suspicion), you are enabling this addict. As you stated with your example, you had a suspicion of the fake logs, so you checked and further increased your suspicions.

Link to comment
I thought it was a blatant violation of the forum guidelines.
I wish you would get over yourself Sbell... Even KBI understands the relationship of my comment to the discussion. I think the fact that you dislike my opinions are clear, but let's stay with the discussion and not make it personal.
Do what I did. Put 'em on ignore, then you only have to read 'em when someone quotes 'em. :blink:
Link to comment

The reality of the situation is that ReadyOrNot would not have actually been affected by the situation even if Customer C actually cut into the other line. Similarly, no future cachers that considered looking for those caches that I DNFd would ever be actually affected if the previous finder was lying.

 

In that case, I would deserve to spend the night in the pokey. The motive of the person is very important, I agree. In your example, the person did not do anything wrong. In fact, it was ReadyOrNot in your example that perpotrated the "wrong" act. Did my punching the innocent person in the nose, thus getting arrested cause anyone in the bank any harm? Of course, even though it may not have affected them...

 

BTW - My example assumes the person cutting was doing so to get ahead of everyone else in line.

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :blink:

 

Not really.. If your wife is overweight and you lead her to believe that she is not, then down the road, that could lead to heart disease, diabetes and other problems. Lying may seem like a good thing in the short term, but in the long term, it can have negative effects.*

 

* Sbell: I am not implying that KBI's wife is overweight. Please do not report this post

If my wife were overweight, then you would be correct: such a lie might help her ignore a health problem, and would therefore be harmful.

 

Supposing that my wife is overweight changes your example, however.

 

All you said was:

 

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

My wife happens not to be overweight. Assuming, therefore, that I happen to think the dress makes her non-overweight body look fat anyway, and assuming that I believe telling her the truth can do no good while only causing harm, then we still have a valid example to prove my statement that some lies are good lies.

 

I’m sure you can re-write your valid example in a million different was so as to make it into a poor example, but that doesn’t change the fact that your first example was excellent, and therefore helped me to make my point.

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :o

Well if I tell her the dress DOESN'T make her look fat when it actually DOES make her look fat and one of her friends pulls her aside at the party and tells her the dress isn't particularly flattering, you can bet I'LL be hurting later! :blink:

Nobody said we were going to a party. Please stop changing the example.

Link to comment

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

 

I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)

My nephew once told me that he had his 1991 Acura Integra up to 150 mph. That was clearly a lie and I wasn't affected. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.
Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.
If the mechanic skipped the inspection there is absolutely no way for him to know whether his lie is benign. He won't know until there is a headline in the newspaper and a registered letter in his mailbox. He must therefore assume that his lie is potentially harmful, and therefore he must err on the safe side by assuming that it IS harmful.

 

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone. I even gave you two examples recently, and you agreed with me.

There are, also examples given of cache logs that can cause harm.

 

You seem to hold your entire argument up on the fact that there are cache logs that don't do harm, so not all cache logs are bad. Along the same lines, you must remember, that not all cache logs are benign. The breakdown in the analogy happens when you completely dismiss malignant cache logs.

Sorry, but I've already repeated myself there far more than I should have. Go waste somebody elses' time.
Waste of time? A waste of time is to throw up your hands and walk away.

 

Let me put my statement another way:

 

You say

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone
I say just because there are examples of benign false cache logs doesn't mean that all false cache logs are benign. I know you agree with this statement. Your dismissal of the analogy just because there is another factor (benign false logs) is in error. It is like Joe Shmoe saying the following analogy isn't true:

 

1 is to 3 as 4 is to 12.

 

"Why isn't it true Joe?"

 

"Well, there's a whole other factor involved. A factor of 4!"

 

:blink:

Sorry, you've lost me.

 

Don't you remember our syllogism? You seemed to understand it at the time. :o

Link to comment
Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.
I don't know for sure if the logs do indicate that the caches are missing. All I know is that I didn't find some caches.
As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.
I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure. Second, I don't feel like being the bad guy on this issue. Sending that email would almost certainly result in angst coming my way from the precious 'finders', the cache owner, or all of the above.

 

Life's too short to volunteer for that kind of drama over a silly game.

Yet you'd sit in here and rail about this...this drama isn't so bad?
Railing? How am I railing? My posts have been completely calm.
Not doing your part only adds to the problem. Possibly, since you DID notice (as you said in your comment) you COULD have said something to the OWNER of the cache (how would that get you caught up in the drama??). The owner then can do whatever they see fit.
I disagree. My stiring the pot over what may possibly be nothing at all would increase the drama and my own angst load. Taking no action minimzes both. The 'problem' isn't 'added to' because my DNF logs serve to warn future cachers that the caches may be missing.
As an ex-drug user (scripts due to some serious injuries), if you aren't doing something to help the addict, you are enabling that addict!
Again, I disagree. I needn't be responsible for every other person on the planet.

 

If I pass by an addict panhandling on my way home from work, am I duty bound to 'fix' them? I think not. Nor am I duty bound to butt into the cacher/cache owner relationship held by previous finders/hiders of the caches that I look for.

You are right, railing might have been a BIT strong. I think you get my point though!

 

How could writing a note to the owner (via email) cause you any more angst? You did your part and you're done with it. It's up to the owner now, but at least you gave the owner a heads-up!

You are ignoring two facts. First, I mentioned that the previous finders are friends of the cache owner. Second, you are forgetting that life outside the forums is community-based.
My addict point is on target. If you give that panhandler money KNOWING (s)he is an addict (you'd have to know this was an addict, or have strong suspicion), you are enabling this addict. As you stated with your example, you had a suspicion of the fake logs, so you checked and further increased your suspicions.
Your analogy is not quite on target. I gave nothing to the previous cachers and I'll give nothing to the addict. I have no responsibility to cure either one. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I’m sure you can re-write your valid example in a million different was so as to make it into a poor example, but that doesn’t change the fact that your first example was excellent, and therefore helped me to make my point.

 

Just last week my wife came home with an atrocious haircut. I'll admit, I told her it looked good. The problem was, her mother said (and I'm completely serious here) "Did your hair stylist have a seisure while cutting your hair" (Apparently mothers are more honest than husbands)...

 

Do you know who she was mad at? ME!!!! I should have told her that it looked bad. The ironic part is, if I had told her it looked bad, I would have also been in trouble. Such is marriage though. Perhaps the best thing to do is not lie, while at the same time, not tell the truth. Perhaps fake a heart attack?

 

Even when it seems like the lie is "good", it really isn't.. There's no such thing as a good lie.. Please provide your OWN example though.

Link to comment

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

 

I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)

Sorry, neither do I.

 

Maybe TTJ does. He knows where it is. He and I discussed and agreed on two examples earlier, but I don't feel like looking for it.

 

Maybe he or someone else will find it for you. Otherwise I guess you're out of luck. I am out of patience too.

Link to comment

I’m sure you can re-write your valid example in a million different was so as to make it into a poor example, but that doesn’t change the fact that your first example was excellent, and therefore helped me to make my point.

 

Just last week my wife came home with an atrocious haircut. I'll admit, I told her it looked good. The problem was, her mother said (and I'm completely serious here) "Did your hair stylist have a seisure while cutting your hair" (Apparently mothers are more honest than husbands)...

 

Do you know who she was mad at? ME!!!! I should have told her that it looked bad. The ironic part is, if I had told her it looked bad, I would have also been in trouble. Such is marriage though. Perhaps the best thing to do is not lie, while at the same time, not tell the truth. Perhaps fake a heart attack?

 

Even when it seems like the lie is "good", it really isn't.. There's no such thing as a good lie.. Please provide your OWN example though.

The same thing has happened to me. The difference is, I stuck to my original lie and dumped the angst back to her mom.

 

This is a good example of where the lie was more productive than the truth. The haircut had already happened. Her mom could not improve the situation by telling the truth, she could only make it worse.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

 

I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)

My nephew once told me that he had his 1991 Acura Integra up to 150 mph. That was clearly a lie and I wasn't affected.

 

I'm sure it affected how you viewed him though. What about the next time he tells you something. You'll probably remember that he lied to you about the Acura and maybe not believe him. It may affect your son when he wants to go for a drive him his cousin.

 

Lying is going to have an effect. The example you gave is clearly a small effect, but an effect none the less.

Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :o

Well if I tell her the dress DOESN'T make her look fat when it actually DOES make her look fat and one of her friends pulls her aside at the party and tells her the dress isn't particularly flattering, you can bet I'LL be hurting later! :blink:

Nobody said we were going to a party. Please stop changing the example.

My wife doesn't wear dresses for fun. Besides, MY wife has never asked that question when I was the ONLY person who was ever going to see her in an outfit. My wife ONLY asks how she looks in something if she is going out in public. Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment

Plenty of people in this thread have shown how others are affected in some cases. I have agreed with those people 100%.

 

I have also shown that nobody is affected in other cases. It is this latter group of cases that I am concerned with.

 

Your analogy supports the point I have already agreed with.

 

Your analogy does not apply at all to the point I have been making.

 

I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)

My nephew once told me that he had his 1991 Acura Integra up to 150 mph. That was clearly a lie and I wasn't affected.

 

I'm sure it affected how you viewed him though. What about the next time he tells you something. You'll probably remember that he lied to you about the Acura and maybe not believe him. It may affect your son when he wants to go for a drive him his cousin.

 

Lying is going to have an effect. The example you gave is clearly a small effect, but an effect none the less.

Nope, no affect.
Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

 

Great example! I couldn't agree more. Just remember, if you wait until you can taste the contamination, its probably too late. You're only recourse at that point would be to dump the entire pot out. If you catch the contamination early, you might be able to do something without losing the entire pot.

Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

That was a really good analogy.

 

Does anyone else remember when all the good analogies were about coffee beans.

 

Also, why does this thread keep reminding me of this quote?

 

As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I’m sure you can re-write your valid example in a million different was so as to make it into a poor example, but that doesn’t change the fact that your first example was excellent, and therefore helped me to make my point.

 

Just last week my wife came home with an atrocious haircut. I'll admit, I told her it looked good. The problem was, her mother said (and I'm completely serious here) "Did your hair stylist have a seisure while cutting your hair" (Apparently mothers are more honest than husbands)...

 

Do you know who she was mad at? ME!!!! I should have told her that it looked bad. The ironic part is, if I had told her it looked bad, I would have also been in trouble. Such is marriage though. Perhaps the best thing to do is not lie, while at the same time, not tell the truth. Perhaps fake a heart attack?

 

Even when it seems like the lie is "good", it really isn't.. There's no such thing as a good lie.. Please provide your OWN example though.

Your lie didn't cause the harm. It was her mom's expression of an honest opinion that caused the harm. Her mom therefore opted against the good lie in favor of the harmful truth.

 

Your latest modified example is not relevant anyway. Haircuts and dresses are two different things. Besides, just because I think a particular dress makes a particular woman look fat doesn't mean anyone else will agree with my opinion.

Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

 

Great example! I couldn't agree more. Just remember, if you wait until you can taste the contamination, its probably too late. You're only recourse at that point would be to dump the entire pot out. If you catch the contamination early, you might be able to do something without losing the entire pot.

That is only true if you believe that a certain amount of contamination is acceptable. In this thread, many have opined that no amount of contamination is acceptable.
Link to comment

I’m sure you can re-write your valid example in a million different was so as to make it into a poor example, but that doesn’t change the fact that your first example was excellent, and therefore helped me to make my point.

 

Just last week my wife came home with an atrocious haircut. I'll admit, I told her it looked good. The problem was, her mother said (and I'm completely serious here) "Did your hair stylist have a seisure while cutting your hair" (Apparently mothers are more honest than husbands)...

 

Do you know who she was mad at? ME!!!! I should have told her that it looked bad. The ironic part is, if I had told her it looked bad, I would have also been in trouble. Such is marriage though. Perhaps the best thing to do is not lie, while at the same time, not tell the truth. Perhaps fake a heart attack?

 

Even when it seems like the lie is "good", it really isn't.. There's no such thing as a good lie.. Please provide your OWN example though.

Your lie didn't cause the harm. It was her mom's expression of an honest opinion that caused the harm. Her mom therefore opted against the good lie in favor of the harmful truth.

 

Your latest modified example is not relevant anyway. Haircuts and dresses are two different things. Besides, just because I think a particular dress makes a particular woman look fat doesn't mean anyone else will agree with my opinion.

 

We have a different worldview. At this point, I could argue either side depending on my view. There's no resolving this point.

Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

 

Great example! I couldn't agree more. Just remember, if you wait until you can taste the contamination, its probably too late. You're only recourse at that point would be to dump the entire pot out. If you catch the contamination early, you might be able to do something without losing the entire pot.

That is only true if you believe that a certain amount of contamination is acceptable. In this thread, many have opined that no amount of contamination is acceptable.

 

I think contamination up to a point is unnnoticable.. Un-noticable and un-acceptable are different, no?

Link to comment

My parents taught me that there are a few specific situations where a lie can actually be a good thing.

Like when your wife says, "Do I look fat in this dress?"

That is an excellent example, yes.

 

That is a case where the lie hurts nobody, but the truth might potentially hurt her feelings, affect her (and my) near-term chances at certain forms of, um, happiness, and therefore degrade our entire evening.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. :o

Well if I tell her the dress DOESN'T make her look fat when it actually DOES make her look fat and one of her friends pulls her aside at the party and tells her the dress isn't particularly flattering, you can bet I'LL be hurting later! :o

Nobody said we were going to a party. Please stop changing the example.

My wife doesn't wear dresses for fun. Besides, MY wife has never asked that question when I was the ONLY person who was ever going to see her in an outfit. My wife ONLY asks how she looks in something if she is going out in public.

 

Your mileage may vary.

The example may vary too, apparently. :blink:

 

RON provided an example. I responded to that example. Going back and changing the example to suit some other point does nothing to change the fact that his example helped make my primary point.

Link to comment

If a person puts a teaspoon of tea (brewed) in a gallon of coffee (also in it's liquid brewed state), would the coffee be less than pure?

 

Well, yes, of course.

Would anyone notice? No, not likely

Would anyone be bothered by it? Yes, a few, if they knew about it.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy my cup of [tainted] coffee while watching the sunrise instead of sitting behind the computer complaining about how tainted coffee is ruining the coffee industry and how nobody is able to enjoy good cup of coffee while watching the sunset.

 

When add enough tea to my coffee such that it makes the taste difference noticeable, then I will complain.

 

Have a great day!

 

Great example! I couldn't agree more. Just remember, if you wait until you can taste the contamination, its probably too late. You're only recourse at that point would be to dump the entire pot out. If you catch the contamination early, you might be able to do something without losing the entire pot.

That is only true if you believe that a certain amount of contamination is acceptable. In this thread, many have opined that no amount of contamination is acceptable.

 

I think contamination up to a point is unnnoticable.. Un-noticable and un-acceptable are different, no?

True, but doesn't that make the point for those that argue that the low level of bogus logs do nothing to degrade the game and that they should be handled on a case-by-case basis locally, by the cache owners?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...