Pointless Micro Caches

[Deceangi]

Given your admission that you have archived 30 of your caches and the fact that you "joined" in May this year I can only conclude that you are writing your abuse under the guise of a sock puppet.

 

Using such an alias to make such postings is a blatant breach of forum guidelines. Why do you not express your opinions under your own ID?

 

1. My oldself does not exist anymore.

2. This is my ID. I am a premium member, how does that constitute a "sock puppet".

 

Your response borderlines on abuse I'm afraid. That's fine, at least someone is prepared to say what they think.

 

Sorry but as the person responsible for Moderating this forum, your post flagged up to me as a classic sock. The fact you admitted to Archiving caches, when this account has not placed any and has a small No of finds fits the pattern for a sock completely. It would help if you admitted your old ID, especially as Groundspeak will change user names provided the request meets certain criteria. Something in this case which is now not possible as you registered the user name you wished to change to.

 

Why hide your old ID having placed at least 30 cache?

[+Team Sieni]

I will attempt to answer the unanwerable question. To make the answer even more impressive, I will do it as someone who doesn't like the sort of caches that the OP alludes to.

 

Some people place caches that they acknowledge themselves are not very interesting for two reasons:

 

Well, if they have reasons, they aren't pointless, and as such are off topic for this thread. This is just about pointless micros.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+the_dog]

If anyone construes any of my postings as abuse please feel free to report me.

 

Getting bored with this "discussion" now, going elsewhere.

 

"It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do."

 

I think the only thing we were in danger of doing was "violently agreeing" on pointless micros. No?

 

Happy caching folks (big ones obviously), and apologies again if I dragged down the general decorum of the forum.

 

See, I'm a big guy, but I want to have a healthy debate that sometimes includes a bit of good natured sarcasm that to some can sound like a vitriolic outburst.

 

Regards,

 

The_Dog. (needs a walk)

[+CANTOR CLAN]

I have been keeping my eye on this debate for a while but resisted the temptation to join in

We have placed over 70 caches some micros,a nano and some larger caches.

A couple of micros we put out were so popular we replaced them with bigger containers,which then got muggled so we reverted back to micros as easier to conceal

My point being that there may well be plenty of space but in popular areas such as Dartmoor caches can easily go missing.

We had a lovely large ammo box at a very nice spot stolen,these don`t come cheap,but unfortunately has now been replaced with something smaller

If you don`t like it don`t look for it simple

Michelle

[+Lost in Space]

It's obvious we need a grammarian, (look it up in the dictionary, the 50% of those who post here), to define "pointless".

 

LiS

[+itsahabit]

Surely a cache should be judged purely on quality and not size?

 

I have found some great micro and nanos. I have also found a few that were disappointing. The same applies equally to traditional caches.

 

I really enjoy a cleverly placed, cunningly disguised cache regardless of its type. Many of the best I have come across have been micros that once found have left me thinking "you cunning devil!"

 

I'm currently trying to add the debate by placing a few of those evil little things myself, the first has gone down quite well so I guess I'll have to continue to annoy some of you while hopefully delighting others!