Jump to content

Loggin your own caches as "Found" in your stats?


SARAH !

Recommended Posts

Okay, I have wondered this for a while and seen people doing this to their local caches. If you own or co-own a cache can you and should you log a found it log. Does it even count as a smiley? I've seen a bunch of people do it, and I kind of think that's it's like just so their numbers go up. Do some of the more experienced geocachers do this?

 

Some do it. I'd say that most don't. It doesn't hurt anybody, but that doesn't mean it ain't cheesy.

Link to comment

Seems kind of silly to me. If you hid the cache you'd better know where to find it. Even if you hadn't been there in a while I'd hope things would start getting familiar as you got close.

I'm not so sure this is always the case. I could easily see that a cacher could forget where he hid the cache. I often forget where I left my keys. So that cacher would have the same information as any other cacher has - the coordinates and any hints/spoilers on the cache page. You would think that once the cacher got to the site things would look familiar and he'd remember where the cache was hidden. But you be suprised how much things can change. I've done maintenance on my caches and was sure I left the cache behind a rock. That rock isn't there now. But there's a different rock and sure enough the cache is behind it. Or maybe it's behind a tree. Oh yeah, I forgot I was going to hide it behind a rock but at the last minute saw a better spot behind the tree. Very often, caches migrate around in the area as finders don't replace the cache exactly as found. So even if I remember where I hide it, the cache may not be there. Sometimes, if the cache has been out a long time I'll have forgotten the containter or camouflage I used, or a previous finder has repaired or replaced the container/camouflage so I don't even know what I'm looking for.

 

While I wouldn't claim a find on a cache I hid, I can certainly understand those that do if they really had to search for their cache on a maintenance visit. I suppose there are also the literalists who do a maintenance visit and look in the place where they hid the cache and find the cache right where they left it. They did find a cache.

Link to comment

I think it is more than acceptable to log a find a a co-founder. There is another related situation: you have adopted a cache that you have not found yet. Here I also think a find log is OK. As long as you have an entry in the logbook you should be able to log something. Just explain in your online log what you were up to ("I am a co-founder..."/ "I adopted this cache") then as far as I am concerned nobody has any reason to fuss. Explaining what what you have done makes it clear to the world that you have no hidden agenda or intentions to deceive.

 

I cannot imagine that folks do it for the numbers - surely these types "potentially grey area finds" are so small in number that the impact on the smiley count would be insignificant. Folks do it because they are comfortable with it, not because they are trying to boost numbers.

 

If I have visited a cache site as a co-hider or I just accompanied the owner while hiding the cache the experience of the visit is far more important than the smiley, and there would not be any point in going to visit the site at a later stage to make the log more credible, so I would log it as a find.

Edited by the pooks
Link to comment
As far as the adoption thing, I don't think I've ever seen even the most hardcore Puritan find anything wrong with that.

 

I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name.

 

Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

Link to comment

So what's the general consensus on logging your own caches as finds in your stats? Is that considered padding or is it acceptable?

Most people don't but there is nothing to say you can't. Just don't be surprised when people point at you and whisper about you at events. :laughing:

Heh, you should see what happens when you post a DNF on one of your own caches. :anitongue:

Link to comment

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Absurd 99% of the time. I have one cache that I adopted two years after I found it-that would be the 1% acceptable instance.

 

I own several moving caches, when they've moved around several times and been placed again by someone else I might go find it and move it again, in that case I log it found.

 

I've adopted many caches I've already found.

 

Those are two good reasons to have "Found it's" on caches you own.

Link to comment
As far as the adoption thing, I don't think I've ever seen even the most hardcore Puritan find anything wrong with that.

 

I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name.

 

Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.

Actually, were I you, in this case I would probably have logged them as a find, and not seen anything wrong with it. You didn't place them, didn't know where they were, so even though they were "in your name", I see nothing wrong with claiming them as a find.
Link to comment

You should not be allowed to log your own cache, just for the pure reason you know where it is. Seems like padding to me.

Hmmm. I guess I should delete at least half my finds, since once I got to ground zero I knew exactly where the cache was.
Actually, this is exactly why I don't do LPCs anymore. There is nothing for me to "find." At least with other easy types you have to look around a "little" bit. However, I have no problem with others logging them. However, hiding something for yourself to find seems a little schitzo to me... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.

FIXED.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
As far as the adoption thing, I don't think I've ever seen even the most hardcore Puritan find anything wrong with that.

 

I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name.

 

Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

 

Oh for pete's sake, stop this nonsense. You're being disingenuous for the sake of being disingenuous, and the OP is looking for serious answers. Everyone knows that SBell111 is politically correct, and tolerant of anything anyone wants to do anytime. no one, in any statistically significant numbers, logs caches they hid as found. Why don't you or any of the other people with "play any way you want" responses do this yourselves? This is because I've already bolded the answer for you above. :anitongue:

Link to comment

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.

FIXED.

Maybe the New Yorker should put explanations of their covers in red

Link to comment

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.

FIXED.

Maybe the New Yorker should put explanations of their covers in red

 

Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.

Link to comment
I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name. Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.
Find 'em and date the find pre-your adoption, the find will be lost way deep in the archives (unless there's not many finds). You can also type whatever you want under the "Who placed the cache?" field so just enter "tansnairb" or "oevnafang" or something on your adopted caches and see if anyone ever notices..... :anitongue:
Link to comment

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.

The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.

FIXED.

Maybe the New Yorker should put explanations of their covers in red

 

Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.

:anitongue:

 

Sticks and stones..... :laughing:

Link to comment

Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.

I don't think anyone is saying that. You said the even the hardest core puritan would say it was OK to log a cache you adopted. briansnat says he wouldn't do it if he adopted the cache before he had found it. sbell111 and my banter was just about the hardest core puritans who would would tell the 99.9% of the puritans who think is is OK to log a find on a cache you adopted or to find your own moving cache after someone else had moved it how they should play the game. 99.9% of cachers do understand the reasons why a person may want log their own caches. They may agree with some of the reasons and disagree with others, but they don't demand that Geocaching.com change the current system which allows you to log your own cache.

Link to comment

So what's the general consensus on logging your own caches as finds in your stats? Is that considered padding or is it acceptable?

Most people don't but there is nothing to say you can't. Just don't be surprised when people point at you and whisper about you at events. :laughing:

Heh, you should see what happens when you post a DNF on one of your own caches. :anitongue:

 

LOL! Me, too. Took me three trips to finally find that bugger, so I posted a Found It, as well. It was intended as humor at the time, but if I deleted it now, it would move all my milestones, so I just leave it and chuckle about it once in a while.

Link to comment

Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.

I don't think anyone is saying that. You said the even the hardest core puritan would say it was OK to log a cache you adopted. briansnat says he wouldn't do it if he adopted the cache before he had found it. sbell111 and my banter was just about the hardest core puritans who would would tell the 99.9% of the puritans who think is is OK to log a find on a cache you adopted or to find your own moving cache after someone else had moved it how they should play the game. 99.9% of cachers do understand the reasons why a person may want log their own caches. They may agree with some of the reasons and disagree with others, but they don't demand that Geocaching.com change the current system which allows you to log your own cache.

He didn't say anything about adopted caches which are hidden by someone else. He said caches that geocachers who don't log caches they hid meaning the same person finds the cache that hid it. :anitongue:
Link to comment

Anyone who wants to pad thier numbers, post a new PAG online but don't hide a container, when it gets published log 10,000 finds to it and then archive it. Feel better now? :anitongue: We would too as it would totally invalidate every find number everyone ever had and we can get back to having fun hiding and finding caches.....

Link to comment
Anyone who wants to pad thier numbers, post a new PAG online but don't hide a container, when it gets published log 10,000 finds to it and then archive it. Feel better now? :laughing: We would too as it would totally invalidate every find number everyone ever had and we can get back to having fun hiding and finding caches.....
:anitongue:
Link to comment

I've only done it once... Guilty with an explaination.

My "Menehune Water Source" cache had been muggled and some cachers found it.

Link to my log... Menehune Water Source

They hid it near where they found it and posted the coords.

I went and it truly was over 200' from original hide so I logged a "FIND" on my own cache.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't and really couldn't care less what others do, since it doesn't affect me.

 

Since the link doesn't want to work.

"May 4, 2007 by Menehune Man

Now this is a first!!!

I actually get to log a find on one of my own caches. HaHaHa!

It really was over two hundred feet away from the original hiding place. I found the cache using the coords "Triple/Trouble" provided and then returned the container to the proper hiding spot. Leaving an army of Menehune Men to guard it."

Edited by Menehune Man
Link to comment

If I hid alone I will not log it as a Find. I reserve the right to log a DNF on it if I return for maintenance and it is missing, however.

 

If I hid the cache with someone else and I am a co-owner I will not log it as a Find. (This is basically the same as the above "rule" since the only difference is the cache doesn't show under my profile, but who cares?)

 

If I just happened to be present when the cache was hidden I will log it as a Find on a subsequent visit -- if I actually can locate it, that is! I find the process of watching someone else hide a cache and then claiming a Find on it to be cheesy.

Link to comment

 

I'll answer it this way...How can you "find" your own cache when you already know where it is?

 

if i have to look for my own cache, i have found it. it's possible.

 

i don't do this or advocate it, but it's possible.

 

if someone moves my cache and then i have to go find it, that's one possibility.

 

the other is that i have a some brain damage and am impaired in both retaining old memory and in forming new memory. in some cases i could essentially find the same caches over and over, including my own.

Link to comment
the other is that i have a some brain damage and am impaired in both retaining old memory and in forming new memory. in some cases i could essentially find the same caches over and over, including my own.
Something much more common than brain damaged cachers are cachers that have had several beers at event and then head out on foot to find some caches. Have you tried this? It's actually very fun and much more challenging (especially at night). I might even have a hard time finding my own caches in that state. :anitongue: Regardless, I think we all could agree that it's still far more fun to find other people's caches. It seems silly to even be discussing this. :laughing:
Link to comment
As far as the adoption thing, I don't think I've ever seen even the most hardcore Puritan find anything wrong with that.
I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name.

 

Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.
The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.
FIXED.
Maybe the New Yorker should put explanations of their covers in red
Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.
I don't think anyone is saying that. You said the even the hardest core puritan would say it was OK to log a cache you adopted. briansnat says he wouldn't do it if he adopted the cache before he had found it. sbell111 and my banter was just about the hardest core puritans who would would tell the 99.9% of the puritans who think is is OK to log a find on a cache you adopted or to find your own moving cache after someone else had moved it how they should play the game. 99.9% of cachers do understand the reasons why a person may want log their own caches. They may agree with some of the reasons and disagree with others, but they don't demand that Geocaching.com change the current system which allows you to log your own cache.
He didn't say anything about adopted caches which are hidden by someone else. He said caches that geocachers who don't log caches they hid meaning the same person finds the cache that hid it. :laughing:
I think that it's possible that you missed the point of Mr T's posts.

 

I've relinked all the associated posts in this reply. I suspect that it will make sense when you read them through.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Not caring about it doesn't solve any problems but then by not caring you don't actually have a problem to solve.

A hole is, like, what I, contradictions like this, in my head, like, need. :laughing:

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

It’s up to the cache owner. As long as the cache owner is cool with it, and it’s not hurting anybody, why should I care?

 

I think the best solution to most of these potential-yet-meaningless squabbles would be if everyone in our hobby could learn to follow the two most important principles of Personal Responsibility:

 

(1) Mind your own business.

 

(2) Mind it well.

 

In other words: There is no 'score,' therefore you don’t gain a higher 'score' by increasing your own find count – and even if having a higher find count equals more happiness, you sure as heck can’t increase your find count by worrying about what other people include in their find count.

 

Or in other, even better, words:

 

Do what ever you feel is right.

'Nuff said.

Link to comment
As far as the adoption thing, I don't think I've ever seen even the most hardcore Puritan find anything wrong with that.
I adopted a few caches that I hadn't found yet. I thought about whether or not I would log finds on them after my first maint visit, as it would have been my first time there. I eventually decided against it because I just didn't feel right about logging a find on a cache that was in my name.

 

Now if I had previously found the caches before I adopted them, I'd have no qualms about leaving my found it logs. They were legit finds at the time. No need to change history.

The hardest-core puritans may have a problem with it. Of course, they will have a problem with anything that's not exactly how they choose to play the game.
The hardest-core puritans would like Geocaching.com to change the code to prevent certain activities that are not exactly how to choose to play the game. For example - allow only one found it log per cache and not allow a person to log a find on their own cache. If the code to prevent these activities prevented certain cases where a puritan may feel a log is allowable it would be a small price to pay to stop all the cheating and numbers padding that is going on, in the puritan's opinion. Others, of course would ask the puritans to cease trying to force all players to play in a manner that the puritans insist on and wonder why the puritans feel that they must control everyone else's behavior.
FIXED.
Maybe the New Yorker should put explanations of their covers in red
Allright. You two guys win. The 99.9% of geocachers who don't log caches they hid as found are intolerant Puritans. I'm done now.
I don't think anyone is saying that. You said the even the hardest core puritan would say it was OK to log a cache you adopted. briansnat says he wouldn't do it if he adopted the cache before he had found it. sbell111 and my banter was just about the hardest core puritans who would would tell the 99.9% of the puritans who think is is OK to log a find on a cache you adopted or to find your own moving cache after someone else had moved it how they should play the game. 99.9% of cachers do understand the reasons why a person may want log their own caches. They may agree with some of the reasons and disagree with others, but they don't demand that Geocaching.com change the current system which allows you to log your own cache.
He didn't say anything about adopted caches which are hidden by someone else. He said caches that geocachers who don't log caches they hid meaning the same person finds the cache that hid it. :laughing:
I think that it's possible that you missed the point of Mr T's posts.

 

I've relinked all the associated posts in this reply. I suspect that it will make sense when you read them through.

Sorry but they don't make sense because the only thing these people you constantly label as "puritans" are saying is that they disagree with logging a cache that they personally hid. I don't think anyone pooed-pooed logging adopted caches. I think you guys read way too much into things sometimes.... :laughing:
Link to comment

[... snipped long quote ...]

Sorry but they don't make sense because the only thing these people you constantly label as "puritans" are saying is that they disagree with logging a cache that they personally hid. I don't think anyone pooed-pooed logging adopted caches. I think you guys read way too much into things sometimes.... :laughing:

I'll try to explain (though I'm not sure it will work)

 

Apparently there are now people who self-identify as puritans. People who say there are some times when you should not log your own cache have taken to calling themselves puritans. sbell111 and I are using puritans to to refer to a much smaller group. These are the people who want to stop other people from logging finds on their own caches.

 

self-identified puritan 1: even the most hardcore puritan would not find anything wrong with logging a find on a cache they adopted:

self-identified puritan 2: I would not log a find on cache that I found after I adopted it.

sbell111: so a hardcore puritan would have a problem with logging adopted caches - just like they have a problem with anyone who doesn't play the game exactly the way they think it should be played.

tozainamboku: the real hardcore puritans want to prevent people from doing certain things. They want to change the website to prevent logging your own cache and if that meant you couldn't log a cache once you've adopted it, it would be a small price to pay for stopping the real cheaters.

sbell111: added explaination in red

tozainamboku: to sbell111 Do I need to put the explanation in red - don't you recognize satire.

self-identified puritan 1: OK you guys win - people who don't log their own caches are a bunch of intolerant puritans.

tozainamboku: Nobody says that not logging your own caches makes you an intolerant puritan. The real puritans are those who tell others not to log their own caches. And the hardcore puritans are the ones asking Groundspeak to change the code to prevent logging your own caches - even for cases where most of the self-identified puritans say it would be OK.

self-identified puritan 3: self-identified puritan 1 didn't say that puritans tell others not to log adopted caches, he says not to log caches they have hidden.

sbell111: here's the whole conversation. Read it all the way through and see if it makes sense.

self-identified puritan 3: Why are you calling people who say not to log caches you hid "puritans"

 

I will state here for the record - TheWhiteUrkel, briansnat, and TrailGators are not puritans. They have expressed an opinion against logging caches that you have hidden. briansnat may be a little more hardcore in saying he would be uncomfortable in logging a cache if he adopted the cache before he found it. I, myself, do not log caches I have hidden. This includes caches where I was part of a group and we used a group name on the hide or where the placed by includes my name a co-hider. I will log a find on cache where I was with the hider as a beta tester only if the placed by doesn't contain my name or a group name. I generally don't care if someone else wishes to log their own cache (although I may take note of it and point at that person and whisper about them at events :laughing: )

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I will state here for the record - TheWhiteUrkel, briansnat, and TrailGators are not puritans. They have expressed an opinion against logging caches that you have hidden. briansnat may be a little more hardcore in saying he would be uncomfortable in logging a cache if he adopted the cache before he found it. I, myself, do not log caches I have hidden. This includes caches where I was part of a group and we used a group name on the hide or where the placed by includes my name a co-hider. I will log a find on cache where I was with the hider as a beta tester only if the placed by doesn't contain my name or a group name. I generally don't care if someone else wishes to log their own cache (although I may take note of it and point at that person and whisper about them at events :D )
Thanks for pointing out that I'm not a puritan. Most of my views are centric. However, it just seems like these threads sometimes get steered townards one extreme or the other because of what a tiny minority of people may have mentioned. So that makes it appear that there are two sides fighting when the reality is that we all basically agree.
Link to comment
You might tick off a few cachers if you try and claim FTF on your own cache...

Only the ones who aren't smart enough to simply disagree with you, and to dismiss your claim as nonsense.

That sounds like a personal attack to me.... Who exactly are you calling stupid KBI?

I didn’t call anybody "stupid." Please read my posts before you quote them. I said "not smart enough."

 

As far as exactly who I was describing as being not smart enough, it was exactly who I said it was: Every single person who has complained here that he has become ticked off upon discovering that the owner of a brand new cache turned around and claimed a FTF on his own cache. Nobody, in other words.

 

If you think I owe anyone an apology, then please post a list of all such victims and I will issue a public and very sincere request for forgiveness.

Link to comment
You might tick off a few cachers if you try and claim FTF on your own cache...

Only the ones who aren't smart enough to simply disagree with you, and to dismiss your claim as nonsense.

That sounds like a personal attack to me.... Who exactly are you calling stupid KBI?

I didn’t call anybody "stupid." Please read my posts before you quote them. I said "not smart enough."

 

As far as exactly who I was describing as being not smart enough, it was exactly who I said it was: Every single person who has complained here that he has become ticked off upon discovering that the owner of a brand new cache turned around and claimed a FTF on his own cache. Nobody, in other words.

 

If you think I owe anyone an apology, then please post a list of all such victims and I will issue a public and very sincere request for forgiveness.

 

We'll let the mods consider the difference between calling someone "Not smart enough" and calling someone "Stupid"...

Link to comment

If you think I owe anyone an apology, then please post a list of all such victims and I will issue a public and very sincere request for forgiveness.

 

Ok.. Any cacher who gets ticked off when other cachers post false FTF's... I am included in that list and so am apparently "Not smart enough" according to your post. I will accept your sincere public apology. I'd prefer a direct apology.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

If you think I owe anyone an apology, then please post a list of all such victims and I will issue a public and very sincere request for forgiveness.

Ok.. Any cacher who gets ticked off when other cachers post false FTF's... I am included in that list and so am apparently "Not smart enough" according to your post. I will accept your sincere public apology. I'd prefer a direct apology.

 

Thanks!

Now you’re trying to change the details.

 

Hate to disappoint you, but I will not apologize to you for something I did not do.

 

My original post – the one you first quoted – referred to cachers who become upset over cache owners claiming FTF on their own caches. As far as I know nobody has done this yet – and I doubt it will ever happen. I therefore insulted nobody.

 

What you are now talking about is people who become upset over ANY bogus FTF claim. That is an entirely different subset of cachers. If you want to debate whether you are reasonable to be admittedly troubled by general bogus claims, then we can discuss that – but that discussion would have nothing to do with the post of mine which you claimed to be a personal attack.

 

I can’t imagine why any cache owner would ever think it reasonable to claim First Finder status on his own cache. I also can’t imagine why anyone would lack the common sense necessary to simply dismiss such silly behavior on the part of a cache owner – if such a claim ever happens. I am including you in that assumption, Ready; in other words, I am giving your intelligence level the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you would be smart (and mature) enough to blow it off instead of letting it bother you.

 

Why are you being defensive? Am I wrong in making that assumption?

Link to comment
We'll let the mods consider the difference between calling someone "Not smart enough" and calling someone "Stupid"...

We'll also let them decide whether the act of insulting a hypothetical, non-existent group of people qualifies as a personal attack.

Link to comment
We'll let the mods consider the difference between calling someone "Not smart enough" and calling someone "Stupid"...

We'll also let them decide whether the act of insulting a hypothetical, non-existent group of people qualifies as a personal attack.

If you weren't talking about anyone in this thread then what was the point of posting it? Was your comment just random? Maybe you should consider the possible effects of what you write before you hit the "Add Reply" button. :D
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...