fraude FTF by FTF Jaeger

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

 

There's no debate. You said what you said. I provided direct examples of your text, in context, without any editing. Everyone was able to read the items posted. Would you like me to post the links again? Or have you already gone back and edited the posts?

 

Here's the link to the post on page 2

 

*edit to add link to post*

Edited September 5, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[Mushtang]

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

There's no debate. You said what you said. I provided direct examples of your text, in context, without any editing. Everyone was able to read the items posted. Would you like me to post the links again? Or have you already gone back and edited the posts?

 

Here's the link to the post on page 2

 

*edit to add link to post*

I said good day sir!

[+tozainamboku]

Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

 

To answer questions like this, you can often apply a simple test: What if everybody (or at least a large majority) would write bogus logs? Would geocaching still be fun, do logs bear any meaning then? Imagine you get over 90% percent bogus logs for your caches - a nice mixture of Found, DNF, NM, SBA.

 

Now try the opposite: If everybody would write true logs, would that harm anyone or spoil the fun of geocaching?

 

So, a few bogus logs are surely no big deal. Still they should be deleted and one should speak out against them because they fail the simple test shown above.

 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

You can apply that test if you believe in Kantian philosophy. By that test if during the third Reich, the SS came to look for the Jews you were hiding in your basement you shouldn't lie to them. Fortunately not every German adhered to Kant's categorical imperative at that time. Many lied and many resisted the Nazis in other ways that Kant would have found unethical. I believe that there are some times when lying is the right thing to do.

 

Of course there is no moral justification for lying about finds on Geocaching.com. The people who do so may be acting unethically whether you follow Kant or someone else's basis for ethics. Or some may feel that an occasional lie meant as a joke is not an ethical lapse. Yes, if everyone posted bogus logs the ability to use the logs to enhance your Geocaching experience would go away and we would be harmed in that respect. Right now however a few bogus logs shouldn't really effect anyone.

 

If you want to use Kant, you really should apply it to the question of whether or not the cache owner must delete bogus logs. What if every cache owner allowed bogus logs to remain? Would that have a impact on geocaching? Probably not much since there are so few bogus logs anyhow. Bogus loggers usually stop because the realize that it isn't as much fun to sit and write logs for caches you didn't find as it is to go out and find caches. But I concede that knowing that cache owners can delete bogus logs may stop some people from writing them in the first place. Now what if every cache owner deleted every bogus log? Here one could say that it may improve the usefulness of the logs for others. Perhaps the moral indignation should be for the cache owners who don't do their duty and delete bogus logs. Let's see some SBA logs on these caches where the owners are not maintaining their caches according to guidelines

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

There's no debate. You said what you said. I provided direct examples of your text, in context, without any editing. Everyone was able to read the items posted. Would you like me to post the links again? Or have you already gone back and edited the posts?

 

Here's the link to the post on page 2

 

*edit to add link to post*

I said good day sir!

 

I hope everyone is witnessing this and will remember this. (I for one will always keep these links handy for when you or your brother decide to derail and hijack a thread).... Good day to you! Sir!

Edited September 5, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+sbell111]

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

There's no debate. You said what you said. I provided direct examples of your text, in context, without any editing. Everyone was able to read the items posted. Would you like me to post the links again? Or have you already gone back and edited the posts?

 

Here's the link to the post on page 2

 

*edit to add link to post*

I said good day sir!

 

I hope everyone is witnessing this and will remember this.

It has been amusing. I'll try to remember it so I can laugh at a later date. Is that what you meant?

 

BTW, what is your point in continuing this same argument over and over again?

Edited September 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+KBI]

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

There's no debate. You said what you said. I provided direct examples of your text, in context, without any editing. Everyone was able to read the items posted. Would you like me to post the links again? Or have you already gone back and edited the posts?

 

Here's the link to the post on page 2

 

*edit to add link to post*

I’ve got a question for you: What does it matter?

 

If someone says his viewpoint is A, yet you would rather believe his position is B – why must you argue against something he is NOT saying instead of what he actually IS saying? What sense does that make?

 

Either (1) he has always said A, or (2) he did in fact say B in the past, but has modified his viewpoint and now believes A. You and I both have read his posts; I interpret his posts as version (1); you clearly prefer version (2).

 

Let's be logical: Either way ... even if, just for the sake of argument, he has modified his viewpoint (which I do not believe has happened, but you apparently do) ... what is the point of trying to tell him now that he "still" believes B when he clearly believes A instead? Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of, with that kind of pointlessness?

 

I personally suspect you are not at all disappointed that Mushtang once again gave up on you and departed. I suspect you intentionally burned out Mushtang’s patience. I suspect you are obfuscating; that you are trying to backpedal away from your original claim in this thread – the one where you suggested that posting a false log on a cache page is the ethical equivalent of pooping into a cache container.

 

It's right there in your post "for all to read," as you like to say.

 

I was sorry to see you and Mushtang drag each other away from that claim because I was very interested in hearing your supporting arguments. I’m still waiting for you to convince the rest of us that posting a bogus log to a cache page is not only inherently harmful, but is in fact as destructive as leaving a human poopie in a cache.

Edited September 5, 2008 by KBI

[+ReadyOrNot]

Either (1) he has always said A, or (2) he did in fact say B in the past, but has modified his viewpoint and now believes A. You and I both have read his posts; I interpret his posts as version (1); you clearly prefer version (2).

 

I see a contradiction. If you do not, you are welcome to that opinion. If I say, "My favorite color is Purple" and then later say, "My favorite color is Blue", there is a clear contradiction. If someone asks me why there is a contradiction, I don't say, "There is no contradiction!!! I never said I liked Purple!!"... I would say, "I use to like Purple, but now I like Blue"...

 

By the way, my favorite color is Purple.

[Mushtang]

I’ve got a question for you: What does it matter?

 

If someone says his viewpoint is A, yet you would rather believe his position is B – why must you argue against something he is NOT saying instead of what he actually IS saying? What sense does that make?

I stopped trying to make sense with the sock a long time ago. It would be different if I hadn't already explained myself. In fact, it was different the first time it was mentioned, and I was happy to point out what the incorrect assumption was. But after hearing the same noise over and over, I just can't figure out what the point is, so I stopped trying.

 

As far as the poo in the cache thing, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a satisfactory answer on that one.

[+traildad]

 

With that I'd like to post my response to traildad

I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

 

It is wrong to false log - yes in the sense of the intent of the online log is to share your geocaching experience, thank the hider for the cache, and keep track of you personal caching history. False logs are not meeting the intent of the online logs.

Sounds good.

 

It can harm others - only has been shown in a theoretical sense. Yes people do use what others have written in the logs to decide whether to look for a cache or to find hints as to where to look. Some naive person believing that all the logs are 100% truth might make decision based on a false log. In reality, the logs are always treated as somewhat suspect - even though the overwhelming majority are true - and cachers use their own common sense in deciding when to look for caches or where they should look.

I guess I am one of the naive people. I have never looked at logs as suspect in that way. I don't think I am alone in that. I might assume that a conclusion someone reached in a log could be in error, ie: I couldn't find it so it must be missing, but never just a lie.

 

To some degree it is bad for Geocaching - I don't see this. One thing I like about Geoaching is that the logging is based on a honor system. While caches have physical logs that cache owners may check, the guidelines are written is such a way that cache owners can decide what is legitimate and how much policing they are going to do. If the guideline were changed to require the owner confirm each find you'd have a lot fewer caches hidden and a lot fewer people bothering to log their finds online. There is no official winner so the the find count doesn't matter. Individuals may wish to strive to find more caches or be impressed by someone with a high count but that is not what Geocaching is really about. It's about having fun looking for caches and there isn't a number to keep track of how much fun you had.

 

If logs were 100% honest we might not get some of the great logs where people embellish their experiences looking for the cache. Now I suspect you don't feel that embellishing a log is bad for Geocaching and what you are more concerned about is the log that says 'Found It' where the cache wasn't found (or even looked for). Is Geocaching worse off because we have this ongoing thread? I suspect that many people enjoy reading it from time to time. The truth is that in any group of people, some will lie for what seems like the silliest of reasons. Geocaching deals with this by asking cache owners to delete bogus logs when they find them and by occasionally taking measures such a banning accounts of repeat offenders. The current process seems to keep bogus logging under control without placing undo burdens on the cache hiders and finders that would interfere with the game be fun. Taking measures to eliminate or further reduce the number of bogus logs would in my opinion be worse for Geocaching than the few bogus logs we currently get.

First I am not suggesting any guideline change to require owner confirmation. I don't think I have heard anyone else suggest it either. I am saying false logging should not be done. As far as harm, is it harmful to a camel to break his back? Right now there are very few straws on the camel's back. I would like the geocaching community to say in one voice that false logging is not part of the game and should not be done. If the practice of false logging was condoned or ignored it could easily increase. Enough of those straws and you begin to see real harm. If we had an extreme amount, it could break the camel's back. Because it is still a small problem Geocaching is not threatened. If that is the only measure, then maybe. In my world all friends and supporters of Geocaching would say, False logging is not part of the game and should not be condoned or ignored or dismissed just because it is still small. Thats all, speak up and defend the game. Beyond that it is up to the cache owner to delete logs or not.

[+KBI]

As far as the poo in the cache thing, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a satisfactory answer on that one.

You're right. He totally ignored the main point of my post, didn't he?

 

I guess it was overly optimistic of me to expect an answer to the poo in the cache thing.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I personally suspect you are not at all disappointed that Mushtang once again gave up on you and departed. I suspect you intentionally burned out Mushtang’s patience. I suspect you are obfuscating; that you are trying to backpedal away from your original claim in this thread – the one where you suggested that posting a false log on a cache page is the ethical equivalent of pooping into a cache container.

 

It's right there in your post "for all to read," as you like to say.

 

Sorry, missed the poo thing... Here goes

 

The argument always seems to be that it doesn't hurt geocaching in any major way. False logging may upset the cache owner, but beyond the cache owner and someone looking for the cache when its not actually there, noone gets hurt, right?

 

If I took a big ol' dookie in your cache (I think I just like that word), its not really going to affect the game as a whole, is it? Its not going to "degrade" geocaching, although it will certainly degrade the cache in question... The cache owner would then have a choice.. They could either do "Maintenance" on the cache or archive the cache... The arguments from your side indicate that archiving the cache would not be the fault of the "Dookier" but a choice made by the cache owner.

 

I think they are VERY similar situations. You guys are saying that if a cache is archived because the owner gets sick of someone false logging, that its ultimately the choice of the cache owner to not do maintenance on their cache (is that the right they're, there, their mushtang?).. Same thing with dookie in a cache. If you choose not to clean it up, its ultimately the decision of the cache owner to not do maintenance on the cache..

 

Personally, I would blame the dookie maker for the cache being archived.. So there may be a difference between cleaning a logbook and cleaning dookie, but the basic idea is the same. Neither are very pleasant and wish neither would happen to anyone. And those doing either are wrong.

 

Good enough? (probably not)

[+sbell111]

... As far as harm, is it harmful to a camel to break his back? Right now there are very few straws on the camel's back. I would like the geocaching community to say in one voice that false logging is not part of the game and should not be done. If the practice of false logging was condoned or ignored it could easily increase. Enough of those straws and you begin to see real harm. If we had an extreme amount, it could break the camel's back. Because it is still a small problem Geocaching is not threatened. If that is the only measure, then maybe. In my world all friends and supporters of Geocaching would say, False logging is not part of the game and should not be condoned or ignored or dismissed just because it is still small. Thats all, speak up and defend the game. Beyond that it is up to the cache owner to delete logs or not.

Your argument is built on the assumption that false logging is a growing problem. I don't believe that this is true. False logging has been around for as long as I have played this game (and no doubt longer). It has not been shown to be increasing as a percentage of all logs. Therefore, I don't believe that your camel is in any danger. Edited September 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The argument always seems to be that it doesn't hurt geocaching in any major way. False logging may upset the cache owner, but beyond the cache owner and someone looking for the cache when its not actually there, noone gets hurt, right?

 

If I took a big ol' dookie in your cache (I think I just like that word), its not really going to affect the game as a whole, is it? Its not going to "degrade" geocaching, although it will certainly degrade the cache in question... The cache owner would then have a choice.. They could either do "Maintenance" on the cache or archive the cache... The arguments from your side indicate that archiving the cache would not be the fault of the "Dookier" but a choice made by the cache owner.

 

I think they are VERY similar situations. You guys are saying that if a cache is archived because the owner gets sick of someone false logging, that its ultimately the choice of the cache owner to not do maintenance on their cache (is that the right they're, there, their mushtang?).. Same thing with dookie in a cache. If you choose not to clean it up, its ultimately the decision of the cache owner to not do maintenance on the cache..

 

Personally, I would blame the dookie maker for the cache being archived.. So there may be a difference between cleaning a logbook and cleaning dookie, but the basic idea is the same. Neither are very pleasant and wish neither would happen to anyone. And those doing either are wrong.

 

Good enough? (probably not)

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

 

Now let's run your poopie analogy through the same scenario. The cacher loads the coords and heads out. He finds the cache and opens it up. He is then 'affected' (perhaps infected) by your poop. The cache owner likely archives the cache. In your scenario, the finder is harmed, the cache owner is harmed, and the community is harmed.

[+KBI]

I personally suspect you are not at all disappointed that Mushtang once again gave up on you and departed. I suspect you intentionally burned out Mushtang’s patience. I suspect you are obfuscating; that you are trying to backpedal away from your original claim in this thread – the one where you suggested that posting a false log on a cache page is the ethical equivalent of pooping into a cache container.

It's right there in your post "for all to read," as you like to say.

Sorry, missed the poo thing...

You missed it? Just didn’t see it?

 

Might that also explain how you missed the post from over two weeks ago in which Mushtang already responded to your bogus-equals-poop argument?

 

Did you miss that one too? Now that you have a link and can conveniently go back and read it, I’ll bet that if you respond to his post rationally and thoughtfully, as you did to my post just now, he might return to resume the discussion with you.

 

Assuming he has any patience left, that is. And assuming you really wanted to discuss it with him rationally and thoughtfully in the first place. That’s between you and him, of course. I'm just speculating.

 

Here goes

 

The argument always seems to be that it doesn't hurt geocaching in any major way. False logging may upset the cache owner, but beyond the cache owner and someone looking for the cache when its not actually there, noone gets hurt, right?

 

If I took a big ol' dookie in your cache (I think I just like that word), its not really going to affect the game as a whole, is it? Its not going to "degrade" geocaching, although it will certainly degrade the cache in question... The cache owner would then have a choice.. They could either do "Maintenance" on the cache or archive the cache... The arguments from your side indicate that archiving the cache would not be the fault of the "Dookier" but a choice made by the cache owner. ....

Let’s pause there for a moment: I have never blamed a single cache owner for a single bogus log they didn’t post themselves. If a cacher logs an online find for a cache he didn’t find, he has lied, plain and simple. The lie itself is the responsibility of the liar.

 

The only point I have ever made is to question whether such a meaningless lie is worthy of being frowned upon, mush less anguished over.

 

You continue to misinterpret, I continue to correct. But that's a minor point. Let’s now carry on with your well-spoken main point ...

 

I think they are VERY similar situations. You guys are saying that if a cache is archived because the owner gets sick of someone false logging, that its ultimately the choice of the cache owner to not do maintenance on their cache ...... Same thing with dookie in a cache. If you choose not to clean it up, its ultimately the decision of the cache owner to not do maintenance on the cache..

I refer you back to Mushtang’s answer to that point, the one you “missed.”

 

But I also have my own response, which please see below.

 

Personally, I would blame the dookie maker for the cache being archived.

As would I – because, even though it’s always the cache owner’s call whether to choose maintenance/repair versus archive (no matter the cause of the damage), I can never fault another cache owner for which option they choose.

 

The owner in your scata-nalogy is a victim of the poop, not an accomplice. If the owner chooses surrender, then I, too, would blame the loaf-dropper for the cache’s archival, not the owner.

 

So there may be a difference between cleaning a logbook and cleaning dookie, but the basic idea is the same. Neither are very pleasant and wish neither would happen to anyone. And those doing either are wrong.

 

Good enough? (probably not)

Probably not?

 

Please consider my advice: Don’t ever allow yourself to be insecure when making a well-spoken point from an honorable principle. You are standing up for something you believe in. Just because I don’t share your conclusion on bogus logs doesn’t mean I don’t admire (and share) your underlying values which led you there. Whether I agree with your logic or not, what you are doing (now that we’ve dispensed with the recent obfuscation, that is) is commendable, and I respect you for that. More than you might guess.

 

Now for my response:

 

A single false log, or even a very few false logs, can easily be ignored. No need to consider archival. Even if the cache owner cares about the falseness of the log – and some don't, which is their choice – he knows that delete-and-forget is only a couple of mouse clicks away, and that both the cache page and cache container will once again be completely uncontaminated.

 

A lump of solid human exhaust can NOT be so easily ignored OR removed, hence the critical difference.

 

You have attempted to bring the two concepts into some sort of imaginary similarity by multiplying the real-world number of false logs by a HUGE hypothetical multiple. When we talk about actual, existing false logs we are talking about tiny numbers. Real bogus logging is rare. The overwhelming numbers of bogus logs you describe – the numbers large enough to force the archival of a cache – are hypothetical. Wild speculation.

 

Unless you can show an example of an actual cache which has actually been archived because of actual overwhelming numbers of actual false logs, your argument remains nothing more than pointless and wild – and irrelevant – academic speculation.

 

Even if you CAN produce one such cache, it won't convince me. As you said yourself: "Its not going to "degrade" geocaching, although it will certainly degrade the cache in question."

 

Unless you can show that this is happening on an increasingly large scale, I still see no reason for teeth-gnashing concern over the occasional strange and entertaining cluelessness we call bogus logging.

[+chuckwagon101]

***Voice of Strother Martin (Cool Hand Luke)***

 

"What we got here..is a FAILURE to communicate!"

 

........

[+traildad]

Your argument is built on the assumption that false logging is a growing problem. I don't believe that this is true. False logging has been around for as long as I have played this game (and no doubt longer). It has not been shown to be increasing as a percentage of all logs. Therefore, I don't believe that your camel is in any danger.

I don't think so. We don't know if it is growing or not. The problem can grow, shrink or remain the same. That is not what determines if it is desirable or not.

[+traildad]

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

How is this the determining factor to decide if he was harmed? If I siphon a gallon of gas from you car and you never know it was missing, were your harmed? I say yes.

[+KBI]

Your argument is built on the assumption that false logging is a growing problem. I don't believe that this is true. False logging has been around for as long as I have played this game (and no doubt longer). It has not been shown to be increasing as a percentage of all logs. Therefore, I don't believe that your camel is in any danger.

I don't think so. We don't know if it is growing or not. The problem can grow, shrink or remain the same. That is not what determines if it is desirable or not.

Has anyone argued that bogus logs are "desirable?"

[+traildad]

Your argument is built on the assumption that false logging is a growing problem. I don't believe that this is true. False logging has been around for as long as I have played this game (and no doubt longer). It has not been shown to be increasing as a percentage of all logs. Therefore, I don't believe that your camel is in any danger.

I don't think so. We don't know if it is growing or not. The problem can grow, shrink or remain the same. That is not what determines if it is desirable or not.

Has anyone argued that bogus logs are "desirable?"

No I don't think so. I was trying to come up with a word that was not quite as strong as "Wrong". It seems that these discussions are full of arguments that hinge on the idea that false logs are not extremely common and therefore are not harmful, wrong or anything to be condemned. Rather than address the concept or idea of false logging they want to argue with the description or quantitative assessment used. Then if that doesn't work they will suddenly switch and say they don't want any guideline changes that would require cache owners to validate the logs as though that what was being suggested.

 

Your post was a half hour after my last one and yet you only chose to address this point. I am interested to hear your response to the second one.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3629740

[+ReadyOrNot]

Unless you can show that this is happening on an increasingly large scale, I still see no reason for teeth-gnashing concern over the occasional strange and entertaining cluelessness we call bogus logging.

 

We aren't in disagreement KBI. In fact, dare I say we are in agreement. I've never been harmed by a false log, nor have I ever looked for one. I know they exist because I have read the stories in the forum and read the false logs that are posted here. Just because I am unaffected does not mean that I cannot have a negative opinion of those that do it (even though I've never met one)..

 

I know that you've stated your position very clearly, but you have to start wondering why everytime you enter into one of these debates, the other side gets the impression that you don't think anything is wrong with false logging.

 

Scenario A

Cache Owner) I'm upset because someone false logged my cache

KBI) Don't be upset, its not a big deal

Cache Owner) To me it is a big deal

KBI) You 'choose' to be upset by it

Cache Owner) Whose side are you on KBI?

 

Scenario B

Cache Owner) I'm upset because someone false logged my cache

KBI) Don't be upset. Some people are idiots and feed off you getting upset

Cache Owner) Yeah, it takes all kinds I guess

KBI) Sure does!

 

It's all in the delivery... When you come to the forums and a cache owner is upset because someone false logged his/her cache, instead of telling them its stupid to be upset and not worth it, try empathizing with them a little bit. When you attack the messenger for being upset, it gives off the appearance that you are condoning the behavior that upset them.

[+KBI]

Your post was a half hour after my last one and yet you only chose to address this point. I am interested to hear your response to the second one.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3629740

You mean the gas siphoning thing? I have responded to that argument many many times already, so I assumed you already knew my view on that.

 

Yes, I agree that I would experience tangible loss if someone stole fuel from my vehicle. I have never experienced tangible loss, however, as a result of another cacher lying in an online log about finding a cache.

 

... that I know of, that is.

 

Was that your point?

 

Do you think I experience tangible loss every time a bogus log is posted ... and that I’m just being too slack about my checkbook balancing, so to speak, to detect it?

[+KBI]

Unless you can show that this is happening on an increasingly large scale, I still see no reason for teeth-gnashing concern over the occasional strange and entertaining cluelessness we call bogus logging.

 

We aren't in disagreement KBI. In fact, dare I say we are in agreement. I've never been harmed by a false log, nor have I ever looked for one. I know they exist because I have read the stories in the forum and read the false logs that are posted here. Just because I am unaffected does not mean that I cannot have a negative opinion of those that do it (even though I've never met one)..

 

I know that you've stated your position very clearly, but you have to start wondering why everytime you enter into one of these debates, the other side gets the impression that you don't think anything is wrong with false logging.

 

Scenario A

Cache Owner) I'm upset because someone false logged my cache

KBI) Don't be upset, its not a big deal

Cache Owner) To me it is a big deal

KBI) You 'choose' to be upset by it

Cache Owner) Whose side are you on KBI?

 

Scenario B

Cache Owner) I'm upset because someone false logged my cache

KBI) Don't be upset. Some people are idiots and feed off you getting upset

Cache Owner) Yeah, it takes all kinds I guess

KBI) Sure does!

 

It's all in the delivery... When you come to the forums and a cache owner is upset because someone false logged his/her cache, instead of telling them its stupid to be upset and not worth it, try empathizing with them a little bit. When you attack the messenger for being upset, it gives off the appearance that you are condoning the behavior that upset them.

I appreciate you attempt to better sugarcoat my message in order to make it more acceptable to you -- I really do -- but in the process you have altered its fundamental meaning.

 

I have never said: “Don't be upset.” I have never said that I have a negative opinion of those that post bogus logs.

 

All I have said is that bogus logs don’t bother me.

 

However: If you are no longer interpreting my position as being an encouragement to others cachers to take a crap in a geocache because you think that I think that a turd in a cache won’t bother anyone, then yes, we are now making progress.

[+traildad]

Your post was a half hour after my last one and yet you only chose to address this point. I am interested to hear your response to the second one.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3629740

You mean the gas siphoning thing? I have responded to that argument many many times already, so I assumed you already knew my view on that.

 

Yes, I agree that I would experience tangible loss if someone stole fuel from my vehicle.

I have never experienced tangible loss, however, as a result of another

cacher lying in an online log about finding a cache.

 

... that I know of, that is.

 

Was that your point?

 

Do you think I experience tangible loss every time a bogus log is posted ... and that I’m

just being too slack about my checkbook balancing, so to speak, to detect it?

No I don't think you experience a tangible loss every time a bogus log is posted. The point is that it seems to be suggested that if you are not aware or able to prove the tangible loss, it somehow doesn't matter. It's ok to waste a gallon of gas if you can't prove or don't know it happened. To experience a tangible loss of gas because a cache went missing, is part of the game. To have it happen because someone is getting their jollies writing false logs, is not part of the game as I know it. Some say that you still got to enjoy the day. That could be true but, if I had reason to believe the cache was missing I would have waited to hunt that cache. If I go looking for a missing cache I might want to return again after the cache is replaced. It could be said that the second trip was caused by the false log. That kind of weakens the you still had fun argument since it is unlikely anyone would go after the same cache twice and the second trip was a waste.

[+chuckwagon101]

All these analogies are getting me all confused!

 

Even after reading this ENTIRE thread I am still dubious about whether I can freely post a lot of armchair logs and get me some of that R-E-S-P-E-C-T ..that comes with a HUGE smiley count!

 

So far, all I have learned is a new word..."obfuscation" and some new terms for fecal depositing (loaf dropper)...(solid human exhaust).

 

I want to hear this in language that I can understand! I want the ICE CREAM ANALOGY!!

 

Maybe I can explain it........A guy orders TWO double dips of SPUMONI ice cream. Another guy comes in and complains about the number of raisins this guy is allowing to drop from the waffle cone. A fight ensues because the first guy INSISTS that the cone is NOT a waffle cone but...........

 

I forget how the rest goes. I am sure that I did not get it right. You know how your brain gets when you have been off ice cream for a long time.

 

[+sbell111]

Your argument is built on the assumption that false logging is a growing problem. I don't believe that this is true. False logging has been around for as long as I have played this game (and no doubt longer). It has not been shown to be increasing as a percentage of all logs. Therefore, I don't believe that your camel is in any danger.

I don't think so. We don't know if it is growing or not. The problem can grow, shrink or remain the same. That is not what determines if it is desirable or not.

I was speaking to your 'camel argument'. The camel's back will never be broken by the occasional straw fragment.

[+sbell111]

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

How is this the determining factor to decide if he was harmed? If I siphon a gallon of gas from you car and you never know it was missing, were your harmed? I say yes.

Again, your analogy doesn't work. Nothing was stolen from my hypothetical cacher. The cache that wasn't found was either there or it wasn't. Either way, the previous potentially bogus log didn't cause the cache to be not there.

 

If we were discussing stolen caches, your analogy would be right on target.

[+traildad]

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

How is this the determining factor to decide if he was harmed? If I siphon a gallon of gas from you car and you never know it was missing, were your harmed? I say yes.

Again, your analogy doesn't work. Nothing was stolen from my hypothetical cacher. The cache that wasn't found was either there or it wasn't. Either way, the previous potentially bogus log didn't cause the cache to be not there.

 

If we were discussing stolen caches, your analogy would be right on target.

I think the implication is that the gallon of gas was stolen from the cacher when he went on a wild goose chase instead of a Geocaching trip. We can debate analogies and nit pick words forever and it won't change things. You are going to end up in one of the camps.

1. You say false logging should not be done.

2. You say false logging is ok to do.

3. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it.

4. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it while you say you don't condone it.

5. You never read this topic and have no opinion.

6. You want Ice Cream

Before you claim a 7th catagory you should read the definition of condone. It you try to say it does not happen enough to be a problem then you are in 3 or 4.

[+sbell111]

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

How is this the determining factor to decide if he was harmed? If I siphon a gallon of gas from you car and you never know it was missing, were your harmed? I say yes.

Again, your analogy doesn't work. Nothing was stolen from my hypothetical cacher. The cache that wasn't found was either there or it wasn't. Either way, the previous potentially bogus log didn't cause the cache to be not there.

 

If we were discussing stolen caches, your analogy would be right on target.

I think the implication is that the gallon of gas was stolen from the cacher when he went on a wild goose chase instead of a Geocaching trip. We can debate analogies and nit pick words forever and it won't change things. You are going to end up in one of the camps.

1. You say false logging should not be done.

2. You say false logging is ok to do.

3. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it.

4. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it while you say you don't condone it.

5. You never read this topic and have no opinion.

6. You want Ice Cream

Before you claim a 7th catagory you should read the definition of condone. It you try to say it does not happen enough to be a problem then you are in 3 or 4.

I think that your post is very rude.

 

As it turns out, I happily belong to two 'camps'. Those are #1 and #6. You see, I happily delete false logs on my caches. I also advise others to do the same. Please explain (without being rude, this time) how my position could be confused with condoning false logs?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Your analogy simply doesn't work.

 

Consider the typical cacher. He loads coords to his GPSr and heads out in search for a cache. If he finds the cache, he logs it and later logs online. He may or may not have previously glanced at the logs. If he did read the last log and it was a false log and he didn't find the cache he still wouldn't know if the cache went missing after that log was entered or even if the cache was currently missing. In a very real way, he hasn't been harmed. Neither has the cache owner because even if the previous cacher lied about his find, the current cacher will still likely enter a truthful DNF. Since the issue was self-correcting, the community is completelly unaffected.

How is this the determining factor to decide if he was harmed? If I siphon a gallon of gas from you car and you never know it was missing, were your harmed? I say yes.

Again, your analogy doesn't work. Nothing was stolen from my hypothetical cacher. The cache that wasn't found was either there or it wasn't. Either way, the previous potentially bogus log didn't cause the cache to be not there.

 

If we were discussing stolen caches, your analogy would be right on target.

I think the implication is that the gallon of gas was stolen from the cacher when he went on a wild goose chase instead of a Geocaching trip. We can debate analogies and nit pick words forever and it won't change things. You are going to end up in one of the camps.

1. You say false logging should not be done.

2. You say false logging is ok to do.

3. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it.

4. You say false logging is not ok but you condone it while you say you don't condone it.

5. You never read this topic and have no opinion.

6. You want Ice Cream

Before you claim a 7th catagory you should read the definition of condone. It you try to say it does not happen enough to be a problem then you are in 3 or 4.

I think that your post is very rude.

 

As it turns out, I happily belong to two 'camps'. Those are #1 and #6. You see, I happily delete false logs on my caches. I also advise others to do the same. Please explain (without being rude, this time) how my position could be confused with condoning false logs?

First, I agree with you that the post to which you replied was rude, and I must agree with you and the other posters who have pointed out that the poster in question, along with a couple of other posters on the far fringes of the anti-fake-logs movement, have indeed grossly twisted your words and those of Mushtang and KBI. However, that is not why I am sending this post today, and rather, I wish to offer a reply, from a relatively independent observer who is not at all emotionally involved in this issue, to your question wherein you asked:

Please explain (without being rude, this time) how my position could be confused with condoning false logs?

Y'know, as I have watched this debate evolve in this thread, and as I have watched the same old posters make the same old tired accusations (often toward Mushtang and KBI, and also against yourself) I have always wished that one of you would ask this question! And now you have! Thanks! Here, then, is my answer:

 

The reason why you and KBI and Mushtang and a few other contributors to these discussions seem to be regularly accused of condoning false logs, despite the fact that none of you have ever remotely done so, by a few folks on the other side of the discussion is that they are so entrenched in their polarized positionality, and their stance is so laden with fear and rage at what they perceive to be a scourge that threatens to mark the Beginning of the End Times for humankind, that when someone such as yourself or KBI or Mushtang comes along and states simply and clearly and flatly, and quite emotionlessly, that you are personally not bothered much by fake logs, but that you would delete them anyway on principle, then they, since they are so immersed in blind rage and fear, suffer a distortion of perception, and they actually fail to see that all you really said is what you said, and rather, they are SURE, deep down inside, that you are really nasty evil subversives who were placed on earth at this time by Satan to endorse and condone the practice of filing fake find logs, and thus they REALLY DO BELIEVE that you and the other posters in question are truly endorsing fake find logs.

 

Now, the funny thing is that many folks have come along and accused these rabid anti-fake-find-log defenders of literally lying, of grossly twisting and your words (and those of Mushtang and KBI), but I strongly suspect that the folks doing this amazing twisting of your words are not even aware of the deep automatic defensive psychological processes, buried deep in their psyche, that are causing them to grossly misinterpret and mis-represent what you write. Rather, they truly believe that you guys are truly saying these things! In other words, I suspect that the process by which their minds twists your words is entirely an UNCONSCIOUS one, that they are entirely unaware that it is their own psyche, so consumed by fear and loathing of the practice of filing fake find logs, that is grossly misinterpreting your words, and so they really do believe that you and KBI and Mushtang are the Nasty Evil Subversives, the Dreaded Enemy at the Gates, and that each of you secretly belongs to a Let's Usher in the End Times via Encouraging Fake Find Logs cult (which meets on the last Thursday of each month at a little pizzeria on East Alameda Road in Pocatello, Idaho, by the way, except for the meetings in May and November, which are held at Sioneva's house in Bellevue, Nebraska, very close to the tiny nondescript air force base that has the secret underground hangars filled with baby space aliens in fluid nutrient tanks) that is trying to usher in the End Times by endorsing and condoning and encouraging the logging of fake find logs.

[+traildad]

 

I think that your post is very rude.

 

As it turns out, I happily belong to two 'camps'. Those are #1 and #6. You see, I happily delete false logs on my caches. I also advise others to do the same. Please explain (without being rude, this time) how my position could be confused with condoning false logs?

Where is the rude part? The ice cream reference is about the chuckwagon101 post. Suggesting you read the definition before you claim #7? Anyway if you didn't read it, here it is

 

Condone : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

 

It seems to me that there is more than one person posting to this topic that consider false logging to be harmless. I think that is the rub. Some people don't want to condemn it and say they don't support it. Then they say that they have never said they condone it. The problem is that you condone something with your thought or action. You don't have to say "I condone it" for it to be true. You can run around all day long screaming that you don't condone false logging, but as soon as you say that consider it to be harmless you are condoning it. I am sorry if you think this is rude, but I didn't write the dictionary.

[+traildad]

 

The reason why you and KBI and Mushtang and a few other contributors to these discussions seem to be regularly accused of condoning false logs, despite the fact that none of you have ever remotely done so, by a few folks on the other side of the discussion is that they are so entrenched in their polarized positionality, and their stance is so laden with fear and rage at what they perceive to be a scourge that threatens to mark the Beginning of the End Times for humankind, that when someone such as yourself or KBI or Mushtang comes along and states simply and clearly and flatly, and quite emotionlessly, that you are personally not bothered much by fake logs, but that you would delete them anyway on principle, then they, since they are so immersed in blind rage and fear, suffer a distortion of perception, and they actually fail to see that all you really said is what you said, and rather, they are SURE, deep down inside, that you are really nasty evil subversives who were placed on earth at this time by Satan to endorse and condone the practice of filing fake find logs, and thus they REALLY DO BELIEVE that you and the other posters in question are truly endorsing fake find logs.

 

Condone : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

[+chuckwagon101]

Well, I am off to find a cache the old-fashioned way. I sure wish I had sanctions to use my armchair and get my pitiful 30 count of smilies up into the CONTENDER category. Oh well.

 

I will just have to plod along on my achy-breaky legs until there is a consensus of opinion about armchair logging. I don't want to do it if it is going to DESTROY geocaching.

 

But on the otherhand .....if it really does not cause any harm.........the way I am thinking.......!!!! Just imagine cachers clicking on my "stats" and seeing THOUSANDS of caches that I have found! Errrrr...make that found "my way"!

 

Until you guys can come to an agreement and let me know definitively if it is ok for me to exercise my right to play the game the way I want to and save my POOR OLD ACHY-BREAKY legs, I will just keep bush whacking over hill and dale.

 

But I'm going out to Braums for Ice Cream first!

[+sbell111]

 

I think that your post is very rude.

 

As it turns out, I happily belong to two 'camps'. Those are #1 and #6. You see, I happily delete false logs on my caches. I also advise others to do the same. Please explain (without being rude, this time) how my position could be confused with condoning false logs?

Where is the rude part? The ice cream reference is about the chuckwagon101 post. Suggesting you read the definition before you claim #7? Anyway if you didn't read it, here it is

 

Condone : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

 

It seems to me that there is more than one person posting to this topic that consider false logging to be harmless. I think that is the rub. Some people don't want to condemn it and say they don't support it. Then they say that they have never said they condone it. The problem is that you condone something with your thought or action. You don't have to say "I condone it" for it to be true. You can run around all day long screaming that you don't condone false logging, but as soon as you say that consider it to be harmless you are condoning it. I am sorry if you think this is rude, but I didn't write the dictionary.

Were you seriously so invested in your '#7' response that you had to use it even though I didn't choose #7?

[+sbell111]

 

The reason why you and KBI and Mushtang and a few other contributors to these discussions seem to be regularly accused of condoning false logs, despite the fact that none of you have ever remotely done so, by a few folks on the other side of the discussion is that they are so entrenched in their polarized positionality, and their stance is so laden with fear and rage at what they perceive to be a scourge that threatens to mark the Beginning of the End Times for humankind, that when someone such as yourself or KBI or Mushtang comes along and states simply and clearly and flatly, and quite emotionlessly, that you are personally not bothered much by fake logs, but that you would delete them anyway on principle, then they, since they are so immersed in blind rage and fear, suffer a distortion of perception, and they actually fail to see that all you really said is what you said, and rather, they are SURE, deep down inside, that you are really nasty evil subversives who were placed on earth at this time by Satan to endorse and condone the practice of filing fake find logs, and thus they REALLY DO BELIEVE that you and the other posters in question are truly endorsing fake find logs.

 

Condone : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

Thanks for the definition. To ensure that I understand the word correctly, I'll use it in a sentence:

 

I believe that the moderators should not condone your rude posts.

 

How did I do?

[+traildad]

Were you seriously so invested in your '#7' response that you had to use it even though I didn't choose #7?

???

[+traildad]

Thanks for the definition. To ensure that I understand the word correctly, I'll use it in a sentence:

 

I believe that the moderators should not condone your rude posts.

 

How did I do?

Well if what you are saying is that moderators should not post a message saying how they believe what I posted was wrong to do, but since it happens so rarely and you really can't "prove" it hurt the sport, then you should just smile and have fun playing the game. After all it doesn't really matter.

 

If your saying a moderator should not make a post like that, then ok you are using the word correctly.

[+tozainamboku]

Condone : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

If you wish to use that definition of condone then realize that any of the following would mean one condones fake logs.

1. One regards fake logging as acceptable
   
2. One regards fake logging as forgivable
   
3. One regards fake logging as harmless
   

No one has stated that fake logging is acceptable. In fact everyone says it should be done, it is not what the online logs are meant for, and if someone logged a fake log on their cache they would delete it.

 

The only statements forgiving fake logs have to do with the fact that many "fake" logs are actually simply logged in error. A person selected the found it log when they meant to log a DNF or a note. Or they logged a found it because the cache owner told them to. No one is forgiving those who log fake logs with the intention of deceit.

 

Several people have said that fake logs are harmless.

 

So these people have said that fake logs are wrong, that fake logging is forgivable only in certain situations, and that fake logs are harmless. If you wish to say they condone fake logs that is ok, but don't assume that because they condone something they find it acceptable or forgivable. Because that is not what the word condone means according to your dictionary.

Edited September 8, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+KBI]

Your post was a half hour after my last one and yet you only chose to address this point. I am interested to hear your response to the second one.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3629740

You mean the gas siphoning thing? I have responded to that argument many many times already, so I assumed you already knew my view on that.

 

Yes, I agree that I would experience tangible loss if someone stole fuel from my vehicle.

I have never experienced tangible loss, however, as a result of another

cacher lying in an online log about finding a cache.

 

... that I know of, that is.

 

Was that your point?

 

Do you think I experience tangible loss every time a bogus log is posted ... and that I’m

just being too slack about my checkbook balancing, so to speak, to detect it?

No I don't think you experience a tangible loss every time a bogus log is posted. The point is that it seems to be suggested that if you are not aware or able to prove the tangible loss, it somehow doesn't matter. It's ok to waste a gallon of gas if you can't prove or don't know it happened. To experience a tangible loss of gas because a cache went missing, is part of the game. To have it happen because someone is getting their jollies writing false logs, is not part of the game as I know it. Some say that you still got to enjoy the day. That could be true but, if I had reason to believe the cache was missing I would have waited to hunt that cache. If I go looking for a missing cache I might want to return again after the cache is replaced. It could be said that the second trip was caused by the false log. That kind of weakens the you still had fun argument since it is unlikely anyone would go after the same cache twice and the second trip was a waste.

I have responded to that argument many many times already as well.

[+traildad]

 

So these people have said that fake logs are wrong, that fake logging is forgivable only in certain situations, and that fake logs are harmless. If you wish to say they condone fake logs that is ok, but don't assume that because they condone something they find it acceptable or forgivable. Because that is not what the word condone means according to your dictionary.

Ok, so I am not sure what your point is. There is a discussion about whether or not they condoned false logging. Now you add that just because they condone them doesn't mean they find it acceptable or forgivable. Those are apples and oranges. I just don't see what their acceptance or forgiveness of false logging has to do with condoning them.

 

Edit to add: It does not require all three to amount to condoning. Some have said that they are harmless. That all by itself it condoning.

Edited September 8, 2008 by traildad

[+traildad]

 

I have responded to that argument many many times already as well.

Well that was easy. Saved a whole lot of time as well. Are you saying that you agree?

[+ReadyOrNot]

However: If you are no longer interpreting my position as being an encouragement to others cachers to take a crap in a geocache because you think that I think that a turd in a cache won’t bother anyone, then yes, we are now making progress.

 

I don't think you believe your position to be an encouragement to others, but I feel the way you deliver your perspective leads others to believe that you condone the behavior. I think there is a subtle difference. So, no.... I do not believe that you are personally encouraging other to log fake finds on caches.

 

The permission threads are another example of something similar. A cache owner comes loocking for an answer to the question, "Should I seek permission?"... The majority chime right in telling them that they should always get permission regardless of the circumstances. I feel like I MUST chime in so that the OP is not led astray by one point of view. I'm sure that I can sometimes appear as though I am saying, "You don't need permission at all"... Being aware of how others will interpret what you say is key, because clearly everyone applies their own filters, otherwise there would never be anything to argue about.

[+KBI]

I have responded to that argument many many times already as well.

Well that was easy. Saved a whole lot of time as well.

Thank you for noticing. Concise brevity combined with avoidance of unnecessary repetition is my new goal.

 

Are you saying that you agree?

No, I'm not.

 

Are you saying you missed my response to that argument the last dozen or so times I posted it?

[+KBI]

However: If you are no longer interpreting my position as being an encouragement to others cachers to take a crap in a geocache because you think that I think that a turd in a cache won’t bother anyone, then yes, we are now making progress.

I don't think you believe your position to be an encouragement to others, but I feel the way you deliver your perspective leads others to believe that you condone the behavior. I think there is a subtle difference. So, no.... I do not believe that you are personally encouraging other to log fake finds on caches.

 

The permission threads are another example of something similar. A cache owner comes loocking for an answer to the question, "Should I seek permission?"... The majority chime right in telling them that they should always get permission regardless of the circumstances. I feel like I MUST chime in so that the OP is not led astray by one point of view. I'm sure that I can sometimes appear as though I am saying, "You don't need permission at all"... Being aware of how others will interpret what you say is key, because clearly everyone applies their own filters, otherwise there would never be anything to argue about.

You seem like an intelligent person, therefore I must ask:

 

If Vinny-Ampersand-Sue-Team understands my position, why can’t you?

[+KBI]

(And before the misinterpreters chime in, that does NOT mean I think Vinny-Ampersand-Sue-Team is NOT intelligent. My above post was meant to compliment the high intelligence I perceive from both V&ST and RON.)

 

(I condone intelligence.)

[+traildad]

Are you saying that you agree?

No, I'm not.

 

Are you saying you missed my response to that argument the last dozen or so times I posted it?

Well since I haven't made that argument a dozen times I don't believe you have responded to it. If you could include a link, because I didn't want to take the time searching for what is most likely a response to someone else that misses the point and doesn't really address the argument.

[+KBI]

Are you saying that you agree?

No, I'm not.

 

Are you saying you missed my response to that argument the last dozen or so times I posted it?

Well since I haven't made that argument a dozen times I don't believe you have responded to it.

I didn’t say I have responded to YOU a dozen times. I said I have responded to that argument a dozen times.

 

I am patient, but I do have my limits.

 

If you could include a link, because I didn't want to take the time searching for what is most likely a response to someone else that misses the point and doesn't really address the argument.

If you have already determined that I have missed your point, and that I will not address your argument – before I have even responded – then why should I bother to respond?

[+traildad]

If you could include a link, because I didn't want to take the time searching for what is most likely a response to someone else that misses the point and doesn't really address the argument.

If you have already determined that I have missed your point, and that I will not address your argument – before I have even responded – then why should I bother to respond?

The quintessential argument. Most likely = already determined. It is the frequent misstating of someone else's meaning that creates a certain image about a person's intent. When you add them all up it says something.

[+KBI]

If you could include a link, because I didn't want to take the time searching for what is most likely a response to someone else that misses the point and doesn't really address the argument.

If you have already determined that I have missed your point, and that I will not address your argument – before I have even responded – then why should I bother to respond?

The quintessential argument. Most likely = already determined. It is the frequent misstating of someone else's meaning that creates a certain image about a person's intent. When you add them all up it says something.

You've already admitted you just didn't feel like looking it up.

 

If you can request that I repeat myself, then I can request that you make the effort to look it up instead.

 

If you're too lazy, then so am I.

[+traildad]

If you could include a link, because I didn't want to take the time searching for what is most likely a response to someone else that misses the point and doesn't really address the argument.

If you have already determined that I have missed your point, and that I will not address your argument – before I have even responded – then why should I bother to respond?

The quintessential argument. Most likely = already determined. It is the frequent misstating of someone else's meaning that creates a certain image about a person's intent. When you add them all up it says something.

You've already admitted you just didn't feel like looking it up.

 

If you can request that I repeat myself, then I can request that you make the effort to look it up instead.

 

If you're too lazy, then so am I.

Well it is your quote, it should be easy for you to find it. How would I know which of the somewhat off point arguments was the one you meant. I could search all night and never know if I had found it or not. Are you too lazy or just don't know what else to say when your bluff is called?

[+KBI]

How would I know which of the somewhat off point arguments was the one you meant.

If you're trying to sweet-talk me into regurgitating more of the endless and repetitive babble I've become known for ... then you might want to try using some actual sweet talk instead of calling all my arguments "somewhat off point."