fraude FTF by FTF Jaeger

[+traildad]

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."

OK OK never mind. You are the one that said you had made the argument but didn't make the effort to include the quote. Then you tell me I'm too lazy because I didn't want to look it up for you. I'll just forget you made the post. OK, let's see now, where was I...

[+sbell111]

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.

I'll choose 'None of the above'.

[+sbell111]

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?

I'm thinking that if you really want someone to do extra work just so you don't have to then you should make an effort to not be so rude.

 

edit: I should have simply read the rest of the thread, since KBI basically posted the same thing.

Edited September 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

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."

OK OK never mind. You are the one that said you had made the argument but didn't make the effort to include the quote. Then you tell me I'm too lazy because I didn't want to look it up for you. I'll just forget you made the post. OK, let's see now, where was I...

I just realized that you are chasing KBI down for an answer to that question just so you can try to get him to pick #7. That trap didn't work with me, why do you think that it might work with him?

 

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

[+chuckwagon101]

[

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

 

Thank you very much sbell111! Those are my sentiments EXACTLY!

 

I have been saying ALL ALONG that if we could get the ICE CREAM analogy back in here, this whole problem could be cleared up PRONTO!

 

I will try to do it once more, though my skills in dairy are very LIMITED.......

 

A guy walks into Ben and Jerry's and orders a Raspberry delight for himself and a Neopolitan for his geocaching hound dog. A bystander tells him POINT BLANK that only Dalmatians are allowed to have Neopolitan ice cream! A fight ensues.......then the Raspberry delight guy PUNCHES the.......

 

I don't remember the rest, but it really clears up situations like this long thread!

 

Can we have a slam bam thank ya mam kinda guy to give us the cream and sugar solution for this ongoing discussion?!!

 

Thank ya mam.....thank ya vurrrra much!

[+tozainamboku]

[

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

 

Thank you very much sbell111! Those are my sentiments EXACTLY!

 

I have been saying ALL ALONG that if we could get the ICE CREAM analogy back in here, this whole problem could be cleared up PRONTO!

 

I will try to do it once more, though my skills in dairy are very LIMITED.......

 

A guy walks into Ben and Jerry's and orders a Raspberry delight for himself and a Neopolitan for his geocaching hound dog. A bystander tells him POINT BLANK that only Dalmatians are allowed to have Neopolitan ice cream! A fight ensues.......then the Raspberry delight guy PUNCHES the.......

 

I don't remember the rest, but it really clears up situations like this long thread!

 

Can we have a slam bam thank ya mam kinda guy to give us the cream and sugar solution for this ongoing discussion?!!

 

Thank ya mam.....thank ya vurrrra much!

I'm not sure if this is proper usage, but I condone the use of ice cream analogies even when they don't make sense

[+traildad]

I'm thinking that if you really want someone to do extra work just so you don't have to then you should make an effort to not be so rude.

He makes a post claiming to have already said something. Both of you say that I am asking for him to do extra work to actually post the quote that he was claiming to have made. If he made the claim, then it is up to him to show the quote. How could I possibly know which post is the right one. He is asking me to do extra work to come up with his quote.

 

I have still not heard what was so rude about the post. I am wondering if that is the next tactic in the debate. Can't win on merit, attack the person. Classic.

[+traildad]

 

I just realized that you are chasing KBI down for an answer to that question just so you can try to get him to pick #7. That trap didn't work with me, why do you think that it might work with him?

 

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

That is the second time someone has brought up the idea of choosing #7. It makes me wonder if you even read the post. If you go back and look you will see that there is no #7. How could I be trying to trap someone into picking a # that was not listed? If you or him were to "pick" #7 it would be one that you get to make up all on your own. I am trying to "trap" you into making up and choosing one of your own ideas.

[+traildad]

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

Gee I hope no one is still trying to define condone as anything different than what it says in the dictionary. It would be awful hard to have a forum discussion if everyone gets to make up their own meaning for all the words.

[+tozainamboku]

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

Gee I hope no one is still trying to define condone as anything different than what it says in the dictionary. It would be awful hard to have a forum discussion if everyone gets to make up their own meaning for all the words.

 

Defining a word to mean something different than what is says in the dictionary would be just as bad as not caring about a bogus log?

[+traildad]

It should also be noted that all this swordplay over the definition of 'condone' and similar verbaige-related squabbles are only leading the thread further and further from the topic.

Gee I hope no one is still trying to define condone as anything different than what it says in the dictionary. It would be awful hard to have a forum discussion if everyone gets to make up their own meaning for all the words.

 

Defining a word to mean something different than what is says in the dictionary would be just as bad as not caring about a bogus log?

If that is what you think. I say it just makes it very difficult to understand each other when people take liberties with the meanings of words.

[+tozainamboku]

If that is what you think. I say it just makes it very difficult to understand each other when people take liberties with the meanings of words.

Well I did look in several other dictionaries and they had slightly different meanings of condone from your dictionary.

 

to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like). Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone

 

To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:

 

excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior" WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved September 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:

 

Several others say it means to forgive or pardon.

 

So in fact many dictionaries don't say anything about regarding something as harmless. But you found one that did so I guess it must mean that too.

 

The other issue is agreeing to what action is being condoned. No one has suggested blanket forgiveness or pardon of the act of bogus logging. Everyone has agreed that cache owners should delete bogus logs if they find them. There are some reasons for bogus logs which some people may find forgivable - some are willing to tolerate an alternative game like armchair virutuals or allow the use of the found it to mark a cache "done" in some fashion. And often a bogus found it is simply when the wrong log type is used by mistake. Nobody has suggested forgiving anyone logging a bogus log with the intent of deception. What people wish to pardon, forgive, or simply disregard are the logs that some owner did not delete - perhaps because without actually checking the physical log it would be impossible to determine that a log is bogus. The side arguing against bogus logs are apparently also willing to forgive or pardon cache owners who don't delete bogus logs:

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. ... Beyond that it is up to the cache owner to delete logs or not.

It seems like we are arguing so much about semantics that we fail to see how close we are to each other.

 

One side is willing to condone letting bogus logs remain on the site because they are harmless. The other sides says they are harmful, yet will condone the actions of a cache owner who chooses not to check their physical cache logs to determine if whether to delete a bogus log.

[Mushtang]

If that is what you think. I say it just makes it very difficult to understand each other when people take liberties with the meanings of words.

May I mambo dog-face to the banana patch?

[+traildad]

If that is what you think. I say it just makes it very difficult to understand each other when people take liberties with the meanings of words.

May I mambo dog-face to the banana patch?

[+traildad]

Well I did look in several other dictionaries and they had slightly different meanings of condone from your dictionary.

 

to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like). Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone

 

To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:

 

excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior" WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved September 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:

 

Several others say it means to forgive or pardon.

 

So in fact many dictionaries don't say anything about regarding something as harmless. But you found one that did so I guess it must mean that too.

Can I assume that you are not trying to say the the definitions you have quoted mean anything different that the definition I quoted?

 

The other issue is agreeing to what action is being condoned. No one has suggested blanket forgiveness or pardon of the act of bogus logging. Everyone has agreed that cache owners should delete bogus logs if they find them. There are some reasons for bogus logs which some people may find forgivable - some are willing to tolerate an alternative game like armchair virutuals or allow the use of the found it to mark a cache "done" in some fashion. And often a bogus found it is simply when the wrong log type is used by mistake. Nobody has suggested forgiving anyone logging a bogus log with the intent of deception. What people wish to pardon, forgive, or simply disregard are the logs that some owner did not delete - perhaps because without actually checking the physical log it would be impossible to determine that a log is bogus. The side arguing against bogus logs are apparently also willing to forgive or pardon cache owners who don't delete bogus logs:

I don't remember this topic straying into the area of forgiving or not forgiving people that logged a cache by mistake. To bring up that idea along with marking a cache done or logs that are in question simply cloud the issue at hand. I am not, nor have I, nor have I seen anyone else suggest that we should take some action because someone logged a cache in error. I just don't see how you can suggest that it has been part of this discussion.

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. ... Beyond that it is up to the cache owner to delete logs or not.

It seems like we are arguing so much about semantics that we fail to see how close we are to each other.

 

One side is willing to condone letting bogus logs remain on the site because they are harmless. The other sides says they are harmful, yet will condone the actions of a cache owner who chooses not to check their physical cache logs to determine if whether to delete a bogus log.

If the people you refer to were to post that "they thought that intentional false logging had no place in the game of Geocaching and if they were to find a log that was clearly false they would delete it" and then end their statetment. Don't add on to it the qualifiers about how it really is harmless or doesn't hurt the game or you should just go on, play the game and forget about them, etc etc. It is the statements like this that are added on, that turn condemnation into condoning. Those words suggest that we should forgive or pardon it or overlook or disregard it.

 

As for condoning the actions of a cache owner that chooses not to check their physical cache logs...

Does this mean a cache owner that doesn't audit every found it log no matter what?

A cache owner that has ample evidence of a false log and does not check?

I am talking about intentional false logging and I think we all have been for quite a while. Intentional false logging can not be compared to a cache owner that chooses to take the logs at face value. I don't even think I could equate it to knowingly allowing a false log to stand. It is their cache, it is up to them. The person that false logs is doing it on someone else's cache. They don't get to decide if false logging is ok or not. This seems to me to be apples and oranges.

[Mushtang]

The person that false logs is doing it on someone else's cache. They don't get to decide if false logging is ok or not.

Correct. I also believe that the cache owner is the one to decide if the false log gets deleted or not after he decides if it's okay or not. If it's okay with the owner, and he allows the false log to stay, I condone not getting upset about it.

[+traildad]

The person that false logs is doing it on someone else's cache. They don't get to decide if false logging is ok or not.

Correct. I also believe that the cache owner is the one to decide if the false log gets deleted or not after he decides if it's okay or not. If it's okay with the owner, and he allows the false log to stay, I condone not getting upset about it.

Just keep in mind that what you just said is off topic. This is not about condoning a cache owner that lets a false log stand. If you want to add that point in fine. How about making a statement regarding intentionally false logging caches.

[+tozainamboku]

I've decided that Vinny is right. You cannot argue with the side that believes that bogus logs are evil. There is a a difference between evil and wrong (though I'm sure they will find a dictionary that says otherwise). Bogus logs are wrong because they are not the intent of the found it log. They interfere somewhat with people who would like to use the logs as intended (but less than those who think they are evil imagine). People should not write bogus logs. However, the people who write bogus logs are not necessarily evil. They may be ignorant of how others use the logs as intended or silly or careless. Of course some may be deceitful and perhaps this motivation is evil. Whether or not the motivation in writing bogus logs is evil, most every geocacher can ignore the bogus logs. Yes, hypothetically a bogus log can cause a cacher to look for a cache they may have skipped otherwise or convince a cache owner to defer a maintenance visit. But there are other problems besides fake found logs that cause these flawed decisions to be made - for example the fact that many people don't log all their DNFs. But apparently since not logging a DNF is not an evil act, some people would prefer to condemn bogus logs for their hypothetical loss. Clearly some people see the world as a struggle between good and evil and that unless evil is constantly fought it will gain the upper hand and win. Others may or may not see the world that as well, but they see geocaching as simple game and see online logging systems as inherently being open to abuse for a variety of reasons. In fact, this system does a pretty good job of weeding out abuse. Many cache owners do delete bogus logs when they find them and repeat offenders (perhaps those most likely to have a evil motivation to write fake logs) can have their accounts banned. So many players will condone the tiny number of fake logs we have because they do not interfere with their game. Furthermore they will try to convince others who believe that they are harmed by bogus logs that in fact they are not harmed - that they can continue to find geocaches with the confidence that almost all the logs are truthful and if they look for a missing cache or don't do maintenance on their own cache when it is missing, it is much more likely due to something other than a bogus log. But of course, those that see bogus logging as evil will say that we must stop evil first even if only will fix a tiny percentage of the problem. I guess I just don't see Satan as behind every problem in this world. I see human beings, who have free will, sometimes doing the wrong things. This happens all the time (even in forum posts), yet we continue to live day to day with it because it either causes no problems to anyone else or just the minor inconveniences we call life.

[+traildad]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

[+chuckwagon101]

[ If that is what you think. I say it just makes it very difficult to understand each other when people take liberties with the meanings of words.

 

 

LOL! Sooo true!

 

But on the otherhand......it got old Bill Clinton out of a BIG JAM when he made that famous (infamous?) statement.......

............."It all depends on what your definition of "IS"............is!

[Mushtang]

The person that false logs is doing it on someone else's cache. They don't get to decide if false logging is ok or not.

Correct. I also believe that the cache owner is the one to decide if the false log gets deleted or not after he decides if it's okay or not. If it's okay with the owner, and he allows the false log to stay, I condone not getting upset about it.

Just keep in mind that what you just said is off topic. This is not about condoning a cache owner that lets a false log stand. If you want to add that point in fine. How about making a statement regarding intentionally false logging caches.

Jeez. It's as off topic as bickering over the definition of "condone".

 

Besides, I wasn't saying I condoned the cache owner. I said I condone not getting upset about it, as in, other people that aren't the owner or the false logger. I condone other people not caring if a false log is left on someone else's cache.

 

To be on topic, intentionally false logging caches is stupid, and I'll delete any false logs from my own caches that I'm aware of. If, however, an owner lets one stay on his or her cache, I don't care. I also don't know why anyone else would choose to care either.

[+traildad]

The person that false logs is doing it on someone else's cache. They don't get to decide if false logging is ok or not.

Correct. I also believe that the cache owner is the one to decide if the false log gets deleted or not after he decides if it's okay or not. If it's okay with the owner, and he allows the false log to stay, I condone not getting upset about it.

Just keep in mind that what you just said is off topic. This is not about condoning a cache owner that lets a false log stand. If you want to add that point in fine. How about making a statement regarding intentionally false logging caches.

Jeez. It's as off topic as bickering over the definition of "condone".

 

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to tell if a response is to a side topic or a response to a misunderstood or misconstrued main topic.

 

Besides, I wasn't saying I condoned the cache owner. I said I condone not getting upset about it, as in, other people that aren't the owner or the false logger. I condone other people not caring if a false log is left on someone else's cache.

 

OK that makes sense.

To be on topic, intentionally false logging caches is stupid, and I'll delete any false logs from my own caches that I'm aware of. If, however, an owner lets one stay on his or her cache, I don't care. I also don't know why anyone else would choose to care either.

If only you could save the last line for some other post, I was ready to agree with you.

 

I wonder if the reason you don't know why anyone else would "choose" to care implies a lack of understanding on your part, or a lack of making sense on their part. If someone gave their reason, would you argue why their reason is not good enough or would you go with a live and let live attitude? I haven't seen anyone say that they would choose to care if a cache owner let a false log stand. I think it is possible to understand how and why someone reaches the conclusion to care, without agreeing that they have the one and only right point of view. Saying you don't know why someone would care about right and wrong for example is different than saying you don't know why someone thinks 2+2=7&3/8.

 

Edit to add color.

Edited September 10, 2008 by traildad

[Mushtang]

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to tell if a response is to a side topic or a response to a misunderstood or misconstrued main topic.

In this case it was none of the above. Nice try on your wording though. It wasn't a response to your side topic, nor did I misunderstand or misconstrue the main topic.

 

To be on topic, intentionally false logging caches is stupid, and I'll delete any false logs from my own caches that I'm aware of. If, however, an owner lets one stay on his or her cache, I don't care. I also don't know why anyone else would choose to care either.

If only you could save the last line for some other post, I was ready to agree with you.

You can't agree with me that I don't understand something? Surly you don't think that I understand it but am just pretending I don't for some reason???

 

I wonder if the reason you don't know why anyone else would "choose" to care implies a lack of understanding on your part, or a lack of making sense on their part. If someone gave their reason, would you argue why their reason is not good enough or would you go with a live and let live attitude? I haven't seen anyone say that they would choose to care if a cache owner let a false log stand. I think it is possible to understand how and why someone reaches the conclusion to care, without agreeing that they have the one and only right point of view. Saying you don't know why someone would care about right and wrong for example is different than saying you don't know why someone thinks 2+2=7&3/8.

I don't know. Have you ever had someone explain something to you and it still didn't make any sense? They get finished and you say, "Nope, still not gettin' it". I think it would be pretty hard to say which side of the explanation is lacking, the explainer or the understander.

 

Explaining to me why you're upset about the government's foreign policy is easy. Explaining to me why you're upset that someone you don't know, that you'll never meet, in a completely different state, claims he saw a commercial on TV that he actually never saw is probably going to be impossible. Which one of us would be responsible for me not understanding your point of view? I'll always think that's a pretty stupid thing to choose to get upset about.

[+traildad]

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to tell if a response is to a side topic or a response to a misunderstood or misconstrued main topic.

In this case it was none of the above. Nice try on your wording though. It wasn't a response to your side topic, nor did I misunderstand or misconstrue the main topic.

Nor did I mean to say that you did. I was trying to say I was not sure what your meaning was. I would say that it was a side topic of your own which is fine. I was only trying to clarify not criticize.

 

To be on topic, intentionally false logging caches is stupid, and I'll delete any false logs from my own caches that I'm aware of. If, however, an owner lets one stay on his or her cache, I don't care. I also don't know why anyone else would choose to care either.

If only you could save the last line for some other post, I was ready to agree with you.

You can't agree with me that I don't understand something? Surly you don't think that I understand it but am just pretending I don't for some reason???

No that was not my meaning. I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to add that on. It appears that maybe you might be trying to take the edge off your statement that false logging was stupid. You could have let the statement stand on it's own but you chose to qualify it.

 

I wonder if the reason you don't know why anyone else would "choose" to care implies a lack of understanding on your part, or a lack of making sense on their part. If someone gave their reason, would you argue why their reason is not good enough or would you go with a live and let live attitude? I haven't seen anyone say that they would choose to care if a cache owner let a false log stand. I think it is possible to understand how and why someone reaches the conclusion to care, without agreeing that they have the one and only right point of view. Saying you don't know why someone would care about right and wrong for example is different than saying you don't know why someone thinks 2+2=7&3/8.

I don't know. Have you ever had someone explain something to you and it still didn't make any sense? They get finished and you say, "Nope, still not gettin' it". I think it would be pretty hard to say which side of the explanation is lacking, the explainer or the understander.

 

Explaining to me why you're upset about the government's foreign policy is easy. Explaining to me why you're upset that someone you don't know, that you'll never meet, in a completely different state, claims he saw a commercial on TV that he actually never saw is probably going to be impossible. Which one of us would be responsible for me not understanding your point of view? I'll always think that's a pretty stupid thing to choose to get upset about.

Well you have a good example there. Take the example of "claiming to see a commercial that he never saw is hard to understand". The person would maybe be crazy, or out of touch with reality or whatever. That is easy to see why you couldn't understand them. When you say you don't know why someone would "choose" to be upset, you imply that, like the person and the commercial, they are out of touch with reality etc. There are many reasons why we might not understand each other. If it is a simple concept and reasonably well discussed between two reasonably intelligent people, then we might assume that even if we don't agree, we can understand the explanation they give and to that extent understand how they feel. In the commercial example there is no point in him trying to explain further. If it is a mis-communication type of thing then maybe different words could help. If it is a lack of empathy or ability to understand others feelings, then it would not be "wrong" on your part. How do you see it? Is it the explainer or the understander? Because what seem to me to be reasonable and simple explanations have been given.

[+sbell111]

<rabble, rabble, rabble>

One more thing that I don't understand is why you keep arguing this issue. Your position appears to be so close to Mushtang's that I wouldn't think that there is any reason to bicker.

 

In order to find the disconnect, I went all the way back to the first few pages of this thread to take a look at your 'pre-argument' point of view. I was looking for the first simple position that you posted in the thread to try to see if there truly wasn't a big difference of opinion that I missed. Upon reading your first several posts to this thread, I was a little dismayed to find that you didn't actually give an opinion. Instead, you were riding Mushtang's butt from your very first post.

 

Please, I beg of you, give it a rest.

 

Explain your position. Support that position. Explain why you think your position is preferable than the position of others, but please lay off teh attack dog strategy that you have used in this thread.

 

To the topic:

As I dropped a few caches in Brussels (Belgium) today, I noticed they were all found by 'FTF Jaeger'. While visiting his page I noticed he had 15!!! FTF on one day. Not only in Belgium but also in Germany...

 

As it was strange to me I went to my caches, along with my buddy Nobubbles, to check them and NON were found by him!

 

This is so narrowminded. Why would somebody do something like this? Has anybody had the same experience? Because according to me, this IS NOT what geocaching is about! We put a lot of time in dropping them, the research work etc. and this spoils it completely

 

Looking forward to your reactions.

We also find it strange when people log a bunch of false finds. I don't really know why they do this. I suspect it is just to see if they can get away with it.

 

Half a dozen years ago, there was a thread about false finds on virtual caches. Because of the thread, I got to thinking of how easy it would be to obtain the verification answer for most virts. As a test, I picked a virt from another part of the country completely at random. I looked up the answer online and sent an email to the owner. In my email, I never claimed to have visited the virt, but I gave the answer and thanked teh owner for creating a good virt. The owner promptly replied that I could log my find. I never did, but I considered doing so just to see how long I could play it out. My personal guilt would not let me log the 'find', but I can see how others would get a bit of thrill from that sort of thing.

 

False logging happens. It is part of the game, but it is a part that is so tiny that I don't really feel affected. Around the same time as my virtual experiment, a well-known geocacher from British Columbia ran a scam. He doctored a ton of verification photos for locationless caches and logged finds on them. As the owner of an LC, I deleted his find on my cache. I was affected by his actions because I feel the need to do what I can to ensure that the find counts on caches that I own are accurate. This is doubly true for LCs since a false find actually stopped another cacher from logging a find on that object.

 

That being said, I don't feel affected by finds on caches that I don't own. While I advise cache owners to delete false finds on their caches, I don't actually care if they do or not. I am not overly concerned that the previous found log for a cache that I look for might have been faked. After all, an online log is no guarantee that the cache is there or that I will find it if it is. Further, a bogus log has no bearing on whether the cache is findable by me on that day, or not.

 

Finally, while I understand why people believe that intentionally logging a false find (without owner approval) is inherently wrong, I don't understand the high level of angst doled out to this relatively insignificant issue.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

 

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

[Mushtang]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

 

Well, let's start with the word "Is"

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

If I may chime in here for for a moment as an entirely impartial and dispassionate observer, it has been my observation across the years that everything which Vinny writes is entirely correct and accurate and true, and ultimately, largely undebatable for the precision, flawless logic and glaring brilliance displayed in his posts is stunning and transcendent. I have never seen anyone who has ever been able ot argue with Vinny, and few even try.

 

And, although no one has ever seen Vinny, it is rumored that he is incredibly handsome, intelligent, brilliant, suave, debonair and cultured, and totally HOT (according to 99 out of 100 females in the most recent USA Today poll)! It is also rumored, in the realms of fashion, wardrobe and grooming, that he showers at least once per month whether he needs it or not, and that he changes his bluejeans and t-shirt at least twice per year whether they needed changing and laundering or not, and that there are never very many lice nor mites on his person, on his clothing, or in his hair. Amazing!

[+sbell111]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

If I may chime in here for for a moment as an entirely impartial and dispassionate observer, it has been my observation across the years that everything which Vinny writes is entirely correct and accurate and true, and ultimately, largely undebatable for the precision, flawless logic and glaring brilliance displayed in his posts is stunning and transcendent. I have never seen anyone who has ever been able ot argue with Vinny, and few even try.

 

And, although no one has ever seen Vinny, it is rumored that he is incredibly handsome, intelligent, brilliant, suave, debonair and cultured, and totally HOT (according to 99 out of 100 females in the most recent USA Today poll)! It is also rumored, in the realms of fashion, wardrobe and grooming, that he showers at least once per month whether he needs it or not, and that he changes his bluejeans and t-shirt at least twice per year whether they needed changing and laundering or not, and that there are never very many lice nor mites on his person, on his clothing, or in his hair. Amazing!

I can't stop thinking of Simple Jack.

[+Moose Mob]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

If I may chime in here for for a moment as an entirely impartial and dispassionate observer, it has been my observation across the years that everything which Vinny writes is entirely correct and accurate and true, and ultimately, largely undebatable for the precision, flawless logic and glaring brilliance displayed in his posts is stunning and transcendent. I have never seen anyone who has ever been able ot argue with Vinny, and few even try.

 

And, although no one has ever seen Vinny, it is rumored that he is incredibly handsome, intelligent, brilliant, suave, debonair and cultured, and totally HOT (according to 99 out of 100 females in the most recent USA Today poll)! It is also rumored, in the realms of fashion, wardrobe and grooming, that he showers at least once per month whether he needs it or not, and that he changes his bluejeans and t-shirt at least twice per year whether they needed changing and laundering or not, and that there are never very many lice nor mites on his person, on his clothing, or in his hair. Amazing!

But these folks were refering to the Vinny of Vinny and Sue, not the Vinny that you are mentioning here.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've decided that Vinny is right.

Well I guess that is one way to win the argument. Vinny gets to speak for everyone else. Then you get to agree with Vinny.

He just uses so many darn words, its impossible to debate him, so it gives the appearance of making a good argument

I guess if reading all those darn words gets too tough you can ask me to help you. I'll be happy to explain what they mean.

 

When I read all the darn words I can see that he actually does make good arguments. It's not just an appearance.

If I may chime in here for for a moment as an entirely impartial and dispassionate observer, it has been my observation across the years that everything which Vinny writes is entirely correct and accurate and true, and ultimately, largely undebatable for the precision, flawless logic and glaring brilliance displayed in his posts is stunning and transcendent. I have never seen anyone who has ever been able ot argue with Vinny, and few even try.

 

And, although no one has ever seen Vinny, it is rumored that he is incredibly handsome, intelligent, brilliant, suave, debonair and cultured, and totally HOT (according to 99 out of 100 females in the most recent USA Today poll)! It is also rumored, in the realms of fashion, wardrobe and grooming, that he showers at least once per month whether he needs it or not, and that he changes his bluejeans and t-shirt at least twice per year whether they needed changing and laundering or not, and that there are never very many lice nor mites on his person, on his clothing, or in his hair. Amazing!

But these folks were refering to the Vinny of Vinny and Sue, not the Vinny that you are mentioning here.

So you're implying that Vinny of Vinny & Sue team does bathe more than once per month, and does change his clothing more than once every six months? Are you sure?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[knowschad]

But these folks were refering to the Vinny of Vinny and Sue, not the Vinny that you are mentioning here.

 

Not Vinnie Gambini?

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

So you're implying that Vinny of Vinny & Sue team does bathe more than once per month, and does change his clothing more than once every six months? Are you sure?

It has been known to happen. Rare, but it happens. (Sion-evil told me so)

[+traildad]

 

Please, I beg of you, give it a rest.

 

Explain your position. Support that position. Explain why you think your position is preferable than the position of others, but please lay off teh attack dog strategy that you have used in this thread.

I didn't realize that it was necessary for me to follow your guidelines while posting.

 

False logging happens. It is part of the game, but it is a part that is so tiny that I don't really feel affected.

I haven't gone back to reread your posts on the subject so I don't want to put words into your mouth. Some people agree as you stated above, but they find themselves unable to let others have a different opinion. If you don't want to get excited about it I don't care. If you want to audit your cache logs or not I don't care. If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

 

That being said, I don't feel affected by finds on caches that I don't own. While I advise cache owners to delete false finds on their caches, I don't actually care if they do or not. I am not overly concerned that the previous found log for a cache that I look for might have been faked. After all, an online log is no guarantee that the cache is there or that I will find it if it is. Further, a bogus log has no bearing on whether the cache is findable by me on that day, or not.

 

Finally, while I understand why people believe that intentionally logging a false find (without owner approval) is inherently wrong, I don't understand the high level of angst doled out to this relatively insignificant issue.

Are you really trying to say that you don't understand or would it be closer to saying that you don't feel that way?

[+traildad]

One more thing that I don't understand is why you keep arguing this issue. Your position appears to be so close to Mushtang's that I wouldn't think that there is any reason to bicker.

I read the rest of the posts on the topic before I responded to this part. I didn't see anything similar posted to Mushtang. I don't think I have been having a conversation all by myself but somehow I am the one. I think you may be showing your bias. Two people have an ongoing discussion but only one of them is the one that keeps arguing the issue.

[Mushtang]

If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

I don't think anyone else here has ever tried to tell them they shouldn't feel that way either.

[+traildad]

If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

I don't think anyone else here has ever tried to tell them they shouldn't feel that way either.

 

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, ...

I think this is pretty close to telling people that they shouldn't be upset by bogus logs. Parse it how you want to but that is the way I take it.

[Mushtang]

If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

I don't think anyone else here has ever tried to tell them they shouldn't feel that way either.

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, ...

I think this is pretty close to telling people that they shouldn't be upset by bogus logs. Parse it how you want to but that is the way I take it.

Pretty close... but no cigar. Pointing out there's not a need, or a requirement, for something isn't the same as telling someone they shouldn't do it.

 

I can see how you would see it otherwise though. I probably would have phrased it differently if I'd read it over thinking about it that way.

[+traildad]

If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

I don't think anyone else here has ever tried to tell them they shouldn't feel that way either.

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, ...

I think this is pretty close to telling people that they shouldn't be upset by bogus logs. Parse it how you want to but that is the way I take it.

Pretty close... but no cigar. Pointing out there's not a need, or a requirement, for something isn't the same as telling someone they shouldn't do it.

 

I can see how you would see it otherwise though. I probably would have phrased it differently if I'd read it over thinking about it that way.

And I think that it might be that kind of misreading causing a lot of what it being said. Pointing out that there is not a need to feel something, probably never gets us anywhere. It's kind of like telling someone that just got divorced, "don't feel bad you'll find someone better". Or pointing out that there is no need to be sad, the guy was a louse. However I do admit that it is a very common and very human thing to do. Why don't they see things the way I do, it is so obvious.

[+chuckwagon101]

THAT does it!

 

240 posts and not an ice cream analogy in the WHOLE BUNCH! Now....is that pitiful or WHAT???!!

 

Not a single Raspberry Delight nor a Pistachio Mocho Streak. I would have been satisfied with a single-dip vanilla analogy, for HEAVEN'S sake!

 

I remember a time....lonnnnnng ago in geocaching posts......that you could hear a GALLON CHURN of posts that included Ice Cream analogies. But now.......well.......things change.

 

But NOOOOOO! It is like I am reading posts from a bunch of LACTOSE CHALLENGED cachers that don't have the GUTS to come up with an IN-YOUR-FACE Ice Cream analogy that would blow the serving bowls right OFF THE TABLE.

 

So I am going to meander down to the Bluebell creamery in Brenham, Texas. Maybe they can give me the "scoop" on a few things!

Edited September 11, 2008 by chuckwagon101

[+sbell111]

One more thing that I don't understand is why you keep arguing this issue. Your position appears to be so close to Mushtang's that I wouldn't think that there is any reason to bicker.

I read the rest of the posts on the topic before I responded to this part. I didn't see anything similar posted to Mushtang. I don't think I have been having a conversation all by myself but somehow I am the one. I think you may be showing your bias. Two people have an ongoing discussion but only one of them is the one that keeps arguing the issue.

I didn't include Mushtang in that post for two reasons. First, you came into the thread on the attack against Mushtang. Second, you've been on the attack and he's been on defense. If you weren't attacking, he wouldn't have been defending, in my opinion.

Edited September 11, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

THAT does it!

 

240 posts and not an ice cream analogy in the WHOLE BUNCH! Now....is that pitiful or WHAT???!!

 

Not a single Raspberry Delight nor a Pistachio Mocho Streak. I would have been satisfied with a single-dip vanilla analogy, for HEAVEN'S sake!

 

I remember a time....lonnnnnng ago in geocaching posts......that you could hear a GALLON CHURN of posts that included Ice Cream analogies. But now.......well.......things change.

 

But NOOOOOO! It is like I am reading posts from a bunch of LACTOSE CHALLENGED cachers that don't have the GUTS to come up with an IN-YOUR-FACE Ice Cream analogy that would blow the serving bowls right OFF THE TABLE.

 

So I am going to meander down to the Bluebell creamery in Brenham, Texas. Maybe they can give me the "scoop" on a few things!

I miss the pre-ice cream days when all analogies were about beans.

[Mushtang]

If others choose to audit their cache logs and get upset about false logs I don't try to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

I don't think anyone else here has ever tried to tell them they shouldn't feel that way either.

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, ...

I think this is pretty close to telling people that they shouldn't be upset by bogus logs. Parse it how you want to but that is the way I take it.

Pretty close... but no cigar. Pointing out there's not a need, or a requirement, for something isn't the same as telling someone they shouldn't do it.

 

I can see how you would see it otherwise though. I probably would have phrased it differently if I'd read it over thinking about it that way.

And I think that it might be that kind of misreading causing a lot of what it being said. Pointing out that there is not a need to feel something, probably never gets us anywhere. It's kind of like telling someone that just got divorced, "don't feel bad you'll find someone better". Or pointing out that there is no need to be sad, the guy was a louse. However I do admit that it is a very common and very human thing to do. Why don't they see things the way I do, it is so obvious.

There's no NEED to use a screen saver to avoid burning a static image into your monitor. They fixed that problem a long time ago. That's not even close to saying that i don't think you should have a screen saver running.

 

No matter how you may feel about how I phrased it, the point of my post isn't going to change. There's no reason to get upset about someone else's fake logs on someone else's cache. I'm not telling someone not to get upset about it, I just don't understand why they'd choose to get upset.

 

There's also no need to keep coming after me over and over trying to convince me that my position should be anything other than it is. For someone who keeps arguing that we shouldn't tell others how to feel, you've done a great job of hounding me trying to get me to change my position or admit that I'm wrong.

 

It's getting old. I'm hoping you'll be done soon.

[+sbell111]

Help, Help! I'm being repressed!

[+ReadyOrNot]

No matter how you may feel about how I phrased it, the point of my post isn't going to change. There's no reason to get upset about someone else's fake logs on someone else's cache. I'm not telling someone not to get upset about it, I just don't understand why they'd choose to get upset.

 

I can't see the distinction. I'm not trying to hound you, but I don't think there's any real difference between:

 

Scenario: Betsy sue just dropped her frankfurter on the ground and is extremely upset about it and crying her eyes out.

 

a) Betsy sue, I don't understand why someone would get upset about dropping their frankfurter

Betsy sue, you shouldn't be upset about dropping your frankfurter

 

Both of these statements are going to be taken the same way by Betsy Sue. Regardless of how you intended it or the wording you used, both are going to be taken negatively by Betsy Sue. Why try to understand why someone is upset? People get upset for all kinds of reasons. Either have compassion for their situation (whether or not you believe they should be upset or not) or just don't say anything at all. When you do say something, you come across as non-supportive, even though you claim to be.

[Mushtang]

Either have compassion for their situation or just don't say anything at all.

Now you're telling me how to behave by telling me I shouldn't tell people how to behave (which I haven't done).

 

Interesting.

[+tozainamboku]

THAT does it!

 

240 posts and not an ice cream analogy in the WHOLE BUNCH! Now....is that pitiful or WHAT???!!

I've been trying to come up with a ice cream analogy but it's tough. Here's an attempt that may or may not work.

 

The local ice cream parlor - Betsy Sue's Ice Cream - decided that health conscious consumers wanted something healthier than ice cream. So she started selling low fat frozen yogurt in addition to ice cream. People were happy until one day one of Betsy Sue's employees - Jimmy Bob - gave someone a scoop of frozen yogurt but told the customer that it was ice cream. The customer walked away happy because they couldn't tell that they had gotten yogurt instead of ice cream. But the city consumer protection bureau suspected that Besty Sue was selling bogus ice cream. The made a big stink about it and threaten to shut down Besty Sue's Ice Cream. Besty Sue protested. "The customer was happy when they left. It really didn't matter to them that they got frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. But I agree that we should be honest and Jimmy Bob has been fired." Then the same thing happened at Sally Mae's ice cream. But Sally Mae didn't fire her employee. "Billy Ray was just funnin' with the customer and there warn't no harm done." When asked, Betsy Sue said that it was up to Sally Mae whether to fire her employee but that she agreed that no one is harmed by eating frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. The man from the city consumer protection bureau say he didn't understand how Betsy Sue could condone lying about ice cream even though she had previously said you should be honest.

[+sbell111]

A local church had an ice cream social. At the event, there were several different kinds of ice cream, as well as some frozen yogurt. All went well until one visitor complained that frozen yogurt is not ice cream. The pastor tried to calm the angst level by advising the disatisfied visitor that there is no reason to be upset because, after all teh visitor could simply eat the ice cream instead. The presence of a gallon or two of frozen yogurt doesn't make the variety of ice creams less yummy. Plus, it's not like the person paid to come to the church's ice cream social.

 

It's imperfect, but I'm still working on it.

[+chuckwagon101]

THAT does it!

 

240 posts and not an ice cream analogy in the WHOLE BUNCH! Now....is that pitiful or WHAT???!!

I've been trying to come up with a ice cream analogy but it's tough. Here's an attempt that may or may not work.

 

The local ice cream parlor - Betsy Sue's Ice Cream - decided that health conscious consumers wanted something healthier than ice cream. So she started selling low fat frozen yogurt in addition to ice cream. People were happy until one day one of Betsy Sue's employees - Jimmy Bob - gave someone a scoop of frozen yogurt but told the customer that it was ice cream. The customer walked away happy because they couldn't tell that they had gotten yogurt instead of ice cream. But the city consumer protection bureau suspected that Besty Sue was selling bogus ice cream. The made a big stink about it and threaten to shut down Besty Sue's Ice Cream. Besty Sue protested. "The customer was happy when they left. It really didn't matter to them that they got frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. But I agree that we should be honest and Jimmy Bob has been fired." Then the same thing happened at Sally Mae's ice cream. But Sally Mae didn't fire her employee. "Billy Ray was just funnin' with the customer and there warn't no harm done." When asked, Betsy Sue said that it was up to Sally Mae whether to fire her employee but that she agreed that no one is harmed by eating frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. The man from the city consumer protection bureau say he didn't understand how Betsy Sue could condone lying about ice cream even though she had previously said you should be honest.

 

 

MAGNIFICO!! I knew someone could do it! I could almost TASTE that yogurt, nestled in the huge WAFFLE cone! It WAS a waffle cone I hope??? I mean, I TASTED a waffle cone. I can't stand those cheap, EAT-IT-ALL Cake cones! They give me .....GAS!

 

Thanks Toz!