fraude FTF by FTF Jaeger

[+traildad]

Ummm, if you are not upset about this, then why does it bother you that his post said some people get upset? Just be happy that you're not one of those people and move on with your life.

Why would I need to be upset about cache owners not deleting false logs before I can be upset that someone writes something untrue in this discussion. I would prefer that people don't misquote or mis characterize what others are saying. If this is meant to be a honest discussion between us we should all want to be as truthful and as accurate as reasonably possible.

 

As far as the move one with my life comment, what gives you the impression that I'm not?

[+traildad]

 

Good golly. If you want that in there, scribble it on the copy that you tape to your fridge. Personally, I don't see this as a big deal for reasons already discussed in the thread.

I think the point was that if you would scribble it on the list you keep in your wallet, we might have a chance to say we agreed on something. Saying that you don't see it as a big deal implies that only the things that YOU think are a big deal count. If it is a little deal to you, then anyone that feels differently must be unreasonable?

[+traildad]

When you have someone on ignore, you can no longer see what they posted, unless someone replies to it.

 

D'Oh!!!

 

Well do you think it is possible that someone just might reply to my posts? D'Oh!!!!

 

Edit to fix quotes.

Edited September 19, 2008 by traildad

[+traildad]

 

I'm not saying that anyone here has turned their head and not said anything, because clearly everyone has made their positions VERY clear that they are against it... But adding the asterisk and saying, "But what you do is your own business" is the part that gives the impression of condoning... What's the point of adding that anyways?

Very well said.

[+traildad]

... What's the point of adding that anyways?

It serves to more adequately describe positions. If we were not all trying to make our positions completely understood, everyone would have merely answered the OP's two questions as follows and moved on:

 

1. Because they wanted to.

2. Yes.

Well it gives the impression that you condone the act of false logging. Is that the more adequately described position that you are trying to convey? You don't agree or support it, or think it is "right" you just condone it. Go ahead, say it. It's ok to say it, if that is how you think. We could get past this if some people would admit that they condone it or stop doing it. Either way would work.

[+BambamNJ]

We all understand that it sucks that there are people out there that just don't play by the rules or get some kick by just screwing with people. there are idiots all over the world and until there a hunting season for them (I'm joking just joking) to thin the herd, there really isn't much you can do about them.

If it really bother's you that much here is a little technique that you can do. When you place your cache, include a little FTF card with some type of code on it. On your cache page place a statement explaining that the FTF should take the card and send the code to you the CO, in an e-mail, as proof they were FTF.

Some people like this because if you make the FTF Card something half decent they have something they can keep as a token of being FTF. Other people will probably hate it but your the CO and this gives you a little control over who claims FTF. If you don't receive the code, delete their FTF log.

Edited September 19, 2008 by BambamNJ

[+traildad]

I don't agree with RoN or with Immanuel Kant that lying is always wrong. In my view lying is neutral and I look more at the intent of the lie. I keep giving the example of the people who lied to protect the Jews they were hiding from the Nazis. Posting a false log is wrong because the intent of the the online log is to record the experience of the logger. If it was meant as a place to lie about your experience (as in a liar's cache) then lying would be alright. (I should point out that I have yet to see a liars cache that asked you to log found it without first finding the cache. In fact in every case, you had to find the cache to find out that you are suppose to lie in your log).

The lie that tells your wife she looks nice has good intent. The lie that says you found a cache you never looked for is not made with good intent.

 

Should we speak out against every wrong we see? I doubt that posting in the GC forums really convinces people who misuse the online logs to stop. It might even encourage them. Some of these people are looking for attention, or they see the posting of bogus logs as joke on the players who read too much into the value of the online logs. Ignore these people and they soon get bored and stop. Continue posting and you encourage more of this behavior. Speaking out about a wrong is best reserved for when that action may be effective in preventing the wrong or in getting justice for those who were harmed by a wrong.

We should speak out against every wrong that we feel the need to speak about. One person speaking out may not prevent the wrong, but it may encourage others and eventually there can be a change in public opinion. You say posting against bogus logs encourages more, I say condoning bogus logs encourages more. I'm sure that the Jews you refer to above would want all to speak out against the atrocities, no matter how likely it was that it would be effective.

 

Some wrongs can be condone. They are harmless or forgivable. Condoning something does not mean you think is right. You can condone something and still take actions to discourage others from doing it. We have the ability to delete logs which appear to be bogus from our own caches. And we say we would do so. We don't have the ability to police someone else's logs and we say that if there are bogus logs there we will somehow manage to ignore them. However, we do have the ability to post an SBA on somebody else's cache to indicate they aren't doing maintenance per the guidelines by letting the bogus logs stand. If bogus logs are wrong shouldn't we be monitoring other people to make sure they comply with the guidelines and delete those log?

On this last part is seems your fingers let you down. I am not sure what you were trying to type. Condoning something does mean that you regard or treat it as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. I would say that condoning is something slightly less than thinking it is right.

 

I assume that there are some things is life that you think are truly wrong. I would also assume that if you thought about it for a while you could come up with a very long list of things in life that are wrong. So I guess that you should be monitoring other people to make sure that they comply with all laws and never do anything wrong. Of course that would be just as silly as saying that because we find false logging to be wrong then we must act as Cache Police. On the flip side, just because we don't try to enforce all rules on everyone in the world, that we can't say if we think something we see is wrong or right.

[+KBI]

As far as the move one with my life comment, what gives you the impression that I'm not?

Maybe because you refuse to let go of the "condone" thing, even after it's been explained to you repeatedly?

 

Maybe because 38 of the last 100 posts in this thread are yours?

 

Maybe because you badger people for daring to try to break off their futile conversations with you?

Edited September 19, 2008 by KBI

[+traildad]

 

I missed it on page 4 apparently...

 

85% agreement is good enough for me! The world would be a boring place if we all agreed with each other all the time... I'm kinda tired of the false logging debate... Maybe we should go start a permission thread? Or even better, how about a hate-micro thread? Haven't had a cache rating debate for a while... Pick your poison

I think you can get a 2 4 1 over in the "The OTHER Thanks, But No Thanks! Thread," both I hate lame micro spew/cache rating all at once.

[+traildad]

We all understand that it sucks that there are people out there that just don't play by the rules or get some kick by just screwing with people. there are idiots all over the world and until there a hunting season for them (I'm joking just joking) to thin the herd, there really isn't much you can do about them.

If it really bother's you that much here is a little technique that you can do. When you place your cache, include a little FTF card with some type of code on it. On your cache page place a statement explaining that the FTF should take the card and send the code to you the CO, in an e-mail, as proof they were FTF.

Some people like this because if you make the FTF Card something half decent they have something they can keep as a token of being FTF. Other people will probably hate it but your the CO and this gives you a little control over who claims FTF. If you don't receive the code, delete their FTF log.

Wouldn't that make it a unknown cache?

[+traildad]

As far as the move one with my life comment, what gives you the impression that I'm not?

Maybe because you refuse to let go of the "condone" thing, even after it's been explained to you repeatedly?

 

Maybe because 38 of the last 100 posts in this thread are yours?

 

Maybe because you badger people for daring to try to break off their futile conversations with you?

Right, like I am the only one posting more than once. As for explaining the "condone" thing, making excuses is not explaining. Just because someone wants to redefine a word over and over does not make it true.

[+KBI]

As for explaining the "condone" thing, making excuses is not explaining. Just because someone wants to redefine a word over and over does not make it true.

The rest of us covered that issue several pages ago, and have long since moved on. You seem to be the only one who still has a problem.

 

I, for one, have explained my position ad nauseum. You are free to review my posts all you like. If you happen to have some personal favorite words – and if you find you are able to replace any of my words in those posts with your preferred words without changing the gist – then knock yourself out.

 

In other words: If you want to go ahead and take a crack at reiterating my posts, and if you can successfully do so without altering my original meaning ... I would condone that.

 

I simply can’t understand why you stay wrapped around the axle over this one word.

[+traildad]

As for explaining the "condone" thing, making excuses is not explaining. Just because someone wants to redefine a word over and over does not make it true.

The rest of us covered that issue several pages ago, and have long since moved on. You seem to be the only one who still has a problem.

 

I, for one, have explained my position ad nauseum. You are free to review my posts all you like. If you happen to have some personal favorite words – and if you find you are able to replace any of my words in those posts with your preferred words without changing the gist – then knock yourself out.

 

In other words: If you want to go ahead and take a crack at reiterating my posts, and if you can successfully do so without altering my original meaning ... I would condone that.

 

I simply can’t understand why you stay wrapped around the axle over this one word.

I was not the one that brought up the word condone again. If you have been reading you will see it used in several recent posts. I responded to that usage. If someone says the sky is green and red polka dots over and over I guess you would have to agree. Now I would certainly say that I am not loosing any sleep if someone here can't read and understand a dictionary, that does not mean that I have to pretend to agree that the sky is red and green polka dots. I believe that in order to have a meaningful discussion of any topic it is necessary that we try our best to be truthful, factual, and not misstate, mislead, or misquote. It seems that some people are more interested in sounding right than being right.

[+KBI]

I believe that in order to have a meaningful discussion of any topic it is necessary that we try our best to be truthful, factual, and not misstate, mislead, or misquote. It seems that some people are more interested in sounding right than being right.

Who has been untruthful? Who hasn't been factual? Who has misstated, misled, or misquoted?

 

Why don't you pull up a couple actual examples of those misdeeds. Then you can replace whatever words you think need to be replaced with the word "condone," and we'll go from there.

[+ReadyOrNot]

... What's the point of adding that anyways?

It serves to more adequately describe positions. If we were not all trying to make our positions completely understood, everyone would have merely answered the OP's two questions as follows and moved on:

 

1. Because they wanted to.

2. Yes.

Well it gives the impression that you condone the act of false logging. Is that the more adequately described position that you are trying to convey? You don't agree or support it, or think it is "right" you just condone it. Go ahead, say it. It's ok to say it, if that is how you think. We could get past this if some people would admit that they condone it or stop doing it. Either way would work.

 

This is how society has become. It's ok to have your own little "Morality" bubble, but your bubble shouldn't come into contact with anyone else's "Morality" bubbles. We all bounce around the planet with our own morality bubbles, as if everyone's morality bubbles never have an effect on someone else's... In today's world, morality is not static, it's about perception and choice.

 

I'll say it and be done here..

 

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

 

Fin

[+KBI]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

[+ReadyOrNot]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

 

I said 'FIN' sir! Of course I'll come back... I don't know how to leave. The operative words in your sentence are "pretty much".... And like I said, sometimes 85% is good enough!!!! and to be a good sport -- AND SOME BOZO DOING IT DOESN'T AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME!

 

Fin deux

 

*edit to add 's' and 'are' so the sentence would be correct*

Edited September 19, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+KBI]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

 

I said 'FIN' sir! Of course I'll come back... I don't know how to leave. The operative words in your sentence are "pretty much".... And like I said, sometimes 85% is good enough!!!! and to be a good sport -- AND SOME BOZO DOING IT DOESN'T AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME!

 

Fin deux

You've come a looooong way from telling me that I promote the equivalent of people pooping in caches.

 

That's good to see.

[+traildad]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

 

 

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

You've come a looooong way from Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

That's good to see.

[+traildad]

I believe that in order to have a meaningful discussion of any topic it is necessary that we try our best to be truthful, factual, and not misstate, mislead, or misquote. It seems that some people are more interested in sounding right than being right.

Who has been untruthful? Who hasn't been factual? Who has misstated, misled, or misquoted?

 

Why don't you pull up a couple actual examples of those misdeeds. Then you can replace whatever words you think need to be replaced with the word "condone," and we'll go from there.

Well it is possible that your thoughts and feelings on this subject have grown and changed since Aug 30th. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. If you now say that is the case then I applaud you. If that is not the case then I refer you to my post #369 where it would be very easy to conclude that you were being dishonest, untruthful or trying to misstate or mislead. I don't know what is in your mind so I will leave it up to you to tell us. Does your post #366 represent your new enlightened view on the subject of false logs or does your post #84 represent your actual point of view?

[+KBI]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

 

 

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

You've come a looooong way from Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

That's good to see.

Do you see a contradiction between the two? I don't, but if you do you're welcome to it.

 

Remember the socks analogy? Did you even read that post? I also happen to believe that it is wrong to wear black socks with shorts. It looks really dorky to me. At my best friend’s 40th birthday pool party I made him parade around like that for a while, white t-shirt and all – and I did it with him, as a fun way to demonstrate that we were well on our way to being clueless old men.

 

So here are two more KBI statements for you to analyze:

• Wearing black socks with shorts is wrong. Not only is it wrong and I won’t do it (except at pool parties), but you shouldn’t do it either.
  
• When I see people in public wearing black socks with shorts it looks waaaay dorky to me, but it doesn’t hurt anything, therefore it doesn’t bother me. I am indifferent.
  

If you still see a contradiction, then you have my permission to print this post, tack it up in your house someplace, and then laugh at it – and by association, me – every time you walk by.

 

You can even write the word “condone” on little bits of masking tape and stick them all over the printout, too.

[+sbell111]

Ummm, if you are not upset about this, then why does it bother you that his post said some people get upset? Just be happy that you're not one of those people and move on with your life.

Why would I need to be upset about cache owners not deleting false logs before I can be upset that someone writes something untrue in this discussion.

Because otherwise you are taking the position that no one ever gets upset over this. That is a stand that cannot be proven and could somewhat easily be disproven, based on post history.

I would prefer that people don't misquote or mis characterize what others are saying. If this is meant to be a honest discussion between us we should all want to be as truthful and as accurate as reasonably possible.

I agree. However, I don't see how anyone was misquoted or mischaracterized in the post you are currently complaining about.

As far as the move one with my life comment, what gives you the impression that I'm not?

Mostly because you can't let this go. You keep picking at every little post to continue the argument when most everyone else has shrugged their shoulders and 'moved on with their lives'.

[+sbell111]

Good golly. If you want that in there, scribble it on the copy that you tape to your fridge. Personally, I don't see this as a big deal for reasons already discussed in the thread.

I think the point was that if you would scribble it on the list you keep in your wallet, we might have a chance to say we agreed on something. Saying that you don't see it as a big deal implies that only the things that YOU think are a big deal count. If it is a little deal to you, then anyone that feels differently must be unreasonable?

No. The point was that it was a list of stuff that is generally agreed on. That bit didn't make the cut.

 

Sorry.

[+sbell111]

... What's the point of adding that anyways?

It serves to more adequately describe positions. If we were not all trying to make our positions completely understood, everyone would have merely answered the OP's two questions as follows and moved on:

 

1. Because they wanted to.

2. Yes.

Well it gives the impression that you condone the act of false logging. Is that the more adequately described position that you are trying to convey? You don't agree or support it, or think it is "right" you just condone it. Go ahead, say it. It's ok to say it, if that is how you think. We could get past this if some people would admit that they condone it or stop doing it. Either way would work.

Where in the world is my yawning signal when I need it? One would think that I would have saved it by now. I'll have to do a search, I guess.

[+sbell111]

We all understand that it sucks that there are people out there that just don't play by the rules or get some kick by just screwing with people. there are idiots all over the world and until there a hunting season for them (I'm joking just joking) to thin the herd, there really isn't much you can do about them.

If it really bother's you that much here is a little technique that you can do. When you place your cache, include a little FTF card with some type of code on it. On your cache page place a statement explaining that the FTF should take the card and send the code to you the CO, in an e-mail, as proof they were FTF.

Some people like this because if you make the FTF Card something half decent they have something they can keep as a token of being FTF. Other people will probably hate it but your the CO and this gives you a little control over who claims FTF. If you don't receive the code, delete their FTF log.

Wouldn't that make it a unknown cache?

Not if the cache owner doesn't keep them from posting a non-FTF found log. Remember, FTF is not part of the official game.

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

So here are two more KBI statements for you to analyze:

• Wearing black socks with shorts is wrong. Not only is it wrong and I won’t do it (except at pool parties), but you shouldn’t do it either.
  
• When I see people in public wearing black socks with shorts it looks waaaay dorky to me, but it doesn’t hurt anything, therefore it doesn’t bother me. I am indifferent.
  

If you still see a contradiction, then you have my permission to print this post, tack it up in your house someplace, and then laugh at it – and by association, me – every time you walk by.

 

 

People who wear black socks publically are causing the degradation of sock wearing. If it continues, pretty soon everyone is going to be wearing black socks and looking like a dork.

 

If you see someone wearing black socks, you would be doing them a service by letting them know that they look like a dork. If not for the sake of the world, at least to save them from being laughed at publically.

[+KBI]

So here are two more KBI statements for you to analyze:

• Wearing black socks with shorts is wrong. Not only is it wrong and I won’t do it (except at pool parties), but you shouldn’t do it either.
  
• When I see people in public wearing black socks with shorts it looks waaaay dorky to me, but it doesn’t hurt anything, therefore it doesn’t bother me. I am indifferent.
  

If you still see a contradiction, then you have my permission to print this post, tack it up in your house someplace, and then laugh at it – and by association, me – every time you walk by.

 

 

People who wear black socks publically are causing the degradation of sock wearing. If it continues, pretty soon everyone is going to be wearing black socks and looking like a dork.

 

If you see someone wearing black socks, you would be doing them a service by letting them know that they look like a dork. If not for the sake of the world, at least to save them from being laughed at publically.

I started to laugh -- but then it occurred to be you might be serious. Are you? It's hard to tell without having facial expressions and voice inflections to judge by.

[+ReadyOrNot]

So here are two more KBI statements for you to analyze:

• Wearing black socks with shorts is wrong. Not only is it wrong and I won’t do it (except at pool parties), but you shouldn’t do it either.
  
• When I see people in public wearing black socks with shorts it looks waaaay dorky to me, but it doesn’t hurt anything, therefore it doesn’t bother me. I am indifferent.
  

If you still see a contradiction, then you have my permission to print this post, tack it up in your house someplace, and then laugh at it – and by association, me – every time you walk by.

 

 

People who wear black socks publically are causing the degradation of sock wearing. If it continues, pretty soon everyone is going to be wearing black socks and looking like a dork.

 

If you see someone wearing black socks, you would be doing them a service by letting them know that they look like a dork. If not for the sake of the world, at least to save them from being laughed at publically.

I started to laugh -- but then it occurred to be you might be serious. Are you? It's hard to tell without having facial expressions and voice inflections to judge by.

 

I'm always VERY serious. Are you condoning the wearing of black socks?

[+sbell111]

How do you define 'socks'?

[+infiniteMPG]

I'm always VERY serious. Are you condoning the wearing of black socks?

It totally depends on what part of the body someone is wearing them on. There are those who say when someone wears black socks on another part of the body other then the feet then they're not wearing them right and should not be allowed to wear them at all. They feel they're not really "wearing black socks" and should find something else to call it like "dangling dark hosiery"...

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm always VERY serious. Are you condoning the wearing of black socks?

It totally depends on what part of the body someone is wearing them on. There are those who say when someone wears black socks on another part of the body other then the feet then they're not wearing them right and should not be allowed to wear them at all. They feel they're not really "wearing black socks" and should find something else to call it like "dangling dark hosiery"...

 

Are you referring to the Red Hot Chile Peppers method of wearing socks? In that case, it's okay if they are white socks, but certainly not black socks. Wearing black socks "In that way" is worse than wearing them on your legs.

 

How do you define "Wear"? Obviously if the sock is touching ANY part of the body, it is being worn. Here's the definition of "Wear" according to the dictionary, since you seem to be having a hard time.

 

to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like: to wear a coat; to wear a saber; to wear a disguise.

 

Clearly "dangling dark hosiery" is a wear-able garment. What dictionary are you reading?!?!?!?!

[+infiniteMPG]

Are you referring to the Red Hot Chile Peppers method of wearing socks? In that case, it's okay if they are white socks, but certainly not black socks. Wearing black socks "In that way" is worse than wearing them on your legs.

Other then for winter warmth, the RHCP method accepts adorning colored socks for most situations outside the home. While I agree black is not the preferred color (in fact in most circles black is not a color at all but the lack of all color) it is still accepted as long as it does not contain embedded designs such as diamonds or stripes, or have contrasting toe-and-heel areas (often referred to as the junk-and-jewels areas by the Kiedis method).

 

How do you define "Wear"? Obviously if the sock is touching ANY part of the body, it is being worn. Here's the definition of "Wear" according to the dictionary, since you seem to be having a hard time. to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like: to wear a coat; to wear a saber; to wear a disguise.Clearly "dangling dark hosiery" is a wear-able garment. What dictionary are you reading?!?!?!?!

I general refer to my Skeptic's Dictionary but being in Florida I now find myself more reading Spanglish For Dummies. Edited September 19, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+traildad]

FALSE LOGGING IS WRONG... NOT ONLY IS IT WRONG AND I WONT DO IT BUT **** YOU SHOULDNT DO IT EITHER ****

Funny, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying too.

 

(I wonder if he'll ever come back and see that I agreed with him?)

 

 

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

You've come a looooong way from Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

That's good to see.

Do you see a contradiction between the two? I don't, but if you do you're welcome to it.

 

Remember the socks analogy? Did you even read that post? I also happen to believe that it is wrong to wear black socks with shorts. It looks really dorky to me. At my best friend’s 40th birthday pool party I made him parade around like that for a while, white t-shirt and all – and I did it with him, as a fun way to demonstrate that we were well on our way to being clueless old men.

 

So here are two more KBI statements for you to analyze:

• Wearing black socks with shorts is wrong. Not only is it wrong and I won’t do it (except at pool parties), but you shouldn’t do it either.
  
• When I see people in public wearing black socks with shorts it looks waaaay dorky to me, but it doesn’t hurt anything, therefore it doesn’t bother me. I am indifferent.
  

If you still see a contradiction, then you have my permission to print this post, tack it up in your house someplace, and then laugh at it – and by association, me – every time you walk by.

 

You can even write the word “condone” on little bits of masking tape and stick them all over the printout, too.

I did see the sock thing but dismissed it as totally irrelevant. There is absolutely no way to equate the "wrongness" of fashion and the "wrongness" of messing up someone's cache stats or causing them to waste a trip to look for a missing cache. Maybe now you will say that murdering someone is just as wrong as wearing white shoes after labor day. Didn't they make a movie about that? Anyway, just because you use the word wrong in both sentences does not mean that they are the same.

[+traildad]

Ummm, if you are not upset about this, then why does it bother you that his post said some people get upset? Just be happy that you're not one of those people and move on with your life.

Why would I need to be upset about cache owners not deleting false logs before I can be upset that someone writes something untrue in this discussion.

Because otherwise you are taking the position that no one ever gets upset over this. That is a stand that cannot be proven and could somewhat easily be disproven, based on post history.

I don't think I understand your point. I think what I said was that I had not read a post where someone said that they were upset that someone was not deleting bogus logs. No one offered the proof that you say would be easily done.

I would prefer that people don't misquote or mis characterize what others are saying. If this is meant to be a honest discussion between us we should all want to be as truthful and as accurate as reasonably possible.

I agree. However, I don't see how anyone was misquoted or mischaracterized in the post you are currently complaining about.

If I am reading between all the quotes correctly my comment was meant to say that I felt him saying the "upset" was about someone not deleting bogus logs was a mis characterizations of the topic.

As far as the move one with my life comment, what gives you the impression that I'm not?

Mostly because you can't let this go. You keep picking at every little post to continue the argument when most everyone else has shrugged their shoulders and 'moved on with their lives'.

I don't understand why you say that about me. I left for a weekend and this didn't end while was away. I respond to something you post for example but somehow I am the one picking at it. It takes at least two to have a back and forth. If you don't want me to comment on your post, don't post.

[+traildad]

Good golly. If you want that in there, scribble it on the copy that you tape to your fridge. Personally, I don't see this as a big deal for reasons already discussed in the thread.

I think the point was that if you would scribble it on the list you keep in your wallet, we might have a chance to say we agreed on something. Saying that you don't see it as a big deal implies that only the things that YOU think are a big deal count. If it is a little deal to you, then anyone that feels differently must be unreasonable?

No. The point was that it was a list of stuff that is generally agreed on. That bit didn't make the cut.

 

Sorry.

Yea generality agreed on by you.

[+traildad]

We all understand that it sucks that there are people out there that just don't play by the rules or get some kick by just screwing with people. there are idiots all over the world and until there a hunting season for them (I'm joking just joking) to thin the herd, there really isn't much you can do about them.

If it really bother's you that much here is a little technique that you can do. When you place your cache, include a little FTF card with some type of code on it. On your cache page place a statement explaining that the FTF should take the card and send the code to you the CO, in an e-mail, as proof they were FTF.

Some people like this because if you make the FTF Card something half decent they have something they can keep as a token of being FTF. Other people will probably hate it but your the CO and this gives you a little control over who claims FTF. If you don't receive the code, delete their FTF log.

Wouldn't that make it a unknown cache?

Not if the cache owner doesn't keep them from posting a non-FTF found log. Remember, FTF is not part of the official game.

Sounds like a additional logging requirement to me. I let a moderator explain that one.

[+tozainamboku]

It takes at least two to have a back and forth. If you don't want me to comment on your post, don't post.

Who ever gets the last word in in this debate will be determined by when the moderators lock the thread.

[+traildad]

It takes at least two to have a back and forth. If you don't want me to comment on your post, don't post.

Who ever gets the last word in in this debate will be determined by when the moderators lock the thread.

That is absolutely one thing we can agree on!

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm it!

[+KBI]

Remember the socks analogy? Did you even read that post?

I did see the sock thing but dismissed it as totally irrelevant ...

 

... Maybe now you will say that murdering someone is just as wrong as wearing white shoes after labor day.

If you are now going to abandon my actual posts in favor of making up fictitious KBI viewpoints to argue against, then I see no reason to respond to you any further.

[+traildad]

Remember the socks analogy? Did you even read that post?

I did see the sock thing but dismissed it as totally irrelevant ...

 

... Maybe now you will say that murdering someone is just as wrong as wearing white shoes after labor day.

If you are now going to abandon my actual posts in favor of making up fictitious KBI viewpoints to argue against, then I see no reason to respond to you any further.

Well if you are going to equate the "wrong" of a fashion mismatch to the wrong that fouls up someone's cache stats or hypothetically causes someone to waste time or money then what would be the point in you responding any further?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In before the lock (IBTL).

 

And, in case no one has yet invoked Godwin's Law in this thread, I shall do it forthwith in order for the thread to remain in compliance with Groundspeak rules; here goes:

 

Anyone who disagrees with my opinion regarding the topic matter of this thread is obviously a Nazi sympathizer and would vote for Hitler if this were Berlin in the 1930s!

[+traildad]

In before the lock (IBTL).

 

And, in case no one has yet invoked Godwin's Law in this thread, I shall do it forthwith in order for the thread to remain in compliance with Groundspeak rules; here goes:

 

Anyone who disagrees with my opinion regarding the topic matter of this thread is obviously a Nazi sympathizer and would vote for Hitler if this were Berlin in the 1930s!

 

Edit to add laughing, I forgot to laugh.

Edited September 22, 2008 by traildad

[+lordzogat]

What in the sam hill does half of this have to do with the topic.

[+fizzymagic]

Anyone who disagrees with my opinion regarding the topic matter of this thread is obviously a Nazi sympathizer and would vote for Hitler if this were Berlin in the 1930s!

You're just saying that because you are trying to deflect us from the fact that you have known National Socialist ties, Vinny. I've done one of your Extreme caches, and I know what is written on the intermediate stages!

[+Star*Hopper]

Edited September 22, 2008 by Star*Hopper

[+Rockin Roddy]

What in the sam hill does half of this have to do with the topic.

 

Little-to-nuttin', Zoggy. It's not even a topic anymore - it's a pool.

A grand competition to be Final track.

~*

 

Not only off-topic, but this post seems a bit UNfamily-friendly IMHO...does such language really need to be here? I don't mind much, but on occasion, my 10 yr old niece tends to look over my shoulder when I'm on the computer, and she CAN read quite well. I'd rather NOT have to explain some of these comments to her!

[+chuckwagon101]

What in the sam hill does half of this have to do with the topic.

 

Little-to-nuttin', Zoggy. It's not even a topic anymore - it's a pool.

A grand competition to be Final track.

~*

 

Not only off-topic, but this post seems a bit UNfamily-friendly IMHO...does such language really need to be here? I don't mind much, but on occasion, my 10 yr old niece tends to look over my shoulder when I'm on the computer, and she CAN read quite well. I'd rather NOT have to explain some of these comments to her!

 

Yeah, I agree! I don't want my 28 year old grandson seeing that "sam hill" phrase at ALL!

[+Chilln']

Not if the cache owner doesn't keep them from posting a non-FTF found log. Remember, FTF is not part of the official game.

 

It is part of the game. In the glossary it is explaned. I chalange you to show me a cache that hasn't been logged FTF at least once.

 

It is just wrong to log any cache without finding it first.

Edited September 22, 2008 by butlerchln

[+Rockin Roddy]

What in the sam hill does half of this have to do with the topic.

 

Little-to-nuttin', Zoggy. It's not even a topic anymore - it's a pool.

A grand competition to be Final track.

~*

 

Not only off-topic, but this post seems a bit UNfamily-friendly IMHO...does such language really need to be here? I don't mind much, but on occasion, my 10 yr old niece tends to look over my shoulder when I'm on the computer, and she CAN read quite well. I'd rather NOT have to explain some of these comments to her!

 

Yeah, I agree! I don't want my 28 year old grandson seeing that "sam hill" phrase at ALL!

 

My post quoting Star*hopper was the cleaned up version and I see Star*Hopper edited his/hers...but yes, I'd be just as unappreciative if someone were to walk up to us after chuch and start using this language when my niece is present!

 

Maybe going in under the assumption that there's a child viewing every post would help keep the language cleaner?? Might not be true, but why chance it?

 

And...I knew Sam Hill, he was a good person!