What about a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler caches

[+sbell111]

Perhaps we need a voluntary moratorium on strawman arguments in the forums

 

...followed by a moratorium on pedantic post dissection, passive aggressiveness, outright aggressiveness, overt rudeness, excessive punctuation and multi-tier nested quotes in replies.

Gosh. How's a guy supposed to post anything with all those rules?

[+sbell111]

You referred to fake sprinkler head caches as an "attractive nuisance" and suported the proposed voluntary ban. In doing so you effectively blamed the hiders of these caches while excusing the vandals who rip up real sprinkler heads.

Equating a voluntary moratorium on sprinkler-head caches with "blaming hiders" and "excusing vandals" is breathtakingly faulty logic. I think it is time I take the famous advice:

 

"Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience.- John Guerrero"

Translation:

 

"You disagree with me KBI, therefore you are, by definition, an idiot. I have run out of rational arguments ... but I'm frustrated, so I think I'll lash out with one more ad hominem personal attack on my way out the door."

 

Thanks, Fizzy. I've enjoyed it.

In his defense, at least he posted a little back-and-forth. It's refreshing to have him not just throw out drive-by snarkicisms.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Perhaps we need a voluntary moratorium on strawman arguments in the forums

 

...followed by a moratorium on pedantic post dissection, passive aggressiveness, outright aggressiveness, overt rudeness, excessive punctuation and multi-tier nested quotes in replies.

Gosh. How's a guy supposed to post anything with all those rules?

 

[+fizzymagic]

I don't think that Fizzy was trying to put all the blame on hiders and excuse those finders that cause damage to other cache areas. Rather, I believe that he merely didn't understand what the term he used meant.

I did (and do) understand what the term means.

 

The whole issue of "attractive nuisance" means that the responsibility for an action is shared between the party who did the action and the party who encouraged the action. Given our legal system, that often means that the party who encouraged the action ends up paying.

 

I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to help KBI understand that responsibility and blame do not have to be assigned to one party or the other; that while, as humans, we are ultimately responsible for our own actions, it is important to understand that many factors may influence a decision to take an action; a simplistic assignment of "blame" to one and only one party is not a useful way of looking at things.

 

KBI appears completely unable to see anything but black and white: if any responsibility is assigned to the owners of sprinkler-head caches, then he immediately takes that as all blame placed on them. It's a pattern he has repeatedly engaged in, and previous experience has shown that he is unwilling to consider that the real world may be different. There is no point in trying to have a conversation with a person who is willing to intentionally twist what you say to fit their erroneous worldview; as a result, my conversation with him is ended.

[+Sol seaker]

While true, this is impossible.

Could be. Personally, I'm not a fan of cache containers that have an increased potential for getting people to do dumb things. (Heck, I do enough dumb things all on my own!) This includes sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc. I wouldn't support a moratorium on them simply because I prefer education to legislation. I think that teaching folks why a particular container may be a bad idea would go a lot farther toward preventing future damage than trying to ban them. Once a person is educated regarding issues they may not have considered at the time of placement, they will often apply that knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

 

No problem with any of those containers. Just put 'em in odd places. A sprinkler head two miles from the nearest water supply in a desert would make my day. An outlet on the side of a tree in the woods sounds like fun.

 

The problem with just putting the container in appropriate places, is that the cache seekers do not KNOW that the cache they are looking for is not a sprinkler head. If the container is listed as ??? then we know all best are off and it could be anything, a rock, a log, a sprinkler head, an electrical box, etc.

 

If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads.

 

One of the caches I mentioned where there was a disasembled sprinkler was called something like, "spouting off" and ground zero was near a sprinkler head that was the only sprinkler in the area. made sense it was a sprinkler, yet it was not. It was a pine-cone. We just don't know not to look for sprinkler heads when they are not sprinkler heads, that's the problem.

 

They are a fantastic creative idea. I hate to see the idea put to rest, but anything that can be destructive can be determental to the survival of our game. I hate to lose these creative caches, but I'd hate even more for geocaching to be illegal in public parks.

 

OK, NOW can we go back to micro bashing? I do think we've run way into the micro bashing hour!!!

SS

Edited April 22, 2009 by Sol seaker

[Trinity's Crew]

I did (and do) understand what the term means.

 

The whole issue of "attractive nuisance" means that the responsibility for an action is shared between the party who did the action and the party who encouraged the action. Given our legal system, that often means that the party who encouraged the action ends up paying.

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

 

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

 

Put another way, if a 12 year old boy falls into my unprotected pool and is injured or drowns, I am liable for damages. If that same child comes on my property and punches holes in my pool and floods my basement HE is liable for damages and criminal prosecution.

 

I don't think there have been a lot of sprinkler head related child injuries and the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't apply here.

[+sbell111]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

 

How do you know the first one was found merely by searching? Maybe the first one took awhile to find along with the help of a few hints from the owner? People say the first one was found, so they obviously found it without knowledge of this before....maybe, maybe not!

[Trinity's Crew]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

 

That argument is full of the same holes you claim the OPs comment has. It's been pointed out many times already, and I'm off to work or I'd sit and play some more!

[Mushtang]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

I totally agree. Even if there was a ban on sprinkler head caches, and all existing ones were archived, and no new ones were allowed, people who didn't know this would still be checking real sprinkler heads out as they searched around.

 

I've looked in a LOT of places where the cache wasn't before finding the place where the cache was. If there's a real sprinkler head nearby a cache, someone is going to investigate it at some point.

 

Hopefully they've already found a fake sprinkler head cache and know how to check to see if it's fake without destroying it. If these hides are eliminated (voluntary or otherwise) they wouldn't have found one and might not know the safe ways to check.

[Trinity's Crew]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

 

That argument is full of the same holes you claim the OPs comment has. It's been pointed out many times already, and I'm off to work or I'd sit and play some more!

I don't even understand what you're trying to refute let alone how you're trying to refute it.

 

But if you are implying that no one would think to look in sprinkler heads... there are countless threads complaining about "scorched earth" cache sites that have been damaged/destroyed by cachers who had a tough time finding certain caches. Do you think those same cachers would ignore a sprinkler head at or near ground zero?

 

Although I don't believe I've actually stated it clearly before I don't think a moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, would stop irresponsible cachers from damaging sprinkler heads.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+Castle Mischief]

 

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

 

That argument is full of the same holes you claim the OPs comment has. It's been pointed out many times already, and I'm off to work or I'd sit and play some more!

 

Yeah, but there was the "CHICKEN DINNA" thing in there and I think that's been one of the more valid arguements in this thread- easily worth three extra Internet Logic Points (ILP). Heck, I know that I made an about face on my own personnal belief system.

[+KBI]

I did (and do) understand what the term means.

 

The whole issue of "attractive nuisance" means that the responsibility for an action is shared between the party who did the action and the party who encouraged the action. Given our legal system, that often means that the party who encouraged the action ends up paying.

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

 

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

 

Put another way, if a 12 year old boy falls into my unprotected pool and is injured or drowns, I am liable for damages. If that same child comes on my property and punches holes in my pool and floods my basement HE is liable for damages and criminal prosecution.

 

I don't think there have been a lot of sprinkler head related child injuries and the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't apply here.

I already pointed that out to Fizzy. He chose to ignore that critical detail. He elected to launch personal insults instead, referring to those who disagree with him (including you as well, apparently) as "fools" and "idiots"

 

It's a pattern he has repeatedly engaged in, and previous experience has shown that he is unwilling to consider the actual, posted arguments of others. There is no point in trying to have a conversation with a person who is only willing attack people personally instead of listen to what others have to say; as a result, my conversation with him is ended.

[Trinity's Crew]

I did (and do) understand what the term means.

 

The whole issue of "attractive nuisance" means that the responsibility for an action is shared between the party who did the action and the party who encouraged the action. Given our legal system, that often means that the party who encouraged the action ends up paying.

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

 

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

 

Put another way, if a 12 year old boy falls into my unprotected pool and is injured or drowns, I am liable for damages. If that same child comes on my property and punches holes in my pool and floods my basement HE is liable for damages and criminal prosecution.

 

I don't think there have been a lot of sprinkler head related child injuries and the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't apply here.

I already pointed that out to Fizzy. He chose to ignore that critical detail. He elected to launch personal insults instead, referring to those who disagree with him (including you as well, apparently) as "fools" and "idiots"

 

It's a pattern he has repeatedly engaged in, and previous experience has shown that he is unwilling to consider the actual, posted arguments of others. There is no point in trying to have a conversation with a person who is only willing attack people personally instead of listen to what others have to say; as a result, my conversation with him is ended.

Yeah, I saw your post. I thought he must have missed it since he was still using the attractive nuisance argument to support his position so I posted it again with a little embellishment.

[+Car54]

 

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!! It doesn't matter whether anyone EVER hid a sprinkler head cache. When the hide is tough people start looking ANYWHERE a cache could be hidden. It wouldn't surprise if the owner of the first sprinkler head cache got the idea after checking a real one while hunting for a tough hide.

 

That argument is full of the same holes you claim the OPs comment has. It's been pointed out many times already, and I'm off to work or I'd sit and play some more!

 

Yeah, but there was the "CHICKEN DINNA" thing in there and I think that's been one of the more valid arguements in this thread- easily worth three extra Internet Logic Points (ILP). Heck, I know that I made an about face on my own personnal belief system.

 

That was my favorite line, too. Maybe that's because it's almost lunch time.

Mrs. Car54

 

edit 'cause I can't even do a smiley right!

Edited April 23, 2009 by Car54

[+Renegade Knight]

...The problem with just putting the container in appropriate places, is that the cache seekers do not KNOW that the cache they are looking for is not a sprinkler head. If the container is listed as ??? then we know all best are off and it could be anything, a rock, a log, a sprinkler head, an electrical box, etc.

 

If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads.

 

One of the caches I mentioned where there was a disasembled sprinkler was called something like, "spouting off" and ground zero was near a sprinkler head that was the only sprinkler in the area. made sense it was a sprinkler, yet it was not. It was a pine-cone. We just don't know not to look for sprinkler heads when they are not sprinkler heads, that's the problem.

 

They are a fantastic creative idea. I hate to see the idea put to rest, but anything that can be destructive can be determental to the survival of our game. I hate to lose these creative caches, but I'd hate even more for geocaching to be illegal in public parks....

 

Very nice summery of the big picture.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Even if there was a ban on sprinkler head caches, and all existing ones were archived, and no new ones were allowed, people who didn't know this would still be checking real sprinkler heads out as they searched around....

 

This is true, mostly.

 

Consider, why is it that you don't bring a shovel as standard cache equipment? We know full well that caches come in all variations of buried in spite of that guidline. (I admit I'm making an assumption that you don't actually cary a shovel....).

 

The issue is the same. Damage to land owner property regardless of the nuance of the solutions and who's to blame and the futility of any efforts to solve the problme being debated.

 

This isn't a solution looking for a problem. This is a problem in need of a solution.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[Mushtang]

... Even if there was a ban on sprinkler head caches, and all existing ones were archived, and no new ones were allowed, people who didn't know this would still be checking real sprinkler heads out as they searched around....

This is true, mostly.

 

Consider, why is it that you don't bring a shovel as standard cache equipment? We know full well that caches come in all variations of buried in spite of that guidline. (I admit I'm making an assumption that you don't actually cary a shovel....).

As a newbie many years ago I carried a machete for the first few trips into wooded areas around here after a failed attempt to get through some really thick underbrush. Eventually I did enough reading and stopped using it, and spent extra time finding a way in that didn't require bush whacking.

 

The issue is the same. Damage to land owner property regardless of the nuance of the solutions and who's to blame and the futility of any efforts to solve the problme being debated.

True. Damage is bad. Few solutions offered in this thread will reduce the problem in the slightest.

 

This isn't a solution looking for a problem. This is a problem in need of a solution.

But... it's a very small problem on the scale of the game. A solution such as eliminating the hide technique (voluntary or otherwise) is extremely over the top and would not be a proportional reaction to the problem.

[+sbell111]

This isn't a solution looking for a problem. This is a problem in need of a solution.

But... it's a very small problem on the scale of the game. A solution such as eliminating the hide technique (voluntary or otherwise) is extremely over the top and would not be a proportional reaction to the problem.

Also, the solution being offered by the OP wouldn't resolve the problem. Therefore, it's no solution, at all.

[+fizzymagic]

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

 

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

You're right. I didn't understand Attractive Nuisance and I misapplied it. Point to KBI. Cachers are not children unable to distinguish the risks of their activities.

 

However, my argument as a whole (less the Attractive Nuisance thing) still holds: cache owners who place sprinkler-head caches do have some responsibility for the damage done by cachers to real sprinkler heads. We have established that such damage does occur; I have seen it with my own eyes, both in my front yard and near other caches.

 

Assigning partial responsibility to cache hiders in no way mitigates the responsibility of those who damage real sprinklers.

 

To my mind, a better solution to the problem than a moratorium would be to encourage hiders who hide caches anywhere near sprinkler heads to emphasize in the cache text that the cache is not hidden in a sprinkler head.

 

In addition, for the most part, sprinkler-head caches I have found have violated the Groundspeak guidelines, in that a pointy object was used to dig a hole into which they were placed. It would be improper for me to generalize that all sprinkler-head caches violate the guidelines based on my limited sample, but I would be willing to assert that at least a substantial minority do.

 

As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

[+StarBrand]

...However, my argument as a whole (less the Attractive Nuisance thing) still holds: cache owners who place sprinkler-head caches do have some responsibility for the damage done by cachers to real sprinkler heads. We have established that such damage does occur; I have seen it with my own eyes, both in my front yard and near other caches.

 

Assigning partial responsibility to cache hiders in no way mitigates the responsibility of those who damage real sprinklers.

 

To my mind, a better solution to the problem than a moratorium would be to encourage hiders who hide caches anywhere near sprinkler heads to emphasize in the cache text that the cache is not hidden in a sprinkler head.

....

I totally agree - how can a little information in a cache description be bad.

 

I have only found 2 such caches but in both cases they were placed in an area that had no other sprinkler heads and were marked in such a way as to be obvious to Geocachers.

 

(maybe some of my DNFs were sprnkler heads - I wouldn't know because I refuse to go out and tug and pull on each one within 30 feet of GZ.)

[+sbell111]

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

 

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

You're right. I didn't understand Attractive Nuisance and I misapplied it. ...

I accept your apology.

[+sbell111]

However, my argument as a whole (less the Attractive Nuisance thing) still holds: cache owners who place sprinkler-head caches do have some responsibility for the damage done by cachers to real sprinkler heads. We have established that such damage does occur; I have seen it with my own eyes, both in my front yard and near other caches.

The fact that damage has occured does not mean that a specific cacher who placed a cache miles away was to blame. That does not follow.

 

The damage to your yard is teh perfect example. Clearly, the person who damaged your sprinkler is at fault. One could argue, I suppose, that the person who hid the cache near your fragile sprinkler head may share some responsibility. However, a geocacher who has never visited your yard shares no responsibility.

[+sbell111]

...As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

It's OK to violate teh forum guidelines as long as you are specific as to who your target is? Cool.

[+Renegade Knight]

This isn't a solution looking for a problem. This is a problem in need of a solution.

But... it's a very small problem on the scale of the game. A solution such as eliminating the hide technique (voluntary or otherwise) is extremely over the top and would not be a proportional reaction to the problem.

Also, the solution being offered by the OP wouldn't resolve the problem. Therefore, it's no solution, at all.

But we are all on the same page insofar as the problem. That's a start. Yeah, I know we aren't on the same part of the same page but that's life in this crowd.

 

As for the small problem, true. The problem is small because only we cachers are discussing it just now. When it hit's the Parks and Recs folks the same way burial hit the NPS the perception of the problem will be the driving force, not the trivial size of the issue in relation to the bazillion caches out there.

[+Renegade Knight]

...As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

It's OK to violate teh forum guidelines as long as you are specific as to who your target is? Cool.

 

If they actually are an idiot that doesn't violate the guidelines. By the book you just need to provide the proof or link to it. I got busted on that one once. In my defences I said it was true and proved it (and they actually agreed though my issue wasn't idiot is was something eles about as favorable) they said I had to do it in my post and gave me forum vacation.

[+sbell111]

...However, my argument as a whole (less the Attractive Nuisance thing) still holds: cache owners who place sprinkler-head caches do have some responsibility for the damage done by cachers to real sprinkler heads. We have established that such damage does occur; I have seen it with my own eyes, both in my front yard and near other caches.

 

Assigning partial responsibility to cache hiders in no way mitigates the responsibility of those who damage real sprinklers.

 

To my mind, a better solution to the problem than a moratorium would be to encourage hiders who hide caches anywhere near sprinkler heads to emphasize in the cache text that the cache is not hidden in a sprinkler head.

....

I totally agree - how can a little information in a cache description be bad.

 

I have only found 2 such caches but in both cases they were placed in an area that had no other sprinkler heads and were marked in such a way as to be obvious to Geocachers.

 

(maybe some of my DNFs were sprnkler heads - I wouldn't know because I refuse to go out and tug and pull on each one within 30 feet of GZ.)

I don't think that this idea is feasible. The very nature of sprinkler heads is that they are not really that noticable when not in use. I cache hider may certainly not have a clue that there are nearby sprinklers.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't think that this idea is feasible. The very nature of sprinkler heads is that they are not really that noticable when not in use. I cache hider may certainly not have a clue that there are nearby sprinklers.

 

In my area we can use a simple test tell if there are sprinklers. "Is it green?" You must get rain in your area.

[+tozainamboku]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

 

How do you know the first one was found merely by searching? Maybe the first one took awhile to find along with the help of a few hints from the owner? People say the first one was found, so they obviously found it without knowledge of this before....maybe, maybe not!

I know I found my first one without prior knowledge. Nothing was on the cache page to indicate it was a sprinkler head. The hint when decrypted said "The grass is greener..." After the fact I guess that might make one think sprinkler, but it wasn't what I was thinking when I found it. I did know that the hider was know for devious hides. I found it because I saw a sprinkler head that was connected to a pipe but that pipe didn't seem to be connected to anything. I think the end of the pipe wasn't even in the ground.

 

My guess is you might be right that people wouldn't take apart real sprinklers if they knew that fake sprinker caches can always be detected without having to destroy property. The problem is that some people are idiots (but none of the posters to this thread ). They will rip up anything rather than accept a DNF. The only way to prevent this is to ban geocaches from locations where an idiot might destroy property. That would mean anything near a sprinkler, as well as guardrails or signs that might get disassembled by someone looking for a fake bolt, to caches hidden in the woods where a person may rip up bushes or cut down trees. No of course some property is easier for an idiot to destroy any we may want to do things to discourage caches near these more sensitive items.

 

An outright ban on sprinklers might have some effect if it is taken to the level of the "no bury" guideline. It is so drilled into cachers that caches are never buried that you don't see too many idiots taking shovels to dig up caches. But I guess you might find a few places where someone dug up an area looking for a cache.

 

It's not chicken dinner that comes to mind when I read these threads, but Chicken Little. Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers. Rather than being able to respond to these land managers that respect for property is part of the guidelines and that most geocachers know that they don't have to destroy property to find the cache, they prefer to say some geocachers are absolute idiots who will destroy your sprinklers because they have seen or heard about fake sprinkler caches. They believe that a moratorium may reduce the motivation of the idiots who damage property and perhaps result in fewer damaged sprinklers. My guess is that the number of vandalized or accidentally damaged sprinklers has not gone up significantly because of geocaching and most park managers are unaware of any problem now. However someone might be watching this thread right now and is deciding whether or not to ban geocaching in their park based on something that might not even be a serious problem. If we blame damage on containers that look like some real piece of equipment that can be damaged, I fear that some park managers may force Groundspeak to add a guideline similar to the "No bury" guideline that prohibits any camouflage of a cache to make it look like something the park manager doesn't want people messing with. Unfortunately, this type of camouflage works well in some instances in that muggles will leave the cache alone while a careful geocacher would immediately identify it as a cache. Instead of fearing a particular park might ban geocaching, I fear the slippery slope where we try to preemptively ban caches someone might think leads to problems one type at a time.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

 

How do you know the first one was found merely by searching? Maybe the first one took awhile to find along with the help of a few hints from the owner? People say the first one was found, so they obviously found it without knowledge of this before....maybe, maybe not!

I know I found my first one without prior knowledge. Nothing was on the cache page to indicate it was a sprinkler head. The hint when decrypted said "The grass is greener..." After the fact I guess that might make one think sprinkler, but it wasn't what I was thinking when I found it. I did know that the hider was know for devious hides. I found it because I saw a sprinkler head that was connected to a pipe but that pipe didn't seem to be connected to anything. I think the end of the pipe wasn't even in the ground.

 

My guess is you might be right that people wouldn't take apart real sprinklers if they knew that fake sprinker caches can always be detected without having to destroy property. The problem is that some people are idiots (but none of the posters to this thread ). They will rip up anything rather than accept a DNF. The only way to prevent this is to ban geocaches from locations where an idiot might destroy property. That would mean anything near a sprinkler, as well as guardrails or signs that might get disassembled by someone looking for a fake bolt, to caches hidden in the woods where a person may rip up bushes or cut down trees. No of course some property is easier for an idiot to destroy any we may want to do things to discourage caches near these more sensitive items.

 

An outright ban on sprinklers might have some effect if it is taken to the level of the "no bury" guideline. It is so drilled into cachers that caches are never buried that you don't see too many idiots taking shovels to dig up caches. But I guess you might find a few places where someone dug up an area looking for a cache.

 

It's not chicken dinner that comes to mind when I read these threads, but Chicken Little. Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers. Rather than being able to respond to these land managers that respect for property is part of the guidelines and that most geocachers know that they don't have to destroy property to find the cache, they prefer to say some geocachers are absolute idiots who will destroy your sprinklers because they have seen or heard about fake sprinkler caches. They believe that a moratorium may reduce the motivation of the idiots who damage property and perhaps result in fewer damaged sprinklers. My guess is that the number of vandalized or accidentally damaged sprinklers has not gone up significantly because of geocaching and most park managers are unaware of any problem now. However someone might be watching this thread right now and is deciding whether or not to ban geocaching in their park based on something that might not even be a serious problem. If we blame damage on containers that look like some real piece of equipment that can be damaged, I fear that some park managers may force Groundspeak to add a guideline similar to the "No bury" guideline that prohibits any camouflage of a cache to make it look like something the park manager doesn't want people messing with. Unfortunately, this type of camouflage works well in some instances in that muggles will leave the cache alone while a careful geocacher would immediately identify it as a cache. Instead of fearing a particular park might ban geocaching, I fear the slippery slope where we try to preemptively ban caches someone might think leads to problems one type at a time.

 

Seems like, if I understand the term, this is full of strawman arguments?

 

Where did you see anyone say imminent danger? Ever? Add your own words to sensationalize and minimalize, sprinkle in those strawmans and viola!

[Mushtang]

Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers.

Where did you see anyone say imminent danger?

There's one guy in this thread that has used the argument that broken sprinkler heads would be a problem with landowners, here:

I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community.

Maybe you should ask him what he meant by "problem". I guess he didn't mean that geocaching would be in any danger at that location eh?

 

And then in a later post he says this:

It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage.

So if he thinks it'll be "too late" I wonder what it'll be "too late" for? Certainly he didn't mean the landowner would ban geocaching from his land? Maybe you'd better ask him that too.

 

Nobody used the exact words "imminent danger", but it was certainly implied by you and several others that if real sprinkler heads were damaged in parks and other places, the land owners and managers would no longer allow geocaching in their areas. This is what Mr. T was referring to.

[+KBI]

Actually the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is summed up quite nicely on Wikipedia.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine doesn't give people Carte Blanche to break the law and destroy or steal property. It's a narrowly defined condition designed to protect children from being injured by careless property owners.

You're right. I didn't understand Attractive Nuisance and I misapplied it. Point to KBI. Cachers are not children unable to distinguish the risks of their activities.

I’m going to be optimistic and assume this olive branch is genuine.

 

Thanks for the concession, but the "point" award is unnecessary. Like Geocaching itself, this discussion is not a competition, and there is no score.

 

Like most folks here I am only interested in what is right, not who is right. In my opinion the "winners" of these debates don’t really "win" anything. All I want to see is consensus and understanding.

 

Here is my selfish viewpoint on these debates: If I prove myself right and you wrong, then I have gone nowhere and have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, you are able to convince me that it is my original viewpoint that is wrong, then I will have gained something, and I will have good reason to thank you. Who wants to go around being wrong? I’d rather be right. Prove me wrong, and you will have done me a favor.

 

And in the spirit of your concession, I will now admit that it was unwise of me to respond in kind when the discussion turned snarky. That never helps, but of course I never learn.

 

I’m enjoying this debate. It is an interesting question, one that I think it is important to the game. Whaddya say we try again to noodle this thing through and see if we come to an agreeable viewpoint without getting personal again?

 

As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

Personal attacks are "charity?"

 

Remind me of that the next time we’re having a beer and you ask to bum a fiver.

[+KBI]

...As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

It's OK to violate the forum guidelines as long as you are specific as to who your target is? Cool.

If they actually are an idiot that doesn't violate the guidelines.

Oh.

 

Well in that case, I’m screwed.

[+KBI]

However, my argument as a whole (less the Attractive Nuisance thing) still holds: cache owners who place sprinkler-head caches do have some responsibility for the damage done by cachers to real sprinkler heads.

 

Assigning partial responsibility to cache hiders in no way mitigates the responsibility of those who damage real sprinklers.

This still sounds to me like a direct contradiction. It sounds like you’re saying "Assigning 20% of the overall responsibility to cache hiders no way reduces the 100% responsibility of those who damage real sprinklers."

 

Can you explain how cache hiders can be partially responsible while cache seekers are simultaneously fully responsible?

 

To my mind, a better solution to the problem than a moratorium would be to encourage hiders who hide caches anywhere near sprinkler heads to emphasize in the cache text that the cache is not hidden in a sprinkler head.

I fully support this. Such cache page notes have helped me in the past, and having more of them more often would likely reduce overall exposure to the OP’s problem.

 

Trouble is, such notes will have zero effect on those who choose not to read the cache page, or the caching team co-seeker of the guy holding the printout who hasn’t read it yet, or those who do read the page but actively choose to ignore the cache owner’s note in the belief that it is a 'red herring'-type lie. (I’ve seen this happen.)

 

It is an unchangeable fact of caching: Some seekers make poor choices. It’s not just sprinkler heads. Blundering seekers trash up cache locations in many ways. They hop fences. They ignore No Trespassing signs. They plow up forest floors. They rip apart ancient rock walls. They carve erosion-inducing social trails. They pull down bird houses, breaking little unhatched birdie eggs.

 

Cache page notes won’t stop the damage – they will only (maybe) reduce it.

 

Moratoriums on specific cache types won’t stop the damage – they will only punish the innocent.

 

Even requiring all new and existing cachers to pass an annual recurrent class on environmental sensitivity won’t stop the damage – ignorance and idiocy are two entirely different problems, and while education cures ignorance, nothing cures idiocy.

 

Hence my original point: You Can’t Fix Stupid.

 

I truly believe the only rational countermeasures are cache page notes (as you have suggested) and thoughtful cache placement (as I have suggested), but I only see those measures as limiting the problem slightly, if at all. Nothing will ever eliminate the problem. Archiving every single existing cache won’t do it. Even if Groundspeak shuts down their website tomorrow, someone else will pick up the enterprise and the game will continue.

[+Scouters Fred and Brenda]

I maybe off the base line here but burying a sprinkler head requires making a hole even if it is expoxed for removal the intial burying is against the guide lines. A volunteer moritorium is not the issue, it is against the guidelines it should not be allowed, volunteer or not

[Trinity's Crew]

I maybe off the base line here but burying a sprinkler head requires making a hole even if it is expoxed for removal the intial burying is against the guide lines. A volunteer moritorium is not the issue, it is against the guidelines it should not be allowed, volunteer or not

No you don't. You just pull out the REAL sprinkler head and put your fake one in the pre-existing hole.

[+Renegade Knight]

I maybe off the base line here but burying a sprinkler head requires making a hole even if it is expoxed for removal the intial burying is against the guide lines. A volunteer moritorium is not the issue, it is against the guidelines it should not be allowed, volunteer or not

No you don't. You just pull out the REAL sprinkler head and put your fake one in the pre-existing hole.

 

There is always a solution for those of us who think outside the box.

[+Renegade Knight]

...As for whether I called anyone but KBI an idiot: I did not. And the reasons for that had nothing to do with the "attractive nuisance" argument anyway. I was just trying to be charitable towards him.

It's OK to violate the forum guidelines as long as you are specific as to who your target is? Cool.

If they actually are an idiot that doesn't violate the guidelines.

Oh.

 

Well in that case, I’m screwed.

 

Well heck. I'd be happy to have a beer with both you and fizzy so both of you are screwed.

[+KBI]

I maybe off the base line here but burying a sprinkler head requires making a hole even if it is expoxed for removal the intial burying is against the guide lines. A volunteer moritorium is not the issue, it is against the guidelines it should not be allowed, volunteer or not

I may also be off base with my response to that, but here goes:

 

The guidelines don’t exactly say you can’t make a hole.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

• Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.
  
  
• Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.
  
  

What they say is that you can’t bury your cache container; that the seeker shouldn’t need to dig it out from underground using a shovel or similar tool. There seems to be plenty of room for discretion when interpreting these guidelines. That’s why they call them guidelines. There is a lot of gray area there.

 

Does a cache seeker need to employ a shovel in order to access a fake sprinkler head cache? I say no – not if the fake sprinkler head is doing its job of mimicking a real sprinkler head.

 

Does pushing a fake sprinkler head into the dirt constitute digging with a pointy object? I say: Maybe, but that’s a stretch.

 

Does doing so constitute defacement of public or private property? I would say no, assuming the hider has permission and/or if no noticeable or objectionable "damage" has been caused by the creation of the tiny hole.

 

A more meaningful way to interpret these guidelines might be to ask: What is the spirit of the rule? What’s the point (heh) of the "no buried caches" policy? I believe the reason for this rule is intuitive: if buried caches were listed on this site, then cache seekers would soon and rapidly tear up parks and other natural areas, digging up holes all over the place.

 

One guy with a shovel and a treasure map is a lame pirate movie. 500,000 treasure hunters chasing 500,000 buried caches is mass destruction of public green space. It wouldn’t work.

 

Near as I can tell, fake sprinkler heads being randomly poked around for by cachers with shovels is not, at present, a meaningful problem. (Fizzy’s front yard being the odd exception.) That doesn’t mean unthinking bumblers are not still tampering with real sprinkler heads, of course, but I think it does address your guideline question regarding holes. But of course I’m not an official representative.

[+Sol seaker]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

 

Actually, I looked on ebay to see what containers are out there. People do crazy things in my area and I wanted to be able to find some of them.

I found sprinkler heads for sale as caches, so began looking for them. I seriously would not have considered looking for them if I had not seen them sold as containers.

 

Yes the genie is out of the bottle for some of us, but many have still never heard of them.

[+Sol seaker]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

 

Actually, I looked on ebay to see what containers are out there. People do crazy things in my area and I wanted to be able to find some of them.

I found sprinkler heads for sale as caches, so began looking for them. I seriously would not have considered looking for them if I had not seen them sold as containers.

 

Yes the genie is out of the bottle for some of us, but many have still never heard of them.

[+tozainamboku]

I maybe off the base line here but burying a sprinkler head requires making a hole even if it is expoxed for removal the intial burying is against the guide lines. A volunteer moritorium is not the issue, it is against the guidelines it should not be allowed, volunteer or not

Many of the fake sprinklers I found have not been buried. They are completely above ground with the sprinkler attached to a pipe that goes down to a three way elbow like this

so that it can stand upright.

 

Others have been placed in existing holes.

 

A common hide is to attach a sprinkler head to a pipe that can be pushed into soft soil or mud or held in a pile of rocks. The digging guidelines specifically mention using a shovel, trowel, or other pointy tool. Pushing something into the soil or moving a small amount of soil or stones with your hands are not forbidden. It doesn't take that big of a hole to hide a sprinkler head.

 

Finally I have seen a few of these where the hider obviously dug a hole to hide their sprinkler head cache. These have always been caches that people have hidden on their own property, and as such they probably would be able to convince the reviewer for an exception. All of these were easily identified as a fake sprinkler by the way as the hiders probably realized that if they made it too hard people might take apart a real sprinkler. There will of course be some people who feel the reviewers shouldn't give exceptions to the no bury rule in cases like these. They argue either that someone will try to copy this hide with out getting permission to dig or that finders may expect to find buried sprinklers when they are looking for a cache someplace where the hider is unlikely to have had permission to dig.

 

My experience is that fake sprinkler heads buried in the ground are rare. But who knows, maybe that explains some of my DNFs.

[+KBI]

... If no one ever put caches in sprinkler heads, then we wouldn't be searching sprinkler heads. ...

There are two obvious problems with your argument.

 

First is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Caches have been found in sprinkler heads, so sprinkler heads may be suspected as containing caches.

 

Second is the fact that people found the very first cache hidden within a sprinkler head. They searched that sprinkler head without ever having found one previously. (I suspect that that sprinkler head was not the first one ever searched, either.) Therefore, even if we had no caches contained within sprinkler heads, people would still search sprinkler heads.

I found sprinkler heads for sale as caches, so began looking for them. I seriously would not have considered looking for them if I had not seen them sold as containers.

I think you missed Sbell’s point.

 

So you would never have considered looking for them if you had not seen them sold as containers. So what? Just because it never occurred to you doesn’t mean it never occurred to anyone else.

 

An intelligent and determined cache seeker is an awesome thing to behold.

 

As Mushtang said:

 

Even if there was a ban on sprinkler head caches, and all existing ones were archived, and no new ones were allowed, people who didn't know this would still be checking real sprinkler heads out as they searched around.

 

I've looked in a LOT of places where the cache wasn't before finding the place where the cache was. If there's a real sprinkler head nearby a cache, someone is going to investigate it at some point.

In other words: Banning, or even merely discouraging, fake sprinkler caches will not prevent intelligent cache seekers from being thorough, methodical and creative when searching for caches they suspect to be cleverly camouflaged. This includes those who have never heard of, or who have never previously conceived of, fake sprinkler heads.

 

Is there a problem? Yes.

 

Is it a substantial problem? I'm not convinced that it is.

 

Will the proposed moratorium address the problem? Not in the slightest. The OP’s proposal was a good thought, but it won’t – can’t – work as intended.

[Dinoprophet]

In other words: Banning, or even merely discouraging, fake sprinkler caches will not prevent intelligent cache seekers from being thorough, methodical and creative when searching for caches they suspect to be cleverly camouflaged. This includes those who have never heard of, or who have never previously conceived of, fake sprinkler heads.

But the intelligent ones aren't the problem...

[+KBI]

In other words: Banning, or even merely discouraging, fake sprinkleer caches will not prevent intelligent cache seekers from being thorough, methodical and creative when searching for caches they suspect to be cleverly camouflaged. This includes those who have never heard of, or who have never previously conceived of, fake sprinkler heads.

But the intelligent ones aren't the problem...

Intelligence is not the issue. It is possible for one to possess intelligence without also possessing good judgment, yes?

 

It takes smarts to notice a sprinkler head, to consider that the sprinkler head might be a fake, and to conclude that the potentially fake sprinkler head just might be the cache container. It then takes a lack of good judgment to go on to destroy a real, working sprinkler head.

 

When the potential for unintended damage exists, good judgment dictates that one not proceed where one is not sure.

 

Intelligence and wisdom are two entirely different traits. Intelligence reveals the camouflage possibilities. Wisdom tends to restrain any resulting destruction.

 

Not all cachers possess both.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Intelligence is not the issue. It is possible for one to possess intelligence without also possessing good judgment, yes?

 

It takes smarts to notice a sprinkler head, to consider that the sprinkler head might be a fake, and to conclude that the potentially fake sprinkler head just might be the cache container. It then takes a lack of good judgment to go on to destroy a real, working sprinkler head....

 

Having taken apart a real one, I'll chime in that it also takes experience to know the difference. I didn't know you could unscrew a real head. Then again I've never had sprinklers of my own until just recently to have any basis of comparison.

[+KBI]

...Intelligence is not the issue. It is possible for one to possess intelligence without also possessing good judgment, yes?

 

It takes smarts to notice a sprinkler head, to consider that the sprinkler head might be a fake, and to conclude that the potentially fake sprinkler head just might be the cache container. It then takes a lack of good judgment to go on to destroy a real, working sprinkler head....

Having taken apart a real one, I'll chime in that it also takes experience to know the difference. I didn't know you could unscrew a real head.

Good judgment is the result of experience; experience is the result of bad judgment.

 

(I'm not picking on you. What little good judgment I have, I have come about the hard way as well.)

[+Rockin Roddy]

Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers.

Where did you see anyone say imminent danger?

There's one guy in this thread that has used the argument that broken sprinkler heads would be a problem with landowners, here:

I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community.

Maybe you should ask him what he meant by "problem". I guess he didn't mean that geocaching would be in any danger at that location eh?

 

And then in a later post he says this:

It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage.

So if he thinks it'll be "too late" I wonder what it'll be "too late" for? Certainly he didn't mean the landowner would ban geocaching from his land? Maybe you'd better ask him that too.

 

Nobody used the exact words "imminent danger", but it was certainly implied by you and several others that if real sprinkler heads were damaged in parks and other places, the land owners and managers would no longer allow geocaching in their areas. This is what Mr. T was referring to.

 

Yep, if you parse and snip enough, you can make anyone's comments appear crazy...good job! None of what you quoted pointed to "imminent" one bit! But nice try! Anyone who can read should be easily understanding of what I said! Implied? I implied that there could be trouble in the future should the wrong person see these...you do know the meaning of imminent, right? In the future would tend to make me think it's not an "imminent" danger! THANKS for playing!

 

Is this your best shot?

[+KBI]

Yep, if you parse and snip enough, you can make anyone's comments appear crazy...good job! None of what you quoted pointed to "imminent" one bit! But nice try! Anyone who can read should be easily understanding of what I said! Implied? I implied that there could be trouble in the future should the wrong person see these...you do know the meaning of imminent, right? In the future would tend to make me think it's not an "imminent" danger! THANKS for playing!

 

Is this your best shot?

Relax. Take a deep breath ... and let it out slowly.

 

I understood exactly what you meant. I understood exactly what Tozainamboku meant. I understood exactly what Mushtang meant.

 

Nowhere in any of that did I see any reason for anyone to get snippy. Mushtang was only offering, and asking for, clarification.

 

Does your (temporary?) abandonment of the subject at hand mean you’re done discussing it? If so, please don’t go and get this thread shut down. I am very interested in this topic, and I am still waiting to hear back from Fizzy, who seems to have a carefully though-out, principled and confidently-held viewpoint that is nevertheless strikingly different from my own carefully though-out, principled and confidently-held viewpoint. I am hoping one of us can eventually convince the other to consider seeing things differently – and I am hoping "the other" is me. If my viewpoint is the one that is wack, this might be my chance to fix it.

 

So please don’t get this thread locked.