What makes a 'good' urban cache?

[Clan Riffster]

What else is 'other' size for anyway if not for a cache that doesn't fit the standard mold?

I've always thought of "Other" as being for those cache hiders who wished to deceive or mislead seekers. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. Some of my favorite finds are cases of my making erroneous assumptions based on clues gleaned from the cache page, combined with the location. One thing I find interesting about your post is this statement:

my nano's would not fit criteria for a micro

Were your nanos larger or smaller than a film can? If they were larger than a film can then, yes, I would agree that they don't fit Groundspeak's criteria. GS says a micro is 35 mm film canister or smaller. If your nanos were smaller than a film can, then it's rather obvious that they do, quite specifically, fit the criteria for a micro.

 

Regardless, the caches are yours, to list as you see fit, however calling them an "other" because they don't fit the micro category just isn't accurate. Calling them an "other" because that's what you felt like clicking, would be a lot more accurate.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

The guidelines are clear.

 

Clearly they're not.. why else are so many nano's marked as other. I've even explained my own thought process at the risk of getting flamed.. but that's all you can say?

 

Maybe clear to you but there are a lot of people, like myself, thinking this is not a film cannister, or key-hider or anything like that - "oh look there's an 'other' category".

 

Sure I'll change the category now if I get complaints. TBH I don't get my knickers in a twist over the size rating but then I'm not so discriminatory about what caches I do - they're all game for me.

 

FWIW Is a key-holder really smaller than a 35mm micro? I don't think it is. I've seen a lot of different shaped 'micro' caches that were much bigger than a 35mm micro so there is a confusion and if we want to start a witch hunt then there's a few caches off the top of my head that should be labelled 'small' not 'micro'.

 

Perhaps micro category itself is misleading? Perhaps it should be called or split between 'log only' and 'log + pencil' since some can hold a pencil and some can't.

[+darepabe]

The guidelines are clear.

 

Clearly they're not.. why else are so many nano's marked as other. I've even explained my own thought process at the risk of getting flamed.. but that's all you can say?

 

'Clearly' the guidelines are not clear. Otherwise why would the reviewers approve a cache which was marked as 'other' but states that it is a nano, when others maintain that this is incorrect to do so?

 

If the reviewers are happy that a nano is classed as 'other' (and approve the cache accordingly), why the argument?

[+sbell111]

The guidelines are clear.

 

Clearly they're not..

Really??? The guideline states that micros are "35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L".

 

Is a nano smaller or larger than a film can? Would it hold more or less than 3 ounces?

[+sbell111]

The guidelines are clear.

Clearly they're not.. why else are so many nano's marked as other. ...

 

Sure I'll change the category now if I get complaints. TBH I don't get my knickers in a twist over the size rating but then I'm not so discriminatory about what caches I do - they're all game for me. ...

'Clearly' the guidelines are not clear. Otherwise why would the reviewers approve a cache which was marked as 'other' but states that it is a nano, when others maintain that this is incorrect to do so?

 

If the reviewers are happy that a nano is classed as 'other' (and approve the cache accordingly), why the argument?

The answer to your question is hinted at in the bolded bit of fitzwesley's post.

 

As you will quickly find out, not everyone is as accomodating to micros as he is. Those that don't care for these tiny little caches would like an easy way to avoid them. When these caches are misidentified, that ability is hampered.

Edited September 11, 2009 by sbell111

[+darepabe]

If the guidelines are clear, why did the reviewer approve our cache when it shows a nano as 'other' cache type? If the guidelines were clear, or it was a point worth arguing about, surely we would have been asked to amend the cache description?

 

Excuse my ignorance, but are the revieweres not there to police the process?

 

Hmmmm......

 

Frankly, I don't really care about it either way....if it's supposed to be a micro then fine, if it's supposed to be an 'other' then fine, if it's going to have it's own category then fine. But either it needs to be policed (if it is so important) or it needs to be dropped as an 'issue'.

[Mushtang]

Location

The motto for Groundspeak is "The Language of Location". This, more than anything, should be your first clue in determining if your cache is a stinker.

This is one of the arguments some people use to suggest that a cache without a great view (or some other attribute other than being a place to hide a cache) is not acceptable. It's so lame because "The Language of Location" clearly refers to the coordinate system. When you want to tell someone where your cache is located, you use coordinates to tell them. That's what is meant by language. Every place IS a location. Where in "The Language of Location" are there ANY qualifiers to suggest that the location have a great view, some history, a significant feature, etc.?

 

Caches with great views do offer something in addition to a cache, but caches without them are still geocaches. They're still containers that you look for after getting the coordinates, and that is what geocaching is. The name of the game is "geocaching", not "great viewing".

 

Ask yourself, "Why am I bringing people to this spot?" If the only answer you can come up with is yet another mindless smiley, perhaps it's time to rethink ground zero.

I doubt any geocacher has ever thought that (okay, maybe a few that were being "funny"). I'm guessing most of the cache owners that you're thinking about have, instead, thought to themselves that the reason they wanted to bring someone to the spot was.... to find the cache. There's a HUGE difference in those two reasons.

 

A waterfall is good. 500 acres of sweltering, exhaust laden blacktop filled with soccer moms in SUV's is bad.

I'm so glad you ended your post explaining that these are only your opinions, because it keeps me from having to fix your quote.

[Clan Riffster]

If the guidelines are clear, why did the reviewer approve our cache when it shows a nano as 'other' cache type?

Because, as has been stated many times, "Other" covers nanos, as well as every other size.

Just as a shipping container would qualify as a "Large" under the guidelines, it would also qualify as an "Other"

Just as a 30 calibre ammo can would qualify as a "Regular", it would also qualify as an "Other".

Just as a film can would qualify as a "Micro", it would also qualify as an "Other".

The argument people are making is not that "Other" is inappropriate. The argument is, claiming that nanos don't fit the category of "Micro" is patently false. According to the guidelines, nanos are micros. However, since the size of "Other" is not defined in the guidelines, anything goes, including nanos. If you want to call your nano an "Other" you are perfectly free to do so. If you want to call it a "Micro", again, you are perfectly free to do so, and you'd be within the guidelines either way.

 

This is one of the arguments some people use to suggest that a cache without a great view is not acceptable.

Oddly enough, the argument isn't typically "These are unacceptable", as you so often imply. Typically, the argument is, "These are unacceptable to me", which is a simply expression of opinion, and therefore is a whole different critter, one that is usually easily addressed by the cache seeker under the "Don't like 'em, don't include them in your PQ" theory.

 

Caches with great views do offer something in addition to a cache, but caches without them are still geocaches.

Very true. A hideously lame location is still a location. I think I pointed that out.

An incredibly lame cache is still a cache.

Those who offer their seekers only a smiley are well within the guidelines to do so.

Those who set their bar a bit higher might prefer to offer their seekers something other than just a smiley.

Quality, effort and creativity, while certainly not requirements, are not necessarily bad things in this little game we all love to play.

[+bittsen]

Wow, this thread went way off topic.

[Mushtang]

Caches with great views do offer something in addition to a cache, but caches without them are still geocaches.

Very true. A hideously lame location is still a location. I think I pointed that out.

An incredibly lame cache is still a cache.

Those who offer their seekers only a smiley are well within the guidelines to do so.

Those who set their bar a bit higher might prefer to offer their seekers something other than just a smiley.

Quality, effort and creativity, while certainly not requirements, are not necessarily bad things in this little game we all love to play.

I agree with all of this, and never implied that adding something to the location is bad.

 

My only point was, "The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences. It's not.

[+L0ne.R]

Caches with great views do offer something in addition to a cache, but caches without them are still geocaches.

Very true. A hideously lame location is still a location. I think I pointed that out.

An incredibly lame cache is still a cache.

Those who offer their seekers only a smiley are well within the guidelines to do so.

Those who set their bar a bit higher might prefer to offer their seekers something other than just a smiley.

Quality, effort and creativity, while certainly not requirements, are not necessarily bad things in this little game we all love to play.

 

Well said!

[Clan Riffster]

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

Really? I know that lots of folks, myself included, have suggested that quality locations, as defined by the hider's individual aesthetics, can often provide a more satisfying overall caching experience for many seekers than those locations that many would define as less than pleasant. Many hiders feel perfectly comfortable placing hides in parking lots, however it's been my personal experience, based upon numerous one on one discussions with hiders of these types of caches, that these hiders do not do so because of any particular love of parking lots. Their reasons, according to them, are varied, but none of them has made the claim that they prefer those spots to more natural settings. To date, I have yet to actually meet a cacher who actually prefers a blistering, exhaust laden, 500 acre parking lot to a scenic waterfall.

 

(But knowing how some folks in here love to argue, I won't claim they don't exist.)

 

Do you know of anyone who has utilized that phrase as a mandate from Groundspeak?

[Mushtang]

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

Do you know of anyone who has utilized that phrase as a mandate from Groundspeak?

It's happened several times. Even once in this thread.

[Clan Riffster]

It's happened several times. Even once in this thread.

Well I gave it the ole college try. 65 posts later, I'm still not seeing anyone saying caches must be placed in interesting locations.

[knowschad]

I have noticed that, in general, the more smileys a person has, the more they start to demand better caches. One would think that more smilies make people more happy but it seems to make them more grumpy.

...

 

It appears some people just can't find a way to be happy, or are determined to find a way to be miserable.

 

I was giving this some thought today as I was caching. The message has been bothering me since it was posted. It totally gives the wrong idea of what the experienced cachers here are saying.

 

 

The more finds a cacher has under their belt, the more discriminating they are likely to be. This is true with just about everything I can think of. The more experienced cachers are going to realize which caches are truely creative vs. with are copies. Which are rare vs. which are common. Which are likely to last vs which are going to be waterlogged or muggled in a week or two. These are not bad things, and having this information does not make them "miserable" any more than an art expert is more miserable than a lay person. It doesn't make them any more "grumpy" than a Cordon Bleu graduate that gets served an overcooked steak.

[Mushtang]

It's happened several times. Even once in this thread.

Well I gave it the ole college try. 65 posts later, I'm still not seeing anyone saying caches must be placed in interesting locations.

Not verbatim, but that's certainly what your post was suggesting. You clearly connected the company motto "Language Of Location" to mean, "if your cache isn't in an interesting location, then perhaps you should rethink where you're putting it."

 

What I've said (at least 3 times now) is that the motto doesn't mean that at all. The motto is talking about the coordinate system, and is not even a suggestion that caches need to be in any sort of special place. Just that they be in A place that you can use coordinates to communicate the location to someone else.

[+bittsen]

I have noticed that, in general, the more smileys a person has, the more they start to demand better caches. One would think that more smilies make people more happy but it seems to make them more grumpy.

...

 

It appears some people just can't find a way to be happy, or are determined to find a way to be miserable.

 

I was giving this some thought today as I was caching. The message has been bothering me since it was posted. It totally gives the wrong idea of what the experienced cachers here are saying.

 

 

The more finds a cacher has under their belt, the more discriminating they are likely to be. This is true with just about everything I can think of. The more experienced cachers are going to realize which caches are truely creative vs. with are copies. Which are rare vs. which are common. Which are likely to last vs which are going to be waterlogged or muggled in a week or two. These are not bad things, and having this information does not make them "miserable" any more than an art expert is more miserable than a lay person. It doesn't make them any more "grumpy" than a Cordon Bleu graduate that gets served an overcooked steak.

 

I think you just made my point.

[knowschad]

I have noticed that, in general, the more smileys a person has, the more they start to demand better caches. One would think that more smilies make people more happy but it seems to make them more grumpy.

...

 

It appears some people just can't find a way to be happy, or are determined to find a way to be miserable.

 

I was giving this some thought today as I was caching. The message has been bothering me since it was posted. It totally gives the wrong idea of what the experienced cachers here are saying.

 

 

The more finds a cacher has under their belt, the more discriminating they are likely to be. This is true with just about everything I can think of. The more experienced cachers are going to realize which caches are truely creative vs. with are copies. Which are rare vs. which are common. Which are likely to last vs which are going to be waterlogged or muggled in a week or two. These are not bad things, and having this information does not make them "miserable" any more than an art expert is more miserable than a lay person. It doesn't make them any more "grumpy" than a Cordon Bleu graduate that gets served an overcooked steak.

 

I think you just made my point.

 

You would think that.

[Clan Riffster]

Not verbatim, but that's certainly what your post was suggesting.

Interesting. You've gone from accusing me of dictating a mandate to the masses to offering suggestions to noobs who specifically ask for my opinion. And in both instances you're talking about the same post. Nice backpeddling.

[Mushtang]

Not verbatim, but that's certainly what your post was suggesting.

Interesting. You've gone from accusing me of dictating a mandate to the masses to offering suggestions to noobs who specifically ask for my opinion. And in both instances you're talking about the same post. Nice backpeddling.

You keep quoting me and removing the sentences that make my point, and only attacking a straw man.

 

I never said that you were dictating a mandate to the masses. I said that the site motto was often incorrectly referred to as a mandate from Groundspeak. You twisted words and claimed I said otherwise, and argued against your claim. That's a straw man argument. Nice try, and no doubt something you'll try again.

 

Once again, for anyone paying attention. My only point was that the motto "The Language Of Location" is NOT the site's way of suggesting that a cache should be placed in a location that has any particular attribute (nice view, great history, etc). It's a reference to the way in which people tell (the language) geocachers where geocaches are located (the location).

 

If you want to try and suggest that my posts meant anything else you'll be missing the point (again).

 

There's no backpeddling involved. I haven't changed what my point was. I've never said you shouldn't offer suggestions on how to hide a nice cache that fits your personal preferences. You just tried to use the site motto to do it and I pointed out that it doesn't fit. It's apples and oranges.

[Clan Riffster]

I never said that you were dictating a mandate to the masses.

Kewl! Glad we established that. One can only assume that mutant Ninja zombies had taken over your keyboard when your account posted this:

 

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

The zombies must've taken over again, since when I questioned you on the abject silliness of such a concept, your account posted this, linking the earlier foolishness to my post:

 

It's happened several times. Even once in this thread.

 

As your current backpeddle position seems to be in line with reality, I'm guessing you've taken care of those pesky zombies.

[+L0ne.R]

I have noticed that, in general, the more smileys a person has, the more they start to demand better caches. One would think that more smilies make people more happy but it seems to make them more grumpy.

...

 

It appears some people just can't find a way to be happy, or are determined to find a way to be miserable.

 

I was giving this some thought today as I was caching. The message has been bothering me since it was posted. It totally gives the wrong idea of what the experienced cachers here are saying.

 

 

The more finds a cacher has under their belt, the more discriminating they are likely to be. This is true with just about everything I can think of. The more experienced cachers are going to realize which caches are truely creative vs. with are copies. Which are rare vs. which are common. Which are likely to last vs which are going to be waterlogged or muggled in a week or two. These are not bad things, and having this information does not make them "miserable" any more than an art expert is more miserable than a lay person. It doesn't make them any more "grumpy" than a Cordon Bleu graduate that gets served an overcooked steak.

 

I think you just made my point.

 

Is your point that the Cordon Bleu graduate has no right to be dissatisfied (i.e. grumpy) with the overcooked steak served at your restaurant? Is the overcooked steak being defended as perfectly suitable? Even for someone with more experienced and refined culinary skills and tastes? After all it still provides protein and for you, the restaurateur serving the meal, that's all that matters. Because that's what it sounds like to me -- non-creative, common, copied caches are fine and should be lauded, after all they provide a smiley.

[+Team Cotati]

In an urban, populated area - what makes a good cache site?

 

A public park with a little creek running through it where there are no areas of vegetation that can be

damaged by people looking for a geocache.

[+bittsen]

Is your point that the Cordon Bleu graduate has no right to be dissatisfied (i.e. grumpy) with the overcooked steak served at your restaurant? Is the overcooked steak being defended as perfectly suitable? Even for someone with more experienced and refined culinary skills and tastes? After all it still provides protein and for you, the restaurateur serving the meal, that's all that matters. Because that's what it sounds like to me -- non-creative, common, copied caches are fine and should be lauded, after all they provide a smiley.

 

Everyone has a right to be dissatisfied. It happens all the time.

 

My point was that (keeping the chef analogy) early into the chefs existance he was happy that someone was cooking his meals for him. As time went by, he experienced many meals, and even learned how to cook himself but still enjoyed having his meals cooked for him. As his cooking got better, he began to become disapointed with the way his meals were being prepared. Eventually he became picky about how his meals were prepared and began to get grumpy if they were cooked even the slightest bit off. One day the Cordon Bleu chef orders a steak and it's overcooked and complains.

The chef comes out and says "nobody ever told you you had to eat here" and walked away while all of his other customers smiled and enjoyed their meal. And the Cordon Bleu chef walked away hungry.

 

The bottom line is always the same. If you don't like the cache, don't look for it but there will be plenty of people who will.

And if you want some culinary evidence of this, think of this. There are more McDonalds, Burger King, Carls Jr, Hardees, etc than there are Cordon Bleu grade restaurants. Why? Because thats what satisfies the masses. Assuming you can only go to any particular restaurant ONE time each, if you think you are too good for McDonalds, be prepared to go hungry. And by all means, if your taste buds are too good for an overcooked steak, be disappointed at every turn.

 

Myself, I will be happy if I can always get my belly full when I'm hungry. And if I can afford a nicer restaurant from time to time, thats a bonus.

 

Edited to add: And lets not forget that no matter the menu, the food is FREE

Edited September 13, 2009 by bittsen

[+darepabe]

Lots of smileys might mean the cacher is more experienced but it's no excuse for rude or arrogant log entries. A polite email to the cache owner, especially where the cache owner is a newbie, will speak volumes and will help the newbie in their next cache placement rather than rubbing them up the wrong way.

 

There is always a right way and a wrong way to complain. Complaining the right way will result in all parties being satisified with the outcome. Complaining the wrong way will almost always end in dissatifaction - usually in both parties.

 

If the Cordon Bleu chef, knowing this is only the 3rd steak I've ever cooked, tells me it's rubbish but this is how to do it right - I'm more likely to learn from the experience and endeavour to make my next steak even better. The Cordon Bleu chef who kicks off and starts yelling Gordon Ramsey style, is just going to pi@s me off and cause resentment.

 

We're all in it for the fun.....lets keep it that way.

[Mushtang]

I never said that you were dictating a mandate to the masses.

Kewl! Glad we established that. One can only assume that mutant Ninja zombies had taken over your keyboard when your account posted this:

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

The zombies must've taken over again, since when I questioned you on the abject silliness of such a concept, your account posted this, linking the earlier foolishness to my post:

It's happened several times. Even once in this thread.

As your current backpeddle position seems to be in line with reality, I'm guessing you've taken care of those pesky zombies.

 

You: The motto is a mandate to hide caches in interesting locations.

Me: That's not what the motto means, but people often incorrectly claim it does.

You: Caches at interesting locations are better than caches not at interesting locations, in my opinion.

Me: I agree, but that's not the point. My point is that the motto doesn't speak to the level of interest at the location.

You: Have you ever seen anyone suggest that the motto is a mandate?

Me: Yes, you said the motto is a mandate in your first post.

You: I've never seen anyone say caches MUST be placed in interesting locations.

Me: Correct, I never said YOU made the mandate, I said the motto did NOT make the mandate.

You: Great, now you're backpeddling and you have zombies on your keyboard.

Me: Huh?

 

CR, this is the most important line in this post, so I'll repeat it just to be crystal clear:

 

I never said YOU made the mandate, I said that the motto did NOT make the mandate. Your first post in this thread suggested that the motto DID make the mandate. It doesn't.

[Clan Riffster]

(sigh...)

I see the mutant Ninja zombies have returned.

 

Whilst the zombies inaccurate rendering of history is amusing, it fails to address the key elements:

The zombies posted this tidbit:

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

The zombies then linked my post to that silliness, indicating that I was one of those who incorrectly referred to the motto as a mandate.

 

Since I've never even hinted at such a claim, I'm left with two possibilities:

1 ) Mutant Ninja zombies took over your keyboard in an attempt to twist what I said into something you could rail against.

(zombies are good at stuff like that, and, as a bonus, you get plausible deniability)

2 ) You actually believe such foolishness, and posted those statements yourself.

[Mushtang]

"The Language Of Location" is often incorrectly referred to as a mandate to place caches only in locations that fit the poster's preferences.

 

You, CR, referred to the motto as a mandate to place caches in interesting locations.

You, CR, did NOT say that caches should only be placed in interesting locations.

 

I never said you did. I only said the motto did not.

 

You were incorrect, CR, when you claimed that the motto had anything to do with what kinds of locations to place caches. This is what you're so desperately trying to hide from. I guess you're embarrassed that you missed such a simple concept? I don't know. But it's obvious that your zombie tangent is an attempt to draw attention away from that.

[Clan Riffster]

You, CR, referred to the motto as a mandate to place caches in interesting locations.

Are we back to this silliness again? (sigh...)

Here's what I thought I said:

(Correct me if I'm wrong... or if you are in your perpetual argument mood again)

Location

The motto for Groundspeak is "The Language of Location". This, more than anything, should be your first clue in determining if your cache is a stinker. Ask yourself, "Why am I bringing people to this spot?" If the only answer you can come up with is yet another mindless smiley, perhaps it's time to rethink ground zero. A waterfall is good. 500 acres of sweltering, exhaust laden blacktop filled with soccer moms in SUV's is bad.

 

This is what you keep referring to as my mandate?

One has to wonder if you even know what "mandate" means.

 

From Merriam-Websters:

Main Entry: man·date

Function: noun

1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one

2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>

3 a : an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b : a mandated territory

 

I'm not seeing anything in my original suggestion that could possibly be taken as a mandate, from me or from Groundspeak.

 

(are the zombies back?)

[knowschad]

Is your point that the Cordon Bleu graduate has no right to be dissatisfied (i.e. grumpy) with the overcooked steak served at your restaurant? Is the overcooked steak being defended as perfectly suitable? Even for someone with more experienced and refined culinary skills and tastes? After all it still provides protein and for you, the restaurateur serving the meal, that's all that matters. Because that's what it sounds like to me -- non-creative, common, copied caches are fine and should be lauded, after all they provide a smiley.

 

Everyone has a right to be dissatisfied. It happens all the time.

 

My point was that (keeping the chef analogy) early into the chefs existance he was happy that someone was cooking his meals for him. As time went by, he experienced many meals, and even learned how to cook himself but still enjoyed having his meals cooked for him. As his cooking got better, he began to become disapointed with the way his meals were being prepared. Eventually he became picky about how his meals were prepared and began to get grumpy if they were cooked even the slightest bit off. One day the Cordon Bleu chef orders a steak and it's overcooked and complains.

The chef comes out and says "nobody ever told you you had to eat here" and walked away while all of his other customers smiled and enjoyed their meal. And the Cordon Bleu chef walked away hungry.

 

 

 

Any chef that says something like "nobody ever told you you had to eat here" when any customer isn't satisfied has some serious issues.

 

 

This chef did not become "disappointed wiht the way his meals were being prepared"... he learned to appreciate meals that were prepared properly. He was no longer satisfield with McDonalds. He learned that there are better things in life. Its called "discrimination" and I promise that it will happen to you, too, if you cache long enough. It isn't the bad thing that you make it out to be. Its one of those things that helps to improve the world.

[knowschad]

Lots of smileys might mean the cacher is more experienced but it's no excuse for rude or arrogant log entries. .

 

 

Absolutely!!!

[knowschad]

Anyone else getting hungry from this discussion?

[+bittsen]

Any chef that says something like "nobody ever told you you had to eat here" when any customer isn't satisfied has some serious issues.

 

This chef did not become "disappointed wiht the way his meals were being prepared"... he learned to appreciate meals that were prepared properly. He was no longer satisfield with McDonalds. He learned that there are better things in life. Its called "discrimination" and I promise that it will happen to you, too, if you cache long enough. It isn't the bad thing that you make it out to be. Its one of those things that helps to improve the world.

 

And lets not forget that no matter the menu, the food is FREE

 

You obviously glossed over the part that the "meal" is FREE!!

 

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

I was taught by a very wise grandmother that instilled in me that it's not cool to complain when other people are doing you a favor. It doesn't matter if someone is cooking for you or placing caches for your enjoyment. If its done out of the generosity of their own heart, you abide by the rule of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

 

In geocaching, that can also be translated to "if you don't like it, don't look for it".

[Mushtang]

From Merriam-Websters:

Now I understand it better. You're caught up in the word mandate, and completely missing the point (yet again). I changed it to "suggested" instead of "mandated" at one point to stay on my point and you accused me of backpeddling.

 

You crack me up.

 

The motto says nothing about how interesting a location should be. It's a reference to the coordinate system. The way you brought it up in your first post suggests you believed otherwise.

 

(Hopefully you'll finally understand what I'm saying to you and you won't throw me a definition of the word "interesting" or try and argue another straw man claiming I said you believed in zombies or something equally stupid)

[knowschad]

Any chef that says something like "nobody ever told you you had to eat here" when any customer isn't satisfied has some serious issues.

 

This chef did not become "disappointed wiht the way his meals were being prepared"... he learned to appreciate meals that were prepared properly. He was no longer satisfield with McDonalds. He learned that there are better things in life. Its called "discrimination" and I promise that it will happen to you, too, if you cache long enough. It isn't the bad thing that you make it out to be. Its one of those things that helps to improve the world.

 

And lets not forget that no matter the menu, the food is FREE

 

You obviously glossed over the part that the "meal" is FREE!!

 

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

I was taught by a very wise grandmother that instilled in me that it's not cool to complain when other people are doing you a favor. It doesn't matter if someone is cooking for you or placing caches for your enjoyment. If its done out of the generosity of their own heart, you abide by the rule of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

 

In geocaching, that can also be translated to "if you don't like it, don't look for it".

 

 

 

I didn't gloss over "Free" bit. I ignored it. It was completely pointless. But since you insist on bringing it back, would you mind sending me a check for my gasoline bill? Thanks, I knew you wouldn't object!

 

 

Seriously... you always seem to take any discussion about the quality of various caches or containers as "complaining". That is rarely what I see. Sure, there is some, but for the most part, it is a discussion based on past experiences. Sorry, but I am not from the "there are no losers, only winners" generation. Some caches are worse than others. Some are better. Pointing out the difference is not being "grumpy"... its being educated in the difference between the two.

[knowschad]

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

Incidentally, your ex needs to know that anything other than "medium rare" is an international crime, rigidly enforced by Interpol.

[GOF and Bacall]

When my wife didn't like the way I cooked her steak I learned to cook it the way she would enjoy it. I wasn't eating the darn thing, she was. May as well make it enjoyable for her. Perhaps that is why she isn't my ex. Not sure what it has to do with caching.

[GOF and Bacall]

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

Incidentally, your ex needs to know that anything other than "medium rare" is an international crime, rigidly enforced by Interpol.

 

Sounds to me like you overcook steak.

Knock off the horns, wipe its butt and walk it past the grill.

[knowschad]

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

Incidentally, your ex needs to know that anything other than "medium rare" is an international crime, rigidly enforced by Interpol.

 

Sounds to me like you overcook steak.

Knock off the

 

horns, wipe its butt and walk it past the grill.

 

 

Hey... I don't make the laws.

 

 

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

[knowschad]

Wow, this thread went way off topic.

 

[Clan Riffster]

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

To warm it up, of course!

The average core temperature of a cow is 101.5f degrees.

(although I'm sure that He Who Argues With Everything will disagree)

[Clan Riffster]

I changed it to "suggested" instead of "mandated" at one point to stay on my point

Very true. There was a point, (a very short one), where you realized the error of your ways.

You could've saved your credibility at that point, however you decided it was more important to argue than to examine the facts.

Presumably, you recognized you could get more of an argument if you fell back to your "Mandate" position.

Not that that's particularly shocking to anyone in here.

 

Can we get back on topic now, or do you still want to argue?

[Mushtang]

Can we get back on topic now, or do you still want to argue?

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto, so I guess you're right that we're done now.

[knowschad]

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

To warm it up, of course!

The average core temperature of a cow is 101.5f degrees.

(although I'm sure that He Who Argues With Everything will disagree)

 

 

OMG! Why would you want to overcook it to 101.5?

 

 

By the way, could you please provide a link to "He Who Argues With Everything"? I have NO idea to whom you may be referring. Oh well, apples and oranges, bits n' bytes.

[Mushtang]

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

To warm it up, of course!

The average core temperature of a cow is 101.5f degrees.

(although I'm sure that He Who Argues With Everything will disagree)

Nobody would argue with you about this one, we've finally found a subject you know more than just a little bit about.

[knowschad]

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

To warm it up, of course!

The average core temperature of a cow is 101.5f degrees.

(although I'm sure that He Who Argues With Everything will disagree)

Nobody would argue with you about this one, we've finally found a subject you know more than just a little bit about.

 

 

Oh, please!! Don't ruin the moment with a personal vendetta! We all know who he meant. and it wasn't you (athough it could have been )

[GOF and Bacall]

In all honesty, when my ex began regularly complaining about the way I cooked the special order steak, I finally decided I was no longer going to prepare special order steaks. The option was "Raw" or "cooked".

 

Incidentally, your ex needs to know that anything other than "medium rare" is an international crime, rigidly enforced by Interpol.

 

Sounds to me like you overcook steak.

Knock off the

 

horns, wipe its butt and walk it past the grill.

 

 

Hey... I don't make the laws.

 

 

(PS: Why walk it past the grill?)

 

There are variations to this old saying. I wouldn't post dad's version on this forum, even if the nanyware would allow it. Wash behind its ears or brush its teeth. Walk it past the grill, or through the kitchen, give it a low grade fever or a brush burn. Wave a match at it or hold a Zippo under it's nose. I'm sure there are others. Long as the steak comes to the table red and juicy and with the flavors in tact you can say it any way you want.

[Clan Riffster]

(Note: No zombies were hurt in the making of this post)

[+bittsen]

I see way too many pots yelling at kettles here...

[knowschad]

I see way too many pots yelling at kettles here...

 

 

Really? Who? Seriously, I don't see anything of the sort and I would love an explaination from your or anyone else that feels as you do. I'm puzzled. I thought this was a good discussion up until now.