What makes a 'good' urban cache?

[+Sol seaker]

 

 

As a young family, we do this for fun .... We hadn't realised the whole 'sport' was such a hotbed of political quagmire and we certainly didn't lay our (few) caches in order to disgruntle people or cause anarchy

 

These forums are a hotbed of anarchy. Don't let it get you down. And PLEASE don't take it personal.

 

Just realize that all the people here come from ALL walks of life all over the world.

We've certainly got a lot of people here who would never get along in the same room. !!

 

(we've got hard-core right wing, hard-core left wing, hard-core hate both extremes, Hard-core religious, hard-core anti-religious, hard-core hate everybody, you get the picture)

 

So there should be expected some wildly varying opinions and ideas.

 

And besides all of our differences, I think people come here to hash some of this out.

 

Besides, without a real name attached, I think some people get to forgetting that there are people behind these strange little pictuers with the strange names on them.

 

We're all debating topic. Not people. (Or so it is intended)

 

So please don't take any of this personal.

[knowschad]

So please don't take any of this personal.

 

Thanks for posting that.

[+L0ne.R]

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

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

 

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!

 

Yes, that's what I was thinking too. Geocaching is not free - there's the cost of gasoline, there's the wear and tear on our cars, there's park fees, there's parking fees, there are hotel bills if we travel further out to go caching, etc.

 

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.

 

Well said knowschad. I especially liked "there are no losers, only winners generation" observation. I think you nailed it on the head.

[+sbell111]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

[Clan Riffster]

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto

Sure. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Can we get back on topic, or do you have more horribly inaccurate derailment attempts up your sleeves?

[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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

 

 

Thank you for your esteemed opinion. Obviously, the more posts one has, the more disciminating they are likely to be regarding forum posts.

Edited September 14, 2009 by knowschad

[Mushtang]

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto

Sure. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Can we get back on topic, or do you have more horribly inaccurate derailment attempts up your sleeves?

No need to discuss it further. My point was well made (several times) and ignored by you (several times). I think everyone else got the point.

 

[+The Blorenges]

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

 

If I'm caching in an urban area then I've accepted the fact that the cache itself is most likely going to be a micro or nano cache.

 

So what else would I like to make it a "good cache site" for me, personally?

 

I'd like to be taken there to see something odd, unusual, inspiring, humorous or different that I would probably not have noticed in other circumstances, had the cache not been placed nearby.

 

Here's an example of what I mean, to be found in Newcastle, N.E. England:

 

Vampire Rabbit. (see Gallery)

 

MrsB

Edited September 14, 2009 by The Blorenges

[+darepabe]

Thank you for your esteemed opinion. Obviously, the more posts one has, the more disciminating they are likely to be regarding forum posts.

 

lol...so funny! (and I tend to agree )

 

Now you lot, kiss n makeup!

[Clan Riffster]

Vampire Rabbit. (see Gallery)

One has to wonder if the building designer didn't read Watership Down one time too many.

All it lacks is an eye patch and it'd be a perfect rendition of General Woundwort.

[+KBI]

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto

Sure. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

A friendly suggestion:

 

If you’re going to make controversial claims in a public forum, CR, then you really ought to be prepared to either back them up or concede with grace.

 

You made an indefensible claim, then you tried to obfuscate your way out of it when your claim was challenged. We all read the exchange. We’re not idiots ... and neither are you. Instead of ducking and squirming, why not just suck it up and admit you inaccurately stretched the Groundspeak motto to fit your personal agenda?

 

You never let anyone else get away with making indefensible claims, as well you shouldn’t. Open debate is a wonderful thing. So why can’t you be magnanimous enough to admit when you’ve done it yourself? Debate is healthy, and when opposing viewpoints are hashed out in public for all and ponder, everyone wins. A conceded point of detail is not a loss or a failure on your part. This is not a contest. Nobody has challenged your perfectly valid opinion. Mushtang did not insult you personally; he merely questioned one of your claims.

 

Admit the truth. Do it honestly, and without the snarky sarcasm. It’ll do wonders for your credibility.

[knowschad]

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto

Sure. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Can we get back on topic, or do you have more horribly inaccurate derailment attempts up your sleeves?

 

 

[bolded by me to put the quoted posting back into context]

 

 

Actually, I appreciated CR's attempt to avoid the endless debating of nuances and semantics that seem to drag threads on for pages, until they get to the point that only those two or three involved in the debate even care to read them anymore.

[Clan Riffster]

You made an indefensible claim

Great! Someone else heck bent on dragging this thread further off topic by twisting reality.

Why am I not surprised to see you enter the fray?

For the record, the only one making utterly erroneous claims was Mushtang.

He knows it. You know it. Everybody else in here knows it.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

If your need to argue is so intense that you simply can't let go when you are wrong, could you take it to PMs?

Thanx!

[+The Blorenges]

Pleeeeeeeaaaaase! No more!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Did somebody mention urban caches?

 

MrsB

[+bflentje]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

 

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

[Clan Riffster]

Did somebody mention urban caches?

I seem to remember somebody mentioning it, but it was a long time ago... in a place far, far away.

 

On topic:

I think everybody has their own likes & dislikes. What I like to call my biased caching aesthetics.

The vampire bunny example you gave earlier fits my likes perfectly.

Were I to cross the big blue puddle, I would find it and add it to my favorites list.

These are the kind of urban caches I enjoy the most.

[+bflentje]

You made an indefensible claim

Great! Someone else heck bent on dragging this thread further off topic by twisting reality.

Why am I not surprised to see you enter the fray?

For the record, the only one making utterly erroneous claims was Mushtang.

He knows it. You know it. Everybody else in here knows it.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

If your need to argue is so intense that you simply can't let go when you are wrong, could you take it to PMs?

Thanx!

 

For God's sake, walk away from your keyboard.....

[+L0ne.R]

I've made it pretty clear that you were wrong about the motto

Sure. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Can we get back on topic, or do you have more horribly inaccurate derailment attempts up your sleeves?

 

 

[bolded by me to put the quoted posting back into context]

 

 

Actually, I appreciated CR's attempt to avoid the endless debating of nuances and semantics that seem to drag threads on for pages, until they get to the point that only those two or three involved in the debate even care to read them anymore.

 

I so agree. Snoozeville on the "Language of Location" minutiae. It diverted from the actual point CR was trying to make.

[Clan Riffster]

If your need to argue is so intense that you simply can't let go when you are wrong, could you take it to PMs?

 

For God's sake, walk away from your keyboard.....

I guess that would be a "No. I can't take it to PMs".

 

Back on topic:

My wife and I often cache together. Her likes are very different from mine. While I like tromping through icky swamps, pushing venomous snakes aside on my quest for ammo cans, her likes lean toward more urban environments. The caches she's expressed the most love for have all had some common elements, to include quality containers, interesting locations, clever write ups and unique hide styles. Incidentally, these elements are almost exactly what can be found in those non-urban caches I love.

[+L0ne.R]

On topic:

I think everybody has their own likes & dislikes. What I like to call my biased caching aesthetics.

The vampire bunny example you gave earlier fits my likes perfectly.

Were I to cross the big blue puddle, I would find it and add it to my favorites list.

These are the kind of urban caches I enjoy the most.

 

And that's why I hate to have to filter out micros -- I miss out on these types of gems. But in order to save me from a whole lot of frustration I've got to sacrifice the good micros. Sigh.

[Clan Riffster]

And that's why I hate to have to filter out micros

I also filter micros from my PQ, but I have a second PQ I run just for when Viv goes with me.

It includes micros, not chosen and other.

I also take a gander at all the caches that come in my notification e-mails.

When I see a micro that catchees my interest, I tell Viv and one or both of us are out the door.

[Mushtang]

For the record, the only one making utterly erroneous claims was Mushtang.

Really? Where? Like when I pointed out that the motto didn't mean what you claimed it meant?

[+wenestvedt]

I do a lot of caching in downtown Providence, RI. Given that, I fully expect that most caches will be micros. So what? I *also* expect that many of these caches will take me to a place I have never been before, or at least will tell me something I didn't know about a place I already know. I THINK that a good cache has as much to do with its environment as it does with the container, hint(s), and hide.

 

Also, I've lived a few places and it's become evident to me that most people don't visit as much of their area's "must see" attractions & historical sites as do visitors. Urban caches have the power to open our eyes to places we ignore due to over-familiarity.

 

- Will

[+KBI]

Actually, I appreciated CR's attempt to avoid the endless debating of nuances and semantics that seem to drag threads on for pages, until they get to the point that only those two or three involved in the debate even care to read them anymore.

I so agree. Snoozeville on the "Language of Location" minutiae. It diverted from the actual point CR was trying to make.

It sure did.

 

The point CR was trying to make was that he prefers a certain type of cache. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn’t leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that Groundspeak’s official motto somehow means that certain other preferences are less valid or acceptable than his.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can’t please everyone. And that’s a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher’s preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher’s preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

[knowschad]

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

 

 

Now,that edit, I can agree to.

[Clan Riffster]

Urban caches have the power to open our eyes to places we ignore due to over-familiarity.

Very true. When discussing this game with muggles, (AKA: Potential Noobs), this is one of the sentiments I stress.

Most folks have places they have seen over the years that have caught their eye for one reason or another.

Geocaching is a great medium to share these places, urban or otherwise.

[+sbell111]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

 

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

Actually, it just continued to make it wrong, in my opinion. It simply flies in the face of the fact that the really big number cachers tend to like all caches. They typically don't turn their noses up at some caches because they use common hide methods.

 

The point KnowsChad was trying to make was that as he has made more finds, the more discriminating he became. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn’t leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that his feelings about these caches that he doesn't like mirrors the feelings of the rest of us.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can’t please everyone. And that’s a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher’s preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher’s preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

 

<This post dedicated to KBI, who made it possible, or at least wrote most of it.>

[+ecanderson]

'Other' is a size that should only be offered for virts, events, and earthcaches, in my opinion.

I would suggest that typical 1x2" "camo pouch" type caches are such screwball cache containers that I appreciate seeing these logged as "other". They can be hidden where there is only an 1/8" thin slot somewhere. Keeps them - sometimes - from becoming true needle/haystack problems to find. When I see "Other" listed, I assume I'm looking for something truly peculiar and will have to increase my scrutiny accordingly - just as one probably would for finding a micro instead of a small.

 

As I noted in an earlier post having to do with nanos, the number of possible places for a hide tends to grow exponentially with reduction in container size. Unfortunately, GPS coordinates don't improve accordingly with smaller hides. I like to see nanos afforded an "Other" designation as well.

 

As for one thing that really gives me a chuckle in a good urban hide:

 

It's a great deal of fun when it's a well camo'd cache that is right in my face (and the faces of every muggle that wanders by) and yet I find it necessary to cross my eyes and squint to pick up anything different from the surrounding features. Those often take a good deal of work to build and place. [We have a very few caches of that sort in our area, and for a couple of them, I'd love to know how long it took the COs to brew a paint match to the surrounding surface.] These are a gas to point out to caching newbies. "See, it's right there!", which usually gets an "Oh wow" response. After one of those, they start thinking that they are seeing caches everywhere

[+ecanderson]

deleted - stupid 45 sec server timeouts!

Edited September 14, 2009 by ecanderson

[Cache Bandits R Us]

Picos, out in the open where all could see if they really looked. Which for the better part people never do. The human being tends to find only what they are looking for.

[+Okiebryan]

I'm answering the question without taking the time to read the entire thread, only because this same question has been asked of me several times.

 

What makes a good hide?

1) Interesting or unique location.

2) Interesting or creative story.

3) Unique or particularly challenging hide.

 

If I can't nail at least 1 of those three, I don't go through with the hide. Most of my hides met 2 of the three. If I can get all 3, then that's a major score. That's the cache that I get the best logs on.

 

I can't tell you how many caches I've hidden, then later returned to pick them up unpublished...just because after thinking about the hide, I decided it was not up to my standards.

[knowschad]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

 

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

Actually, it just continued to make it wrong, in my opinion. It simply flies in the face of the fact that the really big number cachers tend to like all caches. They typically don't turn their noses up at some caches because they use common hide methods.

 

The point KnowsChad was trying to make was that as he has made more finds, the more discriminating he became. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn't leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that his feelings about these caches that he doesn't like mirrors the feelings of the rest of us.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can't please everyone. And that's a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher's preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher's preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

 

<This post dedicated to KBI, who made it possible, or at least wrote most of it.>

 

 

 

You are one of the people here that just continually leave me shaking my head.

[+sbell111]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

Actually, it just continued to make it wrong, in my opinion. It simply flies in the face of the fact that the really big number cachers tend to like all caches. They typically don't turn their noses up at some caches because they use common hide methods.

 

The point KnowsChad was trying to make was that as he has made more finds, the more discriminating he became. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn't leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that his feelings about these caches that he doesn't like mirrors the feelings of the rest of us.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can't please everyone. And that's a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher's preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher's preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

 

<This post dedicated to KBI, who made it possible, or at least wrote most of it.>

You are one of the people here that just continually leave me shaking my head.

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps if you thought about your posts more prior to hitting <add reply> you would be more happy with the result?

[knowschad]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

Actually, it just continued to make it wrong, in my opinion. It simply flies in the face of the fact that the really big number cachers tend to like all caches. They typically don't turn their noses up at some caches because they use common hide methods.

 

The point KnowsChad was trying to make was that as he has made more finds, the more discriminating he became. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn't leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that his feelings about these caches that he doesn't like mirrors the feelings of the rest of us.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can't please everyone. And that's a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher's preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher's preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

 

<This post dedicated to KBI, who made it possible, or at least wrote most of it.>

You are one of the people here that just continually leave me shaking my head.

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps if you thought about your posts more prior to hitting <add reply> you would be more happy with the result?

 

 

Perhaps you need to stop reading things into other people's posts. I never implied, nor intended to imply what you claim.

[+sbell111]

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 bolded the bit that is not correct.

I believe the quote was put into proper and agreeable context with the word "likely".

Actually, it just continued to make it wrong, in my opinion. It simply flies in the face of the fact that the really big number cachers tend to like all caches. They typically don't turn their noses up at some caches because they use common hide methods.

 

The point KnowsChad was trying to make was that as he has made more finds, the more discriminating he became. No problem there. His preference is perfectly valid, and has not been disputed here.

 

Too bad he didn't leave it at that.

 

His argument only went off the rails when he tried to imply that his feelings about these caches that he doesn't like mirrors the feelings of the rest of us.

 

For one participant to recognize and challenge another participant's fallacy may bore or annoy some people. So what's new? Conclusion: You can't please everyone. And that's a concept that is timeless, accurate and squarely on-topic here.

 

I have no problem with cachers describing their preferences. I respect all cacher's preferences as long as they are respectful in return. Where I have a problem is when someone declares or implies that another cacher's preference is somehow less valid, less worthy, or less acceptable than his own.

 

I have no tolerance for intolerance.

 

<This post dedicated to KBI, who made it possible, or at least wrote most of it.>

You are one of the people here that just continually leave me shaking my head.

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps if you thought about your posts more prior to hitting <add reply> you would be more happy with the result?

Perhaps you need to stop reading things into other people's posts. I never implied, nor intended to imply what you claim.

The only thing that I claimed that you implied is that you believe that your feelings about caches mirrors cachers in general and high number cachers specifically. If you do not believe that this implication is correct, than I wonder why you posted what you did. Edited September 17, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

[Clan Riffster]

Just your typical Tres Amigos train wreck.