Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Wooden Cyclist

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

I think it's time a moderator reviewed the last two or three pages of crap and locked some users from this thread! Seams they only care about throwing poo! I think GS has throw this thread into the trash already. It seams to me that one in every 15 post are even worth reading about why would they ever respond?

 

just sayin' my friends

 

 

 

edited for sp

Edited by quadsinthemudd

Share this post


Link to post

As soon as the jabs stop flying at me, my friend! I am more than happy to treat others as they treat me. Want to play games and belittle, let's play. Want to be serious and have a real discussion, better yet. If you've been paying any attention at all, you'll note that sbell has been slapping at me for the last few days now and not just in this thread. If he wants respect, he's going at it quite wrong. And you're quite right, the jabs at me are completely uncalled for. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should continually subject me to jabs and slams...you being general here. As for not participating...are Clan and I the only ones who remember I did post my thoughts? Sorry if I'm not willing to play games (that IS what both sbell abd TTJ were up to btw, not trying to hear my view since I've been more than happy to give it all along), that doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a serious discussion as I have repeaedly demonstrated.

 

You may note that was a response to him shooting out spew in his post....or are we only concentrating on me?

 

You are not in that discussion, you already declined. You are only saying you have already spoken about it (but are too lazy to find the comment) and will not repeat yourself. But the pot shots continue. To me that's just slinging mud, not a serious dicusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

How would I handle it?

(Assuming I thought the "someone" was credible)

 

1 ) Post a disabling note on the cache page. Something to the effect of: "A local cacher has brought to my attention the fact that this cache may not be in compliance with the Groundspeak guidelines. Please contact me through my profile so we can discuss the matter. Thanx!"

I was hoping RR would take a serious attempt to answer this and let us know what he thought the reviewer should do. It has the potential to show why I (and many others) believe it was handled the way it was. Thanks, Clan Riffster, for making an honest attempt to share how you would have done it.

 

In your suggestion to tell the cache owner that a local cacher ratted him out, you may in fact be throwing the local cacher under the bus. The local cacher may be the only one that the cache owner confided in, and if the local cacher didn't want to upset the cache owner because he was a dangerous guy, and he also didn't want the rest of the local cachers looking for a cache that wasn't there, he might have gone the annonymous route. So the way you'd handle it wouldn't seem to be the best way.

 

If you knew for a fact that the cache wasn't there, because the person telling you this was credible (as you pointed out was an assumtion you made for the sake of this discussion), and the cache owner had been lying about checking on the cache all these years, there's really no need to let the cache page remain active, so wouldn't you archive it ASAP?

Share this post


Link to post
As soon as the jabs stop flying at me, my friend! I am more than happy to treat others as they treat me. Want to play games and belittle, let's play. Want to be serious and have a real discussion, better yet. If you've been paying any attention at all, you'll note that sbell has been slapping at me for the last few days now and not just in this thread. If he wants respect, he's going at it quite wrong. And you're quite right, the jabs at me are completely uncalled for. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should continually subject me to jabs and slams...you being general here. As for not participating...are Clan and I the only ones who remember I did post my thoughts? Sorry if I'm not willing to play games (that IS what both sbell abd TTJ were up to btw, not trying to hear my view since I've been more than happy to give it all along), that doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a serious discussion as I have repeaedly demonstrated.

 

You may note that was a response to him shooting out spew in his post....or are we only concentrating on me?

You are not in that discussion, you already declined. You are only saying you have already spoken about it (but are too lazy to find the comment) and will not repeat yourself. But the pot shots continue. To me that's just slinging mud, not a serious dicusion.
This is exactly how RR handles most direct attempts to pin him down and to try and avoid having him obfuscate and confuse the discussions with off topic posts and claims. He'll make a claim, but refuse to back it up or support it when asked to do so. You'd think that if his opinion about something was important to him he'd be happy to re-state it when asked to do so. And then when the discussion goes on without him he jumps in and tries to further obfuscate and derail the thread.

 

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

 

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.
That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

Share this post


Link to post

... I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

Wait a minute! You saying there's something wrong with that? A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal.
It doesn't? Even ignoring the notes that Super Fly posted after the cache was archived, he could have appealed the archival of the cache. That sounds like an opportunity for rebuttal to me.

Share this post


Link to post

 

When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness.

Uh... OK. Let me type this slowly... :D

What words of yours did I falsely and intentionally mis-characterize? :anicute:

Thanx! :o

Did you reply to my post without reading it? I quoted you in plain sight. Should I have typed it slowly for you to read? Your words were quoted, what more do you need to be able to see them and read them. I mean come on, would it really help if I quoted and posted them a second time. :anicute: It seems that you are just playing games in an attempt to again make false claims. If you really really couldn't read and understand your own words when they were quoted on the page let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

The cache in Illinois was found.

 

The reviewer for the Illinois cache seems to have jumped the gun disabling it.

 

What should they do now?

 

Should they reenable it and apologize to the owner?

 

Do nothing because it is the cache owners own fault putting out a hard cache?

 

The owner has it listed properly, and the difficulty seems to be appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.
That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

 

All it would take to satisfy me would be a note from Nomex, or someone else in authority, admitting that changing the standard message to add the word years was wrong.

 

If you do something rude, about all I would ask is you acknowledge it was rude and say your sorry.

 

Whether SF lied or not, it is wrong and rude for someone with inside information to accuse him of it without being in position to say why they feel that way.

 

I see TPTB are being very quiet about this whole matter now. Why couldn't they have been quiet about it to start with? If they kept the reason for the archival between themselves and the CO, I doubt this thread would have been this long.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.
That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

When jeremy used to participate in the forums he was often very direct and perhaps a little harsh. I liked that. So here is the fantasy response I would like to see from Jeremy:

 

"What, are you guys all insane? This person was making a mockery of the game, and I won't allow it to continue. I approve of the way this was handled not only to take care of the specific situation, but to publicly serve notice that this type of attack on geocaching will not be tolerated."

 

Maybe it's from working in NYC for the past 3 years :laughing: but I am disinclined to be "polite" or "courteous" to people who are taking advantage of others.

Of course, this is based on the assumption that the cache really wasn't there. If it was, boy did they screw up! :D

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

 

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

It seems to me that SF had plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. He chose to throw the cache away and say nothing. He could have left the cache archived and posted great photos showing the cache in place and detailed photos of the cache container. That would have been a great rebuttal leaving TPTB looking very bad. I wonder why he didn't go that route. After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :laughing:

 

I think you have totaly lost the point of this thread Don. Post counts! I have sent an email to Gsak to add post counts right next to totalfinds :D

Share this post


Link to post

This is exactly how RR handles most direct attempts to pin him down and to try and avoid having him obfuscate and confuse the discussions with off topic posts and claims. He'll make a claim, but refuse to back it up or support it when asked to do so. You'd think that if his opinion about something was important to him he'd be happy to re-state it when asked to do so. And then when the discussion goes on without him he jumps in and tries to further obfuscate and derail the thread.

 

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

 

Ummm no, Mushtang. That's how I stop the going in circles even after explaining myself 10, 20 or even 30 times on the same old thing. That's how I stop the spin cycle that you, KBI and sbell LOVE to try to get me in. Some may not know, but I'm a little slow when trying to discuss things and these three know it all too well. I don't always pose my answers just perfectly and then WAM! And not only that, but they know I get irked when they play that game and they press and press hoping I will explode, they seem to get a kick out of that as well.

 

Why do you suppose they bypassed the better, more articulate writers and picked on me repeatedly? I mean, CR and I have the same opinion (pretty much), did you see Sbell harassing Clan for a reply? No, because that wouldn't give him the satisfaction of having me stammer and stumble and not say it just right so he could then pounce and twist...his favorite part of the game.

 

Everyone here KNOWS I've spoken my mind (come on, I'm the top poster here aren't I??), yet they BEG, NO, they BADGER me for a repeat...not playing, sorry. So, tell it like it is Mushtang, don't let on that I won't answer...I already did 10 or more times in this thread. I can't believe anyone would accuse me of NOT discussing this, what do you think I've been doing all this time? Oh, I know, since I said a while ago that the main reason for my continued posts is to keep this alive, sbell and co would have you believe I am trying to side-step the discussion....HARDLY. Just bypassing the circlefest, the spinarama!

 

But please, carry on. It's fun to watch you guys try to get me riled.

 

And NO, I refuse to play that game. Been there, done it with you guys more than I should have already. So, as I said before (and I believe Clan even backed) I said what I'd have done and it's there to be read...please help yourselves!

Share this post


Link to post

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

 

More of the same Mushtang? Maybe, had you read my many posts in here, you'd actually know what you were talking about instead of just spinning the story to fit your need? I don't even for a SECOND believe that TPTB will ever step in and say anything, I've said this many times and yet you try to say this is what I said? Please stop playing the spin game and stick to the facts...if you know them.

 

Ooops, I just noticed another piece of misinformation...Mushtang, I have stated more than a few times what my reason for continuing to post is and yet you post that my ONLY reason is to keep this at the top...either that's purposely mistated or you really need to read the posts instead of just blindly replying!

 

As for the pot shots and mud slinging...sure. I'm happy to reply in kind. I'm more than happy to play the mudslinging game if others want to throw at me first...no problem. Treat me nicely and I'm happy to return the favor.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :D

 

The only ones wanting the facts seem to be those who agree with GS. Clan, myself and many others have stated REPEATEDLY that we're far past that part, but look, and see who are really demanding the facts while also complaining about the thread...same old same old. As I have said, as Clan has said,some in here don't even know what the discussion is. That's because their main purpose to come in here is to derail and agitate.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :laughing:

 

I think you have totaly lost the point of this thread Don. Post counts! I have sent an email to Gsak to add post counts right next to totalfinds :D

 

Aha! And I thought that was what this thread was for. Never mind. Carry on...

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :laughing:

 

I think you have totaly lost the point of this thread Don. Post counts! I have sent an email to Gsak to add post counts right next to totalfinds :D

 

Aha! And I thought that was what this thread was for. Never mind. Carry on...

 

Actually, OT posts do not count towards your post count.

 

I'm still following along waiting to see it TPTB will step up and assure us that all is ok and the next time this comes up that things will be handled better. Especially in a situation where you can't bring forth the evidence you have against someone you should temper what you say about them.

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :laughing:

 

I think you have totaly lost the point of this thread Don. Post counts! I have sent an email to Gsak to add post counts right next to totalfinds :D

 

Aha! And I thought that was what this thread was for. Never mind. Carry on...

 

Actually, OT posts do not count towards your post count.

 

 

what is an OT post?

Share this post


Link to post

There are now two finds on the Arizona cache and the locals seem to be happy hunting for it. Even disabled, they come and try. The watch count on the cache went from 10 early this morning to 33 right now...we're watching and it's still disabled. I wonder what comes next? Re-instated with an apology? Just re-instated? Will watch closely!

Share this post


Link to post

There are now two finds on the Arizona cache and the locals seem to be happy hunting for it. Even disabled, they come and try. The watch count on the cache went from 10 early this morning to 33 right now...we're watching and it's still disabled. I wonder what comes next? Re-instated with an apology? Just re-instated? Will watch closely!

 

It's disabled, not archived. The owner can enable it at any time. There is no apology in order from RR for doing his job.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

There are now two finds on the Arizona cache and the locals seem to be happy hunting for it. Even disabled, they come and try. The watch count on the cache went from 10 early this morning to 33 right now...we're watching and it's still disabled. I wonder what comes next? Re-instated with an apology? Just re-instated? Will watch closely!

 

It's disabled, not archived. The owner can enable it at any time. There is no apology in order from RR for doing his job.

 

The owner can enable even though they didn't disable? Learn something new every day, THANKS Briansnat! I'm on the fence as far as the rest of your statement goes though...

 

I wonder if the owner knows this or do they think (like I would) that the reviewer has to follow up? Ooops, question answered, she just enabled it! :D

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

There are now two finds on the Arizona cache and the locals seem to be happy hunting for it. Even disabled, they come and try. The watch count on the cache went from 10 early this morning to 33 right now...we're watching and it's still disabled. I wonder what comes next? Re-instated with an apology? Just re-instated? Will watch closely!

 

It's disabled, not archived. The owner can enable it at any time. There is no apology in order from RR for doing his job.

 

The owner can enable even though they didn't disable? Learn something new every day, THANKS Briansnat! I'm on the fence as far as the rest of your statement goes though...

 

I wonder if the owner knows this or do they think (like I would) that the reviewer has to follow up? Ooops, question answered, she just enabled it! :D

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Edited by cheech gang

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

 

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

It seems to me that SF had plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. He chose to throw the cache away and say nothing. He could have left the cache archived and posted great photos showing the cache in place and detailed photos of the cache container. That would have been a great rebuttal leaving TPTB looking very bad. I wonder why he didn't go that route. After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

 

What this boils down to, is you feel it is just fine for a reviewer to insult you when he cannot back up that insult.(not that he doesn't have proof, just that he cannot or will not provide the proof.) If that is OK with you that's fine just don't expect me to agree.

 

From my point of view, I really don't know if the cache was a hoax or not. Nor do most of you. For me that is not the point. If the reviewer cannot tell us why he thinks the cache was not there then he should not say the cache was not there.

 

However, I don't know why I am even trying to get the point across. Nobody cares these days about manners. :D

Share this post


Link to post
So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?
7ff71012-125c-4587-8f96-43cd3fbf72a7.jpg

 

nope not even close. How dare you go off topic. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?
7ff71012-125c-4587-8f96-43cd3fbf72a7.jpg
nope not even close. How dare you go off topic. You should be ashamed of yourself!
:laughing:

 

Actually, it was an answer to Mushtang's question, not what would make me happy, but a mirror of the apparent vindictiveness some of the posters here seem to be feeling. So, it was quite on topic.

 

Questioning others' posts as to their off-topic-ness, now that's off topic.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :D

 

The only ones wanting the facts seem to be those who agree with GS. Clan, myself and many others have stated REPEATEDLY that we're far past that part, but look, and see who are really demanding the facts while also complaining about the thread...same old same old. As I have said, as Clan has said,some in here don't even know what the discussion is. That's because their main purpose to come in here is to derail and agitate.

 

RR, you and I have been on opposite sides of the fence before and for that I am sorry. I have read and kept up with this whole thread and you have always been right on! TPTB feel that they can approach slander and not back off or present their side of the story. I have held out that there has got to be more than we have read and there probably is but we will never know.

RR, keep plugging! :anicute:

P.S. If Briansnat was in charge this would have never happened or at the least, we would have gotten an explanation and this thread would have ended before the 12th post! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
So what would satisfy you? What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?
7ff71012-125c-4587-8f96-43cd3fbf72a7.jpg
nope not even close. How dare you go off topic. You should be ashamed of yourself!
:anicute:

 

Actually, it was an answer to Mushtang's question, not what would make me happy, but a mirror of the apparent vindictiveness some of the posters here seem to be feeling. So, it was quite on topic.

 

Questioning others' posts as to their off-topic-ness, now that's off topic.

:laughing:

 

What? Thats off topic? I thought that is what the topic is now. :D:anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Back on page ten of this thread I made the observation that nothing good can happen from then on out. The only way for some posters to get closure on this is for someone's name to be destroyed when ALL of the facts are revealed. Clearly, Groundspeak is above that- hence their decision to stay out of this mess after it grew into the monster it has become.

 

Is there really no way for all of the fact demanders to just let it go? Must someone suffer just because YOU need to see this discussion carried out to it's inevitable bloody finish?

 

I'll say it again: Nothing good can happen from here on out. :D

 

The only ones wanting the facts seem to be those who agree with GS. Clan, myself and many others have stated REPEATEDLY that we're far past that part, but look, and see who are really demanding the facts while also complaining about the thread...same old same old. As I have said, as Clan has said,some in here don't even know what the discussion is. That's because their main purpose to come in here is to derail and agitate.

 

RR, you and I have been on opposite sides of the fence before and for that I am sorry. I have read and kept up with this whole thread and you have always been right on! TPTB feel that they can approach slander and not back off or present their side of the story. I have held out that there has got to be more than we have read and there probably is but we will never know.

RR, keep plugging! :anicute:

P.S. If Briansnat was in charge this would have never happened or at the least, we would have gotten an explanation and this thread would have ended before the 12th post! :laughing:

 

:anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
This is exactly how RR handles most direct attempts to pin him down and to try and avoid having him obfuscate and confuse the discussions with off topic posts and claims. He'll make a claim, but refuse to back it up or support it when asked to do so. You'd think that if his opinion about something was important to him he'd be happy to re-state it when asked to do so. And then when the discussion goes on without him he jumps in and tries to further obfuscate and derail the thread.

 

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

Ummm no, Mushtang. That's how I stop the going in circles even after explaining myself 10, 20 or even 30 times on the same old thing. That's how I stop the spin cycle that you, KBI and sbell LOVE to try to get me in. Some may not know, but I'm a little slow when trying to discuss things and these three know it all too well. I don't always pose my answers just perfectly and then WAM! And not only that, but they know I get irked when they play that game and they press and press hoping I will explode, they seem to get a kick out of that as well.
Not at all the same old thing. Sbell asked you a very simple question that frames the discussion in a new light. You've never, not once, answered the question that Sbell asked and yet you insisted over and over that the answer was back there without even showing anyone where it is.

 

If you're here to debate, then why wouldn't you want to discuss your position on the issue? You say this is something you've said, but why try and hide behind those posts being difficult to find? It would seem to me that you'd want to re-state what you think you've said, or at least post the link so we can go read it. Refusing to debate is a weird debate tactic to me.

 

Why do you suppose they bypassed the better, more articulate writers and picked on me repeatedly? I mean, CR and I have the same opinion (pretty much), did you see Sbell harassing Clan for a reply? No, because that wouldn't give him the satisfaction of having me stammer and stumble and not say it just right so he could then pounce and twist...his favorite part of the game.
Are you under the impression that you're the only one that Sbell, KBI, and I are quoting and asking questions to? Or are you saying that none of us has quoted and asked questions to CR or anyone else?

 

This is a perfect example of your obfuscation. You, for some reason, refuse to debate the topic so you then claim victim status and try and confuse "Sbell and Mushtang would like to know RR's viewpoint on something" as "Sbell and Mushtang are picking on RR".

 

Everyone here KNOWS I've spoken my mind (come on, I'm the top poster here aren't I??), yet they BEG, NO, they BADGER me for a repeat...not playing, sorry. So, tell it like it is Mushtang, don't let on that I won't answer...I already did 10 or more times in this thread. I can't believe anyone would accuse me of NOT discussing this, what do you think I've been doing all this time?
You've posted a lot, but none of those posts are the answer to Sbell's question (at least none that I see). CR answered the question. I'm curious as to why you refuse. I'm not saying that you're obligated to, but since you claim that you already have but then insist that someone else show where this happened all I can see is you sidestepping the discussion.

 

Oh, I know, since I said a while ago that the main reason for my continued posts is to keep this alive, sbell and co would have you believe I am trying to side-step the discussion....HARDLY. Just bypassing the circlefest, the spinarama!

 

But please, carry on. It's fun to watch you guys try to get me riled.

Sort of like what you were doing with Sbell by turning up the frequency that you call him "my friend", even after he asked you not to? Hmm... seems like typical RR pot and kettle behavior to me.

 

And NO, I refuse to play that game. Been there, done it with you guys more than I should have already. So, as I said before (and I believe Clan even backed) I said what I'd have done and it's there to be read...please help yourselves!
Again, I have no objection to you refusing to participate in this particular aspect of this discussion. If you don't want to answer Sbell's question that's certainly your choice. But I don't understand why you wouldn't stay out of that part after you refused to answer. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
So he contacts you and tells you that the cache does, in fact, exist. What do you do?

 

I tell him, privately, what my concerns were, and what I need to relist the cache.

What I need would vary based upon the circumstances.

 

Also, it seems like options 3 and 4 would result in a thread much like this one

Caches from non-compliant owners get archived all the time.

I've yet to see a regular in here squawk about it.

 

wouldn't you archive it ASAP?

No, I don't think so. Even a credible source can get it wrong on occasion. By disabling, and posting a note asking that the owner contact me, I've put the ball in the CO's court. They can respond, or not, as is their want. If they choose not to respond, they would have very little room left for whining when I archived it. If, in the unlikely event the archival created a poo storm on the forums, I could post that I asked the CO to contact me, and they refused, without violating any privacy concerns.

 

If the credible source told me of something more serious, (No Trespassing signs, cache hidden next to a police station that was shaped like a pipe bomb, etc), requiring immediate attention, then I would archive it right away. This one didn't seem serious enough to warrant a rapid response. I'd guess that Nomex felt the same way.

 

What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

The coords to a local ammo can containing a pair of airline tickets and a car rental receipt in my name, along with a gilded invitation to Groundspeak Headquarters. :anicute:

 

let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Once again you are either unwilling or unable to back your spurious claims. :D

Not that this is surprising, considering your typical debate tactics. :laughing:

So, just in case you are able to comprehend simple sentences:

Yes, please re-quote specifically what it was that makes me dishonest, unethical and discourteous, in 140 font red.

Thanx! :anicute:

 

If they kept the reason for the archival between themselves and the CO, I doubt this thread would have been this long.

Can I get an "Amen!"? :o

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! :D

Share this post


Link to post
This is exactly how RR handles most direct attempts to pin him down and to try and avoid having him obfuscate and confuse the discussions with off topic posts and claims. He'll make a claim, but refuse to back it up or support it when asked to do so. You'd think that if his opinion about something was important to him he'd be happy to re-state it when asked to do so. And then when the discussion goes on without him he jumps in and tries to further obfuscate and derail the thread.

 

He's stated many times that his only purpose is to keep the thread at the top of the page (apparently thinking this will someday magically force an explanation by TPTB he'll be happy with instead of the one they've already given) and he doesn't have to post on topic or debate honestly in order to keep the thread going. He only has to post, even if that means taking pot shots and slinging mud. We'll keep seeing more of the same I'm sure.

 

Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

Ummm no, Mushtang. That's how I stop the going in circles even after explaining myself 10, 20 or even 30 times on the same old thing. That's how I stop the spin cycle that you, KBI and sbell LOVE to try to get me in. Some may not know, but I'm a little slow when trying to discuss things and these three know it all too well. I don't always pose my answers just perfectly and then WAM! And not only that, but they know I get irked when they play that game and they press and press hoping I will explode, they seem to get a kick out of that as well.
Not at all the same old thing. Sbell asked you a very simple question that frames the discussion in a new light. You've never, not once, answered the question that Sbell asked and yet you insisted over and over that the answer was back there without even showing anyone where it is.

 

If you're here to debate, then why wouldn't you want to discuss your position on the issue? You say this is something you've said, but why try and hide behind those posts being difficult to find? It would seem to me that you'd want to re-state what you think you've said, or at least post the link so we can go read it. Refusing to debate is a weird debate tactic to me.

 

Why do you suppose they bypassed the better, more articulate writers and picked on me repeatedly? I mean, CR and I have the same opinion (pretty much), did you see Sbell harassing Clan for a reply? No, because that wouldn't give him the satisfaction of having me stammer and stumble and not say it just right so he could then pounce and twist...his favorite part of the game.
Are you under the impression that you're the only one that Sbell, KBI, and I are quoting and asking questions to? Or are you saying that none of us has quoted and asked questions to CR or anyone else?

 

This is a perfect example of your obfuscation. You, for some reason, refuse to debate the topic so you then claim victim status and try and confuse "Sbell and Mushtang would like to know RR's viewpoint on something" as "Sbell and Mushtang are picking on RR".

 

Everyone here KNOWS I've spoken my mind (come on, I'm the top poster here aren't I??), yet they BEG, NO, they BADGER me for a repeat...not playing, sorry. So, tell it like it is Mushtang, don't let on that I won't answer...I already did 10 or more times in this thread. I can't believe anyone would accuse me of NOT discussing this, what do you think I've been doing all this time?
You've posted a lot, but none of those posts are the answer to Sbell's question (at least none that I see). CR answered the question. I'm curious as to why you refuse. I'm not saying that you're obligated to, but since you claim that you already have but then insist that someone else show where this happened all I can see is you sidestepping the discussion.

 

Oh, I know, since I said a while ago that the main reason for my continued posts is to keep this alive, sbell and co would have you believe I am trying to side-step the discussion....HARDLY. Just bypassing the circlefest, the spinarama!

 

But please, carry on. It's fun to watch you guys try to get me riled.

Sort of like what you were doing with Sbell by turning up the frequency that you call him "my friend", even after he asked you not to? Hmm... seems like typical RR pot and kettle behavior to me.

 

And NO, I refuse to play that game. Been there, done it with you guys more than I should have already. So, as I said before (and I believe Clan even backed) I said what I'd have done and it's there to be read...please help yourselves!
Again, I have no objection to you refusing to participate in this particular aspect of this discussion. If you don't want to answer Sbell's question that's certainly your choice. But I don't understand why you wouldn't stay out of that part after you refused to answer. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Here we go round in circles...

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody cares these days about manners. :D

I do! :laughing: In all actuality, I'd bet that even most of Groundspeak's defenders in this thread also care about good manners. Under normal circumstances, they are probably as polite as possible. However, these are not normal circumstances. Their Friar is being accused of acting badly. If they acknowledge even the possibility that he might have acted badly, then their faith would suffer a blow. This would threaten who they are on a very deep level. Thus, they respond in anger, which is based upon fear.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't even for a SECOND believe that TPTB will ever step in and say anything, I've said this many times and yet you try to say this is what I said? Please stop playing the spin game and stick to the facts...if you know them.
Facts eh? Okay.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 7 in this thread and said that if there was an error in archival the situation could be reviewed and the cache un-archived. Not a big deal.

 

But the cache owner didn't follow the path that would have made the most sense (proving to the local reviewers that the cache was still there), instead he got his panties in a wad and started complaining that he was being treated unfairly (which in my opinion was only to try and save face since the cache was never there).

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 12 in this thread where DeRock (a local reviewer) made it clear that there was more to the story. But since the rest of the story wasn't shared with us, wouldn't you think that it wasn't something that needed to be shared?

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 67 in this thread and stated that this additional information was known to all the necessary people and they're under no obligation to tell.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 391 in this thread, where MissJenn stated that "each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue.""

 

So is this a spin game? I've given you links to at least 4 times where TPTB have done something that you said they'd never do. It's clear which one of us has trouble with the facts. :D

Share this post


Link to post
After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! :D

 

This is all several of us have been saying all along.

 

If you can produce the facts that led you to your conclusion that someone lied, then by all means have at it.

 

But if you cannot properly back the claim in the same venue in which you made it, then you should temper your words.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't even for a SECOND believe that TPTB will ever step in and say anything, I've said this many times and yet you try to say this is what I said? Please stop playing the spin game and stick to the facts...if you know them.
Facts eh? Okay.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 7 in this thread and said that if there was an error in archival the situation could be reviewed and the cache un-archived. Not a big deal.

 

But the cache owner didn't follow the path that would have made the most sense (proving to the local reviewers that the cache was still there), instead he got his panties in a wad and started complaining that he was being treated unfairly (which in my opinion was only to try and save face since the cache was never there).

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 12 in this thread where DeRock (a local reviewer) made it clear that there was more to the story. But since the rest of the story wasn't shared with us, wouldn't you think that it wasn't something that needed to be shared?

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 67 in this thread and stated that this additional information was known to all the necessary people and they're under no obligation to tell.

 

Fact: TPTB stepped in on post number 391 in this thread, where MissJenn stated that "each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue.""

 

So is this a spin game? I've given you links to at least 4 times where TPTB have done something that you said they'd never do. It's clear which one of us has trouble with the facts. :D

 

Yep, this is exactly the spin game I talked about. I state something and you bring it up as if it is a lie. You and I both know what I meant when I said that, I believe ANYONE who has been reading this thread does as well, yet you wish to present info everyone here who has been paying attention already knows and say this is fact proving my statement wrong.

 

I'm sorry my friend, I will NOT play your game. That, my friend, is a FACT!

Share this post


Link to post
wouldn't you archive it ASAP?
No, I don't think so. Even a credible source can get it wrong on occasion. By disabling, and posting a note asking that the owner contact me, I've put the ball in the CO's court. They can respond, or not, as is their want. If they choose not to respond, they would have very little room left for whining when I archived it. If, in the unlikely event the archival created a poo storm on the forums, I could post that I asked the CO to contact me, and they refused, without violating any privacy concerns.

 

If the credible source told me of something more serious, (No Trespassing signs, cache hidden next to a police station that was shaped like a pipe bomb, etc), requiring immediate attention, then I would archive it right away. This one didn't seem serious enough to warrant a rapid response. I'd guess that Nomex felt the same way.

Thanks for answering.

 

But what about the question I asked that you didn't quote? I'm curious how you'd handle the situation if the credible source was the only one that had the information, and by stating to the cache owner that someone told you such and such, you'd be outing them to the owner. What would you do if you couldn't tell the cache owner how you "knew" that the cache wasn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
You and I both know what I meant when I said that, I believe ANYONE who has been reading this thread does as well, yet you wish to present info everyone here who has been paying attention already knows and say this is fact proving my statement wrong.
No, this is not true at all. I honestly have no idea what you meant when you said TPTB wouldn't enter this thread and say anything. They've obviously been very present here and have told us all that they're willing to say.

 

Seriously, if you meant something else - I'm unaware what you meant. Please clarify.

Share this post


Link to post

But what about the question I asked that you didn't quote? I'm curious how you'd handle the situation if the credible source was the only one that had the information, and by stating to the cache owner that someone told you such and such, you'd be outing them to the owner. What would you do if you couldn't tell the cache owner how you "knew" that the cache wasn't there?

 

Can I take a stab at this?

 

Via email, I might say something like, "It has come to my attention that your cache may be in violation of the guidelines. Taking a look at the listing I see a large number of DNF's over a long period of time. Could you please provide some evidence that this cache is still in place and in good working order and ready to be found? Thanks."

Share this post


Link to post

But what about the question I asked that you didn't quote? I'm curious how you'd handle the situation if the credible source was the only one that had the information, and by stating to the cache owner that someone told you such and such, you'd be outing them to the owner. What would you do if you couldn't tell the cache owner how you "knew" that the cache wasn't there?

 

Can I take a stab at this?

 

Via email, I might say something like, "It has come to my attention that your cache may be in violation of the guidelines. Taking a look at the listing I see a large number of DNF's over a long period of time. Could you please provide some evidence that this cache is still in place and in good working order and ready to be found? Thanks."

I like it! :D

Mushtang, I think I'll adopt this answer to your other question.

Share this post


Link to post

Bravo, GeoBain! That is what SHOULD have been sent by Nomex in the beginning. Then this situation most likely would not have occured.

 

I still consider myself a newbie but I'm keeping up with this thread. Personally I think the privacy need, in light of this particular situation, shouldn't be so sacred this one single time. This has snowballed to the point that TPTB need to provide their proof. I believe in the basic tenet of Innocent till proven guilty and TPTB have not explained WHY Nomex archived this cache nor why he was allowed to clearly imply that SF was a liar. I renewed my membership in November but if TPTB don't clear this up I will go back to non-paying status.

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody cares these days about manners. :D

I do! :laughing:...

 

I know that and have appreciated your straight forward discussions concerning the primary issues in this topic even though I have not acknowledged that before.

 

If they acknowledge even the possibility that he (our Friar??) might have acted badly, then their faith would suffer a blow. This would threaten who they are on a very deep level. Thus, they respond in anger, which is based upon fear.

 

I don't feel any of this at all - I'm sure it was said in jest. I doubt that other "defenders" are operating from this model either. I have not felt anger when posting to this topic nor do I have any fear, whatsoever, that there are any problems that warrant the amount of anger displayed in this topic. Being rankled by something and discussing it is not always done from anger and fear.

 

I said earlier that I can, for myself, allow some errors by management. I have no expectations that GS and reviewers will be perfect. I just don't believe that a few instances of questionable actions constitutes a need to be concerned that a we are in a progression toward mass unpopular behavior on the part of GS or volunteer reviewers.

 

If GS has made it an actual policy to archive or temporarily disable hard to find caches with several DNFs (23 in the latest example) or even if they have only asked reviewers to be more aware of the condition and experiment with some solutions then I do not have a problem with that.

 

It has been said here many times that COs have options available in this situation. What might help COs would be to bite back the first inclination to rail against the reviewers. They can step back from the situation a bit and provide some additional proofs that the cache exists.

Share this post


Link to post
But what about the question I asked that you didn't quote? I'm curious how you'd handle the situation if the credible source was the only one that had the information, and by stating to the cache owner that someone told you such and such, you'd be outing them to the owner. What would you do if you couldn't tell the cache owner how you "knew" that the cache wasn't there?
Can I take a stab at this?

 

Via email, I might say something like, "It has come to my attention that your cache may be in violation of the guidelines. Taking a look at the listing I see a large number of DNF's over a long period of time. Could you please provide some evidence that this cache is still in place and in good working order and ready to be found? Thanks."

I like it! :D

Mushtang, I think I'll adopt this answer to your other question.

Works for me! I think that might be a good way to approach it.

 

The fact that they didn't do this (apparently) for the cache in question makes me think that the "more to the story" we don't know about is pretty serious. These folks are not prone to making snap decisions and being this heavy handed. I'm willing to cut them a little slack and not assume this is how they're going to be from now on.

Share this post


Link to post

Via email, I might say something like, "It has come to my attention that your cache may be in violation of the guidelines. Taking a look at the listing I see a large number of DNF's over a long period of time. Could you please provide some evidence that this cache is still in place and in good working order and ready to be found? Thanks."

 

This is very good. Maybe it or something like it will be adopted to the canned response list.

Share this post


Link to post
Bravo, GeoBain! That is what SHOULD have been sent by Nomex in the beginning. Then this situation most likely would not have occured.

 

I still consider myself a newbie but I'm keeping up with this thread. Personally I think the privacy need, in light of this particular situation, shouldn't be so sacred this one single time. This has snowballed to the point that TPTB need to provide their proof. I believe in the basic tenet of Innocent till proven guilty and TPTB have not explained WHY Nomex archived this cache nor why he was allowed to clearly imply that SF was a liar. I renewed my membership in November but if TPTB don't clear this up I will go back to non-paying status

The fact that this thread has snowballed and keeps going isn't enough for TPTB to divulge private matters. Especially if doing so could really put someone in a bad situation. The "rest of the story" hasn't changed just because a thread has this many posts that are going round and round, and some people feel entitled to information that is none of their business just because they pay for a membership.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is only a basic tenet of the judicial system in this country, it doesn't apply in this situation within a private company. If they want to imply SF was a liar it seems to me that SF can either show that he wasn't, or fade away and accept that he was busted.

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

×
×
  • Create New...