Jump to content

VDOT and guardrails


va griz

Recommended Posts

...I'm not sure that you are being accurate.

You may be right. Most of us are on the outside looking in. Any assumptions we make must reflect the information we have at hand, and therefor must be taken with a grain of salt. We don't really know what was in the NA note that was posted, because the cache owner decided it would be in her best interest to delete it. We do, however, know what DrDan claims that he wrote in that NA, and this claim has not been refuted. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's all we have to go on for now. We also know that the Reviewer archived it with the following statement: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. At this point, DrDan's claims seem to gain a bit of validity. If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.

Link to comment

I think the cache in the sign is pretty cool.

 

However, it IS in an inappropriate location and not a very good idea.

 

It also takes a real man to stand up and do what they feel is right in the face of animosity, and openly admit it. There ia no backbone in anyone that goes along with the crowd and perpetuates an idea that eventually will cause problems simply because "it's always been done like that".

 

I do have to agree, a cache in a landscaped flower bed, which is covered with Cedar Mulch, a foot from a busy 5 lane highway was a horrible idea, and a black eye on Geocaching waiting to happen. As was thumbing their nose and pushing a fake sprinkler head into said Cedar Mulch in the landscaped flowerbed two feet from the road. But am I ready to endorse what the Doctor did, or how it was escalated, and the end result? No way. B)

Link to comment
who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida. :ph34r:

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here. :unsure:

Not judgin'... just sayin'... :lol:

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

Link to comment
who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida. :ph34r:

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here. :unsure:

Not judgin'... just sayin'... :lol:

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

 

Gosh. It was just a joke. No need to accuse. <_<

Link to comment
who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida. :ph34r:

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here. :unsure:

Not judgin'... just sayin'... :lol:

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

 

Gosh. It was just a joke. No need to accuse. <_<

 

Huh? Who did I accuse and what did I accuse them of?

 

Clan Riffster is very vocal about his bias. That is a statement of fact.

 

I'm just curious how he would feel if drdan affected geocaching in areas that he actually caches at. It's really easy to support the archival of lots of the types of caches you don't like. But I wonder if he would feel the same if geocaching in the Everglades was banned, for instance?

Link to comment
who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida. :ph34r:

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here. :unsure:

Not judgin'... just sayin'... :lol:

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

 

Gosh. It was just a joke. No need to accuse. <_<

 

Huh? Who did I accuse and what did I accuse them of?

 

Clan Riffster is very vocal about his bias. That is a statement of fact.

 

I'm just curious how he would feel if drdan affected geocaching in areas that he actually caches at. It's really easy to support the archival of lots of the types of caches you don't like. But I wonder if he would feel the same if geocaching in the Everglades was banned, for instance?

 

Swordfern is saying what I think many of us are saying... relax. Use your sense of humor a bit here. Settle down, fer cryin' out loud.

Link to comment

Easy for you all to say "settle down" You evidently are not caching in Virginia... Just gonna be sad to see some really nice creative caches disappear. And they do not seem to be in the "danger spots". However, i am curious how they justify calling a side-walk a "Private Property"? All the people setting their trash at least once a week out on the curb, "owned by VDOT" should be cited? (You could Read it as a Weekly Cito Event :laughing: )And what is the guideline for the Right-of-Way distance? Seems like this could turn into a legal battle of terminology, wits and many precedent cases...

Edited by CluelessnLuV
Link to comment

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells, treating that last comment of mine as if it were serious, I will answer in kind: It would not bother me in the slightest. If he tried and failed, that would demonstrate what I already know. That the places I choose to play in are cache friendly. I've spent years building close relationships with the land managers for the areas I play in, and unless I were to suddenly become a complete dimwit, I would think that I would be aware of any displeasure felt by these land managers long before it be ame an issue. If he tried and succeeded, this would tell me quite clearly that my caches are not welcome in those locations. Unlike some of the more vocal Virginia cachers in here, I actually care what the land managers/property owners think about us playing in their sand boxes. I find out before I play, and I honor their wishes. If those P&G fans who hid all the VDOT caches felt the same way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Now don't you wish you had treated that like the humor it was? :blink:

Link to comment

To the "Humorous Guy" : what do you think about urban cashes, all over little cities. As i understand from some of the writing above, VDOT manages their roadways too. Most of them are not quite Park-and-Grab caches (ever try finding easy, fast and close-by parking in let's say Old-Town Alexandria?) Does this mean Urban caching in Virginia is in jeapardy? (Example - Every bench nano cache on a sidewalk near a road) Just asking to weigh-in, since you do represent a form of law-enforcement, albeit not Virginia one...

Link to comment

If all goes well and Groundspeak reinstates a decent type of virtual, cachers such as myself that are also Waymarkers won't miss some of the lame P&G guardrail hides. Many of us have historic listings ready to publish in areas where traditional caches are just not feasable in some of the old towns. Most of you posting in this thread don't know what you are talking about because you have not been effected with VDOT's new ruling. And this cacher in the Commonwealth is not snitching out those users that have not complyed with VDOT and Groundspeak is not on a "Witch Hunt" searching out listings that don't meet the new guidelines. :ph34r:

Link to comment

To the "Humorous Guy" : what do you think about urban cashes, all over little cities. As i understand from some of the writing above, VDOT manages their roadways too.

Good question. I have several urban caches in my favorites list. While I'm not a fan of big cities, (just not a place I want to spend my recreational time), I do thoroughly enjoy Small Town USA. In many instances, geocaching has brought me to unique, obscure, in town sites across the state that I otherwise would not have known existed. As I interpret the quoted statutes, I doubt that caching in Small Town USA is in any danger. If I were concerned, I would determine the scope of VDOTs authority. Certainly they would have some say on objects placed on the right of ways for state roads. Do they also have authority over county roads? Local roads? Privately maintained/public access roads? If you had asked about Florida, I could give you a credible answer, but since Virginia is a commonwealth, things may be different. I guess the best advice would be to learn what the facts really are, rather than taking the word of an alarmist who is posting on an Internet forum. Your research may determine that the alarmist is correct, and that geocaching really is in danger within X number of feet from any roadway. Or, you could discover that the sky really isn't falling. Either way, you end up with data with which you can make an informed decision, rather than simply bashing someone because that's what the masses are doing. No one likes a lemming.

 

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells,

That's the issue, everyone one of your "jokes" are not an attempt at "humor" but attempts at making fun of Micro's. It's really annoying. Especially if you like micro's.

Do tell...

Let's look at the post in question for a moment;

"I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida.

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here.

Not judgin'... just sayin'... "

Can you tell me where, in that post, I'm poking fun at micros? :unsure:

Unless things are different where you come from, Groundspeak does not have any size restrictions that are location based. If I were to hide a regular, in a guardrail, (I know of three off the top of my head), they would most likely be published. For the record, (in case you really can't figure it out for yourself), I was poking fun at P&Gs, not micros. As I have stated many, many times in these forums, size has very little to do with quality, in my book. I realize that it's important to you to label me as a "micro hater", so you can more easily dismiss anything I write, but such actions might work against you in the long run. When you make such glaringly inaccurate comments, such as that one, folks could conceivably start questioning your reading comprehension skills, wondering if the same teacher who taught you to understand the written word taught you spelling. :ph34r:

Link to comment

First, Smithfield, where the cache was, is a very nice small town.

Second, VDOT covers all public roads in Virginia, even privately owned public roads such as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.

 

And it probably doesn't matter anyway, but VDOTs website doesn't mention geocaching.

Link to comment
...I'm not sure that you are being accurate.
You may be right. Most of us are on the outside looking in. Any assumptions we make must reflect the information we have at hand, and therefor must be taken with a grain of salt. We don't really know what was in the NA note that was posted, because the cache owner decided it would be in her best interest to delete it. We do, however, know what DrDan claims that he wrote in that NA, and this claim has not been refuted. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's all we have to go on for now. We also know that the Reviewer archived it with the following statement: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. At this point, DrDan's claims seem to gain a bit of validity.
Why? No one is disputing the fact that DrDan contacted VDOT and VODT requested these caches to be archived.

 

What also is not in dispute is that DrDan has ongoing animosity with this cache owner. Based on that information and his self-described behavior, I'm not surprised that his email was not taken kindly.

If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.
Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.
Link to comment

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells, treating that last comment of mine as if it were serious, I will answer in kind: It would not bother me in the slightest. If he tried and failed, that would demonstrate what I already know. That the places I choose to play in are cache friendly. I've spent years building close relationships with the land managers for the areas I play in, and unless I were to suddenly become a complete dimwit, I would think that I would be aware of any displeasure felt by these land managers long before it be ame an issue. If he tried and succeeded, this would tell me quite clearly that my caches are not welcome in those locations. Unlike some of the more vocal Virginia cachers in here, I actually care what the land managers/property owners think about us playing in their sand boxes. I find out before I play, and I honor their wishes. If those P&G fans who hid all the VDOT caches felt the same way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's all well and good, unless he went to someone higher up the food chain and that person gave the easy 'no'. Then you'd have all of your favorite caches archived even though the local managers had no problem with them and they truly weren't harming anything. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.
Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.

 

So, the upper management of the DOT becomes aware of a inapropriately placed geocache placed somewhere where they do not like it. They patiently explain about the DOT property borders and advise them to move it off of the area completely.

 

The cacher responds by ignoring them and placing another one in the DOT area which is very nicely landscaped and which appears to encourage people to pull up sprinkler heads. Since the DOT are watching this specific cache very closely, I would think that this is a very bad idea. However, you are saying that many would do this? This is the type of thing that gives geocaching a fungal infection.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.

 

I am not certain exactly what the CO was told, but at that point it seems that it might have been best to let the situation settle down, clarify exactly what the VDOT policy might be, and work with other cachers to see if the policy might be changed -- before VDOT itself dug in its heels and contacted the Attorney General. I had the same reaction when cachers took it upon themselves to replace hundreds of caches along the old ET trail before official policy could be clarified and questions resolved. Sometimes it is better to take a step back.

 

As I stated before, in many ways this situation escalated because nobody involved took a deep breath. If I had been DrDan I would have taken a deep breath and walked away from a cache that did not seem to be causing any immediate problems -- if I felt there was a larger issues involved, I would have tried to work it out in different ways. If I had been the CO, I would have at least disabled my cache until things could be clarified rather than delete the NA log, talk about libel, and replace the cache a few feet away after it was archived. I have no idea if the VDOT would have responded any differently if they had been approached in an effort to resolve things - rather than believing that geocachers were simply ignoring their statements (if that is what happened) -- but in some areas agency officials have been convinced to compromise or develop policies that encompass geocaching - the NDOT is an example.

 

One of my favorite legal opinions reminds us of the dangers when unreasonable powers become unduly provoked over minor irritations. Fortunately in this situation, neither the CO, DrDan, or the VDOT had either matches or a bow and arrow at their immediate disposal. But things can and do escalate far too easily.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

If I had been DrDan I would have taken a deep breath and walked away from a cache that did not seem to be causing any immediate problems

 

Sigh....

 

A couple of problems with that line of thought though is that I did take a breath -- two weeks worth as a matter of fact (during which time I thought that the cache was being addressed as I didn't yet know about the first reviewer's family emergency). And while I'm reluctant to have to share VDOT's immediate concern as that is clearly their business and not mine as I do not represent them -- but I will say that what I was told was that having that cache container in that hole could cause the breakaway function to not work properly (the cache being a solid object probably not crushable and filling the hole). So as I understand it, someone hits that sign with their car, the sign doesn't properly break away and then what, someone is killed in a car accident - because of a geocache. And to top it off, perhaps they may have had the accident because they were distracted by someone driving and then seeing someone pop up by the bushes, startling them....and then there is the whole aspect of what happens if the sign were hit and the geocache itself then became a missile which then hits another car, and so on. Please don't argue with me about this, that is what was explained to me. Frankly it makes sense.

Link to comment
...I'm not sure that you are being accurate.
You may be right. Most of us are on the outside looking in. Any assumptions we make must reflect the information we have at hand, and therefor must be taken with a grain of salt. We don't really know what was in the NA note that was posted, because the cache owner decided it would be in her best interest to delete it. We do, however, know what DrDan claims that he wrote in that NA, and this claim has not been refuted. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's all we have to go on for now. We also know that the Reviewer archived it with the following statement: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. At this point, DrDan's claims seem to gain a bit of validity.
Why? No one is disputing the fact that DrDan contacted VDOT and VODT requested these caches to be archived.

 

What also is not in dispute is that DrDan has ongoing animosity with this cache owner. Based on that information and his self-described behavior, I'm not surprised that his email was not taken kindly.

If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.
Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.

 

Now I understand your bias in this situation and that makes this all the more clearer -- I just learned that the CO is your sister!

 

No? I thought that's the way it rolled in here, make it up as you go.

 

I had no animosity with this cache owner. Where did I say that? And how then is your statement not in dispute? Good grief. As a cache owner she destroyed my cache, I then deleted her log because she hadn't signed it. That sure sounds a lot like that CO having animosity with ME. And I politely explained to her via email why her log was deleted and that she could feel free to revisit the cache and actually sign the log. Done. Closed. Could care less. And so how exactly is this animosity on my behalf? Or are you suggesting that anytime a CO has to delete a log that the CO then has "animosity" toward the cacher? But yet you ignore that the cacher (this CO) sent a nasty email to me in response to her asking why I deleted her log. I don't seem to see anything in the GS guidelines that indicate a warning that a CO will be accused by wacky cachers of having animosity when they destroy a cache and claim a find when they didn't sign the log. So I guess that you just presume that then.

 

Which makes your "not in dispute" statement seem pretty silly.

Link to comment
...I'm not sure that you are being accurate.
You may be right. Most of us are on the outside looking in. Any assumptions we make must reflect the information we have at hand, and therefor must be taken with a grain of salt. We don't really know what was in the NA note that was posted, because the cache owner decided it would be in her best interest to delete it. We do, however, know what DrDan claims that he wrote in that NA, and this claim has not been refuted. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's all we have to go on for now. We also know that the Reviewer archived it with the following statement: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. At this point, DrDan's claims seem to gain a bit of validity.
Why? No one is disputing the fact that DrDan contacted VDOT and VODT requested these caches to be archived.

 

What also is not in dispute is that DrDan has ongoing animosity with this cache owner. Based on that information and his self-described behavior, I'm not surprised that his email was not taken kindly.

If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.
Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.

 

Now I understand your bias in this situation and that makes this all the more clearer -- I just learned that the CO is your sister!

 

 

What? :blink: Next thing you know, we're going to find out Mr. Esoteric is his brother. :laughing:

Link to comment

Again with the rudeness and the insults.

 

And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.

 

Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?

 

You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.

 

So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse?

 

I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.

Link to comment

Again with the rudeness and the insults.

 

And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.

 

Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?

Being a cacher in the Commonwealth I wish that he had left well enough alone and just kept playing Doctor and not Geo-Police. It would have done us all a favor. :mad:

Link to comment

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells, treating that last comment of mine as if it were serious, I will answer in kind: It would not bother me in the slightest. If he tried and failed, that would demonstrate what I already know. That the places I choose to play in are cache friendly. I've spent years building close relationships with the land managers for the areas I play in, and unless I were to suddenly become a complete dimwit, I would think that I would be aware of any displeasure felt by these land managers long before it be ame an issue. If he tried and succeeded, this would tell me quite clearly that my caches are not welcome in those locations. Unlike some of the more vocal Virginia cachers in here, I actually care what the land managers/property owners think about us playing in their sand boxes. I find out before I play, and I honor their wishes. If those P&G fans who hid all the VDOT caches felt the same way, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Now don't you wish you had treated that like the humor it was? :blink:

 

No. I am glad we have your full bias well known in this thread as it clearly influences your comments on this topic.

 

I'm pretty sure if one were to dig around just a little in your area that he could find caches placed in your favorite caching spots without permission. It doesn't matter that YOU always get permission. He just needs to find a few bad apples and then make his case to the people that matter and he would probably have a good shot at getting the rest archived, including your properly placed caches with full permission.

 

All it takes is someone with a mission and time to carry it out to get landowners stirred up to ruin it for everyone including those that are doing things right.

 

And that is what I see here. drdan wasn't concerned about everyone else. He had a score to settle with one cacher and everyone else was collateral damage.

 

Don't think it couldn't happen to you just because you are careful to follow all the rules.

Link to comment
Again with the rudeness and the insults.And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?
You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse? I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.

 

Yes, after she stopped breathing.

 

So instead of posting a few letters.....yes or no, you post all that?

 

I just want to know if you are proud of what you have done? Or do you wish things would have happened another way.

 

FFS.

Edited by EhFhQ
Link to comment
Again with the rudeness and the insults.And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?
You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse? I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.

 

Yes, after she stopped breathing.

 

So instead of posting a few letters.....yes or no, you decided to accusme of domestic abuse. Wonderful.

 

I just want to know if you are proud of what you have done? Or do you wish things would have happened another way.

 

FFS.

 

No, I didn't accuse you of that. I asked a question. What harm is there in that? You're just asking a question. Sure, it isn't relevant and is nonsensical, but just a question. Well, actually now you're asking two questions and they would have nothing to do with each other.

Link to comment

I had no animosity with this cache owner. Where did I say that?

 

You claim no animosity, but this story and your subsequent actions say otherwise.

 

Brief interlude from the above and below facts: This is also factual, but it will most likely help before going further in understanding why I wasn't so eager to just zing off an email to the CO. Prior to this incident, some time in the recent past, this particular cacher had been seeking one of my own caches. She lost the cache (dropped it inside of a metal pole, and the cache was damaged beyond repair because of that). And the cacher had also LOGGED it as found, despite the fact that she'd knew that she'd never signed the log. After spending about an hour digging the cache container out of the pole, I then deleted her "found it" log entry, and then received nasty emails even after I explained that she needed to sign the log. In reply she posted a log note saying that she was frustrated that I'd deleted her log after she was the one to alert me to the problem with the cache being dropped in the pole (ah huh - she loses the cache and then told me she lost it and then thinks that this somehow gets her "bonus points" with a CO?).

Link to comment

[

No. I am glad we have your full bias well known in this thread as it clearly influences your comments on this topic.

 

And I'm sure that rape victims hear the same kind of statements. If only they'd just shut up, if only they wouldn't feel compelled to defend themselves when asked whether they think that they deserved it, or if they were proud of their actions. Same thing.

 

This is why it is clearly not worthwhile trying to have a conversation. Like trying to discuss with a lynch mob. Reminds me that I really should stop reading my email and then coming back here!

Link to comment
...I'm not sure that you are being accurate.
You may be right. Most of us are on the outside looking in. Any assumptions we make must reflect the information we have at hand, and therefor must be taken with a grain of salt. We don't really know what was in the NA note that was posted, because the cache owner decided it would be in her best interest to delete it. We do, however, know what DrDan claims that he wrote in that NA, and this claim has not been refuted. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's all we have to go on for now. We also know that the Reviewer archived it with the following statement: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. At this point, DrDan's claims seem to gain a bit of validity.
Why? No one is disputing the fact that DrDan contacted VDOT and VODT requested these caches to be archived.

 

What also is not in dispute is that DrDan has ongoing animosity with this cache owner. Based on that information and his self-described behavior, I'm not surprised that his email was not taken kindly.

If I owned a cache on property controlled by Florida's DOT, and it was archived with a similar note, I certainly would not replace the cache at another spot on DOT property.
Many certainly would if the reviewer advised them that guardrails and signs are off limits.

 

Now I understand your bias in this situation and that makes this all the more clearer -- I just learned that the CO is your sister!

 

 

What? :blink: Next thing you know, we're going to find out Mr. Esoteric is his brother. :laughing:

 

Brother-in-law. :P

Link to comment

Again with the rudeness and the insults.

 

And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.

 

Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?

 

You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.

 

So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse?

 

I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.

 

Do you have ANYTHING to suggest that he has ever beat his spouse?

 

He asked if you are proud of what you accomplished here. You did, in fact, accomplish something here. Are you proud of it?

Link to comment

[

No. I am glad we have your full bias well known in this thread as it clearly influences your comments on this topic.

 

And I'm sure that rape victims hear the same kind of statements. If only they'd just shut up, if only they wouldn't feel compelled to defend themselves when asked whether they think that they deserved it, or if they were proud of their actions. Same thing.

 

This is why it is clearly not worthwhile trying to have a conversation. Like trying to discuss with a lynch mob. Reminds me that I really should stop reading my email and then coming back here!

 

Huh?

 

When did I tell Clan Riffster to shut up?

 

His bias DOES influence his statements. In particular, it influences what he passed off as a joke when it came off as a dig against his favorite topic due to those known biases.

 

That doesn't mean he can't make jokes. Just don't expect everyone to think it's funny.

Link to comment

Again with the rudeness and the insults.

 

And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.

 

Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?

 

You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.

 

So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse?

 

I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.

 

Do you have ANYTHING to suggest that he has ever beat his spouse?

 

He asked if you are proud of what you accomplished here. You did, in fact, accomplish something here. Are you proud of it?

 

Come on, you guys... all he meant by the spouse beating comment was that it was the same sort of question as, "are you proud of yourself". Neither question can be answered without incriminating oneself.

Link to comment

Do you have ANYTHING to suggest that he has ever beat his spouse?

 

He asked if you are proud of what you accomplished here. You did, in fact, accomplish something here. Are you proud of it?

 

I do hope that you will pay close attention -- that again was sarcasm and made to prove the point that my pointless question was as pointless as his. And as pointless as your statement(s). I didn't "accomplish" anything here, there or anywhere. You don't like the fact that VDOT has demanded what they demanded, please give them a call. You don't like that I followed Groundspeak guidelines and what I was asked to do by reviewers, feel free to take them up with them.

 

If you forget the above, just refresh your screen and you can read it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!

Link to comment

After reading this Soap Opera, I just have one question.

 

Who won?

I think VDOT.

 

I don't think anyone won. VDOT probably didn't care until drdan got involved.

Well obviously they *DID* care, that is why they said no. I maintain that VDOT won. They managed to get rid of all those pesky caches on their property. Sounds like a win to me.

Link to comment

[

No. I am glad we have your full bias well known in this thread as it clearly influences your comments on this topic.

 

And I'm sure that rape victims hear the same kind of statements. If only they'd just shut up, if only they wouldn't feel compelled to defend themselves when asked whether they think that they deserved it, or if they were proud of their actions. Same thing.

 

This is why it is clearly not worthwhile trying to have a conversation. Like trying to discuss with a lynch mob. Reminds me that I really should stop reading my email and then coming back here!

 

Huh?

 

When did I tell Clan Riffster to shut up?

 

His bias DOES influence his statements. In particular, it influences what he passed off as a joke when it came off as a dig against his favorite topic due to those known biases.

 

That doesn't mean he can't make jokes. Just don't expect everyone to think it's funny.

 

He is only directing the joke to the user he quoted...Sioneva. Others might laugh at it and like it while others might not like it. You having the right to say you don't like it is OK. But now i think you got a little too carried away with your argumentative posts.

Link to comment

 

Come on, you guys... all he meant by the spouse beating comment was that it was the same sort of question as, "are you proud of yourself". Neither question can be answered without incriminating oneself.

 

Close, but not quite. Those are both questions for which you cannot answer with a yes or no when neither of the answers would apply or would call for information to be given that doesn't directly answer the question. Has nothing to do with incriminating or not. They're called pre-suppositional questions and they're usually asked simply to embarrass the person being asked the question.

Link to comment
Again with the rudeness and the insults.And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?
You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse? I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.
Yes, after she stopped breathing.So instead of posting a few letters.....yes or no, you decided to accusme of domestic abuse. Wonderful.I just want to know if you are proud of what you have done? Or do you wish things would have happened another way.FFS.
No, I didn't accuse you of that. I asked a question. What harm is there in that? You're just asking a question. Sure, it isn't relevant and is nonsensical, but just a question. Well, actually now you're asking two questions and they would have nothing to do with each other.

 

You asked a loaded question. Nobody here is dumb. But I edited my post for you anyways.

 

Still you cant give me a yes or no. And I cant figure out why you have spent so long typing out multiple response, intead of typing 2 or 3 letters.

Link to comment

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells,

That's the issue, everyone one of your "jokes" are not an attempt at "humor" but attempts at making fun of Micro's. It's really annoying. Especially if you like micro's.

 

+1

Did you even read Clan rifsters post? He said he was NOT making fun of micros, and had no mention of them in his post. You are, my friend, jumping to conclusions and picking sides too quickly.

Link to comment
Again with the rudeness and the insults.And you wonder why people feel you have animosity towards that CO. Its clear to us all that you do.Again, are you proud of what you have accomplished here?
You clearly have a problem recognizing sarcasm. Or are you also saying that misstating something which results in accusing someone of whatever isn't rude (as has been done here)? That does fit your replies.So, here's a question for you -- have you stopped beating your spouse? I think that question makes as much sense (and has the same purpose) as you asking your question.
Yes, after she stopped breathing.So instead of posting a few letters.....yes or no, you decided to accusme of domestic abuse. Wonderful.I just want to know if you are proud of what you have done? Or do you wish things would have happened another way.FFS.
No, I didn't accuse you of that. I asked a question. What harm is there in that? You're just asking a question. Sure, it isn't relevant and is nonsensical, but just a question. Well, actually now you're asking two questions and they would have nothing to do with each other.

 

You asked a loaded question. Nobody here is dumb. But I edited my post for you anyways.

 

Still you cant give me a yes or no. And I cant figure out why you have spent so long typing out multiple response, intead of typing 2 or 3 letters.

 

Here, this applies to you:

 

<SNIP>

 

Close, but not quite. Those are both questions for which you cannot answer with a yes or no when neither of the answers would apply or would call for information to be given that doesn't directly answer the question. Has nothing to do with incriminating or not. They're called pre-suppositional questions and they're usually asked simply to embarrass the person being asked the question.

Link to comment

What if.....

Tell ya what. Since you insist on deactivating your humor cells,

That's the issue, everyone one of your "jokes" are not an attempt at "humor" but attempts at making fun of Micro's. It's really annoying. Especially if you like micro's.

 

+1

Did you even read Clan rifsters post? He said he was NOT making fun of micros, and had no mention of them in his post. You are, my friend, jumping to conclusions and picking sides too quickly.

 

+2 (simply worth more than a plus one as it addresses this comment as well as the general gist of many of the other posts here in jumping to conclusions)

Link to comment

Here, this applies to you:

 

<SNIP>

 

Close, but not quite. Those are both questions for which you cannot answer with a yes or no when neither of the answers would apply or would call for information to be given that doesn't directly answer the question. Has nothing to do with incriminating or not. They're called pre-suppositional questions and they're usually asked simply to embarrass the person being asked the question.

 

Im going to assume that you are proud of what you have accomplished. You have not shown us once that you are sorry that all of this has happened. I was kinda hoping you would say "No", so I could throw you some sympathy.

 

I really have no clue why you are defending yourself. Its clear you don't care what other caches think. Other wise you wouldnt be rude, insulting and you would be playing troll-like games like your last response.

 

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You really showed em.

Link to comment

After reading this Soap Opera, I just have one question.

 

Who won?

I think VDOT.

 

I don't think anyone won. VDOT probably didn't care until drdan got involved.

Well obviously they *DID* care, that is why they said no. I maintain that VDOT won. They managed to get rid of all those pesky caches on their property. Sounds like a win to me.

 

If they really cared they would have done something before drdan. drdan just kind of forced their hand.

 

It's one thing to be aware of a thing and not mind it going on. It's another to have it pointed out to you and asked do you want it to continue or not.

 

Once asked directly and you say yes, then you could potentially open yourself to liability, in which case the path of least resistance is to just say no.

 

I still say noone won here. Not even drdan.

Link to comment

Come on, you guys... all he meant by the spouse beating comment was that it was the same sort of question as, "are you proud of yourself". Neither question can be answered without incriminating oneself.

 

Close, but not quite. Those are both questions for which you cannot answer with a yes or no when neither of the answers would apply or would call for information to be given that doesn't directly answer the question. Has nothing to do with incriminating or not. They're called pre-suppositional questions and they're usually asked simply to embarrass the person being asked the question.

 

Geeze... would you please relax? I wrote that in your defense. There is no need for you to correct me. What I said was close enough.:mad:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...