MINGO in jeopardy?

[knowschad]

I am probably much less involved and passionate about this than you are.

Can't tell that from here. You are certainly adamant about Mingo being archived.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I'll likely never go to Kansas to find it.

Though I do recognize its rather unique place in the history of this hobby.

 

What kind of online maintenance needs to be done?

How about deleting the apparently bogus logs.

 

From Websters:

 

Bogus

 

bo·gus adj \ˈbō-gəs\

 

1 ) not genuine

2 ) counterfeit

3 ) sham

 

Have you seen any bogus logs? If I find a cache at a set of coordinates, then log a "Found It" online, what part of that activity is bogus? Not finding the original container? Surely you are not advocating that caches cannot be replaced. Is finding a throwdown and posting an honest, accurate log to that effect bogus? Are there guidelines that prohibit claiming a find if all you manage to locate is the throwdown which the owner allowed to stay?

 

To repeat; If I drive to Kansas, pull over near N 39° 16.677 W 100° 56.621, follow my GPSr to those coordinates, locate a Bison tube there, sign the log, replace the cache, drive back to florida and post a log detailing exactly what I did, would that log be less than genuine? Would it be counterfiet? Would it be a sham? If the answer to those three questions is "No", I'm not sure how you could call my log bogus.

 

The reviewer already stated that the throwdown is not the cache

I thought Mingo was owned by Kansas Stasher, not the out of state Reviewer. I know I've replaced a few of my caches over the years. I've even had one of mine replaced by a friend before I could make the maintenance run. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with my Reviewer telling folks that the replacement was not the cache. That's a bit outside their authority, isn't it? Has said Reviewer/owner deleted the logs? Since he seems to be taking ownership of the cache, that's certainly within his rights as a cache owner. Or has the Reviewer let the 'bogus' logs stand, unmolested? If so, that speaks volumes. Perhaps Groundspeak doesn't think the logs are as 'bogus' as you do?

 

As for physical maintenance, if Kansas Stasher really cared...

Ahh... I see. The old, "Do it my way or you hate chilruns" debate tactic.

I gotta tell you, in a one on one debate, it's not very effective, as it is so easily countered.

In a public debate it's even less effective, as now the whole forum sees you as pulling facts out of thin air.

Neither you, nor I, know what, if anything, is going on behind the scenes.

Neither you, nor I, know if Kansas Stasher cares about this cache.

Presuming otherwise is... uh... presumptious.

 

I'm sure he could have found somebody to actively fix it up for him.

From here, it looks like he did...

Unless the throwdown just magically appeared...

The cache disappeared a few times.

It was replaced a few times.

I'm not sure any of the replacements were done with the owner's consent.

But all the replacements, including the latest, were allowed to stay unchallenged.

 

So, are you claiming that throwdowns are OK?

Should we review what I've had to say about throwdowns?

I've never had a reason to question your reading comprehension skills in the past.

Nor, am I willing to question them now.

I suspect that you just tossed that bit in there to continue your argument.

If you honestly don't know how I feel about throwdowns, here are a few parsed quotes you can study as clues:

"the dreaded throwdown

spit out the throwdown

spewed out the throwdown"

If you need further guidence, PM me.

 

That they are all just cache maintenance by proxy?

What I questioned was whether a throwdown, which is accepted by the CO, violtes the guidelines.

I've asked this several times. You still have not answered it.

I would honestly like to know. I'm no guidelines expert.

Can ya help a brother out?

 

As to the proxy part, in a perfect world, no caches would be replaced save with the explicit consent of the owner, given prior to the cache being replaced. However, in the real world, such is not always the case. The determining factor as to whether someone acts as a proxy for a cache owner is the cache owner's consent. This consent can be granted prior to the cache being replaced, or, it can be granted after the cache is replaced. Once it is granted, and the replacement is allowed to stand, the act of replacing it becomes maintenance by proxy.

 

...in an effort to point out how anybody that thinks the guidelines should be applied to this cache is just plain old wrong.

If you wish to discuss motive, I would ask that you make at least a token effort toward accuracy.

My recent efforts have been to discern if a throwdown, once accepted as a replacement by the cache owner, is a violation of the guidelines. Rather than receive answers to this perfectly reasonable and valid question, I've recieved straw men replies and convoluted debate tactics, given in a desperate attempt to prove that anyone who disagrees with the "Let's kill Mingo" crowd is just plain old wrong.

 

At no point have I suggested that Mingo should not adhere to the same guidelines as some Micro-Spew film can tossed out with several hundred of its peers along a mundane stretch of dessert highway. I'm just not seeing all the guideline violations that you seem to see. I think it's been disabled more than a reasonable amount of time, which would qualify as a violation, though I know exceptions to that can be made by communicating with the Reviewer. (Heck, I own a cache that stays disabled 3 months out of every 12) Since the Reviewer has not pulled the trigger on it yet, I wonder if there hasn't been some such communication? I really don't know. It's been my experience that when an area has an active Reviewer, and Groundspeak brings in someone from out of state to deal with one specific cache, there's a reason for that beyond just helping out with excess traffic. Could that reason include some sort of arrangement to which we are not privy? It's possible.

 

What other guideline violations has Mingo incured?

Wow! For somebody with no dog in this fight, you sure went through a lot of work to prove that I do!

[4wheelin_fool]

Wow! For somebody with no dog in this fight, you sure went through a lot of work to prove that I do!

 

It appears that you are the top poster in this thread.

 

Who posted in: MINGO in jeopardy?

 

Member name Posts

 

knowschad 55

jellis 50

SwineFlew 48

Clan Riffster 34

NYPaddleCacher 32

Castle Mischief 32

Edited March 10, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[knowschad]

Wow! For somebody with no dog in this fight, you sure went through a lot of work to prove that I do!

 

It appears that you are the top poster in this thread.

 

Who posted in: MINGO in jeopardy?

 

Member name Posts

 

knowschad 55

jellis 50

SwineFlew 48

Clan Riffster 34

NYPaddleCacher 32

Castle Mischief 32

 

So? I'm top poster in many threads, and one of the top posters in the forums. I'd love to see Mingo stay in place. I tried to stop there this fall when coming back from Colorado, but my friends (the ones driving) didn't want to take the time. My only "dog in this fight" is that cache owners need to maintain their caches, or lose them, and my insistence that a throwdown micro is only a temporary solution at best.

 

There... my post count just went up by one.

[+jellis]

I suggested to the last cachers who posted a note on MINGO options if they really want to replace the cache. Let them know it's not as simple as it sounds. To replace a bison with a regular after mortar has filled the hole, they would have to bring some tools, or maybe a large fake rock.

 

So I am at 51. I didn't realize I was #2. I call for a recount!!!

For the last 10 days I've been armchair logging/posting. Haven't been outside and still have 6 days left.

Loggings are all legit.

Edited March 10, 2012 by jellis

[Clan Riffster]

Wow! For somebody with no dog in this fight, you sure went through a lot of work to prove that I do!

No, not really. I am not in this thread to 'prove' anything, one way or the other.

All I am doing regarding Mingo is making inquiries about what others are posting as absolutes.

Things like, "Mingo is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived".

Or, "A throwdown is not a proper replacement". Or even, "Kansas Stasher doesn't care about Mingo".

I question these absolutes because I am not certain they are true.

I am open minded enough to change my viewpoint, if these absolutes can be proven.

Expressing an opinion, in the form of an absolute, is not proof of the absolute.

[knowschad]

Wow! For somebody with no dog in this fight, you sure went through a lot of work to prove that I do!

No, not really. I am not in this thread to 'prove' anything, one way or the other.

All I am doing regarding Mingo is making inquiries about what others are posting as absolutes.

Things like, "Mingo is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived".

Or, "A throwdown is not a proper replacement". Or even, "Kansas Stasher doesn't care about Mingo".

I question these absolutes because I am not certain they are true.

I am open minded enough to change my viewpoint, if these absolutes can be proven.

Expressing an opinion, in the form of an absolute, is not proof of the absolute.

 

1) I don't want to see it archived, and I have never said that I thought it should be. I have merely been predicting it.

2) I have only expressed my opinions, and have zero interest in debating my opinion or yours.

3) All I have been saying all along is that I think Kansas Stasher is not taking a very active interest in perpetuating Mingo.

4) Please stop trying to pick a fight with me... I'm not going to play that game

5) My post count on this thread just went up by one more.

[Clan Riffster]

 

Have you seen any bogus logs?

Have you checked 10/5/11? Two cachers posted finds on an empty hole in the ground. A bison was placed on 10/6/11

No, I have not. Did the finders describe finding an empty hole? If so, would such an accurate accounting of the seeker's actions and observations be either, not genuine, counterfeit, or a sham? Since we've established those three elements as the working definition of 'bogus', could a cache log that does not meet any of those three elements qualify as bogus? Should those power trails that actively encourage, (or even passively allow), leap frog caching be archived, since those seekers employing that method never even slow down for half the stages? I'm not getting how barreling past a film can at 30 MPH can qualify as a 'find', whilst stopping at ground zero and accurately describing what you did and what you found does not qualify as a find?

 

A "proxy" is "a person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you for your diligent dictionary use.

If the 'authorization' comes after the fact, it is still authorization.

That's the part you are having such a tough time grasping.

It can be a challenging concept for folks who are used to linear thinking.

 

1) I don't want to see it archived, and I have never said that I thought it should be.

1a ) Awesome!

2) I have only expressed my opinions, and have zero interest in debating my opinion or yours.

2a ) Then you should stop debating my opinion, and stop posting your opinion as fact.

3) All I have been saying all along is that I think Kansas Stasher is not taking a very active interest in perpetuating Mingo.

3a ) You've actually said a lot more than that.

4) Please stop trying to pick a fight with me... I'm not going to play that game

4a ) Why would you think I was trying to pick a fight with you?

I'm just asking if all the reasons you cite for Mingo's pending doom are guideline violations.

If you've answered that oft repeated question, I must've missed it.

5) My post count on this thread just went up by one more.

5a ) It went up again, by proxy.

[+jellis]

Would I have mentioned it if I didn't see it:

 

Found it Found it 10/05/2011

 

What I found was a hole and what looked

may have been the container full of sand.

My GPS took me with in 1 foot of where

the hole was.

 

Found it Found it

10/05/2011

 

major bummer! I had my trip planned to get this and checked it a

couple of weeks ago but failed to check it before I left today. Imagine my shock whenI got here. Oh well. I hope it gets replaced.

 

The second one may have said more or had a note because there was message they updated their log 3/8/2012

 

Not sure what a power trail has to do with this cache.

Edited March 11, 2012 by jellis

[+CanadianRockies]

A "proxy" is "a person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute."

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you for your diligent dictionary use.

If the 'authorization' comes after the fact, it is still authorization.

That's the part you are having such a tough time grasping.

It can be a challenging concept for folks who are used to linear thinking.

When did the cache owner authorize the throwdown cache -- either before or after the fact?

 

My "textbook definition of maintenance by proxy" occurs when the finder contacts the cache owner and receives prior authorization for the replacement cache.

 

If I squint, I can see how maintenance by proxy might occur if the cache owner grants approval of the throwdown after the fact.

 

Saying nothing about the throwdown isn't authorization in my textbook. For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware that there is a throwdown cache.

[knowschad]

1) I don't want to see it archived, and I have never said that I thought it should be.

1a ) Awesome!

2) I have only expressed my opinions, and have zero interest in debating my opinion or yours.

2a ) Then you should stop debating my opinion, and stop posting your opinion as fact.

3) All I have been saying all along is that I think Kansas Stasher is not taking a very active interest in perpetuating Mingo.

3a ) You've actually said a lot more than that.

4) Please stop trying to pick a fight with me... I'm not going to play that game

4a ) Why would you think I was trying to pick a fight with you?

I'm just asking if all the reasons you cite for Mingo's pending doom are guideline violations.

If you've answered that oft repeated question, I must've missed it.

5) My post count on this thread just went up by one more.

5a ) It went up again, by proxy.

Whatever you say.

Edited March 11, 2012 by knowschad

[Clan Riffster]

 

Found it Found it 10/05/2011

 

What I found was a hole and what looked

may have been the container full of sand.

My GPS took me with in 1 foot of where

the hole was.

 

Found it Found it

10/05/2011

 

major bummer! I had my trip planned to get this and checked it a

couple of weeks ago but failed to check it before I left today. Imagine my shock whenI got here. Oh well. I hope it gets replaced.

 

Thanx! You saved me from having to look them up.

Is it your contention that these two logs, which accurately describe what the seekers saw and did are bogus?

If so, would their bogus status be a result of them being not genuine, counterfeit or a sham?

 

Not sure what a power trail has to do with this cache.

 

Sorry. I thought I explained that. It is a stretch, but I do see some commonality.

With a few power trails, it is encouraged that folks log them without ever stopping at the cache sites.

For one in particular, you can see where folks logged 1000+ caches, whilst only pausing at about 500 caches.

That seems a whole lot less genuine than someone who actually did stop at ground zero, accurately describing the event.

Yet I don't see any outcry for those caches to be archived when the owner(s) refuse to do maintenance on the cache page.

For that matter, I don't see any outcry when the owner(s) allow throwdowns, after the fact.

Just seemed a bit contradictory, is all.

 

Whatever you say.

Thanx Dude!

[+CanadianRockies]

Found it Found it 10/05/2011

 

What I found was a hole and what looked

may have been the container full of sand.

My GPS took me with in 1 foot of where the hole was.

 

Found it Found it

10/05/2011

 

major bummer! I had my trip planned to get this and checked it a

couple of weeks ago but failed to check it before I left today. Imagine my shock when I got here. Oh well. I hope it gets replaced.

Is it your contention that these two logs, which accurately describe what the seekers saw and did are bogus?

If so, would their bogus status be a result of them being not genuine, counterfeit or a sham?

I don't think those two logs are bogus. They appear to be genuine logs.

 

I do think those two find logs are bogus. In my opinion, they aren't genuine finds. If I was the cache owner, then I'd delete them.

[+jellis]

Found it Found it 10/05/2011

 

What I found was a hole and what looked

may have been the container full of sand.

My GPS took me with in 1 foot of where the hole was.

 

Found it Found it

10/05/2011

 

major bummer! I had my trip planned to get this and checked it a

couple of weeks ago but failed to check it before I left today. Imagine my shock when I got here. Oh well. I hope it gets replaced.

Is it your contention that these two logs, which accurately describe what the seekers saw and did are bogus?

If so, would their bogus status be a result of them being not genuine, counterfeit or a sham?

I don't think those two logs are bogus. They appear to be genuine logs.

 

I do think those two find logs are bogus. In my opinion, they aren't genuine finds. If I was the cache owner, then I'd delete them.

I agree the logs are real but the "Found it" is not.

Point is they are still bogus "Finds"

[+jellis]

 

Not sure what a power trail has to do with this cache.

 

Sorry. I thought I explained that. It is a stretch, but I do see some commonality.

With a few power trails, it is encouraged that folks log them without ever stopping at the cache sites.

For one in particular, you can see where folks logged 1000+ caches, whilst only pausing at about 500 caches.

That seems a whole lot less genuine than someone who actually did stop at ground zero, accurately describing the event.

Yet I don't see any outcry for those caches to be archived when the owner(s) refuse to do maintenance on the cache page.

For that matter, I don't see any outcry when the owner(s) allow throwdowns, after the fact.

Just seemed a bit contradictory, is all.

 

Whatever you say.

Thanx Dude!

Then use it in a thread about Power Trails. By the way how do you know they paused, were you there watching?

Maybe some were but they are only cheating themselves.

What you are saying sounds like you are agreeing there are probably bogus logs of cachers driving by Mingo and claiming finds. Duh! but you can't prove it.

So still what does that have to do with Mingo, if it should be either replaced or archived?

Edited March 11, 2012 by jellis

[+GeoBain]

Yet I don't see any outcry for those caches to be archived when the owner(s) refuse to do maintenance on the cache page.

For that matter, I don't see any outcry when the owner(s) allow throwdowns, after the fact.

 

You just weren't looking and we've been ignored so much that we, or at least I, have stopped saying anything. Much like I don't really care about what happens with this cache either.

 

groundspeek does what groundspeek wants. They allow power trails even though they fly in the face of the maintenance guidelines and long held community caching standards.

 

They turn a blind eye to permission issues when they know that a large amount of caches are placed without adequate permission.

 

They threaten to archive a cache because the container changed.

 

I would just like to see the CO update the listing to match the size to see if the reviewer continues to hold to the theory that if MINGO isn't done right it won't be done at all.

[+jellis]

Yet I don't see any outcry for those caches to be archived when the owner(s) refuse to do maintenance on the cache page.

For that matter, I don't see any outcry when the owner(s) allow throwdowns, after the fact.

 

You just weren't looking and we've been ignored so much that we, or at least I, have stopped saying anything. Much like I don't really care about what happens with this cache either.

 

groundspeek does what groundspeek wants. They allow power trails even though they fly in the face of the maintenance guidelines and long held community caching standards.

 

They turn a blind eye to permission issues when they know that a large amount of caches are placed without adequate permission.

 

They threaten to archive a cache because the container changed.

 

I would just like to see the CO update the listing to match the size to see if the reviewer continues to hold to the theory that if MINGO isn't done right it won't be done at all.

+1

Thank you

[+Don_J]

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware that there is a throwdown cache.

 

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware of what a throwdown cache is.

 

It's obvious that Geocaching and this cache listing is much more important to us, than it is to him.

[Clan Riffster]

Then use it in a thread about Power Trails.

 

But if it's applicable here as well, why shouldn't I use it here?

I compared two behaviors, which are similar in nature.

Such a comparison would be on-topic in a thread discussing either behavior.

 

By the way how do you know they paused, were you there watching?

 

Because they bragged about it in these forums?

(Is thing thing on? Beuhler? Beuhler? )

 

Maybe some were but they are only cheating themselves.

 

No. It's not "Maybe". It's definitely. They said so themselves.

Though I'm not sure about the "cheating" part.

What, exactly, are they cheating themselves out of?

The thrill of swapping out 500 more film cans?

They got the smileys. For some, that's all that matters.

 

Personally, I don't find stopping every 500+ feet to grab a film can very interesting.

Nor, do I find stopping every 1000+ feet for a film can very interesting.

So either method, (traditional or leapfrog), doesn't appeal to me.

However, if I were to find P&G film can nabbing fun, I would opt for the 500+ feet scenario.

I think leapfrogging is lame. I'm not sure it's a guideline violation though.

 

Imagine I own a thousand lame film can P&Gs along a boring stretch of highway.

You leapfrog your way from one end to the other, only actually stopping at half the caches.

If I let your logs stay, would I be in violation of the guidelines as regards cache page maintenance?

That's the scenario I'm envisioning with Mingo. There are folks who logged as empty hole as a find.

That seems pretty lame to me. If KS lets those logs stand, is he in violation of the guidelines?

Now there are folks logging finds on a bison tube, when the cache description says something other than micro.

If KS lets those logs stand, is he in violation of the guidelines?

 

What you are saying sounds like you are agreeing there are probably bogus logs of cachers driving by Mingo and claiming finds.

 

Nope. Not even close. What I am saying is that there are lame logs being posted on Mingo.

Bogus would be either "not genuine, counterfeit or a sham" per Websters.

Imagine I walk through a Wally World parking lot and log a find on the LPC there.

In my log I state quite clearly that I never got within a hundreds yards of the kilt.

My log would be entirely truthful, it's not a fraudulent copy, nor is it meant to deceive.

As such, that eliminates "not genuine, counterfeit and/or a sham".

Ergo, although such a log would be horribly lame, and worthy of deletion, it would not be 'bogus'.

Just because you like the way a word sounds in a sentence, doesn't mean it is applicable.

Words mean things. Lame does not equal bogus.

 

Duh! but you can't prove it.

Actually I can prove it.

So could you.

It's not hard.

 

So still what does that have to do with Mingo, if it should be either replaced or archived?

 

Brother, I have absolutely no clue.

You rambled all over the map with that post.

You started by suggesting I was off-topic. (Then use it...)

Then you questioned my integrity. (how do you know...)

Then you said I might not be lying. (Maybe some were...)

Then you suggested others were cheaters. (they are only...)

Then you tried putting words in my mouth. (What you are saying...)

Then you questioned my intelligence. (Duh!)

 

You'll have to provide your own relevance to that train wreck.

 

I really can't figure out what your point was.

Or even if you had one in that post.

[Clan Riffster]

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware that there is a throwdown cache.

 

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware of what a throwdown cache is.

For all we know, Kansas Stasher is Ninja, and he's stalking these forums, choosing his next victim...

[+jellis]

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware that there is a throwdown cache.

 

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware of what a throwdown cache is.

 

It's obvious that Geocaching and this cache listing is much more important to us, than it is to him.

I believe that and I know others will disagree but Mingo should be treated no different then any other cache. If the reviewer makes a decision we should respect it whether he enables it because cachers accept this micro for Mingo or archives it because the owner doesn't seem to want to do any more maintenance.

[4wheelin_fool]

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware that there is a throwdown cache.

 

For all we know, The Kansas Stasher isn't even aware of what a throwdown cache is.

 

It's obvious that Geocaching and this cache listing is much more important to us, than it is to him.

I believe that and I know others will disagree but Mingo should be treated no different then any other cache. If the reviewer makes a decision we should respect it whether he enables it because cachers accept this micro for Mingo or archives it because the owner doesn't seem to want to do any more maintenance.

 

If the original container had damaged by the elements, I might agree. However someone has deliberately destroyed the cache 3 times already, making routine maintenance difficult. The reviewer has already treated it as being different anyhow.

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular size

 

Archiving the cache is only helping the cache maggot achieve their final solution, whether it's a construction worker doing work we are not aware of, or a middle aged Cheetos eating man boy who lives in his moms basement and has something against buried caches.

[+Totem Clan]

A don't have a horse in this race so I don't care that much. The only thing I want is for it to be treated like every other cache. When it comes to meeting the guidelines, who cares how old it is or anything else. Just do what would be done if this was 'Billy Bob's Backyard Cache.'

[Clan Riffster]

TC, thank you for remaining the voice of reason.

[+bflentje]

Then use it in a thread about Power Trails.

 

But if it's applicable here as well, why shouldn't I use it here?

I compared two behaviors, which are similar in nature.

Such a comparison would be on-topic in a thread discussing either behavior.

 

By the way how do you know they paused, were you there watching?

 

Because they bragged about it in these forums?

(Is thing thing on? Beuhler? Beuhler? )

 

Maybe some were but they are only cheating themselves.

 

No. It's not "Maybe". It's definitely. They said so themselves.

Though I'm not sure about the "cheating" part.

What, exactly, are they cheating themselves out of?

The thrill of swapping out 500 more film cans?

They got the smileys. For some, that's all that matters.

 

Personally, I don't find stopping every 500+ feet to grab a film can very interesting.

Nor, do I find stopping every 1000+ feet for a film can very interesting.

So either method, (traditional or leapfrog), doesn't appeal to me.

However, if I were to find P&G film can nabbing fun, I would opt for the 500+ feet scenario.

I think leapfrogging is lame. I'm not sure it's a guideline violation though.

 

Imagine I own a thousand lame film can P&Gs along a boring stretch of highway.

You leapfrog your way from one end to the other, only actually stopping at half the caches.

If I let your logs stay, would I be in violation of the guidelines as regards cache page maintenance?

That's the scenario I'm envisioning with Mingo. There are folks who logged as empty hole as a find.

That seems pretty lame to me. If KS lets those logs stand, is he in violation of the guidelines?

Now there are folks logging finds on a bison tube, when the cache description says something other than micro.

If KS lets those logs stand, is he in violation of the guidelines?

 

What you are saying sounds like you are agreeing there are probably bogus logs of cachers driving by Mingo and claiming finds.

 

Nope. Not even close. What I am saying is that there are lame logs being posted on Mingo.

Bogus would be either "not genuine, counterfeit or a sham" per Websters.

Imagine I walk through a Wally World parking lot and log a find on the LPC there.

In my log I state quite clearly that I never got within a hundreds yards of the kilt.

My log would be entirely truthful, it's not a fraudulent copy, nor is it meant to deceive.

As such, that eliminates "not genuine, counterfeit and/or a sham".

Ergo, although such a log would be horribly lame, and worthy of deletion, it would not be 'bogus'.

Just because you like the way a word sounds in a sentence, doesn't mean it is applicable.

Words mean things. Lame does not equal bogus.

 

Duh! but you can't prove it.

Actually I can prove it.

So could you.

It's not hard.

 

So still what does that have to do with Mingo, if it should be either replaced or archived?

 

Brother, I have absolutely no clue.

You rambled all over the map with that post.

You started by suggesting I was off-topic. (Then use it...)

Then you questioned my integrity. (how do you know...)

Then you said I might not be lying. (Maybe some were...)

Then you suggested others were cheaters. (they are only...)

Then you tried putting words in my mouth. (What you are saying...)

Then you questioned my intelligence. (Duh!)

 

You'll have to provide your own relevance to that train wreck.

 

I really can't figure out what your point was.

Or even if you had one in that post.

 

OMG, enough already, all of you. Or at least have the nerve to start name calling so this lame thread gets locked.

[+Castle Mischief]

OMG, enough already, all of you. Or at least have the nerve to start name calling so this lame thread gets locked.

 

Stinkyhead.

[+cheech gang]

I started this thread nearly 9 months ago. It is now well into the third trimester,almost the full gestation period.

 

It is getting scarier and scarier. Did anybody see Rosemary's Baby?

Edited March 12, 2012 by cheech gang

[+Glenn]

OMG, enough already, all of you. Or at least have the nerve to start name calling so this lame thread gets locked.

What's going on here? A civil debate. We can't have none of that here. Quick! Someone call the Internet Forum Police.

[+SwineFlew]

Guys, PLEASE stop the name calling. Its uncalled for and against the guideline as well. I want this thread to be alive and not locked.

 

Thank you.

[+SwineFlew]

I started this thread nearly 9 months ago. It is now well into the third trimester,almost the full gestation period.

 

It is getting scarier and scarier. Did anybody see Rosemary's Baby?

 

I love your humor! LOL :laughing:

[Clan Riffster]

OMG, enough already, all of you. Or at least have the nerve to start name calling so this lame thread gets locked.

 

Stinkyhead.

Meany!

[knowschad]

OMG, enough already, all of you. Or at least have the nerve to start name calling so this lame thread gets locked.

 

Stinkyhead.

Meany!

 

What a bunch of nose-pickers!

[+Moose Mob]

I seem to have forgot the magic number... How many non-topic related posts need to occur before the thread gets closed?

[+cheech gang]

Original poster would like to see it closed. How's that?

[+Castle Mischief]

Original poster would like to see it closed. How's that?

 

SPOILSPORT

[+Castle Mischief]

Guys, PLEASE stop the name calling. Its uncalled for and against the guideline as well. I want this thread to be alive and not locked.

 

Thank you.

 

[+Castle Mischief]

I seem to have forgot the magic number... How many non-topic related posts need to occur before the thread gets closed?

 

I'll go with "As Many as it Takes" for $300, Alex.

[Trinity's Crew]

You're closing the Mingo thread?? Geez. You make me sad.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+Castle Mischief]

You're closing the Mingo thread?? Geez. You make me sad.

 

Well, at least the thread is getting well-needed maintenance.

[Trinity's Crew]

Am I the only one that thinks this thread has kept Mingo alive longer than it would have been otherwise?

[knowschad]

I seem to have forgot the magic number... How many non-topic related posts need to occur before the thread gets closed?

 

Before this gets locked (if it does, and since the OP has requested it, I'm sure it will), I think a lot of us would first like it if Hemlock would explain the oft-debated meaning of the log:

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Does that mean that Kansas Stasher is not allowed to change it to a micro? Or simply that a micro throwdown is no substitute for the real thing? Hemlock?????

[+SwineFlew]

I have to say this...if this thread get locked, someone is going to start up another thread about mingo and its history. Its a very important topic for alot of people. mingo had a very colorful life and so does mingo's thread as well.

[+Hemlock]

I think a lot of us would first like it if Hemlock would explain the oft-debated meaning of the log:

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Does that mean that Kansas Stasher is not allowed to change it to a micro? Or simply that a micro throwdown is no substitute for the real thing?

I've been avoiding commenting on that, mainly because the speculation here has been so dang entertaining. But since the thread may be closed soon, and you asked so nicely, I will say that I was only expressing my opinion and dislike for throwdowns and my desire for Kansas Stasher to replace it again. IIRC he had already replaced it once at that point, and I wanted to see it properly replaced again. I have clarified that to KS via email and have told him point blank that all he has to do is update the size to micro and enable the listing, and the cache would be within the guidelines. I've been ignored.

 

At this point it is out of my hands and in Groundspeak's court. I expect a decision from them very soon unless KS wakes up and does something.

[knowschad]

I think a lot of us would first like it if Hemlock would explain the oft-debated meaning of the log:

 

Mingo is not Mingo unless it is a regular-sized container. I disabled it last time a micro showed up in it's place and will do so again if anything besides a regular shows up. This historic cache needs to be done right, or not done at all.

 

Does that mean that Kansas Stasher is not allowed to change it to a micro? Or simply that a micro throwdown is no substitute for the real thing?

I've been avoiding commenting on that, mainly because the speculation here has been so dang entertaining. But since the thread may be closed soon, and you asked so nicely, I will say that I was only expressing my opinion and dislike for throwdowns and my desire for Kansas Stasher to replace it again. IIRC he had already replaced it once at that point, and I wanted to see it properly replaced again. I have clarified that to KS via email and have told him point blank that all he has to do is update the size to micro and enable the listing, and the cache would be within the guidelines. I've been ignored.

 

At this point it is out of my hands and in Groundspeak's court. I expect a decision from them very soon unless KS wakes up and does something.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position on that, Hemlock. My main concern was that some were treating it as a new policy, and that you would not even allow KS to make that change, so I'm very glad to hear that is not the case.

[Clan Riffster]

...update the size to micro and enable the listing, and the cache would be within the guidelines.

A bit off topic, but this comment did cause me to wonder. Mingo's predicament has had me reading the guidelines with some scrutiny lately, and there seems to be something glaringly obvious which is missing. We all know not to hide a regular and call it a micro, or vice versa. There is even a fairly good write up in the helpful tips section regarding how to select the proper size for your listing. But unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything in the actual guidelines themselves requiring accurate size selection.

 

I've heard from other Reviewers that if a cache is intentionally given improper attributes, (say, the SCUBA attribute for a P&G along a desert highway), or a cache intentionally given an inaccurate D/T rating, (say, the same P&G listed as a 5/5), that the Reviewers will typically post a note on the cache page explaining proper attribute and/or D/T etiquette, but in the long run, will not refuse to publish such a cache, as neither would technically qualify as a guideline violation.

 

Is it the same case with incorrect size listings?

 

A really bad idea for obvious reasons, but not a guideline violation?

 

Just looking for some education.

[Keystone]

Original poster would like to see it closed. How's that?

I am closing this thread under a very obscure section of the forum guidelines, which allows the owner of any cache about a Unicorn to request one thread closure.