Geocaching Humor

[+rusty_tlc]

Hello Jack!

[Pantalaimon]

Actually, I considered the "on-topic" aspect of my reply. I think my reply was on topic because I am giving you an alternative to sitting in front of your computer -- actually going geocaching. You would be surprised how much more fun it is.

Yay! Any topic that about an alternative to sitting in front of your computer is on-topic!

 

 

I'm just funnin ya. I'm not actually arguing my way down a slippery slope.

 

Wait? What?! 5%!! Why you son of a ....

 

10% !!!

 

&%^$*$*%&%&%^$^$^$$*##($#

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

It's funny to pay every month to support a site that clearly has no regard for it's members.

I must be reading a different forum than you are. I've seen many threads where someone is having a problem accessing some feature or having some other problem and Lo and Behold the TPTB take the time to respond in the forums. They either let the person know the problem was fixed or ask for more info so they can fix it.

 

Sounds like they care about their 'customers' to me.

 

Just an old farts opinion.

 

John

[+rusty_tlc]

Yay! Any topic that about an alternative to sitting in front of your computer is on-topic!

 

 

I'm just funnin ya. I'm not actually arguing my way down a slippery slope.

 

Wait? What?! 5%!! Why you son of a ....

 

10% !!!

 

&%^$*$*%&%&%^$^$^$$*##($#

 

Seen this lately?

Warn: (0%)

Edited December 10, 2003 by rusty_tlc

[+Sparky-Watts]

Hey, rusty....once when my friend and I were out caching we stopped in a clearing for a bite to eat, and decided to camp there for the night. In the middle of the night, we heard a rustling sound in the campground and looked out to see a VERY large bear coming at us. I took off my hiking boots and started putting on my running shoes. My friend looked at me in disbelief and said, "Are you crazy? You can't outrun that bear!" I never missed a lace as I replied, "Nope, but I can sure outrun YOU!"

[BeDoggy]

the community might benefit more from having this data readily available to other listing services

 

But other listing services CAN have this data. The cache hider can simply cross post thier cache to another site.

 

That doesn't happen much because GC.com is the best and easiest site to use.

I've seen plenty of complaints about "monopolies" and such, but just TRY and get someone prosecuted under monopoly laws for what you see as monopolistic behavior.

 

My point is is that this is all just a tempest in a teapot. If your phone company, electric company, bank, ect, ect did business like this site did, you would all be howling with delight about how you are getting so much for free and and how easy it is to get it. Until of course you got used to it and found something else to complain about. (hey, face it....this IS what has happened!) I'm frankly baffled by your feeling of entitlement.

 

The creators of this site took a chance on geocaching growing and becoming big. They could have set all this up only to have it fail and find themselves in deep trouble. I in fact believe that if the people at GC.com wanted to, they could milk this for a lot more than they have. The site requires cash to operate at the quality level it does and I don't mind donating a measly 3 bucks a month to help. I mean really, I've surfed to many "free" sites who constantly threaten and cajole thier readers that they are going to "shut down" because they have outgrown thier server and can't afford more bandwidth. They tell thier users to stop being "free loaders" and to kick in and help the site . When these forums went down, did you see anything like that? Or did you see apologies and a respectful request to "please bear with us"?

 

This hobby is supposed to be fun, but it seems that some would cloud it with politics. I don't consider myself a "customer" of GC.com, but rather a fellow player of a harmless, fun little game that my kids and I enjoy. If Jeremy saw the potential of geocaching and took the risk to develop the idea, then it is only fitting that he and others at GC.com should benefit from their work and the risk they have taken.

 

I haven't said anything about this whole thing till now. But hey, I'm happy with this site. It's free. It's of great quality. Since no good thing lasts forever, I intend to enjoy this site while it lasts. I hope that the infighting and complaining by some won't hasten the coming of the end. It would be easy for GC.com to get fed up and require pay membership, but they've said they won't and deserve credit for that.

 

Please, let's give credit where credit is due.

 

BTW....By "you" I don't mean anyone in particular, just those who are overly critical of GC.com. I'm not saying that I have anyone in mind when I write this, just "If the shoe fits, wear it."

Edited December 10, 2003 by BeDoggy

[+El Diablo]

Just spent 15 minutes composing my response when I look up and see beDoggy's reply. Deleted mine. Now all I have to say is...DITTO!!

 

El Diablo

[+t. shuffle]

My post may have been a little sarcastic, and maybe a little overly critical, but I think it's good that it sparked the reaction that it did.

[+Snoogans]

My post may have been a little sarcastic, and maybe a little overly critical, but I think it's good that it sparked the reaction that it did.

Soooooo, given all the other threads like this, you were trolling....?

 

Sn gans

[+rusty_tlc]

Hey, rusty....once when my friend and I were out caching we stopped in a clearing for a bite to eat, and decided to camp there for the night.  In the middle of the night, we heard a rustling sound in the campground and looked out to see a VERY large bear coming at us.  I took off my hiking boots and started putting on my running shoes.  My friend looked at me in disbelief and said, "Are you crazy?  You can't outrun that bear!"  I never missed a lace as I replied, "Nope, but I can sure outrun YOU!"

LMAO! Now thats geocaching humor!

[ju66l3r]

No, there is not a flaw in our arguments, it's in the complaints. If the hiders of those 76,000 caches in 180 countries were as dissatisfied with GC.com as the 1000 caches in 18 countries listed on other sites (and I bet 990 of THOSE caches are listed here as well), the other sites would have the data you want. There is no monopoply. All the caches here are posted by choice. The cache hiders own the cache, and are perfectly free and within the TOS of gc.com to cross-post their caches to other sites, yet they choose not to. The reason why the other sites don't have the data you desire, is 99.99% of geocachers are perfectly happy with this site, and have no desire to go elsewhere. If things were as bad as the vocal 00.01% would have us believe, those other sitew would have hundreds of thousands of caches listed. Those other sites would also have the same problems. Say what you want, but almost a year ago TPTB posted that the web server gets over 30 million pageviews a month, and another mil or 2 for the forums. Trust me, no matter what they say, if those other sites had to contend with millions of hits a day, instead on hundreds, and thousands of forum posts a week, not 10's, things would be MUCH different there too.

First, anyone who responded to my post either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. If you can't admit to the monopoly held by GC.com over all of the geocaching data and the inability to begin a new listing service at this point in the game because of that fact, then you are drunk with belief and not willing to face facts. Again, there is *no* negative connotation to that, except that it is generally accepted in our consumerism/capitalist system that competition breeds a better product for the consumer. Here there is no competition and so there is no force of change except altruism. GS has been fairly altruistic but they have at the same time been fairly closed-minded to the potential to breed a much better product in many ways.

 

The flaw is again reiterated in Mopar's response, so I quoted it. The idea that we *all* must pick up and move/duplicate our efforts at once is the whole point. Yes, if *EVERYONE* were upset with GC.com, then other sites (or maybe the monopoly would simply shift one door down!) would have complete listings of the data and so on and so forth. But, that's not the case, there are people willing to settle for GC.com and its current level of service. Because of that, they are not interested in copying their cache information to another site and another site. That is the flaw of "don't like it leave" since this hobby is solely based on your ability to get caching information to go find caches. The source is the hider, their choice is the listing service, and the seeker is required to go where the hider chooses to participate. Once you have an impetus to one location which is both listing service and private database, then *everyone* is stuck there. Even if you have a better idea or better implementation and 10% of the hiders/seekers agree with you, the nature of the game will be to remain at status quo...here for the other 90% and so you are still stuck having to come back here where the product is "good enough".

 

The only way to avoid this flaw in the argument and claim that "don't like it, then leave" is a valid argument is to avoid the monopoly on the data and make the listing service about the listing front-end not about the data back-end. This is entirely possible but not probable considering there is no reason for GC.com to give up their hold on that data that they have currently established (rightfully so, there is no argument there).

 

There is no way to know what problems other sites would have and it is inconsequential to the argument at hand. The point is that people continue to spew "don't like it, leave" comments when they are completely flawed in a monopolisitic situation. By limiting the ways that the data is accessable to third-party software (basically, only PQs can be considered open data output), you can't even provide good solutions to the niche markets of those people complaining about wanting something more and so the complaints and bad feelings just pile up the only place possible, here in the forums.

 

Again, this website is "good enough" and that is all it needs to be at this stage. The problem is that some people want to head in directions other than the one this site considers to be important and even if you have a site equal to this site in every way AND it heads in those other directions as well, it will still not have the data in it required to make it useable. Unless an extended majority of the hiders feel an impetus to list elsewhere, the monopoly will stay here and the "don't like it, leave" arguments will still be invalid.

[+mtn-man]

I guess I have to ask some questions.

 

If this web site is "good enough", is there one that is "better"?

 

Could it be possible that this site has all the caches because instead of being "good enough", is it possible that it could be "the best"?

 

Also, I choose not to list my caches on other sites because I don't want them listed there. Am I not free to choose where I list my caches?

 

By the way, your math on at least one other site appears to be wrong. I went to it yesterday and clicked "Newest Caches". The most recent cache ID number is 3231. I wondered if anyone would check that and it appears no one has. Still no great quantity of caches though.

Edited December 10, 2003 by mtn-man

[+rusty_tlc]

So this geocacher goes into a dinner for a little breakfast before heading out to find some caches. As soon as his food shows up a group of bikers come in and start harrasing him. They call him names, eat off his plate, and put smokes out in his coffee. He endures all this then gets up, pays the bill and leaves. The bikers are laughing about the abuse they gave him, saying he wasen't much of a man was he. The waitress comments that he wasen't much of a driver either, he just backed up over a bunch of motorcycles.

[ju66l3r]

I guess I have to ask some questions.

 

If this web site is "good enough", is there one that is "better"?

 

Could it be possible that this site has all the caches because instead of being "good enough", is it possible that it could be "the best"?

 

Also, I choose not to list my caches on other sites because I don't want them listed there. Am I not free to choose where I list my caches?

 

By the way, your math on at least one other site appears to be wrong. I went to it yesterday and clicked "Newest Caches". The most recent cache ID number is 3231. I wondered if anyone would check that and it appears no one has. Still no great quantity of caches though.

At this point, there is not one that is better, but it is also not necessarily conceivable that one better could be developed at this point because of the dependance these sites have on the data they can collect (see my other thread on "hypothetically"). My point in this thread has been that the monopoly exists here and the fact that a majority of the hiders are not willing to cross-post their information even if all they need to do is say the word "yes" is the reason that "don't like it, leave" is not a valid argument if you still want to participate in geocaching. Nothing I have stated indicates your lack of freedom to choose where you list your caches. I simply propose in this thread that a database open to all listing services would be the best means of reducing the complaints about this particular listing service and that it would be a wholly more appropriate response to these complaints than "don't like it, leave".

 

BTW, 3231 is not appreciably different than 1000 when the total sum is over 75,000. As you note, still not a great quantity there and certainly not enough to consider it a viable alternative to the data collected here.

[+pnew]

So this geocacher goes into a dinner for a little breakfast before heading out to find some caches. As soon as his food shows up a group of bikers come in and start harrasing him. They call him names, eat off his plate, and put smokes out in his coffee. He endures all this then gets up, pays the bill and leaves. The bikers are laughing about the abuse they gave him, saying he wasen't much of a man was he. The waitress comments that he wasen't much of a driver either, he just backed up over a bunch of motorcycles.

Thats crazy!

 

I was trying to teach some seals the concept of geocaching just the other day at the zoo. BUT THEY JUST WOULDN'T LISTEN!! They kept looking at my clinched fist as if I had food in it or something. Or maybe it was the throwing motion I made every few minutes that kept them at bay. Needless to say we weren't making any progress.

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

I was trying to teach some seals the concept of geocaching just the other day at the zoo. BUT THEY JUST WOULDN'T LISTEN!! They kept looking at my clinched fist as if I had food in it or something. Or maybe it was the throwing motion I made every few minutes that kept them at bay. Needless to say we weren't making any progress.

Well, you know how those Navy guys can be sometimes.

[Fakk 2]

I don't have any caches listed here as I have not hidden any. But I have dealt with plenty of listing sites where I uploaded my work. If I found my work listed ANYWHERE other than the place I uploaded to, I sent them an email to IMMEDIATELY remove it. They do not have the right to my data. I give the data to the site I wish. And on some items I have cross referenced other locations to get it if site A was down.

 

This site is no different. The geocachers give the data to GC.Com to host. They can easily remove it from here.

 

So I have to agree if you don't like it here then go else where. If you don't like it call your bank and stop payment on that 3 dollar check. Then take that 3 dollars along with another 5 dollars and go watch a movie alone, you wanna invite your spouse, children there is another 8-24 dollars. all for a whole 2 hrs of entertainment, not even a month.

 

Lets all go run to the movie websites and whine about the prices.

[BeDoggy]

I may be pickier than those you know. I have a number of things I think the cache listings beyond this forum should include or allow for which are either "in development" or "not the direction we're heading in" (ironic, since this is about GPS, no?).

 

At every suggestion, including my volunteering to code the program myself, I have been denied and some of them have some real merit, such as directional searching and route proximity. Others include some we've definitely heard from before, such as the return of virtual and locationless as well as a voting system for a popularity star system similar to the terrain. Even still is the inclusion of attributes like those added in by other website's efforts (but not seamlessly added to the page for searching across attributes).

 

As a bioinformatician, I'm well familiar with deep data mining and hidden trends. It would be interesting to root around in the statistics of geocaching if only even for trivia, but the data is not available in any sort of usable format.

 

All of these things would be just as pertinent with or without these forums and the fact that they are either back-burnered, "in production" but completely unannounced (aka no "What's New" page or "Sneak Peek" or "Production Pipeline"), or simply denied by GS is very annoying (at best) or disappointing (at worst).

 

But I use Windows now at home (instead of Mac)...so I'm learning how to bend.....

This is indeed the kind of feeling of entitlement I wrote about in my last post. So the website PTB can't see your obvious brilliance....how dare they!

 

Do you not realize that when you send in an idea that it most probably is not new? That it HAS been considered before, and for various reasons rejected or put on the back burner due to valid reasons or concerns? That the rejection of an idea is NOT a personal slight? I bet the site PTB thanked you for your ideas and encouraged you to keep on communicating with them, didn't they?

 

If you and others who believe like you do want all these ideas to come to fruition, then start your own site. You are free to do so and I would look forward to seeing it. If your site has merit, cachers will post there and the data you seek will be yours to use. Also, you said that GC.com doesn't make the data "available in any sort of usable format" Hmmm, so you want this site to not only to give you the data, but also to compile it and make sense of it for you?

 

You are free to complain here, to bring up new ideas, and if enough forum users share your ideas the site operators will be influenced by popular demand.

 

If you think GC.com is truly a "monopoly" then start a class action against the site and have the lawyers versed in these laws set you strait. By the way, monopolies themselves are not forbidden in law. Using a monopoly to unfairly squash fair competition is what's illegal. Does GC.com stop you from posting a cache on thier site and another at the same time? Does it try to use it's influence to bully and rid the net of competing sites? Of course not.

 

Also, cachers who don't agree with you aren't blind or stupid. We aren't sheep who can't see the "fact" that we are being "oppressed".

 

The way some people think, the despots at GC.com are hardened and evil, and only wish to crush light and freedom in the quest for profit.

 

Yeah, right. If you want to free the oppressed there are plenty of them in places like North Korea, China , etcetera, etcetera. Just don't expect them to greet you with the same patience and respect that GC.com affords you.

 

In other words, get real and try to gain a realistic perspective.

[CacheMonkeez]

Now it's snowing, and who knows when I'll get that chance again. C'est lavie, or what ever the French say.

The French say, "War? Danger? Ahh! I'm scared!"

[+Sparky-Watts]

Now it's snowing, and who knows when I'll get that chance again.  C'est lavie, or what ever the French say.

The French say, "War? Danger? Ahh! I'm scared!"

Yeah, that's the phrase I was looking for! Thanks!

[Jomarac5]

BeDoggy wrote:

You are free to complain here, to bring up new ideas, and if enough forum users share your ideas the site operators will be influenced by popular demand.

How long have you been using this site? Apparently, you've missed all the threads about people who have been complaining and bringing up new ideas only to be told "tough nuts".

 

As far as your reference to the site operators being influenced by popular demand in the forums, I think you'll find it difficult to dispute, with very little exception, that what you are saying is not true.

 

No, the site is not a monopoly in the truest sense of the word, but as has been stated here so eloquently by ju66l3r it is a virtual monopoly by the shear size and market share (think about ju66l3r's Microsoft example for a minute or two -- there's a good example of a company that unarguably has a 'virtual monopoly' based on their share of the marketplace). Saying this, is not putting any sort of blame or judgement on the folks at GC -- only that there indeed is a form of monopoly.

 

Also, I don't think that anyone said that anyone who doesn't agree with ju66l3r is blind or stupid, but it is quite possible that an open-minded view might enlighten some to the fact that editing and deleting posts, and closing threads is indeed a form of oppression. No need to go to North Korea to see that.

 

*****

Geo 35 45

[+Scoobie10]

BeDoggy wrote:

You are free to complain here, to bring up new ideas, and if enough forum users share your ideas the site operators will be influenced by popular demand.

 

 

How long have you been using this site? Apparently, you've missed all the threads about people who have been complaining and bringing up new ideas only to be told "tough nuts".

 

J5, I think what you've missed here is the word "enough". It looks to me that those who are complaining about everything they don't have or how they are treated, number very few. Comparitivly speaking, very loud voices, very few numbers. Clearly, there are not enough people that are dissatisfied with the product for GC.com to make certain decisions. If there were enough users unhappy, I'm certain you would see changes made quickly. I only see 15...maybe 20 people on here that are unhappy with almost everything regarding this site. Others are content and hoping for more in the future. My guess is most of the users are mostly satisfied. See my post post on page one of this thread.

[Jomarac5]

Scoobie10 wrote:

J5, I think what you've missed here is the word "enough". It looks to me that those who are complaining about everything they don't have or how they are treated, number very few. Comparitivly speaking, very loud voices, very few numbers. Clearly, there are not enough people that are dissatisfied with the product for GC.com to make certain decisions. If there were enough users unhappy, I'm certain you would see changes made quickly. I only see 15...maybe 20 people on here that are unhappy with almost everything regarding this site. Others are content and hoping for more in the future. My guess is most of the users are mostly satisfied. See my post post on page one of this thread.

So I guess what you're really saying here is "tough nuts"?

 

If you'll notice, I was responding to BeDoggy's post as it has some information which I feel is incorrect. Are you telling me that I should not express my opinions yet others can express theirs? That you can express yours, but I should refrain from doing the same?

 

Out of the few people who post to these forums regularly, how much of a percentage do you think those 20 people that you mention make? My guess is that percentage-wise, those 20 people make up a pretty good portion of those that post here. Also, I don't think that there is anyone who is unhappy with almost *everything* about this site -- but there certainly are a lot who are unhappy with a few things. If you'll pardon me for saying so, I think you are clearly wrong. Just for the record, there are some pretty loud voices the other way as well.

 

BTW: This thread is about stifling opinions and criticism -- the very same thing that you're telling me that I should do with mine. Thanks for at least keeping on topic.

 

*****

Geo 123 130

[+LaPaglia]

Scoobie10 wrote:

J5, I think what you've missed here is the word "enough". It looks to me that those who are complaining about everything they don't have or how they are treated, number very few. Comparitivly speaking, very loud voices, very few numbers. Clearly, there are not enough people that are dissatisfied with the product for GC.com to make certain decisions. If there were enough users unhappy, I'm certain you would see changes made quickly. I only see 15...maybe 20 people on here that are unhappy with almost everything regarding this site. Others are content and hoping for more in the future. My guess is most of the users are mostly satisfied. See my post post on page one of this thread.

So I guess what you're really saying here is "tough nuts"?

 

If you'll notice, I was responding to BeDoggy's post as it has some information which I feel is incorrect. Are you telling me that I should not express my opinions yet others can express theirs? That you can express yours, but I should refrain from doing the same?

 

Out of the few people who post to these forums regularly, how much of a percentage do you think those 20 people that you mention make? My guess is that percentage-wise, those 20 people make up a pretty good portion of those that post here. Also, I don't think that there is anyone who is unhappy with almost *everything* about this site -- but there certainly are a lot who are unhappy with a few things. If you'll pardon me for saying so, I think you are clearly wrong. Just for the record, there are some pretty loud voices the other way as well.

 

BTW: This thread is about stifling opinions and criticism -- the very same thing that you're telling me that I should do with mine. Thanks for at least keeping on topic.

 

*****

Geo 123 130

So I guess what you are saying is:

 

I Want A Pony

 

Once again you miss the point and stick to your same old rhetoric. Thus proving the point, if you dont like the answer you keep asking the question even if the answer is correct.

 

ENOUGH

Edited December 11, 2003 by Keystone Approver

[Jomarac5]

Once again you miss the point and stick to your same old rhetoric. Thus proving the point, if you dont like the answer you keep asking the question even if the answer is correct.

Uh... what was the question?

 

btw: it looks like you're way off topic. Again.

 

*****

Geo 113 123 113

Edited December 11, 2003 by Jomarac5

[+parkrrrr]

My guess is that percentage-wise, those 20 people make up a pretty good portion of those that post here.

Only because the rest of us got sick of you and your buddies blathering on about your perceived slights and went caching.

[Jomarac5]

parkrrrr wrote:

Only because the rest of us got sick of you and your buddies blathering on about your perceived slights and went caching.

LOL. Boy, that's pretty nasty -- what would your Mom say?

 

Would you rather my replies take the tone that yours takes? What if we all used the hostility you've shown in our posts? What a nice time it would be -- don't you agree?

 

btw: It looks like your post is off topic as well.

 

*****

Geo 54 97MY

[BeDoggy]

only that there indeed is a form of monopoly.

 

Also, I don't think that anyone said that anyone who doesn't agree with ju66l3r is blind or stupid, but it is quite possible that an open-minded view might enlighten some to the fact that editing and deleting posts, and closing threads is indeed a form of oppression. No need to go to North Korea to see that.

Ok, I'll put it this way....

 

I knew a man in Toronto by the name of Zigmund Posniak.

He spent 4 years in auscwitz as a jewish forced labour prisoner. His entire family was murdered.

Until the day he died he carried a spidery tattoo on his forearm that was his prisoner's number given him by the nazis.

 

That and anything down to 1 tenth of 1 percent of that disgrace can be considered oppression. Throwing the word out at every opportunity makes it meaningless.

 

Some deleted posts and ignored suggestions on GC.com doesn't amount to 1 tenth of 1 percent of 1 tenth of 1 percent.

 

My point is that all this griping about "oppression" is just a hollow echo to people who have some experience with the true version of it.

 

I just think it's laughable to apply such a word to GC.com

 

Just the way I see it, I guess.

[BeDoggy]

Oh, and ask the average North Korean citizen if GC.com is oppressive. I'm sure they would consider you crazy.

[+canadazuuk]

Jeremy wrote:

 

My $.02

 

1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

 

2. Reviewers should be able to approve their own cache. By being reviewers they have already been entrusted with the ability to approve or disapprove caches. In my mind they immediately have more clout when it comes to interpreting the guidelines.

 

If other folks don't like #1 or #2, tough nuts. Reviewers have a thankless task and frankly, they deserve the bonus of #1 and the respect of #2, since they get plenty of #2 anyway.

 

For full disclosure, I have sequestered myself from policy decisions regarding cache approvals. I only ask that my opinion has even weight as anyone else here.

 

Regarding the tough nuts scenario, there are some people on this site who don't even know what the statement was related to. So read above, and see for yourself.

[+canadazuuk]

Now, let me add this:

 

Some people that use this site (for free, BTW) have such a poor attitude towards those tasked with running the site, that they have gone to some extraordinarily great lengths to make accusations of wrongdoing and ill-fated judgements of guilt.

 

It is no doubt a small crowd of loud mouthed hoodlums that wreak this havoc and derision.

 

Up to no good at every turn they boast of their own greatness and steal from those who actually make positive contributions to these forums, and to gc.com in general.

 

It's time for a change.

[Jomarac5]

BeDoggy wrote:

Ok, I'll put it this way....

As with all things, there are different levels. Just because something isn't defined by the absolute worse case scenario doesn't mean that it isn't so.

 

Kind of like a woman being 8 months pregnant. Yes, it's pretty darned obvious at that point that she's pregnant, but perhaps not so blatantly obvious when she's 3 months pregnant. One month or 9 months, no matter how you look at it, she's still pregnant.

 

You're arguing semantics here. Deleting information, and inhibiting people from expressing themselves or censoring them is a form of oppression. No matter how you look at it, the word fits.

 

*****

Geo 51 54

Edit: added quote

Edited December 11, 2003 by Jomarac5

[+Gorak]

Regarding the tough nuts scenario, there are some people on this site who don't even know what the statement was related to. So read above, and see for yourself.

Tough nuts roasting on an open fire is more appropriate for the season, don't you think? And it sounds much kinder and gentler.

 

Welcome back, Mr. Z.

 

___________

Gorak

Geo 113 2 51

[+canadazuuk]

It's sad, not funny, what some people take regard to when considering what 'oppresses' them.

 

You choose to remain in the prison you continually create for yourself everytime you add an iota to the long filled quota.

 

It is time for a change.

 

This is becoming too predictable.

Edited December 11, 2003 by canadazuuk

[Jomarac5]

Nice to see you Zuuky. Where have you been? We've missed you.

 

Has your blanket dried out yet?

 

*****

Geo 54

[+canadazuuk]

I have learned to ignore and disregard the little dribbles that come along which are only intended to disuade me from seeing the real storm which will be sent to wash away foundations...

[+canadazuuk]

Nice to see you Zuuky. Where have you been? We've missed you.

 

 

Some people are so tacky that they send you PMs and then block you from replying to them.

 

What they say, and what they really mean...

 

Is there a topic here anymore?

[+Gorak]

Now you two boys behave yourselves and play nicely. Don't make me stop this car.

 

____________

Gorak

Geo 101 116

[+canadazuuk]

There were once two geocachers who were friends

But all their travels were dead ends

One learned his lesson

The other isn't confessin

There were once two geocachers who were friends

 

And you know, some people probably still don't get it.

 

But I think someone east of Abbotsford does.

[Jomarac5]

Zuuky wrote:

Is there a topic here anymore?

There was until you decided to hijack this thread.

 

G'night Mr. Z.

 

*****

16F 103

[+canadazuuk]

Someone has said I hijacked this thread.

I seem to recall I recalled what was said

Was it at 11:32?

Or was it at high gnu?

I responded on topic as I felt led.

[+sept1c_tank]

I have learned to ignore and disregard the little dribbles that come along which are only intended to disuade me from seeing the real storm which will be sent to wash away foundations...

Zuuky, I have missed your prose!

[Keystone]

Of late, this topic has turned into a dialogue amongst three community members. Those three community members need to work out their differences elsewhere, as continued derailment of this topic will lead to its closure. As always, I'd prefer to avoid that.

[+woodsters]

If the thread is fine with the exception of the above referenced "derailment". Why not remove or repair the cars that may cause a derailment and let the train continue on? If you take up the tracks, then everyone on board gets killed, just because of a couple of bad cars in the bunch...You already know they are on wobbly wheels. Allow them to fix them or remove them from the rest of the train. The train has a mission.... ChoooChooo!

[+parkrrrr]

parkrrrr wrote:

Only because the rest of us got sick of you and your buddies blathering on about your perceived slights and went caching.

LOL. Boy, that's pretty nasty -- what would your Mom say?

She'd say it's not nasty if it's true. Look at the posts below the one I'm replying to and just try to keep a straight face while you tell me that you, Zuuk, and Gorak aren't enough to make anyone leave the forums.

 

I have been in the forums for well over a year now. In that time, I've accumulated over 1500 posts. Yet if you look at the past couple of months, you'll find that I've hardly posted at all. You want to know why? Because of people like you, who think this is their personal playground and to hell with the rest of us who just want to discuss geocaching. If you think it's nasty of me to tell you to your face that you're a childish whiner who gets in the way of civil discussion, I can't do anything about that. But it happens to be true. (I know, I know, "in my opinion." Screw that; it's a lot of peoples' opinion.)

 

Am I off-topic? Maybe. This whole thread is off-topic. Anybody posting to it is off-topic, unless they're posting "geocaching humor." You've never made an on-topic post in your life, as near as I can tell. When you stop being a pot made of dark matter, you can start calling the kettle black.

[umc]

WoW, I just skimmed this thread to realize it has nothing to do with geocaching humor. Funny too because the humorous part of it all is that I was wondering where the threads like this have gone but I have it all figured out now.

 

I'm throwing down the heavy hand or dropping the chicken wing or whatever you want to call it as I think we can all agree that there is no need to keep this one going. Furthermore I am with KA as I don't like closing threads either but I like to think of it as the threads closing themselves I just do the physical part of hitting the button.