Black Acorn

February 9, 2004

Black Acorn

11 finds

16 hides

On 12/30/03 Black Acorn said, "Cheryl is beginning to love this geocaching thing. I love having her go with me."

On 2/08/04 Black Acorn said, "Tired of the complaining!!! I am done with hiding caches."

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=3d...e1-311c038b47b7

I found 5 of his caches and found a couple common themes:

They tended to be in areas that need to have a Major major CITO event.

They were usually placed at a not particularly attractive roadside pulloff.

He recently used the WSGA Groups email to critisize his critisizors and in anger was unjustly harsh on VDS and TravisL.

What are your thoughts on how something like this could have been avoided? Or could it?

1.3k · February 9, 2004

I'll post here what I posted over there:

Here's what I consider geocaching:

A fun thing to do after work, weekends, and vacactions, and a fun

thing to talk about in the mean time.

I refuse to take any of it too seriously. I think if we take this hobby too seriously we end up with hurt feelings like Black Acorn's situation.

There are serious things going on in the world today. I read in Black

Acorn's profile that his son is/was in Iraq (for which I am very

grateful, BTW). Now that's serious business. Geocaching - no matter

how into it you are - is not.

Let's keep it fun.

7.4k · February 9, 2004

Personally, I don't think this can be avoided. I see it as the natural outcome of a sensitive individual encountering criticism, however well-meaning and diplomatically presented that criticism may be.

I've seen essentially two schools of thought regarding cache logs. One school says that they are meant to praise and thank the cache hider, while another says that they are meant to provide feedback to both the cache hider and subsequent seekers. Those new to the game tend to steer toward the first school, while experienced cachers shift a bit toward the second. Hurt feelings can arise when a cacher belonging to the first school receives logs that fall into the second.

I'm sure that I will catch flak for saying this, but I mean it in the most constructive way: in general, I think that people should get some cache finds under their belt before jumping in on placing new ones. This will allow them to learn what works for caches and what doesn't, and to learn what sort of hides appeal to area cachers. It's fine if they choose not to do this, but they should then be prepared to receive any warranted feedback.

Edited February 9, 2004 by Moun10Bike

February 9, 2004

I found 6 of his hides and actually enjoyed them for the most part. They weren't the best hides but I've found far worse out there, even from more experienced cachers.

From talking to others at the event cache yesterday it seems that there are some that I didn't go to that were subpar and are probably best gone. But if so, then so do a lot of other caches.

About half the one's I found were as GEM's stated, the other 3 were a short walk, two of those on a nice trail. That was Black Acorn's style though. He wanted them to be quick and easy enough for kids and TravisL to be able to find. :lol: My wife and kids appreciated that.

He maintained his caches when they needed maintenance. He corresponded with finders if there was a possible problem or if he had some suggestions.

I think it's a shame he's gone.

February 9, 2004

This is a very interesting situation; one that I doubt can be avoided! Experience is a huge factor when placing caches! This experience comes from numerous finds, discussions with fellow cachers or the school of hard knocks as aired in logs! I see a lack of experience in this case!

From what I have seen, cachers are fairly sensitive when logging first time placements! However, the logs relate their experience; good or bad, for following caches to read and use. The hider with a thick skin can use these experiences to improve future hides towards a type (puzzles, family, scenic, etc). Personally, I was split on the few acorns that I found. A few brought me to new and interesting locations. Others made me ask why and were not appropriate for bringing small children to hunt!

I am sorry to hear when somebody leaves this activity that I so enjoy! If Black Acorn happens to read this, I wish him happier times!

February 9, 2004

M10B is correct for the most part. This is part of caching. However, if people had to find a few dozen before planting some, this activity would never have gotten off the ground. We should allow newcommers to make the same mistakes we did 2 or more years ago.

Another dynamic is where someone gives these less than glowing evaluations and yet does all 16 caches, quantity being more important than quality I guess.

They tended to be in areas that need to have a Major major CITO event.

Before there were cito events, it wasnt unheard of to put a cache in an area that could use a little trash collection. So what?

They were usually placed at a not particularly attractive roadside pulloff.

I havent done any of his caches and i have seen tons of these already. Again, so what?

So, knowing we are talking about a "sensitive" guy here, this thread would pretty much confirm his take on the whole situation wouldnt it.

Lastly, gaviidae ......I like your thoughts on this. I say dittos.

7.4k · February 9, 2004

However, if people had to find a few dozen before planting some, this activity would never have gotten off the ground. We should allow newcommers to make the same mistakes we did 2 or more years ago.

I guess you missed my "in general" qualifier. Two years ago there weren't other caches and cachers around in a lot of locations. People there had to jump in before learning to swim.

Now, however, such areas are becoming fewer and farther between. I think it is a good idea for people to learn about the game before getting involved. Or, as I mentioned before, they should jump right in, but be prepared to hear some feedback about it that might be critical.

1.3k · February 9, 2004

I have to agree with M10B on this one. We, Misguided One and I, got real lucky with our first hide. It is two years old now and still going strong. But many of our next hides were in bad locations and were plundered. We've learned from those mistakes and our more recent hides are in much better locations. But the main thing we did was hold off on hiding caches until we had found a bunch more. That helped us learn what worked and what didn't.

I had planned to work on the Black Acorn series, but was turned off by some of the descriptions of the locations by other cachers. I do think it is important for the finders to be honest about their find experience. I would be very unhappy if I decided to hunt a cache based on glowing logs praising the cache only to find out that it was in a vacant lot that was being used as an illegal dump site. I would be a bit more than unhappy if I had the kids with me.

If you are reading this Black Acorn, please take all the comments on your caches as they were intended. As constructive feedback from experienced cachers, who wanted to give you and honest account of their caching experience.

7.4k · February 9, 2004

Before I forget, I also want to say that I'm sorry to see Black Acorn go, and hope that he changes his mind after having a chance to sleep on things. I just found my first and only Black Acorn cache on Saturday, and enjoyed it.

February 9, 2004

Wanted to mention that I agree with Wander Lost and Moun10Bike. My comments were only in regard to Black Acorns leaving. I totally agree that logs should be honest and people should in general be experienced before hiding caches.

February 9, 2004

I got off the WSGA list a while back so I didn't read anything pro or con me there, but I got lots of vociferous attack via e-mail from a couple folks who objected to some of my logs. Eventually I ran out of patience trying to explain my position of "don't geo-litter...try to consider why you'd want people to go there before hiding" to no avail. I also tried (unsuccessfully) to get the point across that folks logging "your cache is uncovered because the container doesn't fit that spot" or "your coords look a bit off to me" is not any kind of attack or complaint,. So it goes.

I very much liked Mother of all acorns in the trees just west of the Weyerhauser buildings, very nice trail system up there. There should be 'something' in that set of woods, most peaceful on a 15-degree snowy day when I did it. If they were all like that one, there would be zero complaints.

There was a very funny archiving log on one of the more ugly caches from the BCM way back from the cacher who said something like "I must have been on crack when I hid this thing". We all have a lame cache, sometimes a few, before we get the idea. For example my old Over-rated Bands: Pink Floyd (what was I thinking ?) :lol:

5.9k · February 9, 2004

I thought I’d like to weigh in on this as well. There are no lame caches. When I placed Adam Tallman Nature Trail cache, I knew it might be considered lame or too easy for some. But its intent was to give the kids a cache to do. (Take them on the Marmot Pass cache and they will probably prefer to stay home and play video games instead next time.) I mean really, what else can you do with such a small park to make a cache fun and/or exciting? I guess I could create some sort of brilliant puzzle cache to appease the cachers who find caches like these boring.

It’s a tough thing to do, we’re hiding boxes in the woods, how challenging can you make it? There’s a fine line between a challenge and tedium. I ended up pulling “You Want Any Fries With That” for the same reason, criticism that it was too easy. It was supposed to be easy! It was a tongue in cheek jab at how easy a cache could be, in that you didn’t even have to get out of your car. Quite by surprise I realized that it was accessible to those with physical (and mental) handicaps. I continue to experiment and refine my ideas to place caches right out in the open.

Black Acorn’s caches may not have been in the greatest locations, but many of them were within range of my lunch hour caching window. His containers (at least the one or two I did) were some of the best. There is a place for all types of caches, 1/1s or not.

I hope he reconsiders.

1.8k · February 9, 2004

We all have a lame cache, sometimes a few, before we get the idea. For example my old Over-rated Bands: Pink Floyd (what was I thinking ?)

Jack in the Box Park. I think it was a worse cache than your Pink Floyd cache, because not only was it in a duller-than-dirt location, but mine was in a leaky plastic gumball machine prize bubble, next to a swampy area. :lol:

But hey, at least I've got a good archived cache to store images in.

February 9, 2004

I thought I’d like to weigh in on this as well. There are no lame caches...

Sure there are, right here, here, here, and here.

The second one uses a container I made shortly after doing my 1st cache find, which though easy (even described as the world's easiest), got me hooked on Geocaching.

So I agree, unless a cache is largely misrepresented, even lame caches have their place, and can be fun.

I did 3 of Black Acorn's caches, and had plans to do more. I hope he reconsiders.

I agree with gaviidae, and Moun10Bike also.

7.4k · February 9, 2004

When I placed Adam Tallman Nature Trail cache, I knew it might be considered lame or too easy for some. But its intent was to give the kids a cache to do.

Just to be clear, I am not equating "lame" with "easy" (and in fact I want to avoid labeling any caches). It's all about the choice of location to me. An easy cache can still be in a cool area, take the seeker to a neat view, etc. On the other side of the coin, I wouldn't want to take kids to a garbage-infested site, even if the cache had a 1/1 rating.

5.9k · February 9, 2004

When I placed Adam Tallman Nature Trail cache, I knew it might be considered lame or too easy for some. But its intent was to give the kids a cache to do.

Just to be clear, I am not equating "lame" with "easy" (and in fact I want to avoid labeling any caches). It's all about the choice of location to me. An easy cache can still be in a cool area, take the seeker to a neat view, etc. On the other side of the coin, I wouldn't want to take kids to a garbage-infested site, even if the cache had a 1/1 rating.

I didn’t think you were saying that, though others have. But you’ve hit the nail on the head about location. There are no “scenic” or “cool” locations left in Tacoma. I only know of one park without a cache of some sort, and my ultimate urban will be going in there. So new cachers are left with the decision of hiding a cache any-ol-where, or not hiding one at all.

I don’t have a problem pulling off the road and finding a cache behind a jersey barrier. They are fun lunch time caches. Besides, you won’t let me re-activate Gertie II… :lol:

:huh:

3.1k · February 10, 2004

I thought I’d like to weigh in on this as well. There are no lame caches.

I'm with you 100% with that statement. The only caches I haven't enjoyed are the ones I can't find. :lol:

5.9k · February 10, 2004

I thought I’d like to weigh in on this as well. There are no lame caches.

I'm with you 100% with that statement. The only caches I haven't enjoyed are the ones I can't find.

I never said there did not exist caches that I didn't really enjoy, only that they aren't lame. BA's were enjoyable.

3.1k · February 10, 2004

I never said there did not exist caches that I didn't really enjoy, only that they aren't lame. BA's were enjoyable.

Well I have to admit to crawling through a couple of poison oak bushes and I can't say I enjoyed them. I think you probably know about how I feel about the overuse in these forums of the word lame. That's just my point here.

I was lucky when placing my first cache. I had a decent location but I had no clue as to how to properly get good coordinates. Quad spent a very long time locating mine and instead of blasting me in the logs he just emailed me his coordinates and mentioned that those worked for him. I checked his out, they were dead on. Instead of being blasted I got encouraged to do better.

But, times change.

February 10, 2004

So new cachers are left with the decision of hiding a cache any-ol-where, or not hiding one at all.

Or, there is the third option of getting creative with your cache hide. I like finding caches that are in a great spot, but not a real creative cache, and I like finding caches in poor spots, but very creative caches. When I find one in a poor spot with no creativity I feel like I just wasted my time. I am not suggesting that anyone that has posted here hides those kinds of caches, but I know of many that do. Sorry, but the numbers just don't mean that much to me, and I don't consider a sub-micro hidden under a rock to be creative. It just seems lazy to me, and it robs the spot of any potential for a good cache. I also don't buy the idea that easy makes it good for the kids. Ask Kavuday about a certain 5 star that he would have a not found on if not for a little help from a young cachaholic that typically is the first one to find a cache. Creative does not mean too hard for kids.

None of this is aimed at BA. I haven't done any of his caches. I am just concerned that as we reach maximum density in some areas some of the more creative cachers are going to drown in a sea of one star's and eventually give up. Otis Pug is gone, and his caches were anything but lame. I would gladly give up a hundred one stars in my area for one more of his.

3.1k · February 10, 2004

None of this is aimed at BA. I haven't done any of his caches. I am just concerned that as we reach maximum density in some areas some of the more creative cachers are going to drown in a sea of one star's and eventually give up.

Please let me know where maximum density has been reached. I would love to cache in a location that has only 529 feet (1/10 mile+) between caches in every direction for miles on end :blink:

February 10, 2004

We just hid our first cache about a month ago. We took all the cords either on a snow day or overcast sky. (Over ten times) Which turned out not to be good, so after we received some comments we went out on a sunny day and double checked our cords and behold the feedback was correct. This is where I feel feedback; weather good or bad is good. If you don't know it's broken, you can't fix it. This is how we all learn. And the sport can continue to get better and more enjoyable to all. We just have to learn to take and give criticism cordially.

I am sorry to hear about Black Acorn And hopes he reconsiders. This sport is for everyone’s enjoyment

February 10, 2004

I did a few of Black Acorn's caches last month and enjoyed each and every one of them. One of them eluded me and I almost got frustrated, but then there it was right under my nose. All I had to do was see what I was looking at.

I have had the experience of finding many caches of many variations. Some might be considered "lame" and others "easy", but those two terms are not always one-in-the-same. All of them showed different methods of thinking. The whole idea is to do the best you can with what you have and improve your skills as time goes on.

I do agree with the comments that it is best to get a few caches under you belt before going out and planting a few of your own. However, in my area there weren't many cachers or caches, when I got started, but I decided to kick it in to high gear and contact some of my friends, to see if they were interested in the hobby. It worked, and several of them have been creative enough to challenge my skills, much to my liking.

I find that the purpose of a log book is to express a few of your trials and tribulations in finding the cache, but not all of them, that's what the website is for. As for being critical of a cache or it's owner, I tend not to do that. If I have a problem with a cache, finding it or otherwise, I prefer to contact the owner directly.

I hope to see some of you at the meeting in Gig Harbor, if my plans are not corrupted by other activities. Furthormore, there are many caches in the Bremerton area just waiting for you guys to find them. Hope to see you here too!

Fledermaus

February 10, 2004

I guess its my turn to throw in my two cents here. As much as I hate to say it, Faile and I may have been the straw that knocked the acorn out of the tree.

First off, we found 4 of his caches. 2 of which we really enjoyed. 1 The Fallen Acron, was a bit boring since it was just a pull off the road and look behind a tree type deal, but it was at least a clean area and the container was fun. The last one we found, The Pancake Cache, was in all honesty gross.

I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for the log entries we made, since they were the truth and should have been taken for what they were. Comments from a couple of cachers that don't enjoy having to look under rusty hunks of metal to find a cache. Our intent was not to cause him to archive all his caches, but to inform him and others that this isn't an appropriate cache for everyone. Read martman's FTF log on that cache and you will see what I'm talking about.

I sent him an e-mail in reply to an e-mail he sent me stating that he was archiving everything because he was tired of all the complaints. So obviously it wasn't all on our shoulders, but it sucked to see 16 caches archived right after you post a find. :blink:

I tried to explain our position in the e-mail I sent him, but haven't heard anything back and I'm really not expecting too. I really do wish him the best of luck and wish he would change his mind about some of his caches. Mother of all Acorns and the Yesteryears caches were very enjoyable.

EDIT:

Adding that I think this was just a matter of time. Well I suppose it could have been avoided, but for that to happen we would have had to praise him for his creative use of rusted metal to hide a cache.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Perrin

3.1k · February 10, 2004

I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for the log entries we made, since they were the truth and should have been taken for what they were.

I'm one that feels a private email would have worked just fine but I see many of our "modern" day cachers don't mind being rude in their logs. Rudeness can be truthful too you know.

Oh and opinions aren't always the truth. What you wrote was your opinion.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

February 10, 2004

Rudeness? Where in my log on that cache was I rude? or are you just commenting on my lack of enthusiasm towards apology in a situation that doesn't warrant any? (I'm really trying to look at this in some form that doesn't make it look like that was an attack Lazyboy and Mitey Mite)

While its true that I was stating my opinion, ie "I don't like looking under garbage and rusty metal to find a cache" Faile was telling the truth in her log about the garbage in the area.

We were simply hoping to give cachers with kids a bit of a warning about what to expect. When a hint says "Under a black metal junk box" I guess we could have taken a hint and just not done this particular cache. If that had been the case, it still would have simply been a matter of time before some one came by and made a similar comment.

I will apologize to forum members for this comment "I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for the log entries we made, since they were the truth and should have been taken for what they were." If that offended, I apologize.

1.8k · February 10, 2004

Please let me know where maximum density has been reached. I would love to cache in a location that has only 529 feet (1/10 mile+) between caches in every direction

Howe Farm, Port Orchard. :blink: ( /me waves at Fledermaus ). I need to get that mass of caches some day.

I think we can all agree that some caches are better than others. If that's the case, there has to be a cache that each of us has found that is the worst cache we've found. (For me, it was a pair of caches in a newbie's front yard, placed 30 feet and four days apart. They were suffering water damage after the first week, and still remained unmaintained for a few months before being archived.)

I'd therefore disagree with Criminal's comment that there aren't any lame caches. If the spectrum runs from lame (my Jack In The Box park, for example) to outstanding (State Quarters in Yakima is up there), they can't all be weighted on one side of the fulcrum.

"Black Acorn of Yesteryears" was a great cache location, although the external container wasn't durable and the visible location was subject to being Dursleyed. "Miss Piggy's Cousin Tubs" was a great walk along a trail I'd have never found otherwise. "The Fallen Acorn" was a not-so-great location, but for a newbie hide, it certainly could have been worse.

And, as Criminal has implied, time spent searching for a "lame" cache isn't wasted time. There's few things I'd rather do on my lunch hour, including eating. If someone replaced Fallen Acorn today, I'd be out there looking for it today.

3.1k · February 10, 2004

Rudeness? Where in my log on that cache was I rude? or are you just commenting on my lack of enthusiasm towards apology in a situation that doesn't warrant any? (I'm really trying to look at this in some form that doesn't make it look like that was an attack Lazyboy and Mitey Mite)

You feel I was attacking you? Well ok, but, when talking about rudeness it's sometimes considered rude to poor mouth something another person placed for others enjoyment. If he had fed you an overcooked meal would you find it appropriate to mention that he's a lousy cook to the world?

We have a local cacher who takes some certain deviant pride in placing caches in places that I'm sure you'd hate. I don't always go after his caches but I also don't find it necessary to broadcast that his caches are lousy, lame or whatever.

Amusing how you find my mentioning you being rude as being an attack on you but that your mentioning how lousy a cache is to be the "truth". Maybe I found your rudeness to be the "truth"?

This wasn't intended to be an attack on you but it's obvious that Black Acorn felt he was attacked by users comments. Interesting isn't it :blink:

Howe Farm, Port Orchard. ( /me waves at Fledermaus ). I need to get that mass of caches some day.

It's now on my "to do" list.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

3.1k · February 10, 2004

I think we can all agree that some caches are better than others. If that's the case, there has to be a cache that each of us has found that is the worst cache we've found.

You bet there are some better than others and some not so hot. Usually what I will do with a cache I don't totally enjoy is just not be enthusiastic about it during the logging process. I try to be polite in logs.

But as far as worst caches I've placed one for all to enjoy. It's called Worlds Worst Cache and I believe it is. Although I'm planning on a sister cache called Worlds Lamest Cache. :blink:

Oh and Sund Rock was fun. Not difficult to get to but in a beautiful spot and for those of us in a hurry it didn't take long.

24.7k · February 10, 2004

Looks like we need a Last Straw stat for when we are the cause of someone's withdrawal from the sport.

If you can be a FTF, LTF, and LS for a cache that would be a new pinnacle of success/shame.

There is nothing wrong with a log that tells it like it is. The line is crossed when it's expounded on to where it's clear the finder was personaly insulted that the cache even existed. I'm not this is true or not true of any particular log.

February 10, 2004

I'm one that feels a private email would have worked just fine but I see many of our "modern" day cachers don't mind being rude in their logs.

Unfortunately cache owners, especially low number one's like acorn, frequently ignore private e-mails. I found one recently where there were a few problems including that the hint was completely wrong. Hopefully, no one went after it in the weeks between while I waited for a response or an update to the page. After waiting a few weeks I updated my log to be "rude" and mention the biggest mistake.

FWIW - Acorn wasn't one of those. He responded to me and it seems Martmann pretty quickly.

1.8k · February 11, 2004

Looks like some of them are being unarchived -- I just got "unarchived" watch list notices for Miss Piggy's Acorn and Something Different.

This is a good thing.

(Edit: looks like even more are being unarchived. Maybe they're all coming back?)

Edited February 11, 2004 by travisl

February 11, 2004

Rudeness? Where in my log on that cache was I rude? or are you just commenting on my lack of enthusiasm towards apology in a situation that doesn't warrant any? (I'm really trying to look at this in some form that doesn't make it look like that was an attack Lazyboy and Mitey Mite)

You feel I was attacking you? Well ok, but, when talking about rudeness it's sometimes considered rude to poor mouth something another person placed for others enjoyment. If he had fed you an overcooked meal would you find it appropriate to mention that he's a lousy cook to the world?

We have a local cacher who takes some certain deviant pride in placing caches in places that I'm sure you'd hate. I don't always go after his caches but I also don't find it necessary to broadcast that his caches are lousy, lame or whatever.

Amusing how you find my mentioning you being rude as being an attack on you but that your mentioning how lousy a cache is to be the "truth". Maybe I found your rudeness to be the "truth"?

This wasn't intended to be an attack on you but it's obvious that Black Acorn felt he was attacked by users comments. Interesting isn't it

Howe Farm, Port Orchard. ( /me waves at Fledermaus ). I need to get that mass of caches some day.

It's now on my "to do" list.

Gee, um I apologize.... again :lol:

I guess I worded that a bit badly, but hey it was early and I was in a bit of a hurry.

I actually didn't necessarily think you were attacking me, mostly it sounded to me like you thought I was being rude because I said I wasn't going to apologize for my log, since that is the only line that you quoted. If that was all you meant, well maybe I was a bit rude there, but who can say they've never been rude in their life.

I did get the feeling for some reason that you were referring to my log as being rude, which I totally didn't understand and was wondering if you even read it.

So honestly I wasn't feeling attacked, just confused about where you were going. At which point I guess I confused you ever more by asking saying "I'm really trying to look at this in some form that doesn't make it look like that was an attack Lazyboy and Mitey Mite"

And I really wasn't bad mouthing the cache itself, just the way it was concealed and the fact that there was garbage all over (which I understand isn't Acorn's fault). I didn't care about the mud down there.

As cachers, I think its part of our responsibility to let the owner know when conditions in the area are not so good. We don't know how often they show up to do maintenance or if they ever do. I for one would like to know if some one dumped a pile of garbage near one of my caches so I could do something about it.

February 11, 2004

I can vouch for Black Acorn's prompt (and polite) email response. I also get the impression that he responds to cache problems quickly, from watching other logs. I'd rather see that, than a cache hider that never responds to any questions or comments, even if they hide relly good caches.

I think with some time Black Acorn will hide some great caches, (not to say his hides are bad now), and am glad to see the unarchives.

2.7k · February 11, 2004

Glad to see that Black Acorn is getting back into the game! Those acorn caches have been on my list for some time. Just gotta get dwon there for a full day.

Edited February 11, 2004 by evergreenhiker!

February 11, 2004

There's few things I'd rather do on my lunch hour, including eating.

I bet looking for a good cache is one of them.

I'm glad to see that BA has changed his mind.

3.1k · February 11, 2004

And I really wasn't bad mouthing the cache itself, just the way it was concealed and the fact that there was garbage all over

No worries. I've said it before, it's difficult on a forum to discern where a person is coming from. We have no facial expressions that are meaningful or vocal tones to go by. I've always said that a person should just assume I'm smiling when I type. I don't want to cause trouble with anyone.

I'm glad BA is unarchiving his caches. Feelings get hurt easily. I've met dozens of cachers in person and I feel that they are normally the nicest people around. I don't get that feeling reading the forums.

February 11, 2004

No worries. I've said it before, it's difficult on a forum to discern where a person is coming from. We have no facial expressions that are meaningful or vocal tones to go by. I've always said that a person should just assume I'm smiling when I type. I don't want to cause trouble with anyone.

I was just thinking the same thing after reading our little exchange and wondering where all that was coming from. Glad we got it all worked out. I would hate to meet you on the trail some time and just remember you as some one I got in an arguement with on the forums :lol:

February 11, 2004

Black Acorn has reactivated his caches

Perrin and Lazyboy & Mitey Mite have made up

It's a perfect time to close this thread...great discussion!

Black Acorn

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment