I Take Back Absoulutely Everything Nice

[+fly46]

So I placed two caches, and they were both approved within an hour.

 

One cacher tried to find my cache and had a little trouble, so I went and double checked the cords, and discovered that they were a little off due to an issue with my GPSr (when I stood three feet away from it one direction, I had 16 ft accuracy, in another direction I had 50+), emailed that person, fixed them on the site, etc... MY CACHE MOVED BY NO MORE THAN 60 FEET ON THE LISTING ON THE SITE.

 

Then, the approver emails me and says that someone has complained to them about my cache, although it wasn't the person that went to find it. Hmm.. First of all, how in hell did someone know enough about my cache to complain about it when they've never been here looking for it?

 

Anyway, so the approver starts asking questions about my cache, I respond very quickly and nicely to the first couple emails - including detailed directions to my cache and the exact placement of it - and then the approver sends another one, and I asked what the actual issue was with my cache. (Kinda helps to know what the problem is instead of all this beating around the bush questioning the approver was doing.)

 

Instead of telling me what the issue was with the cache, the approver ARCHIVES my cache immediately and posts a note on MY cache page stating that "I have asked you a question and you won't answer it". {side bar: Hey, that's a GREAT reason to archive someone's cache. Maybe if you see me and decide I'm ugly you'll archive the other one too.}

 

So then I responded to that by sending the approver asking what rule my cache placement violated, since it doesn't violate any of the ones posted on the website. (kinda helpful to know if I ever plan on placing another cache)

 

The approvers response this time was to send me a message saying that if I had a problem with said approver I could email the website and take it up with them.

 

Right. So let me get this straight, I'm asked a question and respond by asking what the exact issue is with my cache, and it gets archived immediately, but I ask a question and am responded to with a message telling me that if I'm not happy, I can take it up with higher powers, but that's okay? {muse: Perhaps we should have a button that we can push to put an archiver on probation for a day when they do something like that to us?}

 

The rules as posted on the website are:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports.

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain in notes to the reviewer section of the cache page. For example, if you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate it in the notes for the benefit of both the approver and people seeking out the cache.

 

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local approver for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a ‘note to the reviewer’.

 

If the Geocaching.com web site is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache will be archived or disabled and you will be contacted with any information provided by the individual or organization who contacted us.

[+briansnat]

I'll wait for the said approver to chime in here. Experience shows that when people come here to whine about "mistreatment" from an approver, 99 percent of the time they aren't telling the whole story.

 

"Someone complained to them about your cache" What was the basis for the complaint? Was the container a lousy shade of mauve, or was it 20 feet from RR tracks?

 

He archived it because he asked a question that you didn't answer. Did he ask you if you thought the Yankees pitching staff can take them all the way this year, or did he ask you to prove the cache wasn't on private property?

 

You're trying to tell us the approver archived your cache because of some vague complaint and refused to tell you why. I don't buy that.

Edited July 19, 2004 by briansnat

[+TeamK-9]

I'd have to agree with Brian. Usually, there's some obscure fact (that's really important to the story) that people often forget when complaining about approvers...

[+Cache Viking]

Brian you are too kind. I think it is more like 99.5 percent of the time.

[+El Diablo]

I also will wait for the other side of the story before making any assumptions.

 

El Diablo

[+fly46]

I assure you, I forgot nothing.

The cache was approved, someone tried to find it, cords were slightly off, I fixed them, got a message about a mystery cacher sending a message to the approver (chicken s*** that they couldn't ask me a question directly and had to go to the approver), so the approver asked me about the cache..

I have every message they sent me, unfortunately no copies of my replies, but I do know the gist of them, then they asked a question, I responded by asking what the issue was with the cache and they archived it.

 

I'm quite sure this isn't normal practice, I'm quite angry that I'm still considered a "new" cacher - apparently that also means stupid, and lets not pay attention to the fact that I've been registered and caching for over a year, albeit not quite for all the numbers and glory that other cachers tend to go for.

 

the cache

 

Edited to fix the url

Edited July 19, 2004 by fly46

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The approvers response this time was to send me a message saying that if I had a problem with said approver I could email the website and take it up with them.

So, why didn't you use the approvers at geocaching dot com email address for this? Do you think we'll all rally to your side and bash the approver with you? Sorry, we need the whole story. I'll make some popcorn while I wait.

 

edit: snipped rant

Edited July 19, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Renegade Knight]

First of all, I can't see your cache and I should be able too. If it was approved then archived it should be visible. Then I can see the archive note.

 

However at first blush there are a few problems (what the approver says may of course change everything).

 

1) The cache is archived so that we can't see it. If there was a problem with the cache we need to know about that issue. We need to see the archived listing to do it.

2) Questions are fine but the site representative should also clearly state the complaint. As the 'accused' you do have the right to defend your cache. You can't do that if the 'charges' are not known.

3) Archiving the cache should only occur withe the site representative stating exactly why it was archived. "Cache was reported to be on private property and the property owner when contacted refused permission." is a good reason. "Yu didn't answer the questions", is not a good archive note. It doesn't tell us anything about the problem so that future cachers can read about the areas history via the archived cache.

 

Now I'll wait for everything I said to change when the rest of the story comes out. However the ideas are valid regardless of whether or not they were the issue in this case.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

have every message they sent me, unfortunately no copies of my replies, but I do know the gist of them, then they asked a question, I responded by asking what the issue was with the cache and they archived it.

 

So what was the question? I think that might be a key part of this story.

[+TeamK-9]

then they asked a question, I responded by asking what the issue was with the cache and they archived it.

 

You know, I don't know if the approver was right for immediately archiving the cache after you responded to his question with another question. But responding to a question with another question could questioably be considered dodging the question...

[+Cache Viking]

Where is KA when you need him?

 

[+Team Perks]

Then, the approver emails me and says that someone has complained to them about my cache, although it wasn't the person that went to find it. Hmm.. First of all, how in hell did someone know enough about my cache to complain about it when they've never been here looking for it?

There could be any number of people who could complain. The owner of the property? The park warden? The police who got a call from someone who thought your cache looked "suspicious"?

 

Since your cache isn't visible, I can't make any judgment about it. All I have is your word...and while meaning no disrespect, in my line of work, "your word" isn't good enough.

 

However, I will agree with what many others have said in that as soon as the approver speaks up, it's usually an entirely different story than what the cacher puts forth.

 

I can't wait to see how this turns out. Better get that pot of coffee going.

[+GeoCamelCachers]

OK I'm confused

So I placed two caches, and they were both approved within an hour.

 

One cacher tried to find my cache and had a little trouble

 

I see you have two caches placed both Still Active one placed in April.

Your link dont work.

I think there is more to the story too.

Edited July 19, 2004 by GeoCamelCachers

[+TeamK-9]

Where is KA when you need him?

He's on a business trip isn't he?

[+sbell111]

What was the question that the approver asked you?

 

I'm troubled that the cache page isn't available for viewing. This is very strange and, frankly, tends to lend credence to your story, in my opinion.

Edited July 19, 2004 by sbell111

[+Criminal]

So, why didn't you use the contact at geocaching dot com email address for this?

LOL!

 

and maybe in a year he'll get a response!

 

That a funny one, did you make it up yourself or did somebody tell it to you?

 

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So, why didn't you use the approvers at geocaching dot com email address for this?

LOL!

 

and maybe in a year he'll get a response!

 

That a funny one, did you make it up yourself or did somebody tell it to you?

 

I've used it. Didn't take long for a response either.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Swifteroo]

Instead of telling me what the issue was with the cache, the approver ARCHIVES my cache immediately and posts a note on MY cache page stating that "I have asked you a question and you won't answer it".

How can we pass judgement on this situation without knowing what the question was that was asked of you?

[+Criminal]

Where is KA when you need him?

He's on a business trip isn't he?

I just saw him yesterday

 

[+CompuCash]

 

the cache

 

Edited to fix the url

 

when you go here you get an error screen -

 

[+TeamK-9]

Where is KA when you need him?

He's on a business trip isn't he?

I just saw him yesterday

 

Did I mention it's Groundspeak business?

[+Renegade Knight]

 

the cache

 

Edited to fix the url

 

when you go here you get an error screen -

 

That's because it's archived such that it won't show for the rest of the world.

[uperdooper]

Where is KA when you need him?

 

he is in the emerald city being reprogrammed by signal. while there he is being deprogrammed by criminal. i hope criminal wins.

[+Mopar]

Instead of telling me what the issue was with the cache, the approver ARCHIVES my cache immediately and posts a note on MY cache page stating that "I have asked you a question and you won't answer it".

How can we pass judgement on this situation without knowing what the question was that was asked of you?

Really. If you were sidestepping the actual question with the reviewer as much as you seem to be sidestepping it here, I can see why they archived it or unapproved it. I mean, did they ask if it was on private property? Did they ask if it was in a place that might be a problem (like next to a courthouse)? What was the question they asked, and what was the reply you gave?

If the cache was in a potentially illegal place, I could see them making the cache not even viewable.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Mopar

[+chstress53]

I too will wait to hear from the approver, although answering a question with another question is not correct in my book. Tell us what the question is please. I too have a two part question. His 2 caches are from two different states, I did not think that was possible and secondly the one in Tenn. asks for money to be placed in the cache and it does state on the page that this is a personal charity albiet for a camp. I feel this is in bad taste and I wonder how it got approved.

[+clearpath]

If I were an approver and someone sidestepped a direct question concerning the cache, I would repeat the question and still if no answer, then I would archive the cache as well. That is what they call a NO BRAINER. All ya gotta do is ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Your "other" cache was approved on the 15th. Today is only 18th. That's a pretty short time to expect an approver to reply to all of your questions. It seems that the cache was unapproved (not archived) until the issues can be resolved.

[+Nappy10]

The next best thing: a quote from KA on a similar issue. He recommends sending an email to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

If at any time you believe that a site volunteer has acted inappropriately, please forward all relevant correspondence, links to the cache page, etc., and an explanation of the issue to the special e-mail address set up for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. We actually encourage people to use this address and to have a Groundspeak employee double-check our work.

[+Beta Test]

I thought approvers were supposed to not respond to these threads until an "official responce" was issued. So don't hold your breath on the approver posting, as Signal is currently reprogramming the current staff.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Beta Test

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The next best thing: a quote from KA on a similar issue. He recommends sending an email to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

If at any time you believe that a site volunteer has acted inappropriately, please forward all relevant correspondence, links to the cache page, etc., and an explanation of the issue to the special e-mail address set up for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. We actually encourage people to use this address and to have a Groundspeak employee double-check our work.

I recall seeing that written in blue text further up this thread

[+Stunod]

The next best thing: a quote from KA on a similar issue. He recommends sending an email to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

If at any time you believe that a site volunteer has acted inappropriately, please forward all relevant correspondence, links to the cache page, etc., and an explanation of the issue to the special e-mail address set up for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. We actually encourage people to use this address and to have a Groundspeak employee double-check our work.

I recall seeing that written in blue text further up this thread

No, smurf...you typed CONTACT, not APPROVERS

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The next best thing: a quote from KA on a similar issue. He recommends sending an email to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

If at any time you believe that a site volunteer has acted inappropriately, please forward all relevant correspondence, links to the cache page, etc., and an explanation of the issue to the special e-mail address set up for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. We actually encourage people to use this address and to have a Groundspeak employee double-check our work.

I recall seeing that written in blue text further up this thread

No, smurf...you typed CONTACT, not APPROVERS

same difference

 

(meaning: I've edited my posts above to show the correct address)

Edited July 19, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+mtn-man]

Actually, it is not the same. I would recommend the approvers at geocaching address too. Looking at the cache page I see issues. I don't know the questions asked, but from what I can see on the page I agree with the reviewer's decision.

[+Nappy10]

The next best thing: a quote from KA on a similar issue. He recommends sending an email to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

If at any time you believe that a site volunteer has acted inappropriately, please forward all relevant correspondence, links to the cache page, etc., and an explanation of the issue to the special e-mail address set up for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. We actually encourage people to use this address and to have a Groundspeak employee double-check our work.

I recall seeing that written in blue text further up this thread

No, smurf...you typed CONTACT, not APPROVERS

same difference

I just had to set you straight. Thats all.

[+CO Admin]

I though approvers were supposed to not respond to these threads until an "official responce" was issued. So don't hold your breath on the approver posting, as Signal is currently reprogramming the current staff.

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

[CoyoteRed]

I've refrained from commenting up til now and I still can't comment on this issue.

 

However, I was just wondering of the posts complaining about an unfairly archived cache, just how many really were unfairly archived? I only know of one. There may be more.

 

Another thing, the way this site is run--the cache approver model that is--I think it was appropriate for the anonymous person to bring it to a reviewer's attention. This averts animosity. From the OP's POV I can see where they felt steamrollered, so a little bit more tact might have been used.

 

Still looking for the other side of the story though.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I though approvers were supposed to not respond to these threads until an "official responce" was issued.  So don't hold your breath on the approver posting, as Signal is currently reprogramming the current staff.

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

With all due respect, I didn't see any disrespect in BT's post. It has been mentioned in a previous thread that the approvers wouldn't respond until all the facts were in. It was also joked about earlier in the thread that KA was being reprogrammed whilst in Washington. Perhaps this was a blanket reassurance to the mob to keep things clean, but it seems like it was aimed at BT's post. If it was aimed at BT, I don't see any disrespect.

 

OT: To the OP, what was the question the approver asked that you refused to answer? Inquiring minds want to know!

[CoyoteRed]

OT: To the OP, what was the question the approver asked that you refused to answer? Inquiring minds want to know!

I didn't read that he refused to answer the question. What I got out of it was he was asked several questions over a couple or more emails which he answered. He then asked what the problem was instead of answering yet another question. I probably would have done the same thing.

 

I mean, just tell me what you think the problem is with my cache and I'll address it. Let's not play 20 questions.

[+Robespierre]

then they asked a question, I responded by asking what the issue was with the cache and they archived it.

My immediate response has already been mentioned above...by what, ....a dozen people? What are you ducking here?

Why the attitude? The cause of anger = you're not getting your own way/that's the generally accepted psychological evaluation. I seem to recall that you've been there before in the forums. Your goal is blocked. What are you trying to sneak through?

[+Sparky-Watts]

OT:  To the OP, what was the question the approver asked that you refused to answer?  Inquiring minds want to know!

I didn't read that he refused to answer the question. What I got out of it was he was asked several questions over a couple or more emails which he answered. He then asked what the problem was instead of answering yet another question. I probably would have done the same thing.

 

I mean, just tell me what you think the problem is with my cache and I'll address it. Let's not play 20 questions.

Hmmm....when I ask someone a question and don't get an answer, to me, that's refusing to answer the question. That whole exchange between us doesn't amount to anything in this discussion. The discussion is about why the cache was archived and what question the OP refused to answer.

[+Renegade Knight]

There has been plenty of time to post the question here now.

[+Beta Test]

I though approvers were supposed to not respond to these threads until an "official responce" was issued.  So don't hold your breath on the approver posting, as Signal is currently reprogramming the current staff.

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

With all due respect, I didn't see any disrespect in BT's post. It has been mentioned in a previous thread that the approvers wouldn't respond until all the facts were in. It was also joked about earlier in the thread that KA was being reprogrammed whilst in Washington. Perhaps this was a blanket reassurance to the mob to keep things clean, but it seems like it was aimed at BT's post. If it was aimed at BT, I don't see any disrespect.

 

OT: To the OP, what was the question the approver asked that you refused to answer? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm sorry if that came off wrong. I was just trying to keep the flames of why the approver wasn't here down as there was official company buisness going on and we didn't know when it would be over.

[+CompuCash]

I though approvers were supposed to not respond to these threads until an "official responce" was issued.  So don't hold your breath on the approver posting, as Signal is currently reprogramming the current staff.

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

THANK YOU !!!

 

In the words of the inimitable [un-named] - "Why can't we all just get along?"

 

I don't think the issue is WHAT the question is/was but that the person wanted to know what the REAL issue was with the cache and get to solving that, rather than {as was stated} "play twenty questions". I think that would have been my response, as I am a problem solver type of personality - personally and professionally (and hay! look what new hobby I have! ).

 

Maybe this guy is trying to "sneak something through", but why is it that the approver couldn't just tell the guy what the REAL problem was or what the REPORTED problem by this anonymous reporter [ gawd I hate anonymous reports ] was instead of killing the cache (as reported) even to the extent that no one could look at the archived cache? Is there something he doesn't want public?

 

Maybe we don't have the whole story yet - sure would be nice.

 

I know that the approvers are pretty well heavily loaded and I too get antsy when my caches go 3-4-5 days before being approved, but they are giving up their own time to help this hobby and I have to respect that. But hey courtesy is a two-sided coin. Yes?

[+Sparky-Watts]

Maybe this guy is trying to "sneak something through", but why is it that the approver couldn't just tell the guy what the REAL problem was or what the REPORTED problem by this anonymous reporter [ gawd I hate anonymous reports ] was instead of killing the cache (as reported) even to the extent that no one could look at the archived cache? Is there something he doesn't want public?

And why doesn't the OP tell us what the REAL emails from the approver said, including the question that they refused to answer, and why they refused to answer it? As was mentioned, 99.5% of these type of threads all have a side that the OP doesn't want to let out. Once it's out in the open, it becomes obvious that the approvers were doing their job, and the OP was in the wrong.

[+CompuCash]

ya - I read all that - I'm too new to be objective about the percentages but in general with human nature I'd have to agree.

[+Team DEMP]

Why doesn't everyone stop posting the same thing and either wait for the Approver to respond or the original poster to answer the same question everyone has asked. Or... the thread will just fall off the face of the earth if neither occurs, and I don't think anyone would care.

[+clearpath]

Why doesn't everyone stop posting the same thing and either wait for the Approver to respond or the original poster to answer the same question everyone has asked. Or... the thread will just fall off the face of the earth if neither occurs, and I don't think anyone would care.

Hold on a second ... Dr. Phil cares, he cares a great deal.

[+Doc-Dean]

As was mentioned, 99.5% of these type of threads all have a side that the OP doesn't want to let out. Once it's out in the open, it becomes obvious that the approvers were doing their job, and the OP was in the wrong.

So far we have heard from all the usual suspects but yet nothing of substance has been revealed.

 

I do have a comment; Several people have mentioned 95 or 99.5% of the time the cacher is in the wrong and the approver was just doing his job. If I knew that my cache was sketchy or that I "may" be in the wrong (I don't know how that could ever happen but...) The last place I would ever bring it up would be in the fourms!

[+fly46]

Your "other" cache was approved on the 15th. Today is only 18th. That's a pretty short time to expect an approver to reply to all of your questions. It seems that the cache was unapproved (not archived) until the issues can be resolved.

No.. He asked me where the cache was, I gave exact directions to the cache's hiding spot, asked more specific questions about where it was hidden and I responded with "What is the issue with the cache?" - I'm a firm believer in just coming out and saying what the issue is instead of beating around the bush. Kinda helps to know what the issue is. The approver 'claims' that the issue was that he didn't know it was inside a gated community, even though the description for the cache SAYS (and has said since the initial description of the cache location was made) in bold black text

PLEASE NOTE - you're looking for a cache in a gated community. It's best to look for this one during the day when the gates are open, as there is no way to get in (sans scaling a fence) during off hours. I'll check the exact hours and post them here when I know them. I know the gates are open until at least 7 p.m.

 

Had the approver ever at any point said what the problem was (if that was, indeed the problem), there wouldn't be this big issue about it right now.

 

My response to asking about the question was to UNAPPROVE my cache and archive it. The cache container HAD been approved and someone had even gone and hunted it.

 

I responded to the approver and his response was to - instead of answering my question (wait, wasn't he pissed off about me not answering one of his) - send me a message about if I didn't like the quality of service that I could email the site.

 

I emailed the site the minute he archived my cache for not answering his question, since KA had posted the address before.

 

 

Alot of my issue was that he jumped on approving it, and then suddenly decided that it violated some unwritten rule (not any posted on the site) so he unapproved and archived it in the same motion - and is badmouthing me on my cache page. I wish you all could view that.

You know what, better yet, Let me post it here for all of you to see, anyway...

 

My answer to him - PRIVATELY - about him 'vague'ly responding to MY question was the following:

I asked a simple question, and you had the audacity to not answer my question and instead up and archive my cache for no apparent reason other than I was TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUE SUDDENLY WAS WITH MY CACHE. And then I asked you what rule there was against my cache being placed where it was and your response is to sprout something about levels of service?

 

The door swings both ways, and you seem to be hopping back and forth to both sides of it.

 

His response to that was to post it to my cache page instead of responding like a human being.

 

Although, now I know what his regular handle is and that he has personal beef against me and had personal beef against me before I requested my caches to be approved, somehow I think that he's bringing that into here, too.

 

 

And, FYI, since someone asked: I have caches in two states because I lived in Ohio until June, and my father is maintaining my Ohio cache in my absence.

 

Sorry about not answering sooner, I had to get offline last night because I was expecting a phone call.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

My answer to him - PRIVATELY - about him 'vague'ly responding to MY question was the following:

I asked a simple question, and you had the audacity to not answer my question and instead up and archive my cache for no apparent reason other than I was TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUE SUDDENLY WAS WITH MY CACHE. And then I asked you what rule there was against my cache being placed where it was and your response is to sprout something about levels of service?

 

The door swings both ways, and you seem to be hopping back and forth to both sides of it.

Well this explains a lot. Had you been respectful in your messages to him, there would have been no need for this thread. Instead, you made an attack on him, so he washed his hands of the whole mess and asked you to contact his boss instead.

 

Now, before you flame me for calling your message an attack on him, let me explain. It is very hard to convey "tone" in written text. Most of your statements in and of themselves are perfectly fine. However, grouping them together presents them in a certain context that, when coupled with words like "audacity", make the tone negative and accusing instead of concerned and confused.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone