FWIW,

Not terribly fond of inane comments which are off topic. Nudges from the Grand and Lesser Poo Baaahs suffice to get some posters back on topic.

I was under the impression that assistance and education were two of the pillars of this forum. The social networking component is most desirable.

Inane off topic comments, like this one, not very appreciated.

I know the reviewers are given a lot of leeway when approving caches and applying the guidelines. I've learned not to cite other reviewer's approvals when appealing a rejection; that only makes things worse. I admit I don't regularly read the guidelines for placing caches, and when those rules change nobody tells me.

For example, my phony coords for Shifting Sands were originally in the parking lot of the Manila Community Center. I was told it was too close to Nylimb's phony coords for Let me draw you a map. I had to move my coords out into the ocean. Imagine my surprise when I saw humboldt flier's cache published two years later using my rejected coords. When I asked the reviewer about the proximity rules I was told, "That rule changed."

When I was putting together Sub Hunt I checked with Krypton to ensure that my 25 virtual waypoints wouldn't be subject to the proximity restrictions, but Nomex ended up being the reviewer for that cache. I don't know what would have happened if one reviewer said "yes" and another one said "no." At least HF gets a consistent "no."

If you mean Enbay1's post about big people not listening to the small folk, I believe he was agreeing with my complaint about Groundspeak ignoring my email. His post may not help solve the problem of inconsistent cache reviewing, but it was on topic.

Or were you referring to some other post?

Perhaps he was, however, after a steady diet of single word posts and or short phrases which have been seemingly disconnected. That last straw broke this camel's back and I flipped out.

ues i was on topic

but now were all off topic talking about tipoc!