If you look closely at my previous response you will notice that I didn't respond specifically to " I look at it this way" so your questions is unfounded. Please don't try to box people into taking a position you wish they did and which you would like to argue against, it is unbecoming.
It is an opinion. Your open response addressed it as if it were being proclaimed as fact.
And we are supposed to take your word for that?
Never, but I have posted my ideas and solution to the stones and if you have not read them, you could not have formed an educated opinion. Unless you have and disagree.
Ditto Assuming of course that there is actually something to be read, as of yet an unproven and unsupported assumption, begs the question again. Really? You consider the statement of fact to be an opinion? Loud and clear!
Coming to the conclusion that a stone peppered with documented treasure symbols, is anything other than an encrypted record of directions, is in my opinion, illogical. Hoax or no hoax, you have a language laid out before you. Ignoring that obvious fact is in my opinion, a waste of ones time.
Yes. Even without having fun with your typo, the underlying idea I was trying to coax out of you is how for the sake of your claim you define the Superstitions.
Everybody throws it out there and means something different and most times don't posses a clue as to what they themselves mean, let alone are willing to accept any inclusions or limitations on it, which they are willing to defend - or not.
Do you mean a specific Range? Bounded by what? The entire wildlife area and that alone?
The boundary of the SWA is clear and it is within those limits that I define the "Superstitions". This is because my placement of the stones is almost entirely within this area. Almost. So for me, the Superstition is the defined Wilderness Area, but only because my search is there. It could include whatever you want it to include I guess as it is only a name. Names change.
Depending on how you eventually, if ever, define your actual claim I may have question or challenge. Until then I can still ask to see proof of the gold existing as you claim. Or do we just take your word?
If I wanted gold I would have followed Kurt into the range. He has at least had some luck despite what is written about him on TNet. And I have warned readers before, if I find it first, the DLM, I will document it, sample it, any conceal it for good.. out of spite. That would be a real pisser.
At this point I am still unclear as to what you believe.