Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team MJDJ

  1. I won't...GC.com has made it perfectly clear what it thinks of its members by denying it, based on the assumption that I was lying. If...and that's a BIG "if"...TPTB have seen the resultant threads and overturn MT's decision and approve my Heffley Lake Cache, then I may re-activate one or two of them. It's a pity you never had the chance to do Zip-a-dee-doo-dah...the finish was (in my opinion) a heck of a nice payoff! As it is now, it is listed on Navicache as Spoon Valley Cache....so much for the puzzle aspect! ...I'll assume that you missed the fireworks: My denied Heffley Lake Cache is a good example. It was denied on the basis that it was too far from my "normal area"...whatever! Just because I don't seek caches every time I'm in Kamloops, I am told that I never go there! Basically I was called a liar by an approver who has never met me. You're a mainlander...by way of #5, how long does it take YOU to get to Kamloops? 3 - 4 hours tops right? Try explaining that to an approver who won't listen!
  2. This is the part that I am having trouble with. As a Geocacher with almost a year and a half worth of experience...I am NOT going to try "sneaking" one past an approver by hiding a cache in an area that forbids it! Why bother putting the time and the effort and the MONEY into a venture that one KNOWS as being wrong and that risks rejection to begin with? As cachers, it is our responsibility (morally and ethically) to provide a positive caching experience for others. This includes hiding our caches responsibly, maintaining them responsibly, providing worthwhile swag for the effort expended, and addressing issues of the cache with other seekers. Why do the guidelines always assume that the hiders are unscrupulous, irresponsible or untrustworthy? Furthermore, you have just confirmed what I have been saying...the Guidelines that apply for "Municipal Parks" don't (or shouldn't) apply to wilderness caches. As mentioned, Canadian wilderness isn't administrated the same way as its American counterpart. To suggest that it is...also demonstrates what I have been saying! So to prevent this from happening, we should enforce guidelines without exception? I'm talking exceptions within reason...especially when something such as a "mileage limit" doesn't really exist.
  3. Of course, I've put time, effort and money into this...but I wouldn't have gone to retrieve it until my next SCHEDULED trip to the area...in mid-August, which by the way is only two weeks away. Alas, apparently two weeks is too long to wait, according to some people who, in all likelihood will never even visit the area!
  4. Not very "respectful" when your gaffes have been exposed, are you? I changed the co-ordinates so that nobody from THIS SITE could locate them, why should I show any sort of loyalty to a service who accuses me of LYING? The appropriate co-ordinates are listed on Navicache. On that topic...here are two caches owned by a LOCAL approver, which have been sitting idle: GCJ0RM - Has been untouched since June 25th, over a MONTH! GC1112 - Missing since May. But since I wouldn't get to my denied cache within two weeks, I committed some horrible crime? How about a HINT of consistency in your arguments?
  5. Likewise...just don't expect any "tech-Support" from the WalMart folk. Know your stuff BEFORE you buy....
  6. Bingo! I realize this...but the MAJORITY of his/her work would be for BC, correct? Perhaps there could also be a couple of "standbys" in place for holiday relief and such. I'd rather wait the extra day and have my cache reviewed by a local! I don't recall the issue being the SPEED of the approvals, but rather the possibility of denials stemming from a lack of knowledge or understanding of the locality. Although there are those who suggest that terrain is terrain is terrain....
  7. Perhaps it was ravaged by "wild animals" and turned into landscape litter...who knows WHAT some are thinking! Also note that WHILE this cache needs maintenance, my son is also playing baseball, our dog is having puppies and baby needs a new pair of shoes! Good thing we didn't have a planetary alignment at the same time, it would be the end of humanity as we know it! By following their own arguments, as I see it NO caches should EVER be approved since the owner could conceivably get sick or die, thereby abandoning their caches... ...any port in a storm, I guess!
  8. ...and what if ALL of your caches needed simultaneous "emergency maintenance"? Do you realize what a ridiculous statement you've made? This FURTHER proves why LOCAL approvers are better...anybody who KNOWS THE AREA, would know that maintenance on this particular cache would probably be a NON-ISSUE during its entire life...but since you don't know what is involved, I'll treat this bait with the credibility it deserves! What sort of "emergency maintenance" would be needed ASAP? If it is THAT urgent, then I would expect the cacher who found it in need, would be a good sport and make the necessary repairs, just as I have done when I've found caches needing attention "immediately"! THAT's also a part of the game. What you're suggesting is not only "hypothetical" but highly improbable....and ridiculous! Here's another one who likes to take things out of context...if you RE-read the post that you quoted, you would realize that I meant SINCE it hasn't been approved, I'm in no hurry to retrieve it, and I'm not about to anyway, since it is listed with Navicache...imagine that! I accept your apology for mis-interpreting my intentions and jumping to erroneous conclusions. Lighten up people...aren't YOU the ones reminding me that this is "just a game"?
  9. Excellent idea...I wish I had thought of it! Would this ENSURE that BC submissions would ONLY be reviewed by BC Approvers?
  10. Hey tlg...Gorak....your assessment was quite accurate!
  11. On the contrary, I'm quite a happy person...when I'm NOT being called a liar by someone who has never met me. Have a nice day...sorry I can't make you understand!
  12. Nowhere did I suggest that somebody wasn't "intelligent" enough to be part of a discussion. You are reading more into this than is present; I merely stated (and this is an OPINION...apparently opinions ARE allowed here!) that in order to approve/discuss caches or other issues in an area, the approver/poster/cacher should know SOMETHING about the area, or their contribution could be considered invalid if they demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the topic. Hey, some people think they are qualified to speak on any subject...not I. If I don't know the facts regarding a topic, chances are I'll keep out of it, or I'll stand back and LISTEN...maybe learn a thing or two in the process. Prejudice? How do you feel about one cacher with a clean history being treated like all other irresponsible cachers? Isn't THAT an example of prejudice? Thorin: ...Ignoring your post as you suggested!
  13. Whatever...it was STILL a taunt/bait and only helped to fuel the fire. Perhaps, but with the #5 highway, I can go from my front door to being ON THE ISLAND in four hours...this includes prepping and launching a boat! People who are FAMILIAR with BC and this area would know this, and this farce of a rule wouldn't even apply! The fact remains that this magical "150 mile limit" is a grey area...the actual distance is NOT mentioned in the guidelines, simply a suggestion! Being called a liar apparently isn't a slight, according to most of the contributors to that thread...yet suggesting that an approver is incompetent IS? Remember, there is NOTHING in my geocaching history that suggests I couldn't/wouldn't maintain this cache...In fact I have two other wilderness caches nearby! It was the approver's OPINION, despite my assurances. It was the approver who claimed that "some people lie" and subsequently denied the listing, implying that I was lying to him. He based his decision on the fact that because I DON'T geocache (or not often enough) while I'm in the area...then I am in fact NOT in the area - ergo, I am lying! Not to mention my TWO other wilderness caches...which take about 5 1/2 hours to get to because they are 25 miles up a logging road....oh, and did I mention that those two were approved without question? I believe I did! Add to this, that several other cachers (and one other approver) said they saw nothing wrong with this cache placement...the whole thing stunk! I'd love to hear an argument against my case...just to refresh, the original argument WAS about a cache that was DENIED because of a perceived problem, that COULD have come to pass, sometime in the future...and based on the approver's dealings with OTHER cachers (this was the FIRST time I had dealt with this particular approver) some time in the PAST. But that was in another thread...we are drifting off-topic.
  14. I made the comment in regards to that "other" thread... Manners be damned? Deal...and from this moment forward, please ignore my posts, topics and threads as well. Now maybe I'll go butt into a conversation with some local Neuro-Surgeons!
  15. It's one thing to qualify your butting into someone else's discussion as some sort of right of public domain, (manners and courtesy aside) but the issue of credibility comes into play. Here you are, barely four months into this "game"...and by your own admission, WITHOUT A SINGLE CACHE of your own...and you throw yourself into a discussion about CACHE APPROVAL or CACHE PLACEMENT? Can you see the irony? I can do NOTHING about your incessant chirping, but if you continue to do so...on topics you cannot relate to...then don't be surprised if your opinion is considered as invalid!
  16. I knew I shouldn't have used "Kansas" as a for instance... However, you WERE the one who offered to make the popcorn! The issue (in THAT thread) was the denial of the cache based on an arbitrary "limit" that was at the SOLE DISCRETION of the approver, who implied that I was lying about my ability to maintain said cache. The thread was the culmination of a week's worth of frustration, and the comments didn't help to de-fuse it. The baits and name-calling (MYSELF included!) took the thread into all sorts of directions. The region and location are VERY pertinent to the discussion relating to the denial of this cache. As it has been pointed out, 150 miles is NOTHING to me, although it could be a termendous obstacle for someone in an area that isn't as wide open as where this cache is!
  17. Starting to sound a bit "confrontational"... I never stated that people were NOT allowed in a thread I started, I merely questioned the RELEVANCE of a cacher in Kansas (for instance) commenting on a Canadian issue, when they likely have no idea of the terrain, effort, distance, etc... Case in point...the above comment was made specifically to Ambrosia, yet you found it necessary to answer it in his/her stead. No, you probably came to this conclusion as you did on the FIRST item above. What I HAVE noticed though is that although people say they "welcome new ideas or comments" they don't necessarily mean it. Are you suggesting that the thread in question didn't turn into a swarming/pack-attack because I made some comments regarding what I preceived to be an injustice? Who had the nice big bull's-eye painted on their name? So what you're saying is that because people do this, it is acceptable behaviour? When someone does that to me in a restaurant, I consider them to be rude, obnoxious, boorish, busy-bodies who don't have a life of their own, and I usually tell them so! ...but that's just MY opinion. According to the argument you just made, DWI should be acceptable because it happens all the time!? Then, as I see it, I am still FREE to complain about other people butting in where they don't belong, correct? Thanks! Or did you mean that others are "free" to do as they wish but I shouldn't be "free" to complain? Purple, I don't own a horse. I agree that the thread was a bit nastier than it should have been, but what COULD HAVE been defused easily enough was exacerbated by individuals who had no vested interest in the topic at hand and were merely "stirring the pot"...some even offering to "make popcorn"! MY original post was excessive, but if nobody had responded with baits and taunts, it would have died quickly, and I probably would have deleted it. Sorry, but if I read a thread about some guy in Botswana complaining about a cache or a reviewer, there is NO WAY that I would try sticking my nose into the fray when I have no idea about: a - The cacher's history b - The reviewer's history c - The cache itself d - The country where it is hidden e - The area it is hidden f - Any special rules or variances that may apply. But that's just "me"....
  18. People...I UNDERSTAND that these are public forums! Ambrosia, there is nobody CURRENTLY in this thread who is out of place. What I was referring to was the "other" thread that was inundated by "others"...does that make sense now? Yes, this is a free country...but imagine that you are in a restaurant anf the people at the table next to you are talking; it is COMMON COURTESY to mind one's own business and stay out of their conversation. It IS a public restaurant, after all, but most people wouldn't consider butting into someone else's conversation, would they? Yet Public Forums are a free for all? Can you imagine the din if I went to EVERY THREAD in these forums and injected my 2 cents? I'd be "moderated" before the day was through! No Thorin, I don't want a Private Channel...see above. If someone came to this forum with a complaint, I wouldn't consider it my civic duty to rush to the defence of GC.com. 9 times out of 10, if someone has a beef, you let them vent and they eventually realize that they were wrong to spew the way they did and will leave with their tail between their legs. To have a half-dozen or so jump all over him/her only fuels the fire, and prolongs the argument. As someone else pointed out: Two wrongs don't make a right!
  19. Interesting figures, I would have assumed the numbers to actually be much higher. Going by this, an approver in each Province is NOT required...at this time! Having said that, I think it would be a good thing to get a few reviewers into "training mode" for the inevitable increase in numbers...doesn't hurt to "be prepared", and they could sub for holiday relief, etc. No it doesn't... I am as capable as the next guy when it comes to having a decent, adult conversation. What I find irksome is the comments that get injected from participants who aren't really a part of the discussion. But then again, if evverybody acted like adults, we wouldn't need moderators, would we?
  20. I saw nothing in your post that warranted a "retaliation"...I'll be the first to admit I can be a bit of a hot-head, but my anger is usually the result of frustration. Unfortunately, you were witness to the end result of a week's worth that had no end in sight. If I honestly thought that I could resolve this with more explanations, I would have done so. In his final remarks, he made it clear that this cache violated some unwritten law (that is left to the DISCRETION of the approver) and he wouldn't consider anything other than HIS WAY of rectifying it. You must remember that HE was the one that suggested that "some people lie to approvers" and then he denied my cache, implying that he thought I was lying. That's how I read it... I agree, as is evident in this thread! But as I suggested in another area, respect isn't a birthright. My job involves dealing with the Public to a certain extent, and I have letters from average citizens commending my good manners and gracious behaviour...yeah, I know...I can hear several other posters puking as we speak, but it IS the truth. Even in the general populace, there are people who are still cantankerous, no matter how well you treat them. Well, that is the first time anyone has suggested that I have "an agenda", but I guess you're right...and that agenda was: To have fun by placing awesome caches in remote areas! Alas, my agenda was over-ruled!
  21. Hey...I'd volunteer to be a reviewer. Although this proposition may be less than appealing to some, I tend to believe and agree with the old adage about "judging a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"... Funny thing is, this goes BOTH ways!
  22. But the "complaints of inconsistency" are caused by approvers who don't necessarily know the areas or the cachers involved. I would liken this to Federal Governments dealing with municipal issues...a bureaucrat in Ottawa will have NO IDEA of the repercussions of his decisions on denying John Doe of BrokenStick, Saskatchwean a permit to build a chicken coop! Bureaucrat simply sees figures and votes (or veto's) based on the numbers, he has no interest of the effect of his decision on the local economy or infrastructure. Yeah...this is a bit of a reach as an example, but I'm sure that EVERYBODY at some point in time in their lives, has had to deal with either a Federal body, or the IRS, or Customs...all rule-quoting automatons, that have no appreciation of the individual. That is the point I am trying to make. ...now if John Doe had already built TWO coops and let them become public eye-sores or hazards, then I understand why he would be rejected on his third application!
  23. Correct. This way local caches could be approved by LOCAL reviewers who know the area and the restrictions (if any exist). You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time, but at least the Reviewer would be LOCAL and if s/he turns out to be a pain in the neck, GC would be getting e-mails from the locals! Nobody is suggesting that GC should be removed from the loop, but if this game is growing at the rate suggested, then you are going to need more approvers...no way around that either! But if they don't have the power to Approve them, it is a waste of time, energy and resources and becomes the "other level of bureaucracy" that nobody wants. I think anything that would minimize the conflicts and confrontations is a good thing and is always something worth reaching for. With the current setup however, I don't see this becoming a reality.
  • Create New...