Jump to content

Always & Forever 5

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Always & Forever 5

  1. Don't really see the point. It's hard enough to get reviewers, adding additional requirements on them isn't necessary. It's up to the CO to ensure the rules are followed.
  2. Are you sure that's THIS week? I'd kill for gas prices like those!
  3. Unfortunately, it's something we see all too often in many aspects of life, not just geocaching. I think the answer has already been given in any/all of the posts above. He's a really good dog. Housebroken, gentle, and can play the accordian while dancing the rhumba. Are you sure you don't want him?
  4. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nothing any other cacher does affects the way I cache in the least bit. Nor will I lose sleep wondering "where this is going". Delete his log(s) and fergitaboutit.
  5. I'd rate it, "A little better, but still a stupid idea". If it was in my area, I'd put it on my ignore list, as there are too many other GOOD caches worth going after.
  6. Please point out where you were insulted? Nobody called you an idiot. If you don't see the difference between a cache that requires a mountain to be climbed, for instance, and your idea, then there's no use pointing it out. You're obviously not really looking for input, just trying to stir the pot. I'm not interested in stoking the fire any longer.
  7. There's a difference between caches that are dangerous and insane, and making one purposely that fits those categories. Anyone who would put a cache in the median of a busy highway, where there are millions of other places instead, is just trying to get someone hurt. What is unique about this particular median? Why wouldn't you want to put a cache out that would draw people to a different, or beautiful, or adventurous place? Not many medians are worth seeing, especially when you have to cross traffic to get there.
  8. Well, the use of the words "pretty dangerous" and "downright insane" in your own post pretty much answer your question, don't they? Do you really need this answered?
  9. Thanks for the info. I actually had Nuestra Senora on my to-do list for this past weekend, but never got to it. I'll be sure and do it now.
  10. Oh, that's ok. I took it as a joke. It HAD to be a joke, right? After all, who would live in CO when they could live in NM instead?
  11. You are. While you're at it, why not add a "driving" score, say, someone who drives 10 highway miles to find a cache gets less credit than someone who drives 10 off-road miles? Or, how about a "shoes" score? Someone who caches in sandals gets a higher score than someone who has $300 hiking boots? One cache = one smiley. Whether it's a 5 star or a 1. Why do so many people think they have to make the playing field completely level for all cachers???
  12. Here's a thought...who cares? If you want to knock off 150 P&G's in an afternoon. go for it. If you want to spend all day climbing a rock cliff to get the cache at the top, go for it. If you want to trade, go for it. If you want to log it, go for it. What you do doesn't affect me, and I have yet to be shown by anybody, on any forum, how what I do affects you.
  13. Well, maybe, but I like caching enough to NOT be one of them, with or without paper! A little extreme, isn't it?
  14. All the "must do" caches in New Mexico are in Colorado. Well, OK...but for the sake of argument let's say that there are some "must do's" in NM. Where might they be hiding?
  15. I log DNF's only when I don't plan to continue looking, either the same day or any other. In other words, on day one of a search, if I don't find the cache but plan on returning tomorrow to continue looking, then I don't log anything. After all, it's not a DNF if I haven't finished looking yet, is it? However, if I have looked, not found, and don't plan on coming back to finish looking (for example, a cache I stop by to hunt on vacation somewhere), then I log a DNF. For the OP to assume it's either my laziness or I somehow have "failed" if I don't log a DNF is just a wrong assumption on their part.
  16. Not true. You can use your GPSr to find a traditional cache (not-multi) inside a building, too. No other parts required. The rule is pretty clear, all it states is that the OPTION to use a GPSr is a requirement, nothing else.
  17. Yes, here's another example... Pueblo Viejo
  18. Hi! My family recently moved here from the Quad Cities, IL, and are living a little bit SE of Santa Fe. Anyone out there have any suggestions for the "gotta go do" caches in my area? Thanks, A&F 5
  19. There may not be a "need" to print anything, but some of us still "want" to print. The correct answer to "Why can't we print any more?" isn't "You don't 'need' to". The correct answer would be "We'll try to fix it". As far as I'm concerned, paperless caching is much harder than just printing the sheets up and heading out the door. I'm already carrying a phone and GPSr, I don't need to pack around a PDA at the same time, too.
  20. Please tell me where it states that in the rules, terms and conditions, or anywhere else, for that matter... Again, where does it say that? And, it is, except if you opt to become a PM. Nobody is forced to join. And, the operators of this website have no overhead, right? No fees to pay, no salaries to cough up money for, nothing, hmm? He doesn't have to. It's an option. He could opt not to, like so many others have.
  21. As a PM, why should I be limited to the number of MOC's I place (by the way, I don't own any), or how long they could remain a MOC if I choose to place one in the future? Too many rules spoil a good thing. Not every sport in the world is suitable for everyone. If the OP can't cache in his area because a $3 fee is stopping him, then just maybe he should find a pasttime more suited to his financial situation. I don't skydive because I can't afford it...maybe all the skydiving schools should waive their costs for me, hmm?
  22. The only "one" who should worry about verifying if the geocacher actually found all of those temporary caches is the event owner, which is usually the one who places the temp caches. Why would anyone else care? The temp caches I have found at events (eleven total caches, whoopee) had log books, so they could have been verified at the time. I agree they can't be verified now, but neither can anyone verify permanent cache finds where the cache has since been archived and removed either, can they?
  23. Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it. Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion. He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way I don't think anybody needs to delete any finds. If you own the event caches, delete away. Until GC changes it's "up to the owner" guideline, let it go. Why is this so hard for some people to not worry about??!?!? Why is it so hard for people to realize that just because the ability exists it doesn't make it right? I do. I also realize it doesn't make it wrong.
  24. Turning a blind eye to the practice is not the same as endorsing it. Jeremy went a little farther than turning a blind eye, in my opinion. He did say "twice". Some people have perverted this to mean that they can log an event a hundred times. Looks like they need to delete a whole bunch of finds either way I don't think anybody needs to delete any finds. If you own the event caches, delete away. Until GC changes it's "up to the owner" guideline, let it go. Why is this so hard for some people to not worry about??!?!?
×
×
  • Create New...