dead_white_man

<lenny_and_squiggy>Hello!</lenny_and_squiggy> Just kiddin'. My personal opinion -- which would run counter my legal opinion, if I were to give it, which I'm not -- would be to do it. Copyright law is hopelessly anachronistic, and I think that every little prick that damages it in the slightest is a good thing. A few trillion pricks later, and maybe it'll die. After the revolution comes, I fear. If you derrived your livelyhood in producing intellectual property, perhaps you might consider the theives to be the "little pricks"

I still have not looked at the abject silliness thread!

Same here in Ohio

Maybe I'M missing something, but the printer friendly option is still there for me.

You made the process of calculation much harder than it needs to be. DDD MM.MMM = smallest increment is 1/60,000 of a degree DDD.DDDDD = 1/100,000 of a degree 1/60,000 > 1/100,000

Hmmmm. People around the world pay big money for entertainment that matches that description, and they don't even get to be the hero. They enjoy the excitement... thats all.

I'll email you a prozac.

The problem here is, you have forgotten the unladen traveling velocity of he African swallow vs. the european swallow.

Those who choose to make up their own game are certainly welcome to... however I will delete their find.

There is an extremely large rash of poor reading comprehension in these forums lately. I said "It is circumstantial evidence of GEOCACHING". So, if you agree that this is evidence of geocaching, then your post is unnecessary. If you intended to disagree with me and actually believe it to be circumstantial evidence of CHEATING then so be it. But you would be wrong, unless you also believe that prior to the Gorilla Finders in TN posting about their run they were also cheating (which was obviously cleared up by their posts). My point is that there is not nearly enough circumstantial evidence OR direct evidence that this person is cheating. Unlike fake virtual logging where most people can't photoshop well enough to avoid detection, there is no evidence that they have cheated. They may not have legitimately claimed finds (IF the hiders of the caches found want to disallow the logs in which there is no signed logbook) and so they may have their logs deleted for that, but there is nothing that you, I, or anyone else here has presented that you can use to reasonably conclude that this person has not actually found the caches for which they have claimed finds. As such, it is speculation and gossip that leads you to your conclusion. If that is fine by you, so be it, but as for me, I will reserve judgement until I hear from them or it affects me in some way. I draw your attention to the rules. specifically #3. What are the rules in Geocaching? From the website. Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple: 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook Where you place a cache is up to you. More than enough to delete the finds.

No. It is circumstantial evidence of geocaching. Neither high find rates nor a null defense are incriminating. Witnessing the accused log into GC.com and log a cache that he did not leave his place to find would be evidence. In the meantime, logs can be deleted if the hider chooses to patrol their own logbooks to determine that he did not sign it and they have given ample warning that this is a requirement for their cache. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. I stand by my statement

This is refered to as "a preponderance of evidence". It does not prove beyond doubt, but certainly is enough for me.

Oh, I didn't think of that one. That must be why he can't answer e-mails inquiring about his reasons for doing this. That's it!!! He couldn't even open the ammo box without fingers.

Looks like the short answer is YES

Since most of ertyu's finds have been in Manitoba, a better question might be "in what province did you find it?"

Then what are ya doin with Mopar? JK

If you can trust mapquest, which is not always a safe thing to do, your coordinates place it outside the city of Dunbar proper. But that really isn't reliable.

This

Incidentally, I have done this cache, it is 400 feet above river level on a high hill. It is a little muddy in Ohio in march, but this is really not a very wet spring yet. I think the biggest part of the problem on more careful examination is thet the seeker is from Arizona. He is only accustomed to rain once a year.

I found this in the log of a cache near me. It is from yesterday march 3rd. I found a picture from the same cache on march 1st. How can you get over 200 finds if you are afraid of a little mud. I did not include the cachers name or other info because this is not meant to pick on anyone, just wondering if other people really expect to stay clean while caching in the forrest. (this is miles from any urban area) the pic: http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/log/displ...c31cf3b9fa2.jpg]http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/log/displ...c31cf3b9fa2.jpg

that will really charm them!

Could you try to be more transparent.

Hey DWM, was there a "If This Van's a Rockin' Don't Bother Knockin'" bumper sticker on the back of that van?: you KNOW there was

Me .... back in '75

hey I upped my count so.... up yours