Jump to content

Neath Worthies

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neath Worthies

  1. Not in the UK they're not! Nettles maybe but they're just "part of the job"
  2. And there's the rub! Terrorists want to disrupt our normal way of life and to sow fear and suspicion. If a "normal" citizen is going to be stopped and questioned "hundreds of times" or more likely several times whilst going about their normal business the terrorists have won. I have no objection to being questioned if I am genuinely acting suspiciously but to be questioned on the say so of a "nosey neighbour" smacks very much of a police state. The logical extension of such activities will be the imposition of a rule whereby the police or other quasi-police style body will be able to demand you "show your papers" and not carrying them will become an arrestable offence. Do we want that? I don't.
  3. I'm fat. I'm fat because I eat too much of the wrong food, I drink too much beer and red wine and because I don't lead a healthy lifestyle. Most people who are fat lumps are like me. I don't have "big bones" or have a problem metabolism or a genetic predisposition to being overweight. I am a fat lump because of my lifestyle. Most other fat lumps are like me - we bring it upon ourselves. It's a lifestyle choice so stop acting the victim and demanding sympathy. We are fat lumps because we choose to be. I'd love to be slim, fit and healthy but to achieve that I would have to give up things I personally value more so I live with the consequences. I am what I am and I accept the consequences and so should all the whingers and apologists who seem to be in denial at our weak wills.
  4. Well there's a nice welcome! I happen to disagree with the original premise but this is a discussion forum so all opinions should be welcome, even ones you or I disagree with. Also there is nothing to suggest that a person's opinions only count once they have found a certain number of caches. I welcome new perspectives on this game as well as in other walks of life. Denigration of an opposing point of view and let's face it, actual insults do nothing to forward your cause. By all means argue, but please try and keep it civil.
  5. As the castle is owned by the National Trust they presumably have given permission for it to be placed so why not ask the local administrator? I wouldn't mention that your son has been dismantling the walls though as it is a Grade II listed building!!
  6. So much angst for one insignificant cache! If the CO is really sure the coords are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, why not go with a trusted friend or other geocacher while they look for it? If using the published coords with an independent GPS they are in the right area then all is well (if difficult!) If not, then a quick update will sort it. Job done.
  7. Well that sounds like a really grumpy humpy!! (If you're still not sure - I was only joking, and still am )
  8. Hey! Yet another map thread. Just what we need.
  9. If you want to complain about the site functionality wouldn't you be better off posting in the main Geocaching.com forum thread? I don't see how posting in a regional forum will bring your concerns to Groundspeak. Of course if you want to comment about UK specific matters, such as loss of support for OS maps, then here is fine. However at the current count there are 5 separate threads on the same topic so in the absence of a forum moderator to gather them all together perhaps everyone could concentrate on just one of them.
  10. Ah! As you are a self confessed cockney I assume you are talking about a merchant.
  11. There comes a point in most discussions, especially internet ones, where it becomes obvious that minds will not be changed, where opinions are firmly entrenched and where nothing of value is to be gained from further waffle. It's at that point that many people's interest drops to close to zero and boredom sets in. It's also at that point that one gecomes even more grateful for the Greasemonkey "Ignore Topic" script.
  12. Seems odd to me too but I like the polite, non-confrontational approach you have take. Too often people come here throwing their toys about. I would question the suggestion of asking the equipment owner to comment. After all I doubt very much if many bench owners had given explicit permission for their equipment to be used in this way. If that argument is taken to its conclusion, although I have no evidence, I suspect 90-95% of caches would be archived. No, I suspect the reviewer wrongly assumed it was a children's playground.
  13. A forum is for discussion. After some discussion it seems to me that one or two people are in favour of making a change but many more are content with the staus quo, even if not totally happy. This topic has a habit of being raised every year or so and I doubt it will stop. My suggestion to Standaltes is to accept that his suggestion is not going to be implemented and to get on with enjoying geocaching. After all there are not many "norther Ireland" caches to be found in Spain so the point seems to be moot.
  14. I was out caching the other day when a car raced past me going way too fast. I think we should all discuss irresponsible car drivers ad nauseum as well. Or maybe we should do as Stuey suggests and stick to the true subject of these forums.
  15. I thought the problem was more with Groundspeak reviewers being unduly strict in their interpretation of the rules. However you could be right and the problem is danger to a fragile ecosystem in which case they SHOULD be strict. Whatever, many thanks for the clarification and the excellent summary of the options available to everyone.
  16. Hmm! After reading this I thought I may have forgotton what I had said. I was careful to put my thoughts in a clear and innofensive way, or so I thought. Anyway I have just gone back to re-read my post. This is what I said: What is offensive about that? Your posts, for whatever reason (dyslexia being a valid reason) ARE difficult to read. I DO hope your Univeristy work is better written, maybe help will be available. Anyway on the question of the archiving of your caches, have you considered listing them on another listing site other than geocaching.com?
  17. I hope your university work is more intelligible and makes proper use of capitalisation, punctuation and grammar than your forum postings. They are very difficult to read. As for your caches, I've never done one nor am I likely to given our respective locations. However a quick scan of a a dozen or more cache pages I am struck by the lack of detail and imagination. I guess they might be suitable for "numbers hounds" but count me out.
  18. Why shouldn't people write a "proper" log in a micro? If a CO wants to be lazy and place a micro instead of a full sized cache he/she should expect to cope with the extra maintenance required.
  19. I humbly suggest that is not the point. Of course generous cachers help each other from time to time. What is different about this case is that even at the review stage there is a stated expectation that others will do the maintenance. This flies in the face of the Groundspeak rule that cache owners or a NOMINATED and agreed second party are primarily responsible. Can I ask a reviewer a general question? If I were to place my first cache and stated something like "I may not be able to maintain this cache myself so if finders could do any necessary maintenance", would this be acceptable? Ta.
  20. As I understand it the consultation is whether the GAGB write a new rule banning caches looking like fire hydrant signs NOT whether such caches are a good idea or not. From what I can see the general consensus is that a fake hydrant sign is a BAD idea for its potential to confuse the fire services in an emergency. What is less clear is whether having a rule banning this specific bad idea is a good thing or not. There is also debate on whether the GAGB should introduce such a specific rule or whether it would be more appropriate for each listing website (such as this one) to be rule makers. My own view is that reacting to each specific is probably a bad idea. After all is there a rule forbidding a cache masquerading as fake One Way sign, or looking like a bomb with fake wires, or looking like a lifebuoy, or ................, or .............. ? No there isn't although I would argue that each of those ideas is a bad thing and cachers shouldn't place them. If you go down the route of banning specifics, as time goes by the list grows and grows and very quickly becomes unmanageable. On this site I think it better to let reviewers use their judgement.
  21. So much for cache owners being responsible for maintaining their own caches. Well the cache owner is only a few months old and still in a pushchair :blink: The series is mainly 1* terrain which would suggest wheelchair/pushchair availability - I think that must be a 4x4 wheelchair requirement for several parts of the journey. From the Groundspeak Terms of Use So I assume the CO is under the supervision of their parents There is no excuse for setting out expecting others to maintain your caches, indeed all Reviewers require a valid maintenance plan before publishing them.
  22. So much for cache owners being responsible for maintaining their own caches.
  23. A couple of problems come to mind with this. First off many people use GSAK as their offline database and when a cache is archived (I assume that's what you mean when you say "de-list") it stays in their database. Also the details are never updated. The alternative is to say in your description that the cache is now listed on xxxxcace.org.uk or xxxxxcache.com or whatever. But that is not allowed by Groundspeak who won't let any mention of an alternative listing site in your cache description. So there is no way to let people know.
  24. Absolutely! Just because it no longer is listed on Groundspeak doesn't mean it isn't active elsewhere. Be very careful before you take it upon yourselves to start removing someone else's property.
  • Create New...