Cpl. Klinger

Going out for my first trip in a while, so I figured it was time to get the bag ready. I'm slowly getting back in the swing of things, so I don't have a lot to go in the bag just yet. Right now I've got: -Magellan Triton 200 -USB hub -USB cord for GPS (can get power off the car now!) -8GB SD card with music -Whole bunch of pens (I tend to lose them) -Notebook -Trash bags -GPS holder for my belt (Surplus Army grenade pouch) -Backpack -Not seen: Fuji FinPix S2550HD camera -Also not seen: DeLorme Indiana Atlas. That always stays in the car. Eventually need: -Extra batteries -Extra batteries -Some swag -Extra baggies (ran out tonight)

oops, computer issues...

I'd copy this and keep it handy, a concise recap of 90% of the threads here. Thanks for the laugh!

Ok, if you insist...

I think that assessment is a bit harsh. Possibly true in a few exceptional cases, but I think that most of us have less of a problem with a geocache being blown up as with geocachers being blamed for it. The blame issue is a whole different story. Yes, these incidents are going to happen. It is surprising how few of them there are considering the number of hides. How many of these incidents have ended with the authorities actually charging a cacher with a crime or for the cost of the response? Ok, I give up. How many? From the few minutes I have spent on Google News, I only found reference to possible charges, in the story about a skirt lifter in Texas that got investigated last week (including requisite picture of the robot going in for the find). If there are more stories, I couldn't find them.

What would I know about quality caches? ~LOL~ Maybe I could phrase that better: to experience a different perspective on what a quality cache is. Nothing wrong with wanting to expand your horizons? Ah, well how bright is your flashlight and can you stay awake till 3AM caching? How about a 1M candlepower spotlight? And the 3 am, provided with a good enough supply of Pepsi, is doable.

What would I know about quality caches? ~LOL~ Maybe I could phrase that better: to experience a different perspective on what a quality cache is. Nothing wrong with wanting to expand your horizons?

I wouldn't mind going on a power run with ventura_kids, if nothing else to learn how they plan things out. That or bittsen, to experience some quality caches.

My better half Col. Flagg on a cache/ski trip to Wisconsin a few years ago. When we got back out to the car the next morning, there were 5-7 inches of new snow on the car. Me at my 100th since I started caching under my own name last month, a virtual of course. I only got 11 that day, but I had a nice time doing it.

You might want to think about adding a check coordinates link for you puzzle. That way people can check the coordinates for themselves. I know that some owner don't like the option but I have one for one of my puzzle caches, it has made thinks a lot easier for me.

Once I started on my own this year, I only really had a goal of hitting 100, which I have. 2010 is more ambitious: -Finish the Indiana Delorme Challenge (at 22 of 92 right now) -Hit 1000 by the end of 2010. -Complete a Busy Day Challenge

You honestly think that would be appropriate? Really? Seriously?

I don't think that TNLNSL is enough for a log, but then again, I wouldn't expect a full out essay on a hide either. My minimum, is at least one sentence. There are some though, where pictures are worth a thousand words. Log for "Atop Brookville Dam" Best. Caching. Day. Ever! And this is not an ammo box in the woods type hide, either.

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

Wouldn't you like to know.....

Darn, Godwined again! And I had a really witty picture to go with this, and thought better of it. Of all the luck!

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time. I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares? I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so? If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. Seems you're happy to go circles with me? Never was much of a dancer, so that's all I can do. I'm so bad I have 3 left feet! I guess, for me at least, I can see the willingness to discuss this issue. I really do. It's a great part of this sport that I really enjoy. However, I cannot get the willingness that some folks exhibit here of letting their knickers get all bunched up over this. Some here make is sound as if the end is nigh, when the truth is farther from that assumption. Handled badly? Check. A PR semi-blunder? Maybe. The end of caching as we know it? Nawww.... In the end, both sides can learn something from this debate. Question is, who will use it best?

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time. I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares? I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so? If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me.

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

Actually, those hoops should be jumped through by everybody. I put a cache in a park a few months ago, that already had two placed there. In a reviewer note, I told the reviewer up front that I had measured the distance from the other two caches and made sure that none of the waypoints used or the final violated the 528' rule. Sure, I could have let the reviewer do that and slow down the publication of mine and others, andI am still sure they at least did a quick check, but it was easy. And my cache got approved in about 3 hours. There seems to be a huge sense of entitlement around lately, that we should be getting a lot from the TPTB, and that they ask too much of us. These folks are mostly unpaid volunteers that do this on their free time, possibly cutting into their caching time. What's so wrong with helping a person out? I'm not sure where you're going with this. I can say this though: without reivewers, there would be no caches to find. A cyclical argument.

One cache exists, one does not. One cache is in full compliance with the guidelines, one is not. One cache would be an example of a challenge, one would be a lie. It took me 15 hours of actual search time to locate a quite challenging urban micro in North Florida. Many, many people, including me, DNFd it... more than once. It never occurred to me to question if the cache was a hoax. I hope this attitude doesn't become the default for those who fail at finding a challenging hide. "Hey, I looked right where my GPS thingy told me to. It must not be there! It aughta be archived!" Over time, the wife and I have done some pretty devious hides. Some we've gone back repeatedly for. If SF's hide was all that it was cracked up to be, then it was a hard, but fair cache. But my example of a cammo'd bison tube in a riprap field is just dumb. I'll take the hard but fair cache any day. I still think that if there was better coordination with the local reviewers up front when this cache was placed, this whole situation would be moot.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't. I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed. If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it. Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp. Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that? The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort. A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration. Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was. And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found. So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone? That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not. In both instances, no one has the chance of finding it: on one occasion because I hid a weapons-grade stupid hide, and in the other because I just wanted to be a royal pain to other cachers. I suspect that if SF had been up front with the reviewer and said that this was to be a fiendish find, described it (with pictures or drawings), and stated that there might be a bevy of DNF"S on this thing, we'd not be in the situation we are today. Although, I know I'll just get some snarky comment back about how we shouldn't have to do that, and that there is nothing anywhere stating that we should/have/ought to, I'll save you that trouble. However, it's this sense that we should wait for GS or reviewers to ask us for something, when we should be proactive in helping them. If you design a devilish hide, be proactive about working with your reviewers. They're helping us,so why not make their job easier? *edited for grammar and what not

2004 Dodge Neon, nearing 97,000 miles... That's at a cache (GC1T0YJ Country Breezes) this very morning. It's even a TB! Nothing extra, though I have thought about figuring out how to wire up a USB charging point right off the car, so I can plug my GPS in while caching.

Why clarify the policies or procedures any more than they already are? They seem pretty black/white to me. GS has no reason to step into this thread. What is going on should be between SF and GS and the Reviewer. Wooden Cyclist brought this into the public by posting this here. Perhaps he is one of SF's cronies? Perhaps not. But what is sure is that this is simply an anomaly. I know of several caches in my home area that have yet to be found, one of which is going on three years this way. Simply put, it's time for the villagers to put the torches and pitchforks away for a more worthwhile cause. Like micros in the middle of the woods, perhaps?

I tend to agree with the "take him to an event" line here. Especially if some of the CO's whose caches he plundered will be there. Knowing their is a person behind the cache might help guilt him into stopping. Short of that, let him know exactly what you think, and simply inform him that you will no longer accept any communications from him.