Skovar

Maybe you should be banned for spouting off when you don't know what you are talking about. You've done it quite often, and then you wait for (other) site volunteers to extricate you from the mess you created. I recently deleted my finds. If you wish to check their legitimacy, I encourage you to seek out the logbooks and view them personally. I have also found many caches and signed many logbooks without claiming finds online. There's a lot of evidence out there, in several (16, I think) states. Go find 'em. "Hee Hee"

And I accept The Leprechaun's apology.

Apparently you've never hunted a cache while in the company of another geocacher. I can certainly understand why that would be. Just to fill you in on how it works, sometimes the other person finds it first. Aren't they supposed to rehide the cache, preserving the challenge for others in the group? That's the way I remember it. When did "remedial geocaching" become the norm? Oh, that's right ... around the same time that the term "Numbers Whore" was coined. ;)

That's the website operators covering their own backsides while giving the website users a "wink-and-a-nod." It's not unlike the concept of "adequate permission" on this website.

Okay, I don't usually check profiles, but I made an exception after reading your response. I know "high-numbers people." A "high-number person" was a friend of mine. You, Mr. Leprechaun, are no "high-number person." ;) (Well, it is election season.) ;) But even today, your numbers wouldn't qualify you for the "chauffer treatment." Why, I understand that in some areas, newbies amass more than your total in a matter of weeks. :D Edit: Needed more laughing frogs. Sure wish I knew how to put a hamster scalp atop the laughing frog emoticon. :D Subsequent Edits: Then again, you haven't actually denied being chauffered to caches at GeoWoodstock II, so maybe you were? That's even funnier! But you have verified that you "were handed the logbook to sign" wiithout actually finding the cache yourself, so thanks that tidbit of information. :lol:

I would. Besides the "warning" on the page, were the "high-number cachers" also chauffered to the cache and handed the logbook to sign, or was the logbook brought to the event for them to sign without doing the cache? "Heee Heee" They think they're being funny.

If you were resourceful enough to find it before it was listed; good for you! Claim any FTF prize, and when the cache was listed, claim your FTF on the cache page, if you like. You were there first and more than earned the FTF.

Who/what/why is Quiggle? I don't know, I don't care, and I'm not in the least bit curious.

Really? Did you read some of the comments directed at ParrotRob? (I also think you need to re-read the OP: A dismissal does not mean an individual is "not guilty." Of course, the title of this thread appears to be an even more egregious misrepresentation.)... Really. So you disagree with "innocent until proven guilty?" A "presumption of innocence" is not the same as actually being innocent, is it? If you're not sure, ask O.J. ...

Yes, but in my area, most of the elected officials are also lawyers. Just adds more layers of lawyers to the mix. I suppose you must mean "poorly paid." All fun aside, I suppose that depends to what one compares it. To Bill Gates? You're poor. To a minimum wage single mother of 4, you're rich beyond imagination.

You're right. We should be blaming the lawyers ... most likely, a lawyer wrote the language of the statute; other lawyers undoubtedly vetted it. One day, someone is arrested or receives a citation, and a clever defense attorney miraculously discovers loopholes, omissions, etc. in the statute that somehow escaped the attention of all the other lawyers. The case is dismissed on some technical issue. The public is outraged and demands that something be done. The cycle repeats, and the lawyers are happy and well-fed.

It was a "wardrobe malfunction," but I agree with you that that situation was greatly overblown. A woman's breast, however, is not genitalia, so comparing Nudecacher's activity to a mother breastfeeding her child in a public place (a comparison someone made earlier in the thread) is specious.

What can't be called a "lifestyle decision" these days? Any list of such "decisions" would include everything from "Bible-thumping" to "serial murder." Sometimes a stunt is just a stunt. EDIT: This has appeared more than once in this thread now, so I will append it to this post in support of the contention that we are not discussing a "lifestyle decison" but rather a mere stunt:

deleted

Interesting. Here's my experience with NiMH batteries: I purchased 16 AA-size NiMH three years ago. Typically, all of them get recharged twice per week. None has failed yet. (Let's see ... that appears to be around 300 charge cycles per battery, so my batteries are now "middle-aged.") In my gps units, they seem to last almost as long as alkaline ... the same can be said for our portable CD players and the kid's GameBoys. It's true that my digital cameras drain them faster, and I wouldn't use them in a standard, ultra-high drain flashlight. Of course, akaline batteries hold their charge for a long period of time if not used; NiMH will lose much of their charge within a week if not used. So use them and charge them often!

I agree that NiMH are great batteries. I've also the EverReady battery/charger combos advertised for considerably less than the quoted price.

Really? Did you read some of the comments directed at ParrotRob? (I also think you need to re-read the OP: A dismissal does not mean an individual is "not guilty." Of course, the title of this thread appears to be an even more egregious misrepresentation.) Many of the examples in this thread deal with the issue of appropriate behavior at an appropriate time. Personally, I think if someone quickly removes his/her clothes in order to take a "signature photo" at a location and then quickly redresses, it is pretty clear the individual realizes that the behavior may be, and probably will be, viewed as inappropriate by others. Of course, "inappropriate" and "illegal" are not one-and-the-same. One should not make the mistake of confusing a mere stunt with a lifestyle or philosophy: Is that what he was doing during the event described in the OP? Really?? Or, more importantly, your loopholes. Thank God for lawyers, loopholes, and poorly written statutes.

True, but whenever some of us find an "illegal" CD in a cache, we remove it, destroy it, and toss it into the nearest garbage pail.

An alarm won't go off or anything, but its usually considered bad form. As briansnat said, how can you find it if you know where it? I don't know about that; I've read a few items about cache owners who couldn't find their own caches because of SCS ("straying cache syndrome," aka people not rehiding the cache in its original location.) I remember reading about owners who logged DNFs or disabled their cache only to have someone claim a legimate find hours later; I remember reading about owners who replaced their "missing" cache, soon to discover people were finding both versions. But I agree that owners claiming finds on their own caches is bad form.

Not these coins. The tracking numbers were submitted into a log on the cache page stating that anyone (whether you attended the Event or not) could log them. Besides that, the coins were never gonna be at the event in the first place! Passing a coin around at an Event to be logged by various cachers is fine in my book. The thing is, you need to actually hold the coin in your hand or at least lay eyes on it, before claiming it as a find. I don't have a problem with personal geocoins or TBs, but how many of these things are there? On some cache event pages, I see a hundred or more "log-ables" listed for events that were attended by perhaps 25 people? And each and every attendee logged every "log-able." (A couple of people have told me that at one such event, the host handed out pre-printed sheets containing the numbers of all the "log-ables." No muss; no fuss.) Except for the personal TBs/geocoins (which should be a separate category), I think that people shouldn't log TBs/geocoins unless they are going to personally move them to a new location. Most TBs/geocoins were intended to travel from cache-to-cache via "natural circulation"; their owners didn't intend for them to languish in a box inside somebody's car trunk until the next cache event. I can understand when those TB/geocoin owners delete all the logs and send the item(s) to the graveyard.

You know what else discourages honest feedback? Those cache owners that don't necessarily delete legitimate logs that might be viewed as critical, but rather post a note to their own page disparaging the seeker ... usually, such owner notes seem to be replete with venom, gossip, and lies. And even if the seeker edits or deletes their "offending" log, the owner note remains as part of the "history" of the cache. Perhaps there should be a special member-only forum area entitled "Caches to Avoid and Why." Subdivide it by regions.

Is that what I said? No; not at all. I agree that legitimate logs should not be deleted by cache owners, but if such a thing does occur, it's no big deal. Life goes on, and you still have the memories of your experience to savor. Anyone else's potential enjoyment of the (deleted) online log does not fit into the equation. Your totally inappropriate response is clearly just another one of your desperate attempts to create controversy. Ho-hum.

You have a clam for a relative?

I refer you to the paragraphs preceding the excerpt you used. Specifically: and: Got it?

So I guess it's the responsibility of the host of the Cache Event to make certain that all of the travel bugs and geocoins assigned to the cache page have been promptly logged off of the event page?