Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeep_Dog

  1. Work with them. Give the Mrs a smile that you are taking care of the "cute furry" things. Perhaps make their life completely luxiously by feeding them. - or - If ya, got a mouse and ya want it gone, but you ain't got the guts, it keeps vacating your cache night and day, enough to drive you nuts, pick up the phone, leave the mouse alone, It's time you made a stand. For a fee, I'm happy to be, Your no-mouse man Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap
  2. Try this link : Compass Listing. A word of caution - make sure you look for one with the 4WD feature. Oh, and refer to the manual to ensure you calibrate it for your area - electronic versions can be waaayyyyy off.
  3. Untrue. If they really wanted to "bury" you for good, to ensure you are forever forgotten - they would Waymark you instead.
  4. I'd much rather the effort be put into the cache itself. I believe doing something to make your cache stand out and be memorable is a good thing.
  5. I find armchair caches of any type in poor form. If I had a puzzle cache like the one described, I doubt I would let non-find caches stand as a "found it" log. Now, if there was a "solved this puzzle!" log, then I'd be quite content with the geniusly face stat given to a fellow cacher. As has been pointed out by others in this and doubtless thousands of other discussions, claiming finds on a cache that one has not physically found does cause angst, disgruntlement, woe, concern, and in the worse cases inconvenience to other cachers. In my opinion, it cheapens the activity. That being said, I think my opinion along the lines of "so and so did this or that" is worth my time and finger pointing (well, I'm not perfect, as I realize that I can think of one case where a slippery slope type of situation got my attention and quite forcefully state my opinion). Yes, 9Key, I agree with you that this case is a slippery slope. Why does it bother you? Is it because that it seems to you that a find is not just a smiley? Sometimes, to some of us, there are certain caches we are quite proud to have on our list, and obviously went through great pains to log certain caches? If so, then I wonder why the personal email a few years back in a similar cache case where a similar opinion as the one you stated here as that you deemed as "unreasonable and emotional?"
  6. Since the beginning of 2009 in China there are some restrictions on the use of GPSR, among them one can not use them for mapping land use and in addition, any maps loaded into memory can only be of one's own country. If thses are violated, the user's GPSr taken. edit - translated for you, loco.
  7. So, let me get all of this straight. The theory here is that, for example, this cache with 198 finds "brings me more karma" than this cache with 18 finds? I'm not convinced that's the kind of karma I really care about. Fine. I've computed my "karma." It is 1.71. Uh... once again I find myself wondering "so what?" As others have already pointed out, from my very limited geocaching experience, the kind of "karma" as suggested here is the kind that net many micros in less-than-interesting places (just because a location can have a cache doesn't mean that it should have a cache), caches that have a lot of DNFs before the cache is verified by the owner, caches that are "replaced" before they are ever found, and finally caches that finally do get verified as "missing" are never replaced, just archived. Based upon my observations (again, albeit rather limited experience compared to some), I'm not sure this "karma" number has anything to do with true karma. Might as well just call it ratio of "number of finds on my caches to the number of finds which I've made."
  8. This was found near Three Rivers, NM. Good thing we were golfers, otherwise we may have been trespassing...
  9. Because I like to live on the edge, man.... Like that last one of yours that I found in SD? Yeah, that one. Total rush, man, opening that lock'n'lock. Nearly wet myself.
  10. Riffster - The cache is in my car trunk. What, you wanted the chain delivered at the next event? I'll go back and get it, if I can. The elephant was a bit tired, so had to take 'im back to the zoo after getting the can. I can still log it as a find still, right?
  11. DEE EN EFF Cos I'm DNF I'm Dynamite DNF And I'll win the fight DNF I'm a power-load DNF Watch me Explode!!! I'm dirty, mean and mighty unclean I'm a bad cacher Public Enemy Number One Understand So lock up your micro And lock up your ammo can Lock up your multi And run for your life The man is back in town So don't you mess around DNF oi oi oi DNF oi oi oi DNF oi oi oi DNF oi oi oi
  12. Bother. How about : because not everyone caches like you? When I take the kids, I read descriptions. I look for things that would indicate safety and some place of interest for 6 and 4 year olds. When all alone, I like the hunt. By golly, if I can turn a 1.5 difficulty micro into a 4.5 since I don't know a darn thing about the item for which I am looking, then that's what I'll do. Coordinates, terrain, cache type, and attributes are there for a reason. So, I'll grab a bunch of "traditionals" for a target area, load 'em up in the GPSr, and head out. No reading of description, just coordinates. For some folks, it makes it more fun. Logs? You have got to be kidding. I'll read them after I find the cache, but not before. Often, there are too many spoilers in logs. I want to find the cache, not know exactly where it is. Then there's hardly a "find" factor for me, you see? Yeah, yeah - DNFs may indicate this and that, but then again, I've found caches that had not been found in a long time or had multiple DNFs. So, in my limited experience, often information that can be gleaned from strings of types of logs is irrelevant in the end. With modern ease of technology, I can fire up a blackberry or iphone if I see a no trespassing sign or something else seems amiss (private property, terrain succeptible to erosion, et cetera) and read to ensure everything is kosher. Then again, descriptions and logs can be incredibly misleading. After a recent DNF (incorrect coordinates, that were updated in the description but no bother to update through the reviewer ), I read the description and log. I went back to the reported GZ, after thoroughly reading the description and all the logs. These were wildly inaccruate, to include a log from the CO, since the cache had been replaced/emplaced by the "FTF" cacher (though in their defense, they did not "claim" a FTF), and the replacement was not at all like the description from the CO. Using this info, I had another DNF. Only when I went back to the spot, in my traditional style of knowing nothing about the cache description and logs, but this time armed with the actual coordinates, I found the cache within 10 seconds. So, is this lack of attention to descriptions and/or logs any less of a mystery now? I think I've already said it somewhere in the thread - the coordinates and cache type are listed for a reason. If actual cache for a traditional is not at the actual listed coordinates, then as Riffster commented - perhaps the CO should consult with the reviewer. Yup, that's crazy talk, Mischief.
  13. The cache owner who establishes and maintains their cache in accordance with the guidelines is obligated to delete bogus logs. As outlined by the OP, the "find" log is not bogus. The cacher found the cache and signed the log. Hence, the find log probably should not be deleted. This is not to say, however, that commentary on the cachers themselves being bogus is incorrect. However, cache owners can't fix behaviors of cachers - they can only maintain the credibility of their own caches
  14. You know, the whole "OMG, YOU CAN'T LOG A CACHE THAT WASN'T REALLY THERE!!!" debate by the purists who also moonlight as internet forum trolls.... but, alas, they must all be napping today.
  15. And that, dear friends, is what we call "chumming for trolls."
  16. Sure. Am I going to drag forum mud into the real geocaching activity? No.
  17. I cannot fathom why you would make an unqualified and generalized statement like that, other than to be inflammatory and desiring to foster argument.
  18. Thanks for pointing that out, Starbrand. I've been off the geocaching net for a year before, and will do so again. I would be a little bit on the sad ( ) side to come back to a deleted account. Especially given that I'm a premium member.
  19. Ah! Is that what we are calling "archive" these days?
  20. They're small, so easier to conceal. (that's all I can muster right now)
  21. I would imagine it is more common in the winter months....
  22. Uh.... um. Let me guess.... Wal Mart? Am I missing something? I jest....
  23. Some folks like to leave a "personal touch" that is quickly visible. I'm one of those wackos. So, I thought of labels and thought - ew, I really didn't like seeing them in the log books of caches that I own. Hence, I use ink stamps. A pawprint. A bigger pawprint for regular sized caches, a little one for micros. I also usually always sign in green fine point sharpie to include the date and sign my name. If all that is not personal enough, for regular sized logbooks, I usually make some comments, and like riffster, waxe poetic. Yes, yes - nanos, no pawprint. Still use the green pen to sign, though.
  24. Question 1 - "What is the big deal about posting a DNF?" Answer - e⋅go  /ˈigoʊ, ˈɛgoʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-goh, eg-oh] –noun, plural e⋅gos. 1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought. 2. self-esteem or self-image; feelings. Question 2 - "I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?" Answer 2 - This is wrong. You as the CO is responsible to delete bogus logs. A legitimate find is not bogus. You could delete a bogus DNF, I suppose, but unlikely most people leave those around. It isn't even bogus that they didn't leave a DNF log, since it is not required by the guidelines, so you couldn't delete their non-entry even if that was an option. Sympathetic moment - I don't get it, either. I love DNF logs - both the ones that I leave (I'm up to 71 now!) and the ones left on my caches. Is this lack of DNF business "laziness"? As Harry the Cetacean points out, that is fizzy logic ( ). Possible, but not conclusive. I have a sneaky hide that I can regularly watch - and see many cachers looking, but nary a DNF on it yet. I can see how that may be frustrating to some COs. Ah, c'est la vie in the world of "me." Hey, that rhymes....
  • Create New...