Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeep_Dog

  1. Wait for it, wait for it...... .... it is coming.... edit - ... undoubtedly someone coming in pointing out the "no precedence" portion of the guidelines. Here's a graituitous link ... (right there in the bold text)
  2. One last thought - I really do not see how repeated statements like this really help further an environment of understanding and pluralism that we are trying to achieve here.... seems to send the exact message and beas bad as the statement in post #3.
  3. Toz - thank you. I've been asking for some help to make the mental leap, and your example helped. While I still do not see asking for someone to pay respect as equitable to being an "agenda," I can at least see how it could be construed as such. The only agenda the reviewer was promoting was doing his job as directed by Groundspeak. Some of the things said about him here have been appalling. Knowing him as I do though, he wouldn't take offense because he would find the charges to be so laughable. With the number of times I've witnessed you get beyond frustrated with folks who did not read your posts or worse misinterpret your posts, I am surprised you have done the same. If a reviewer imposes an agenda of "no agendas" as directed by Groundspeak, that reviewer is imposing an agenda. Over the years I have been nothing short of appreciative of reviewers, and give them the benefit of the doubt given their altruism as volunteers. I certainly take exception with grabbing a quote from me, then discussing the personal tttacks, which I have deliberately steered clear. I agree some of the statements have been "over the line" if not "appalling." It may behoove us, especially moderators such as Keystone and yourself, to also step back. Post #3 by bramaoleiowa was a bit direct, and in the words of Keystone "if you cannot post like a grownup, don't post." The "f-off" piece can easily be construed as sophmoric, but since we've obviously gone down the sunny path of pluralism here in the land of Groundspeak, it may be a time to exercise some of the "understanding" which appears at least to be an espoused value. Indeed, some folks exhibit emotion on this topic - but for many of those who have expressed the emotion, their service and the war is unarguably an emotional events. Some of lost friends and family, and some use the "f-off" piece as their daily language, and what is construed to some as rough may not be so rough. I'm not defending anyone here, just cautioning if we live under the pluralism banner here, we may need to practice plurualistic tenets...and saying we can't be too critical of passion when some are equally passionate about hugging their local reviewer (well deserved, mind you) and about CITO/environmental issues, and are allowed to comment with free reign without having moderators zooming in with a patronizing tone (not a reference to Keystone). I completely agree, however, with the emotional response (sorry briansnat, contrary to your obvious disdain, I was not one of them knee-jerking with emotion) as being evident as some sort of control to things getting out of hand. Yet, what I've read by those who are more balanced here (we've had emotional rhetoric on both sides here), is that some consistency or clarification (perhaps examples - a guideline, not a rule) of agenda items may be helpful. Quite frankly, from many perspectives, the anti-support-the-troops movement is winning an agenda (hence being unknowningly reinforced by GS) by getting "support the troops" coined as an agenda. Toz helped me remember that since this is a global game, and that in some societies equating support of service personnel equates to support of the government's policies, then all of this discussion may be relevant. In light of this, I think, is where some clarfication of "agenda" items may be helpful. Quit worrying about how "we see 'support the troops' as an agenda item" will cause a negative reaction (that cat's out of the bag) and worry more about clearly delineating where that line may be. Most of us will shrug it off and move one, even if we feel it is a "pansy pluralistic move." Goodness, Stunod and Mischief - enough with the "precedence" drum beating already. I think the points were that some of these were published even under the guise of the new guidelines, so points are being made in regards to consistency in approval of caches as opposed to "here's a precedent, so we are right." I really didn't feel like debating/pointing out the dates of caches and the likes, especially since Stunod's wedded to a lawyer...
  4. Your service aside and noted, that's pretty callous. I'm glad you've come to grips with loosing buddies, but some haven't gotten to your level of toughness.
  5. Proven in your mind, certainly, since you insist on taking exception to my honest and heartfelt (dare I say agenda-free?!?!?!?) inquiries with patronizing tone and projeciton of logical delusions (is this "snarky?" I will have to look that one up....) I do not think that I have demonstrated any lack of understanding of the "definition." I believe I have demonstrated confusion in equating the memorialization of any group of people with an "agenda." Yet, everyone chooses to disengage in that genuine desire to understand. How is the concept of pausing to reflect on any population of people an "agenda"? Exactly what "underlying often ideological plan or program" is being pushed by a statement of "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." No one has clearly explained this - probably because it cannot be logically explained without revealing some sort of GS "undiscussable." I believe another another problem that I'm reading in this forum is that in itself political apathy and avoidance of any agenda can also be an ethos and a corresponding agenda. Hence, it has been implied that it would appear that the reviewer himself may be imposing an agenda. This concern has not been well articulated - although I must confess, one about which I really could care a less.
  6. Just a small point - it isn't my cache. I do not believe any of my caches have an agenda.... I try to avoid such things.
  7. With that in mind, would you consider this cache to be promoting and agenda? Leave No Trace cough cough.... Good point. Same with these? GC1KR2W GC10284 GCJ6KA GC198WF
  8. Again, all that I am asking is someone please correlate reflecting on the public service of any group of people with a particular viewpoint! What viewpoint exactly is being "pushed" in memorializing or remembering? There is indeed a separation between the people and the policy.
  9. Yeah, well, ok. I suppose there's a reason I asked Keystone for his opinion, as a reviewer, as opposed to a forum regular. We'll keep talking in circles, I suppose, since I, stating this once again, fail to equate honoring the sacrifice of a service member with an ideology or program, hence not meeting the definition of agenda.
  10. Ya know, I looked up "patronize" while I was at it... Alright, since you already think I'm stupid, there's no harm in me stating that I still "don't get it." "A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon" I fail to see how remembering servicemen and women is a matter to be acted or voted upon. I fail to see how it is "political" if that is what you insinuate with the "you may have to look up the definition of agenda" comment. Newsflash. Support of personnel does not equate to support of policy. Unless, of course, you wish to turn the clock back 35 years.
  11. Keystone, please enlighten me. I am truly not understanding. How exactly is "please take a moment to reflect on Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women" an agenda? Where is the "telling you how to think or what to think" present in that sentence? It reads as a request, not a directive, at least to me. How is a request to pause and be thankful for any public servant an agenda? Finally, perhaps so that I could fully understand, how would that be written to be agenda-free (the "just strike the sentence from the record" teaches us nothing, but as someone else stated, GS helping us by showing a "proper" sentence would be much more educational.") Currently, it seems to me an agendas are being pushed indeed, but removing that sentence is not an easy fix....
  12. I've got around 70 DNFs. I'm quite excited about getting 100 of them, and have determined the best way to do so would be to hunt caches soley with my iPhone. Really. I've attempted to use the iPhone to find 20 or so caches, and only found one of them with only using the iPhone. Let me tell you, it was quite a celebration with me and the little 'uns when we found it. A milestone, perhaps. Definitely a memorable moment. The other 19? Gave up in frustration after 25 or so minutes of searching, fired up the GPSr, and found the caches in less than 5 minutes (most of them within seconds). Uh.... right. Unless the cache is an Ohio barn-sized extra large cache, I wouldn't be firing up my iPhone to do this activity.
  13. Best cache ever? Well, depends on whether you would consider the cleverness of the spot and then tough hide or just cleverness of the container. For overall "best cache ever," I'd have to say this one: Twelve Labors of Hercules: Labor Nine Now, click on that puppy and read the cache, read the logs. That's one heck of a cache, both in placement and in the hide - although the container was a "plain" ammo can. As for clever container, I'd say this one. However, since finding it, I've found three additional that were an identical container (a hollowed out bolt which held the log).
  14. OP, opinions on this are wide and varied. What do you feel is "the right thing to do?" My personal view is that if I do not sign the log on a physical cache, then I do not claim a find online. In the case of wet logs, I too usually carry replacement supplies, and always a sharpie to write even on the wettest of logs. If a log is full, I find a spot in the margins to make my mark. If all the above would not work, I'd write a "needs maintenance" log about the situation.
  15. Looks like the volunteer cache reviewers are all over it. No worries, the guidelines have not changed since the last change.
  16. I'd could take Bonito Lava Flow (GCZ5H1). Family is in New Mexico (I'm military in Kansas currently), and am quite familar with most of the Aa flows in the Southwest. Have been to Bonito, as well. So, I'd be adopting one with an interest and close to "home" (as in "original geographical spot" as opposed to "home where the Army sends me" ).
  17. Well, at that one should be easy to find, since "it was hidden less then a mile away from the original spot" I guess that lends a new meaning to expanding the search area! Jim I guess the CO could just set the difficulty to 5 and say "cache on"! Hmmm. Probably re-list it as a ? cache with a difficulty of 5, terrain as unknown, give coordinates of original, and then give parameters of "within 1 mile." Oh, and offer one heck of an FTF prize.
  18. Nope, it is just you. (by the way, if you are approaching a cache, and the GPSr needle is pointing to the middle of a parking lot, you may be hunting a LPC. Push the left pedal there in the car, turn away, and go somwhere else...)
  19. I logged a DNF one of my caches once. (link provided for folks such as fegan who may believe things are as cut and dry as "if I didn't find my own cache I would replace it or archive it.") The next day or so, found it, put it back in the original spot. I never did post a "found" log, though. That was a short-lived cache, but it sure was a good one.
  20. Well, they may have a point about the forum geocachers being pathetic.... Yup, best to ignore, regardless on how much truth is involved.
  21. Best to ignore them, probably. The more attention you give, the more they shall take. I did get a huge kick out of one of the blogs (from 2007, mind you), which said the following: "Oh, what fun! I've also been lurking on the geocache forums. Current topics for discussion include the dangers posed by items found near caches (including broken glass bottles, hyperdermic needles, used condoms, dirty nappies etc); risk of attacks by animals when going off-track – including domestic farm animals and rats(!); and personal guilt from cachers who've caused damage due to careless choice of location such as near old walls, cemeteries or sites of special scientific interest. How much personal risk are these sad bastards willing to put themselves at?" Good stuff. Oh, how they would cringe and knowing just how much personal risk this particularly self-proclaimed sad bastard is will to place himself in... Treat it as fun, and it shall be fun. Treat it as hate, and it will become hate.
  22. 'Bout right on that, Rambler. That's been my experience lately, too. From a recent cache log I left - "As we strolled up to this one, a fellow with his dogs was sitting nearby. The dogs woofed at us, and we headed for the geocache - told him don't mind us, we'd only be a minute since we were "geocaching." Would normally not go for a cache in plain view of a muggle, but instincts told me this one would be fine, especially with kids in tow who can tend to distract muggles from our true intent. Quick find and signing of the log at a nearby table, then as we headed back to the van, the muggle got on his phone and said to someone whom he had called "hey, I was just thinking of you. You know that hobby you have where you have coordinates and find something with a GPS thang?" Mrs. JD politely reminded him "it is called geocaching," and he said "thanks!" and continued "yeah, that geocaching thang you do? Well, you wouldn't believe it, but this family just showed up and did one of them right here in my dog park..." and then continued on to other subjects as we piled in the van and headed for the next one." The cache is still in service, so apparently we didn't "compromise the trust" with the CO....
  23. I second that motion. Then again, I rarely read cache descriptions, so most likely I'd miss any against-the-guidelines ALRs for TBs (oh, yeah, and miss an "arrrgh" over an innacurate cache size listing, too - if you don't have an expectation of what to find, sometimes the find comes easier, eh?). When I have encountered that situation (although most COs have gone to a "please trade fairly" or "if you can, leave a TB" type of "policy"), I generally ignore it and take/leave TBs according to TB owner's desire for that TB's mission. I've had one log deleted for taking a TB or two without leaving any. I could care a less, so be it. With the CO's attitude, that cache probably isn't worth a memory in the online database for my "stats."
  24. Perhaps it has nothing to do about rebellion, or lack of permission, or anything along those lines. It sounds as if he mounted his bike to ride one mile, found it, and return home? In reality, he rode 23.3 miles on a bike focused on a dang cache? Golly. Sounds like you have a boy with some true backbone, endurance, and ability to focus on a task. We all get task-focused at times; in the corporate $$ making world that's called "dedication." If any of us have never said "I'll be done in 5 minutes" and in truth was still at it hours later, than it is those of us who can cast a stone at this boy. If he indeed did get focused on the task and lost track of his pedaling distance, he may indeed see nothing wrong with it. I'd recommend explaining the parts that really bothered you - pedaling on busy streets, no helmet - and why safety is a "no compromise" with you. Then, get involved with the cache planning with him to ensure he thinks safety. Then, let him go. Better yet, as snoogans keeps suggesting - go WITH HIM and enjoy the quality time. There's some positive points in his adventure (physical activity, determination, goal-oriented behaviors) that you may wish to focus on, be proud of, and then discuss the lack of safety and the importance of keeping caring parents informed.
  25. This forum has certainly been interesting to read. The approach, tone, and reminder of the intent of the guidelines, at least in terms of reading all of this, was overdue and much needed. I've noticed some trends. Ms. Jenn's topic was "What's a couch potato log?" which morphed into a holistic discussion of caches as opposed to a discussion of how some choose to log their caches. Which is why, in my opinion, some of the discussion on Four Windows has been missing the mark. So much generalization, so much angst. It is now archived, with a note reading "This Four Windows cache page, published on April 9, 2003, made innovative use of an old riddle in its creation. However, it did not comply with the guidelines in place as of July 2002 which required virtual caches to be a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. At no time did the guidelines allow for virtual caches of this nature." Actually, as I recall the guidelines then, it virtuals were a physical location, as opposed to an object. Objects could be used as proof of visit, as could other means such as photography, et cetera. The real problem of this cache, which is not stated on the archival note (and it is not in tune with what Miss Jenn has been discussing), is that the CO was allowing bogus logs of folks who have not visited the physical location. But I digress since I wanted to make a point that words have meaning, but keeping focus on intent behind guidelines brings things into perspective. By the way, Riffster, the North Sea on Four Windows was irrelevant. All that paddling would have been for naught. And, for the record, there indeed is not a house, nor are there bears, at the actual cache location. For those who have been to the location (more likely under or over the location), this was more along the lines of a Mystery Virtual cache (solve the mystery to get to the coordinates), and the cache would have been quite viable if the logging verfication was more stringent. Sometimes, one cacher's definition of "cheat" and "lack of integrity" is another's adventure. Back to OP, it is with this in mind that I think how this was handled was quite appropriate and respectful.
  • Create New...