Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BelKen

  1. Have been walking around this country for 56 years now and have only ever seen snakes trying to avoid me. Or once cuddling up under the foot of my swag in winter to keep warm. You get into a technique with looking and lifting ie look from a distance first, if you lift reach over and lift so anything under will automatically escape away from you. Other than the bities, it is very safe in australia with humans having no natural predators ie bears and large cats. The crocodiles can be an issue heed all warnings and every other animal will have the exception, I have been bitten by a Koala, chased by a wombat, kicked by a kangaroo. One of the funniest things I saw was a lizard running up a ladie and digging its claws into her head. She was 5ft 5 the lizard was 3 ft long. Shake your clothes, put your socks in your shoes to fill them so nothing else can get in. I once had a native mouse take up residence in my walking boot one night, I got a shock he got squashed when I put my size 10's in. Emus are curious but will also cause trouble when they have chicks. Cassowarys are notorious attackers but are found mainly in the Nth Qld rain forest. If they attack they will try and jump and rip you open with a spike on their feet. I have been more frightened when chased by a wild bull in a paddock.
  2. What I get from this is: The OP wanted to know if there were any rules as to reviewers and FTFs. The OP's area got a new reviewer. The new reviewer was know to be an avid FTF hunter This fact of the new review has caused some of the local FTF hunters to be alarmed The OP is asking about reviewers and FTF's for personal piece of mind ... I am sure I missed something along the way, but I think that about sums it up. A few posts later, the OP added that the reviewer wasn't doing as he had promised: Delaying 24 hours is a reasonable way to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and I wouldn't have even blinked if that had been the case. 24 hours is the difference between an FTF hound and a normal cacher. The example on hand is a reviewer that is still competing for FTFs, hence the concern. Whilst OP asked a few questions some of the facts given by the reviewer in question seems to be ignored. They are a new reviewer who has now been reviewing for about 5 months. In that time there could only be about 5 occasions on 650 published caches where it may be said he may have "competed" for a FTF with any FTF hounds on the same day. Asd far as I can tell this is th eonly occasion where the question has arisen that the reviewer was caching within an hour. So the reality is 1 occasion in 5 months on 650 caches. But if a cache is not found for the first time within a day does it suddenly not become a FTF race. As far as stats go a FTF to a FTF hound is the same. Whilst he reviewer in question claimed 3 FTF on the day. No other cachers had logged those very same caches within 24 hours of publishing. Who was he racing? Another incorrect thing mentioned early was the time. The caches were published at 10.20 am on a Sunday. Not PM. Perception is not reality. Perception is what builds your own reality. I have yet to meet someone who will actually admit that they use their positions of trust inappropriately. Yet I seem to meet and read that there are a few people who believe other people will always use their positions of trust to cheat. Why the disparity. I trust people. So in my reality I don't see impropriety unless it actually exists. I like my reality.
  3. The are a couple of problems that I have with your statement. One is you mention what a reviewer might be able to do. I don't believe this reviewer does that at all. T The reviewer in question loaded the caches in his GPS and drove to the 1st cache in the series. (As per log). He got a FTF on that cache. He then moved on to the second cache in that series where he met another couple of teams who had completed and were FTF on the 4th . 3rd and second caches in that series. So 2 teams had completed 3 caches since publication. He then went with this couple of teams to another cache called bubbles and helped locate that. Then went on to find the 5th and 6th caches in the original series and was FTF on both of those and as of earlier today the only finder of those two caches on Sunday. I have been unable to fathom who the injured party is in all of this is. There is no question that he was a FTF hound having over 1700 FTF in his 5,000 or so cache finds. However in the last 6 months since he was a reviewer he has had 27 FTF. Anyone who knows the Perth scene would know he has not hogged any FTF in the Perth Area at all. Before he was a reviewer he would have accumulated most of these published caches as the FTF. Lastly there is the repeating theme of a 24 hour grace period. Why? Why not 1 or 10 or some other number? Or is there ever a number that will satisfy some people. Lastly people may wonder what our role in this fight is and I should point out that I am related to the reviewer in question. After returning to Perth we did have a discussion about my returning to the FTF game. My comment to him at the time was "could you imagine all the scuttlebutt that would cause" and it feels I would have been correct
  4. This is one of reasons a lot of old timers moved on. I would disagree with this statement. I think a lot of moved on because of the commercialization of coins and the flooding of the market. Collecting things that were personal, hard to find or scarce was fun. Being gouged on pricing on inundated with 5 new coins per week - and each in 5 finishes - was way too much. Why am I not suprised you disagree. But as I said it was one of the reasons. Yours are a few more. I felt that the forum was formed by a like minded group of people that were interested in coins. Yes. there were the sharks that tried to get in on the act. I would say that if open discussions had continued the outcomes may have been different. My recollection of when the new restrictions on our discussions came into place we were given that only grudgingly by TPTB who had no idea of where this was going to lead. I believe that the short sightedness shown then gave rise to what you believe is the reason now. It stopped being a forum of coin enthusiasts.
  5. This is one of reasons a lot of old timers moved on.
  6. The Mertat coin is still my favourite coin to fondle. Its like I am stroking the cat with my thumb.
  7. I was also a fan of Myst. In WA a cacher has implemented a Myst based cache puzzles. http://coord.info/GC1YGN4 is one to look at and there are other puzzle type caches from the same cacher. Because they are intricate puzzles as you are proposing he has put them on private property. There has been a bit of trialand error in impelmenting some of the puzzles and if you contact him I am sure he can share some of the design flaws he has encountered. These puzzles have been very well recieved by all and sundry it seems so the idea has merit. Good luck.
  8. We picked up $AU1,000 for finding and logging two remote caches in a geocaching contest.
  9. The pushing of boundaries is always welcome. Just stay within some parameters. We have seen many innovative caches that required no drilling or other type work. All of our caches are ammo cans under bushes or rocks. We don't have many complaints. The problem with this discussion is no-one is a winner. The cache owners are correct in many regards and if you want to take on the Grounspeak guidelines then the approach they are taking means you are pretty much assured the outcome they are chasing. I am sure if the list of the cache hiding techniques was published in the main forum here there would have been a avalanche of opinions and I would predict not many of them would have supported the cache owners. This discussion will be found sooner or later. One Bifrost logs mentions the a frog being found and picked up. This is in fact a moveable cache listed within the last rwo months. As far as Groundspeak guidelines are concerned a moveable cache does not exist. Yet there it was.
  10. Actually its not. The cache owner archived their caches. The Needs Archived log would have or should have prompted a reviewer contacting the cache owner. The archiving by the cache owner would stop that. The cache owner has repeatedly picked up the bat and ball and threatened to go home yet we are still here. The reasons for the Need archiving log is valid and should have been discussed. That doesn't mean that the caches needed or would have been archived. It seems it is only a few people including the cache owners that put a lot of store on who the team was that logged the need archiving. The tangent the team has taken the discussion will not help themselves or anyone else. The discussion of the caches in question with the reviewer would have worked out whether there was going to be a "black and white" interpretation. The cache owner preempted a decision on their own perceptions which I believe were erroneous. A tupperware container under a bush or rock is pretty much geocaching. If it doesn't do it for you then maybe this is not the place for you.
  11. Please be aware that the rules you quote are for listing a cache on the Groundspeak site. Thus they have the power to veto your listing. Do not mistake these rules as geocaching rules.
  12. In Qld it used to be a mob called Sunmap. I am sure there is still a store in Townsville. Bit far from you I know. However seach on Sunmap who I think was a sate government offshoot and then find who stocks the maps.
  13. The second most popular date isn't april 7th but july 4th. That makes more sense (for the US i suppose). Unless the format of the dates changed halfway down the list.
  14. Who can believe anything in that article when they wrote "Participants in the game go online to find coordinates and then use a GPS device to find waterproof containers ...." I thought they were finding a container listed on geocaching.com. Is there another website that just lists these waterproof containers??
  15. I think Groundspeak and cache owners wishing to control information dissemenation on the internet are in for some disapointments.
  16. You could try the Australian Forum here..http://forum.geocaching.com.au/ thats where most of us hang out. Plenty of Victorians that may be able to help you. You can leave a message in the general forum as a guest if you do not wish to sign-up.
  17. I always have a wry smile when I read this type of comment. If the ownership of guns is so widespread and liberal then why was there only one shooter in this scenario. (and many others) If all the adults were packin' then there would have been a gun battle surely. There were more responsible adults there than irresponsible adults so maybe more responsible people should carry guns. This makes little sense. If the father and uncle were carrying and were responsible they would have done just what they did, leave the property; not start a gun battle. The argument of having more responsible adults carry guns is often used for a case like Mr. Heim who experienced a robbery on his property in the past. He decided that if more "responsible" adults had guns, he could stop another theft from his property. Seeing someone appear to trespass, he "responsibly" shot at them to avoid being robbed. You ought to think a bit about when it it "responsible" to shoot at another person. I don't need to think about it much. My comment was tongue in cheek in relation to the comment that liberal gun laws allow this sort of thing to happen.
  18. Or maybe none of the irresponsible ones should. Correct. ThusI am glad we have laws that make it so .
  19. I always have a wry smile when I read this type of comment. If the ownership of guns is so widespread and liberal then why was there only one shooter in this scenario. (and many others) If all the adults were packin' then there would have been a gun battle surely. There were more responsible adults there than irresponsible adults so maybe more responsible people should carry guns.
  20. There is a locationless cache in existence since 2006 called nude up for a smiley.
  21. I believe you have it completely backwards sir. `Reasonable Doubt` is the measure a Judge uses to NOT convict someone. If the defense can raise a reasonable doubt in the judges mind then the judge CANNOT convict. Are you thinking of probable cause? That would all be true and make sense if there was a criminal case to answer. (Think OJ) This is not so in this case. So a Balance of Probabilities is enough if you wish to make a Reasonable Conclusion. So whilst you may throw other scenarios they must fit and outweigh the known events. So the OP I believe has made a reasonable conclusion on the known facts. The FTF's post did not dispute or change any of the known facts thus the reasonable conclusion can still stand.
  22. I highlighted the important bit in your post. Just as well us FTF people don't care what it means to you.
  23. Depends on why you hide the cache.I currently have 13 traditional caches hidden. They are hidden as best as I can from accidental muggle finds. Each one has a detailed description of its location including most times a photo or two of the camouflaged cache. I didn't hide these caches from cachers. Its about location. If I hid a cache for the purpose of stumping a geocacher then the hint would be different and not as forthcoming.
  24. Posted your request on the Australian forums. Hopefully a reply soon. Forums
  25. Didn't you say your daughter was "scared the cops are going to arrest us for geocaching together"? Are you now suggesting that she didn't say that, or are you suggesting that a fear of being arrested for a completely benign activity is not threatening? From your original post: "She asked every minute of everyday if we can go!!" "a real bummer to our geocaching experience." "It makes me wonder if I can even go geocaching with my kids in areas that are not a muggle packed parking lot!" "Who would have thought I would become a wanted man" "they were acting very suspicious" "Now my daughter has said she is scared the cops are going to arrest us for geocaching together!" So... I'm the one adding hyperbole? Awesome! Glad to hear it. A perfect example of why you should never talk to a policeman. You think you have said nothing yet all of it is used in evidence against you at a later time.
  • Create New...