Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pppingme

  1. Permission issues don't "change" just because its a chirp vs a container or something else.


    Some places have a very open caching policy, where explicit permission isn't needed, some go as far as paperwork with exact details, others, just a quick OK email is sufficient. Found out existing caching policy for the location and go from there.

  2. Everyone else has come in here offering suggestions of "Are you sure you posted a 'needs maintenance' log?

    No, you were asked if when you posted the log if it followed a particular sequence, which has been noted in the past as not setting the attribute. Specifically you were asked if you posted another type of log and changed it to needs maintenance. No one questioned if the log was present, and most people responding to you probably saw the log and didn't doubt its existence.


    "Maybe the CO changed the attributes after you posted it?"

    A very realistic possibility. You failed to say that you looked immediately after posting the log. It would be a valid assumption that you looked the next day and the attribute was missing, a possible indication the CO did something.


    I am somehow inept in using this site

    You failed to provide full details, then you argue based on the details you failed to provide. Failure is a sign of ineptness.


    All of the points suggested in this thread were valid points based on known behavior of the site, bug or not.


    Yeah, that's it. The CO hasn't logged in since January, so he logged into the system in the 0.2 seconds after I hit "submit" and the page refreshed without the attribute.


    Some of you guys are real geniuses.


    You didn't offer that information in your original post! You need to get that chip on your shoulder looked at before it does some serious damage.

    Actually, there is a bug with the last login date not consistently updating. I know of specific instances in just the last week of someone logging in, getting information that can't be seen if not logged in (specifically coordinates) and meeting up with me, while the site still shows they haven't been on in a couple weeks. So yes, the chip is still there.

  4. The problem with NM is that it doesn't draw it to the attention of anyone, and it just generates an email to the CO, if they are already ignoring their emails (CO's get an email for every log posted), then an NM isn't going to do much.


    I've logged Needs Archived many times with the note "Maybe this should be disabled until owner can check" and the local reviewer typically disables it right away.


    There's a lot of users that don't seem to understand disabled and refuse to use it. There's one hider in particular in my area, his caches seem to turn into high maintenance caches, and he will just post a note on it acknowledging its gone and saying he'll check on it or replace it in a couple weeks. Meantime cachers keep going after it not realizing its been acknowledged as missing. He has never disabled a cache on his own and typically leaves a scathing note to the reviewer if they disable it, even though the reviewer puts a friendly "when you get it fixed up just log an enable". He's been babied through it many times and still doesn't seem to get the concept. I do no think this is an isolated issue.


    A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it.

  5. Wow, someone posts a cache that might make hint or mention of some historical fact in the bible and everyone is up in arms about it, someone posts about blatant sexual deviance, and its not?

    Please refrain from voicing your social opinions, I am only looking for your opinions about if this violates GC.com's rule about promoting a cause.

    That wasn't posting my "social opinion", thats pointing out the clear double standard that liberals have. Big difference, although one most liberals can't understand.

  6. Just a few problems with the comments. First, millions of Christians do not subscribe to the "young earth" view, so a comment about the earth being millions of years old does not "push atheism." Secondly, since the earth is "in fact only six thousand years old," please summarize the proof below. Please don't ask us to rely on faith, summarize the proof.


    Off topic? We'll make an exception just for you. This is important - let's hear the proof.

    There is more evidence for "young earth" than there is for any millions or billions theories.


    First, all of the "millions" people just blindly accept carbon dating, which is severely flawed and based on circular logic (i.e. we think this is X years old, so when we compare this, we get similar readings, so therefore this has to be X years old, even though the first X years old has no basis or proof).


    Second, when you look at the fossil record, it is full of "anomalies" that atheist science just expects us to ignore, they even admit they are unexplained anomalies while saying since they are unexplained that we should ignore. All of these anomalies are easily explained by a major flood 4000 years ago.


    Third, and this is directed to you since you have the word "pastor" in your name, you either accept the bible as a whole or you reject it as a whole, you don't get to pick and choose what you agree and disagree with, to do so is to reject the entire bible (and at this point the majority of people do accept it for its historic value, but twisting things like claiming Jesus was a prophet instead of who he really is).

  • Create New...