Jump to content

Vinny & Sue Team

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    3910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vinny & Sue Team

  1. You are making entirely unwarranted and highly arrogant assumptions about your rights and powers. Simply stated, you do NOT have the privilege, right or power to ask an owner of a puzzle cache to prove to you or to anyone else that the puzzle is solvable. If a particular puzzle cache has been bugging you, and you really cannot solve it despite your best efforts, then you are free to ignore and to move on with your life. However, your failure to decipher/decrypt the puzzle DOES NOT entitle you to give the cache owner a hard time, nor to harass her/him.
  2. I agree completely. And, I happen to know for a fact that Groundspeak admins and the reviewers agree. You see, at one point in the past, my local reviewer contacted me to remind me that a recent finder of one of my extreme geocaches had posted a photo along with their find log which showed several other finders engaged in an illegal and unwise activity at the cache hide site, and asking me to contact the cacher in question and ask her/him to immediately delete the photo and all mentions of illegal activity in their log, or, failing that (that is, if the finder refused to delete the foto), to delete the log myself as the cache owner. In the case in question, I immediately contacted the finder/logger, and he immediately removed the photo and also rephrased his find log to remove any possible reference to illegal activities. So, there is no question in my mind about this matter. Been there, done that!
  3. I decree that from now on all reviews of new cache listing submittals shall be done in a mannger as if an occult hand had reached down from above and moved the players like pawns upon some giant chessboard. Further, all Groundspeak reviewers must be initiated and accepted members of The Order of the Occult Hand. Oh, and it is a poorly-kept secret that I already am a reviewer, but for privacy reasons I do not choose to reveal the names of the eleven sock puppet reviewer accounts that I use in my work. Why do you think that Sioneva's cache listing submittals keep getting rejected?
  4. I am sooo glad that you have returned to writing idiotic things that I can once again disagree with, as I had been getting worried there for a wee bit, when, a month or two ago, it actually appeared that we saw eye-to-eye on one or two matters. That worried me. That worried me a lot. It worried me even more than if I ever saw eye-to-eye with my arch-nemesis Sioneva or my arch-nemesis flask on any matter under the sun. ...sheesh! Your post is full of idiotic statements, as I am sure you well know, because I strongly suspect that your post was meant to be a troll post. However, briefly, assuming that you really are as naive as you wish us to believe; here goes: White Nose Syndrome is deadly to bats, with a mortality rate of over 90% for infected bats, and it happens to bear the name "White Nose Syndrome" ONLY because most bats suffering from the disease develop white spots on their nose as one of many symptoms of the disease. Your inane assertion that only atheists believe in evolution, and your implied claim that all religious or spiritual people cannot and do not believe in evolution is mind-boggling. The reality is that a vast majority of religions and religious people, and also a vast majority of spiritual people, believe in evolution. And the reality is that only some small fundamentalist sects within mainstream religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Shintoism reject the idea of evolution and instead believe in some variant of what is sometimes called "creationism". Have a good day. I fervidly hope that you do not develop White Nose Syndrome this week and lose 60% of your bodyfat and 70% of your muscle mass and develop body-wide atrophy and white spots on your nose, and all that kind of thing.
  5. Ugh... I happen to be dismayed at the fact that ALR's have, in effect, been outlawed at Groundspeak, but I have been refraining up till now from posting on this thread because, while I do agree with, and appreciate, your enthusiasm for ALRs, I find the title and style of your thread title to be very annoying, irritating, offensive and juvenile. Ugh.... In short, if you are trying to convince the admins at Groundspeak to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category called "ALR", you are going about it all wrong. First, your thread title is in ALL CAPS -- that is tantamount to shouting. Next, it contains a gross misspelling, wherein you appear to have written "I PAYED....". Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, you seem to entertain the notion that because you have paid a measly and miniscule membership fee of less than three dollars per month to Groundspeak, that you therefore have near-complete and near-dictatorial autocratic control over their policies. Nothing, in reality, could be farther from the truth, but the very fact that you attempt to make this insane claim is not only insulting to me and to my intelligence and commonsense, but I am sure that the admins at Groundspeak likely find it equally as insulting. I betcha that I am not the only person who is pro-ALR but who has been totally grossed out by the factors which I have iterated above about your thread, and so this factor will serve to limit the number of people who will post to your thread to offer their support. So, if it is indeed your intent to try to convince Groundspeak to to reconsider their decision and to perhaps eventually create a new category for ALRs, I feel that your effort so far is grossly counter-productive. I may, as time permits, eventually decide to start a more civil and coherent and polite thread which will invite others who wish to see the return of ALRs (but as a separate category) to briefly state their case and show their support for the cause. However, if I do so, the thread, and its title, will be civil, coherent, sane, sensible, and sincere, and will not contain instances of the gross problems that I have referenced above. .
  6. Here is a courtesy copy of the email/PM which I recently had my outsourced staff in India send to every geocacher in the world who has an account at Groundspeak, on my behalf:
  7. Yes. Lame. Agreed. Geez. Seriously. I wouldn't do that one either. Be careful what you root for. If lameness is the new criteria -- and it seems to be, based on the OP -- then hang on to your knickers, because this is only the leading edge of an earth-shaking purge. One man's lame is another man's fun. The second man gets no say in the matter, however, once the ban-'em-all crown gets their way. You've always had the option to skip ALR's. What, exactly, are you applauding today? Sadly, I must agree with your points. It looks like the new operational imperative at Groundspeak is to pander to the demands of the lowest common denominator, that is the mindless agenda of the numbers-hunters and the park-and-grab crowd. Sad.
  8. I must agree with your points. I tend, for the most part, to only go after extreme geocaches with a Terrain rating of 4.0 or above, and I regularly pass up the vast majority of mainstream/pedestrian caches as too boring. However, some of my favorite caches in the world have been ALRs, and, at times, I have even traveled great distances simply to find and log some truly great ALRs. I am very disappointed at this decision by Groundspeak, and it looks like, at least in this arena, they have sold out to the numbers-hunters, those geocachers who cannot stand the fact that there might exist geocaches where they must put in a little bit (or a lot) of extra effort before being allowed to claim a smiley. Worse, the admins have specifically mentioned that requiring that potential finders must first submit a special code number from the logbook prior to being allowed to log an online -- a practice commonly employed by owners of extreme 5/5 caches to ensure that putative finders really did find the cache and sign the log -- is no longer allowed. In effect, this throws the door wide open to fraudulent find logs by hoax finders. This, to me, is nightmarish, and, as an owner or a number of extreme 5/5 caches which employ such code requirements, it affects me, and every other extreme cache owner who employs similar measures, drastically. Sure, there have been some complaints over the years from a minority about ALR caches, just as there have been complaints about puzzle caches, extreme terrain caches and numerous other types of caches, but to eliminate the category entirely is, to me, asinine and insulting. In fact, ALL of the complaints about ALRs could have been addressed either by ensuring that ALL ALRs were classified as "?" caches, or even better, classified in a separate "ALR" category. However, for some odd reason, the admins chose not to do that, and rather, chose the drastic action of eliminating ALRs. .
  9. Darterkitfox, thanks for your note. Please understand that the self-appointed critics and the self-styled "haters" and sourpusses who may have expressed negative thoughts or feelings about your excellent and noteworthy find are only a very tiny minority of folks in the geo world and on this forum, and, in fact, I suspect that for most of them, it was largely a matter of sour grapes, that you found it whereas they did not/could not/would not do so. My own feeling, as is likely obvious from my earlier posts on this thread, is sheer happiness and amazement over the fact that the owner was able to determine that the cache was likely missing in action (or at least lost after the death of the holder) and that the cache was replaced, and over your amazing find. Congratulations! You went to a lot of effort and spent a lot of time, energy and funds to accomplish this find, and you richly deserve the FTF on this one. As far as the matter of whether the cache listing should have been archived pending its eventual replacement, much as I have stated before, I have never felt that the circumstances and facts surrounding this cache have warranted archival, nor even necessarily a temporary disabling, and rather, I feel that the way that the entire matter was handled (that is, the listing having been left active while the matter was researched and managed) by the owner was just fine.
  10. I would delete ALL the logs in a nanosecond, and I would post a log note on the cache listing page for each cache, explaining EXACTLY WHY I deleted the logs, and stating that I would not, under any circumstances, consider resinstating those logs (unless and until each cacher signs the lobgook individually. Period. And, just because I am me, and because I am such a lovable soul, I would then go the extra mile, and I would contact one of those "psychic voodoo black magic witches" who advertise in the classified ads on Craigslist and in weekly tabloid newspapers that they will curse anyone (that is, put a hex on them) for a fee, and I would forthwith hire her/him to place a curse on each of those idiots. It would be worth the one or two hundred bucks, just to know that they were suffering or dying of some horrid pestilence!
  11. Interestingly, the WEIRD thing about White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats is that, although it has been known for a bit over three years, no one has yet been able to determine whether it is indeed caused by a microorganism, nor, if is caused by a microbe, whether that organism is infectious, nor what that microbe may be. The initial theories all seemed to assume that it was some kind of bacteria, and then theorists quickly switched the focus to a fungus (and many websites about WNS still tend to assume that it is caused by a fungus), but lately, more and more experts seem to be privately leaning toward the hypothesis that the cause may be viral, perhaps a virus which is carried by birds, but the reality is that no one knows for sure. There is also an alternative hypothesis which posits that the primary or true causative agent may not be a microbe at all, but rather some kind of ubiquitous environmental toxin to which bats are uniquely sensitive. What we do know is that whatever the process and cause is, it it not as simple as simply some white fuzzy patches on the nose, and rather, "infected" bats show wasting of tissues throughout the entire body, along with severe loss of muscle and fat tissue. (gosh... ...it is almost as if the poor bats had been forced to spend time around Sioneva...) . .
  12. Much the same here. I visited the YouTube link only very reluctantly, as I do not have a whole lot of patience with most public geocides and what I tend to see as the inherent lack of grace and appreciation on the part of the geociders, but, in this case, I DID attempt to visit the link, but I had already resolved to watch the video for only a few seconds. Well, I never got the chance to see even that much! On each of my four attempts this morning to visit the page, I simply received a message from YouTube which read:
  13. At the very least, you will want to ask the forum moderators to move this thread to the regional section of the forum which includes Illinois and surrounding states; I believe that the appropriate regional section is titled "God-forsaken Barren Mid-West Region".
  14. Hopefully they are disinfecting their hands when leaving the cave. When I was doing frog surveys we had to disinfect because of the possibility of spreading chytrid fungus even though cattle and wildlife could spread it from one water body to another. [significant text above rendered in bold.] Well, one thing that everyone in the field is agreed upon -- if it is indeed true that the organism is infectious and that one way it is spread is by visitors to caves -- is that it is nowhere near as simple as disinfecting hands, and rather, the organism would be present on shoes, clothing and gear (including ropes, carabiners, stuff bags, etc.), and thus washing hands would accomplish nothing at all in terms of prophylaxis.
  15. Folks, just a quick update... Dwight, aka Snurt, one of the members of the FTF team on this cache and also a member of the current team headed by the team leaders Linuxxpert and Gipsie, sent each of us an email this morning advising us of the following sobering news: I was quite delighted to receive this news, and sent the following post in reply to Dwight/Snurt, with ccs to the team leaders:
  16. No. I am NOT selling off any of my Psycho caches, for I make FAR TOO MUCH money by auctioning off finds on extreme Psycho caches such as PUC #3, PUC #7, PUC #8, PUC #9, PUC #10, PUC #13, PUC #14 and Psycho Backcountry Cache #3 on Ebay.
  17. Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling us the U.S. Geocacher of the Year award does not exist. Where is this going to end? Will you deny the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Area 51 as well? I can tell you with certainty that there is no US Geocacher of the Year award, no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, no Easter Bunny and that Area 51 is entirely boring, mundane and benign.
  18. I can testify that the offer IS valid. I received the same offer at around 3 PM today, and Sue and I sold them 100 of some of our least favorite find smileys (all I can say is that we received over $600), and we were paid immediately via Paypal. So, no, this is not a Nigerian scam, but a legitimate offer, although I am not at all sure whether the agent/vendor is really Groundspeak, or perhaps a third party trying to profiteer on the hunger for smileys; the payment was made by "GeocachingCOM AGENCY", located in Los Angeles, CA, and that is a rather ambiguous name and the location certainly is not the same as that of Groundspeak HQ.
  19. Boy, You sure know how to stop a topic Really, folks, isn't it time that we let this silly thread die? There are obviously no such tiers as Platinum level or Thorium level memberships, and it is very silly to try to lure innocents and newcomers into believing that either of these levels exist.
  20. Bump. Bumping thread because this is an issue that potentially affects every geocache located in a cave or abandoned mine located in any of 17 states on and near the East Coast of the USA.
  21. Take a stroll over to the TB forum and take note of the repeat threads that are clearly visible on the first and second page- even in the presence of several FAQs stickied at the top of the page. Understand that at some point it can get frustrating for other members. If somebody posts in a repeat thread and gives you links to the previous threads they are doing you a service, they are pointing out to you that the topic has history and perhaps the issue has indeed, been talked to death. Discussions get disjointed and confusing if they are spread amongst multiple threads. If a thread already exists then the discussion is often better served by (reading it first and) posting in that pre-existing thread. I agree with your points wholeheartedly. Many folks deliberately try to abuse the medium by starting yet one more thread about the claimed "evils of PMO caches", or begging for the site to re-institute virtual caches, or begging the site to re-institute webcam caches, or any of a dozen other topics that have already been beaten to death (and then some), and it is certainly not wrong to call them on this and point them toward the numerous pre-existing threads on the topic.
  22. Thanks for your observations, and, to answer your question, regarding the status of commercial caves, aka "tourist caves", USFWS has announced (it is in their FAQ document, I believe) that ALL commercial caves are exempt from the notice, as are certain caves of "scientific interest", including a number of caves which harbor WNS-infected bats and which are being studied by scientists. These exceptions have caused a bit of a stir in some cave-related circles, for commercial caves tend to be among the larger caves found in any area, and to be significant hibernaria (aka hibernacula) for bats, and they also tend to attract LARGE numbers of human visitors on a daily basis, and thus their potential impact on the local bat community is IMMENSE compared to that of small "wild" caves which may be visited by cavers or cachers only rarely, perhaps a few times per year. So, in some ways, the whole effort is kinda skewed, and perhaps somewhat crazy, in part due to some factors upon which I touched in my cache disable notice that I reproduced in my first post in this thread.
  23. You know... ChubbChubbs are weird, because... even though my gut sense tells me that they are dangerous, and even though ten thousand websites claim that they are deadly predatory carnivorous killers, well.. you see... you know... it's like.... ...they are just SOOO cute looking!
  24. [First, I am writing this note in mid-afternoon while eating a large bowl of homemade spaghetti, hot Italian sausage and tomato sauce, so please forgive any tomato sauce stains on the post below.] Preface As you may be aware, I have been a long-time caver, and I have belonged to the National Speloeolgical Society (NSS) since about 1975. I also own one cache which has a stage located in a cave affected by the notice below. Introduction The following is an important heads-up for any cachers who own or visit geocaches located in caves or abandoned mines on or near the east coast of the USA. On March 26, 2009, the US Fish & Wildlife Service issued a nationwide advisory asking for a voluntary moratorium on all visits by humans to caves and abandoned mines in 17 states on and near the east coast of the USA, including all of New England and NY, NJ, PA, DE, (DC), MD, WVA, VA, KY, OH, NC and surrounding states as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the rather newly-emergent disease known as White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats. This request by USFWS for a voluntary moratorium to visits to caves and abandoned mines affects all geocaches located in caves or abandoned mines in those states. The full text of the USWFS advisory may be found at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wnscaveadvisory.html and a Q&A FAQ note from USWFS about the advisory may be found at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wnscaveadvisoryfaq.html In light of the above facts, I have decided to temporarily disable my Psycho Urban Cache #14 – Cliffside Catacombs and here is the accompanying log note that I posted as part of the "cache disabled" notice: And, here, for further information on the whole matter, is a log note recently posted by Indy-MD, a local cacher who, like myself, has been a long-term caver for many years, about WNS and the request by USFWS for a voluntary moratorium: P.S. I had originally considered posting this thread to one of the regional sections on the Groundspeak forum, but, upon review, I realized that due to the large area affected, I would need to post the same thread to at least three regional sections of the forum, and hence I decided to post it here, to the Geocaching Topics section. .
  25. Okay, I have been biting my tongue from now to keep from replying, but... since you asked, here goes: First, I find your initial post in this thread to be incredibly ambiguous, vague and confusing. I really do not know what you are trying to tell us and what you are asking, although I am able to make a few different guesses as to various possibilities. Next, I also have the strong sense that you have deliberately left a lot out of your initial post, and that there is far more to the story than you have disclosed. Finally, I suspect strongly that you have some kind of undisclosed agenda regarding this whole matter, where "undisclosed" is the operative term.
×
×
  • Create New...