Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by B+L

  1. Hmm, we might just come out of retirement for this one and re-join you. We had a great time on the last one. We could get a pony keg of Rainier this time.


    A keg is looking like a real possibility, assuming a hale and hearty lackey is willing to don this contraption:



  2. Slightly better but it is going to be a wet day. The snow level at 10,000' means any precip is going to be rain so be well prepared for cold and wet weather! If a trip to Camp Muir comes to the point where ice axe and crampons were required it is well beyond time to turn back.


    So how many folks are going so I know who to look for?

    Being Summer, we're not up for going in the rain/wet snow and/or no view. We're not out yet, but we're not convinced the weather is going to be all that great on Sunday. So, we're only weak maybes right now.

  3. A sad illustration of the rampant buffoonery that passes for caching today: these fakers have over 60K in cumulative "finds" and only one person actually found the cache. A +25,000 "finder" sets the poor example and everyone else follows along. The final "finder" even thanks the absentee cache owner for "maintaining" a cache that has been missing for six months and goes on to say they replace the cache as found. Nice.


    DoAsTheLocalsDo 2.png Found it (3292)

    ... A previous finder was more helpful and put me on the right track on what was going on with this cache. So I did what everybody else has done and improvised ... Thanks for placing and maintaining this cache. Signed log and replaced cache as found.


    PseudoCacher 2.png Found it (11972)

    ... Everyone loves a logbook.


    JustFakingIt 2.png Found it (8211)

    ... Had talked to a prior finder so I kinda knew what to expect at GZ, but the coords just did not seem right and the log just seemed weird, but we added our names to the log.


    MonkeySeeMonkeyDo 2.png Found it (5566)

    ... We got to GZ and quickly realized the predicament discovered by previous cachers. We added our names below theirs in the improvised log. TFTC!


    JustDontCare 2.png Found it (2627)

    ... I'm not sure we found the original intended cache, but a PAF to a prior finder confirmed that's all there is to find now So I signed a log where other cachers had signed, and we're calling this a smiley!


    KnowsItsWrong 2.png Found it (5922)

    ... Hard to say this one is really a find but we made do with what we had. PeerPressure had worked hard on this one. CO will want to check on it.


    FollowingAlong 2.png Found it (3658)

    I can't really elaborate further on what PeerPressure said.


    ApplyingPeerPressure 2.png Found it (25575)

    ... we found something left that was in the spirit of the original log that we used to sign our monikers.


    EthicalCacher 3.png Didn't find it (11806)

    ... I do believe that the cache may now be buried.


    HonestCacher 3.png Didn't find it (1229)

  4. Some of us have decided to head to Camp Muir again.

    Hmm, we might just come out of retirement for this one and re-join you. We had a great time on the last one. We could get a pony keg of Rainier this time.

  5. There is a local car dealer who is giving away free discover passes.


    Google is your Friend


    What I found out is The State gave this business 1200 free Discover-passes supposedly in trade for promoting the pass.

    Didn't that deal end last September?

  6. According to this you need BOTH a Sno-Park and a Discovery Pass for the Hyak Sno-Park ($20 + $10 for daily passes).

    And then there's the additional Special Groomed Trails Permit for another $40. Fortunately, you guys are parking at Gold Creek where you only need a Sno-Park permit.

  7. What a great idea! And a great hike, one of my favs. Unfortunately I can't make it though. Maybe the next one!


    The descent will follow the old logging roads back down to the trailhead. Round trip distance is a little over 10 miles and there are 15 caches to grab along the way.

    Yes, great idea! The last time we were up there we blew off most of the caches on the road because it was pouring down rain. The only problem is that we swore we'd never hike that road again (up or down), so I guess that means we can't go.

  8. A hike was not announced for October. Halloween and life in general took over. I'm targeting Saturday after T-Day this month but haven't settled on a hike yet.

    Better bring the hip waders. Cliff Mass says we are going to get some crazy amounts of rain between now and Sunday. 20-25 inches in the Cascades! And a lot of that will over the weekend.

  9. Looking on the maps (NW Trails/Topos & MS Streets & Trips) it looks like the closest TH is at the end of NF-1808 (it starts as NF-1800 at Bumping Lake). There are longer hikes from the southside.

    Make sure you check with the Naches Ranger District before you go. 1808 (Deep Creek) was heavily damaged by flooding in 2006 and it was still not repaired all the way to the end the last we heard.

  10. Lighten up. It was a joke.

    There are standing jokes in the forums about threads going downhill as soon as people say a certain word, such as entitlement or many other things, so I was just making a new joke about how the further along the thread is, the more the opening post gets twisted. I chose 10 arbitrarily.


    It is very often true though, the further a thread goes along the more the opening post gets twisted. No it doesn't happen exactly at post ten. It can happen anywhere, anytime.


    Have a donut .

    Your seem to have lost track of where you are. By "the forums", you actually mean threads such as The Stands in Off-Topic. Why would you expect anyone other than the people you hang out with there to get your so-called "new joke"? Out here in what you guys call The Dark Side, your insider jokes aren't going to quite so obvious, or amusing, and we find most doughnuts to be overly sweet and greasy.

  11. I wasn't saying the sky was falling, I was asking if there was a problem.

    I knew someone would take it that way. Hard to not get one's words twisted in here, especially anywhere after post 10. Isn't there a rule on that one?

    (No I didn't look, so don't get your socks in a twist if you posted in on post 11)

    I was more referring to Bill Lider's self-serving, breathless prose that prompted you to start this topic. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten those of us who don't play report button tag team exactly what is wrong with post 10.

  12. Do this - invest $5 in an ammobox, log book, and some trinkets. That's what

    geocaching should be about - not posting the coordinates of every halfway

    interesting place around town. Let quality take precedence over quantity!

    Best Wishes,

    geocaching.com admin

    We must have misplaced the special glassed required to actually view all that quality. It seems to have taken a backseat to quantity despite the best efforts to keep geocaching pure.


    The topic that never gets much mention in these discussions about virtuals is the arrogant, dismissive attitude. This note was described as a polite suggestion by the reviewer who authored it back in 2002 it to explain why they rejected a proposed virtual.

  13. This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides.

    Good points, but it's also kind of ironic that the same argument you are making here against power trails was also used against virtuals.



    Not sure how the same argument would have been possible to use since virtual placements did/would not block a physical placement.

    The proximity rule used to apply to all cache types, including virtuals, plus people claimed the sheer number of virtuals would overwhelm the "real" caches.

  14. It wasn't the volume of virtuals that overwhelmed reviewers, it was animosity that they had to deal with. Everybody seemed to think their virtual was special, so when the reviewer declined it it was like someone telling them their baby was ugly. The constant arguing over the things is what was tiresome for many reviewers. The wow factor has too much subjectivity and puts the reviewers in the uncomfortable position of becoming arbiters of cache quality.

    That's all due to the wow factor being imposed, so the pain was self-inflicted.


    The argument about all the crappy virtuals seems pretty bogus when compared to the all the crappy traditionals and it's just getting worse. We used to be able to use geocaches as a way to find places we might not have found otherwise. These days we mostly do the reverse. We go to places we where we want to be and if there's a cache there, it's a sideshow, not the main event. Life's just too short to spend the time required to sift through all the dreck to find something good. Some people are happy finding them all (or at least claiming to) and that's fine if that's what they want, but we want something better.


    Good virtuals are fun. A lot of people seem to forget that.

  15. And you missed my point..

    I get your point just fine. It just has nothing to do with what I said. Your linked thread is pretty entertaining, so thanks for that. So, if threatening to quit isn't holding the game hostage, then it must be extortion.

  16. PoochWirth, there are many big numbers cachers that actually have the integrity to find the caches they claim as found. But there are also plenty who are just going through the motions. Kind of sad really.


    When Groundspeak allowed some guy to log the ISS after a picture of him had been brought on board, they squandered whatever moral authority they might have had on this issue, so it's back to the basics: do what you know is right and then marvel at all the ways other people find to play make believe. They are the same people that cheat at Solitaire and they are legion.

  17. What the guiding forces and pioneers of geocaching fail to take into account is that the activity is out of their hands. The volunteer hiders that crank this money machine and keep it lubed have voted with their submitted caches. Cachers WANT to play hide and seek anywhere and everywhere and 528 feet apart for 10,000 miles if possible. Trying to mold that into a neat cookie cutter shape is a near futile effort. It's entertaining to watch though.

    You've completely missed my point. i'm just adding a little actual history to the mix to the counter some of the revisionist history we are constantly fed in these forums.


    Yes, the volunteers voted, but not necessarily the hiders and the seekers. What most people fail to take into account is how a small number of people have imposed their personal views of what caching is on everyone else. Telling other people how to play the game is allegedly an anathema around these forums, yet we only play the way we are allowed to play. If someone threatens to quit if virtuals are brought back. Let them. Thank them for their service and then give the a hearty handshake and a hale farewell. Holding the game hostage is a vile act and it should not be tolerated.


    Groundspeak will act if enough people get riled up about something, such as the challenge counts and the dropping of Google maps. I wonder if they would have brought back Google maps had some volunteers threatened to quit if they did.

  18. There are reasons why GS doesnt want to play police when people caches disappear. It will open too many lawsuits against GS. The audit log is like wings on a chicken.


    GS is a listing site, not a cache protector.

    Groundspeak is a listing site, not a _____. So we are told. Repeatedly. By the self-appointed mouthpieces who dwell here.

  19. This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides.

    Good points, but it's also kind of ironic that the same argument you are making here against power trails was also used against virtuals.


    Speaking to a point briansnat made, the so called outcry against lame virtuals in the forums was pretty tepid. However, there are plenty of posts by some of the key reviewers (reinforced with their often undisclosed user accounts. Boo!, but that's another topic), where they opine that virtuals aren't real caches.


    Here is the original post where virtual caches were first proposed: Topic: Virtual Cache The idea gets a favorable reception initially, but the haters are not far behind.


    Here's a little tidbit from that thread about why Dave Ulmer left the game:


    Im with the anti-virtual folks personally...

    As a matter of history, this topic was the reason the founder of the game quit participating.. I wouldn't post one of his "virtual" caches on the original website, only "real" ones...

  20. I've made my decision, I've archived my caches that are affected. Before someone jumps my case for being passive-aggressive, it's insane to 'fight' this issue the way that it's being suggested. The time and effort on my side is so much more than the thief's time and effort. I already put in a lot of effort and I won't be putting in more.

    Can't say that I blame you. I'd do the same thing, especially after receiving the usual "this conversation is over" from customer service.

  21. No it's not like that. It's like you're a complete stranger to the neighborhood, wearing a hoodie so we can't tell who you are and you're not willing to identify yourself when approached, and my house often gets broken into soon after you walk by. And the correlation between others walking by, the people I know or can at least identify, and my house being robbed is about zero.

    Don't be so trusting of your neighbors. That's how they catch you unawares. We caught one neighbor in the act of stealing some of our firewood. Another accepted a package addressed to us, opened it, and neglected to report it to Fedex. Our closest neighbor had a tortoise wander off. They put up missing signs all over the place and then two months later it showed up in a box on their front porch with a leg gnawed off. There was a note on the box asking if they were missing a tortoise. I happend to be home when the lady from the next closest house dropped it off. She kept it for two months and only returned it when it was going to need an expensive visit to the vet because her stupid little yapper dog tried to eat it. Nice. And that's on Peace, Love and Understanding Island. It's even worse out in the real world.


    I was only expecting a little closer look, a look that we can't do, to determine if there is something there or not.


    And yes, there is things they can do. They can help find the account by looking into situations like this. They can look and see if there is a pattern with this account and other caches being stolen. They can see if the is correlation between access from this account with other areas that are being robbed. And if, through these means or others, they can determine that the account is most likely the one used, they can coordinate with law enforcement and provide the IP address aka street address for a legal review. Or coordinate with us and a camera to solidify the evidence. At the very least, they could shut the account down so our PM caches would not be accessible to them. That's just off the top of my head

    Yeah, I know. But even if they did any of that, they are not going to disclose it to anyone other than law enforcement and that's not going to happen unless you catch the thief in the act.

  22. The audit log could be an indicator, but by itself it is not enough to be actionable. It's like accusing me of being the robber of my neighbor's house merely because I happend to glance at it every morning on my way to work. There is very little Groundspeak can do about situations like this, beyond acting like they care.

  23. Last I heard, the NF people were responding to a lawsuit by getting in there & cleaning it up, which would require a new road in to bring in the machinery. Now the people that sued to get the NF to clean this up are again going to court to prevent the NF from building this new road. Go figure. Of course, this is all rumor, but - if it's true??! WTH?

    The Washington Environmental Council sued (successfully) because they felt progress was too slow. As a result, The USFS acted to have the Monte Cristo declared a superfund site. ASARCO is in the hook to pay for the cleanup, at least on the public land. Bill Lider and the Sierra Club are now trying to delay and disrupt the process. The WSDOE is also involved and their feasibility studies aren't even scheduled to be complete until 2014, which really makes this topic kind of Chicken Little-ish.


    Here's the UFSA CERCLA (superfund) document repository, for anyone who really wants to know more: CERCLA Cleanup Projects

  • Create New...