mresoteric

Which is exactly what you are doing. Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Is not the same statement as: Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" only if the physical log has been signed. If GS wanted the latter, they would have worded it as such. That's what I said. But M5 claims that GS has spelled it out already. I just can't find it and he won't post it.

You are the one that said something was spelled out. I asked you to point to this and then you flip it and ask me to show where it spells out you can log online without signing the logbook. I never said that was spelled out anywhere, so why are you asking me that? Is it because you cannot find where it is spelled out that you cannot log online without signing the logbook? Care to change your previous statement? Its copied and pasted from the guidelines too many times in this post already. If you really haven't read the guidelines posted. Just scroll back aways. Perhaps my reading skills are not what they used to be. Can you please copy and paste it one more time for clarification?

You are the one that said something was spelled out. I asked you to point to this and then you flip it and ask me to show where it spells out you can log online without signing the logbook. I never said that was spelled out anywhere, so why are you asking me that? Is it because you cannot find where it is spelled out that you cannot log online without signing the logbook? Care to change your previous statement?

If it has been spelled out, please point us to the section that says "You cannot log a find online if you did not sign the physical logbook".

And it's misinterpreted by those without proper reading comprehension skills.

I think everyone agrees that signing the logbook is the defacto method of proof for claiming finds. But I also think geocaching.com could come up with better wording if they meant it to be the only proof acceptable.

If they meant it the way you say it would read "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" only once the physical log has been signed." The way it is written now leaves room for other methods of proof but only guarantees logging as found if the log is signed. Technically it doesn't even say you have to sign the log. Once the first person signs the logbook, everyone could then log finds if you interpret it strictly.

This is fun. What are your thoughts on lawyers?

I'm confused. Am I an idiot for being satisfied as a regular member or am I supposed to be outraged too?

I wouldn't crack it unless you can account for your whereabouts in June of 1999.

I'll lend you a few. I know you're good for it. Save them. They're better spent somewhere else.

You don't even have to be geocacher to be FTF, right? As long as you find it and are first to sign the log?

I've only been here for a couple of months and I think you are either trolling or unhappy with life in general. So if you are not trolling, then you are just sad.

I'll tell a cop he "can't" talk to my daughter. If he wants to get pissed because a layperson told him he can't do something, then he is welcome to make an a** of himself and get a warrant. That's OK. We're used to it. You sound a bit more reasonable than CoyoteRed. I get the feeling that you don't have to be loved, just respected.

My thoughts after a couple of months is that a lot of fun can be had for free. I haven't figured out what advantages premium gives over regular membership. I get a lot of satisfaction with my regular membership. I have found that people find a lot of stuff to complain about in the forums. While it is entertaining to read it's not geocaching. Either you are trolling or you are one of those people that is dissatisfied with life in general.

If someone could carryth cache back to the geomobile then could it really be considered a 5/5?

What's not family friendly about eating monkey brains?

There's also a slight chance that [edited by moderator] when the cop knocks on my door. What's your point?

I'll tell a cop he "can't" talk to my daughter. If he wants to get pissed because a layperson told him he can't do something, then he is welcome to make an a** of himself and get a warrant. Good for you, I guess. Personally, I don't see the value in pointlessly angering people who have the power to make me miserable. Even if you win, you lose. There is middle ground. Nothing wrong with politely saying "I'm sorry, officer, I will not consent to that." You will never get ANYWHERE being a jerk to a cop. They are well aware of what they can and can not do, and when they need consent and when they don't. You don't need to point that out to them. Whatever attitude you give them, they'll give you back. Being polite goes a long way in this world. There is nothing wrong with being polite. But if he's knocking on the door to your house, you don't HAVE to be polite. CoyoteRed seemed to be insinuating that we have to treat cops with kid's gloves. I'm saying that while I will likely be polite, I will do it because I am polite to everyone, not because he has a badge and might be on a power trip.

I'll tell a cop he "can't" talk to my daughter. If he wants to get pissed because a layperson told him he can't do something, then he is welcome to make an a** of himself and get a warrant. Good for you, I guess. Personally, I don't see the value in pointlessly angering people who have the power to make me miserable. Even if you win, you lose. I'm not saying I will say "can't". But I'm also not going to worry about how I get the point across. CoyoteRed made a point of saying that cops get upset if you tell them what they can or can't do. I'm just saying we shouldn't have to worry about how we say it. The Constitution gives us certain rights. If you tell a cop he can't come in your house without a warrant and he get pissed, then that is his probelem. If he doesn't like the Constitution, then find a new line of work but I'm not going to worry about what I say if he comes knocking on my door without a warrant.

I'll tell a cop he "can't" talk to my daughter. If he wants to get pissed because a layperson told him he can't do something, then he is welcome to make an a** of himself and get a warrant.

Those two sentences are the difference between what happened to you and what happened to the op. If she had called the police on you just because the kids drew a smiley face and she didn't investigate further, then you would be justified to be mad. That's what happened to the op.

Because child molesters don't take kids to playground? Maybe if she had bothered to speak to him she could have put her mind at ease. Instead she let him take a little girl down the road to rape her. (if she thought he was up to no good) Why does the call record say male in his 30's?

+1 I know things look different depending on whether you are the uniformed officer or the one talking to the uniformed officer.

Seriously? I've been caching with a nice police officer. And had a great time. Thanks again, Frank! --Larry I bet that police officer is a friend of yours who went because he wanted to. "Should go caching with you" makes it sound like they have some obligation to send someone out with you.