Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DubbleG

  1. I'm not arguing about going outside and exercising (assuming both are done following social distancing guidelines). Caching, however, requires physically handling of things that allow the virus to pass from person to person. In the case of new caches, this is far more likely because of the FTF hounds who go after them as soon as they are published. It doesn't matter if the cache is in the middle of the woods 1000 miles from the nearest person. The cache was placed and, in many cases, will be handled by someone else within a day. You can argue that the survival tests skewed the results. That may or may not be the case but let's say it is. You're still likely to be within its survival window going after FTF. While I disagree with any caching at this time, going after lonely caches or virtual caches is probably far safer than going after FTFs. I've seen logs where 1/2 a dozen people have signed the new cache within hours of publishing. How can you justify publishing new caches right now? Is the risk justified when compared to the benefits of waiting a month or two? The short answer is that we are taking chances with public health for something that really isn't essential. If we all hunker down for a few weeks we can probably get past the tipping point. Each of these little "exceptions' adds up and puts all of us at more risk. There is also the psychological aspect which comes from one person seeing someone do something and thinking it is OK for them as well. YOU may be using soap/sanitizer, not touching your face, staying 6+ feet away, etc. but the next person might not and it only takes one. If we all encourage "STAY AT HOME" it reduces the likelihood that anyone is out there taking risks that impact us all.
  2. You may be sticking to the letter of the law but you are also violating the spirit of what needs to be done to eradicate the virus and lift the restrictions. The concept is really simple, "STAY AT HOME". Anything non-essential that contributes to people going out is adding to the risk. What possible justification can you provide for continuing to publish new caches which, in turn, encourages people to get out and spread the virus? No need to respond, there is none.
  3. I would urge the temporary halt of publishing ANY caches until the pandemic is over. All that does is encourage folks to continue to cache when they should be staying at home. Latest evidence shows that the virus can survive on plastic for 3 days, metal for 5 so someone can easily transmit it from cache to cache even if some of these caches are off the beaten path. We're all in this together and should do our best to follow the medical advice which says to "stay at home". The caches will be there when this is over. If we don't have some solidarity, we may not be.
  4. I had the same experience with the Project-GC lab cache series. Would love to remove the logs but can't figure out how. Can anyone tell me?
  5. Thanks, found that shortly after posting. Resolution is already in the works.
  6. Hmm. Sorry, I thought the links would work. Does this one? https://www.geocachi...ef-53f92c34171c If it doesn't I'll cut and paste from the archive but would prefer that you see the original to know I'm not trying to edit anything. As for what the CO said, it isn't important and it doesn't change anything.
  7. I found a cache with a damaged container. I signed the log and posted both "found" and "needs maintenance" logs. After the CO replaced the damaged cache he deleted both logs. I sent him a message asking him why and got back what I felt was a disrespectful post. We had a couple of unfortunate message exchanges after which I told him I was blocking him and putting his caches on my ignore list. I thought that was the end of it but it was not. He has subsequently deleted my replacement logs for no good reason. All my logs can be found here: https://coord.info/GLNQY8Z9 https://coord.info/GLNQY8Z6 https://coord.info/GLNRAFCT https://coord.info/GLNT8B3C None of the logs violate Groundspeak policy and since I did find and sign the log I am entitled to post my find. What are my options to get the CO to refrain from what I believe is an invalid removal of my logs (in addition to acting like a child)?
  8. I think you forgot Irukandji jellyfish but none of that compares with PA poison ivy and ticks
  9. I have two that I sent off into the world and both have gone missing. Finders actually logged them as being in their possession and then never sent them back on their way. I would think that someone wanting to keep them wouldn't bother logging that they have them. I've tried contacting both cachers but have gotten no replies. The whole experience has completely soured me on TBs and, barring getting one as a gift or FTF prize, I don't think I'll send any more out.
  10. To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.
  11. Sorry, but you're being disingenuous. It is easy to say you wouldn't care on a forum where you have no emotional investment. I rather think you'd be taken aback if approached IRL by a stranger with sharp words. You're fabricating the situation to suit your argument. You have no way of knowing if the poster knew the CO so the "friends" argument doesn't hold water. Even if I buy your argument that he was standing up for the little guy, which I don't, the method used was such that the message was lost in the delivery. He could have been 100% right (which he was not given that my post had no ill intent) but because of how he addressed things what he said meant nothing. Finally, much as I love to have the last word I can tell that is a trait you and I share. This will continue w/o adding any benefit so I will close and leave the final word to you.
  12. How does that work? Logging is a requirement. I suppose one could just write "Found" to meet the letter of the law but, for me, that would be an insult to the CO and no use to anyone looking for additional help. I'd rather deal with the occasional yahoo who thinks it is their job to moderate my posts than to not provide meaningful information in my logs.
  13. I don't agree with any of this. There was no messaging system until fairly recently, only email. How would opting out of messaging impact the ability to provide answers to Earthcaches or Virtuals via email? In addition, conceivably, the CO of caches requiring feedback wouldn't opt out. And the mere fact that I can block some users means that there are valid cases to do so. All I'm saying is that it would nice to be able to do it as a default rather than having to block individuals.
  14. I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?
  15. In the strictest sense I agree with you that the 'rights' are the same. Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean that you "should". From a societal perspective I would disagree. I was taught "if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all". So expressing a positive opinion, solicited or not, would be OK but expressing a negative would be frowned upon. It is more than likely that the wording of the PM is what set me off and started all this. However, I still feel it is wrong to send an unsolicited critique to someone you don't know and who has not expressed interest in feedback. I'm clearly in the minority here with regard to what is appropriate with regard to unsolicited feedback. As I was the one who instigated this little "fact finding" inquiry I have to suck it up and accept that.
  16. Irony - absolutely! Where's the hypocrisy? (Seriously, I don't see it and would like to know).
  17. Interesting. When you put it like that I have to consider that, yes, my objection is more related to "messaging" and the appropriate use of it. My original post started with "I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message..." and what I find objectionable is that he had the nerve to make an unsolicited comment about my log. I suppose "technically" it is his business since my log was "public domain" but I think he is wrong inasmuch as he stepped over the line once he PM'd me. I'll have to think about it a bit more but I do appreciate the perspective. I also am somewhat bemused to find that I got caught up in the argument and lost sight of the original issue
  18. His unsolicited comments were expressed via PM, not via the logs, so that does not apply.
  19. So I can just walk up to you and give you my unsolicited opinion that I don't like your shirt and that's OK because you're wearing it in public? Again, there are no absolutes. We have freedom of speech in this country but I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits. Clearly we are at an impasse so at this point I am bowing out of this bickering because it is pointless.
  20. Things aren't always as black and white as you're making them out to be. Something doesn't have to be %100 one or the other. But perhaps we are getting caught up in semantics. How about I restate it as it is "bad form" to critique another person's log that is not in violation of the guidelines and rude to PM someone out of the blue to express unrequested criticism. Again, public vs. private is moot. The issue, to me, is that he had no business making a comment in the first place. It was none of his business. And you're incorrect about the person having had no choice. He had one that he disregarded - to keep his mouth shut. Yes, posting on the logs is a rule violation but not posting and not messaging would have been just fine. Was it "Pearl Harbor"? No. A spitball in class is still an attack of sorts and, again, one that shouldn't have been made in the first place. Maybe if he needed to approach the "highest court in the land" he would have thought twice about spouting off. As things stand it is apparently too easy for anyone to express their unwanted opinions. A PM isn't like these forums where one has an option to participate or not.
  21. Having forgotten to unsubscribe to this thread I saw this and had to reply. (I guess I'm not yet ready to "sign off" on this topic ) The short answer to your question is "I would rather the criticism not have been made at all since it was none of their business to do so in the first place." If the CO is unhappy with a log then they are within their rights to comment. If someone else isn't happy then they can raise an issue with Groundspeak but shouldn't directly contact the logger. That is the crux of my argument. I should note that even the CO has restrictions. I had a CO delete one of my logs because they were not happy with the opinion I expressed. They didn't refute my find, just didn't like that I felt their cache placement was disrespectful. I relogged my original statement and told them that if they removed it again that I would take it up with Groundspeak myself. They then proceeded to encrypt my log .
  22. In rereading the messages on this thread I've come to the conclusion that I have not properly expressed my thoughts about "privacy" with logs. I may have actually made things worse with a bad analogy. Hopefully I can restate things better here... Logs are "public" inasmuch as as they are in an open forum and available for anyone to read. Logs are "private" in that it isn't anybody's business to critique another person's log (unless they are violating the regulations). Doing so via PM is, to me, more egregious as they are then moving the conversation from a public forum to a private one. The CO and the log author should, IMO, be the only ones to comment on a log's contents. Obviously that isn't absolute inasmuch as other logs may reference helpful information, or refute incorrect information, in other logs. I took offense at the tone of the PM which I felt was an unwarranted attack on a my innocuous log. Silly, in retrospect, but I'm human and entitled to having a bad day. I still have no regrets about my log nor about blocking the cacher who felt he had the right to stick his nose where it wasn't wanted nor warranted. At this point further discussion isn't likely to change my thinking so I will close by thanking you for your opinions on the topic and will "sign off" from this thread. Happy Caching!
  23. I would equate this to two people having a conversation on a plane. While the conversation may be overheard by others, I would consider it rude for someone to barge in with their opinion where it wasn't asked for. That's what the individual who sent the PM did. He made it worse by doing so in the manner he did but even had it been done in a nicer manner it was still unwelcome. The key with what you wrote is "politely join in" which he most certainly did not. That's probably what set me off in the first place. Had it been a "nice note" I likely would've ignored it. From the perspective of whether or not he was wrong to send the PM in the first place we will simply have to agree to disagree. (I wonder if it is a generational thing. Today people seem to have a lot less sense of privacy than my generation. I'm not saying that as a criticism, just as an observation. I also think people are much too free in how they express themselves online. I doubt anyone would say something like that to a total stranger if it were face to face.) I do feel somewhat vindicated inasmuch as the general consensus seems to be that his PM was a bit over the top compared to my original, unedited post.
  24. A number of replies want the "whole picture" and rather than post numerous, individual, replies I think it is easier just to provide a link to the cache where my log can be read. Cache with log
  25. There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log.
  • Create New...