zoltig
-
Posts
1368 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by zoltig
-
-
Will there be a boy "hiding" in the balloon?
I think I know of a family that can help you on this part.
-
There's already a sign.
Have you not seen Jeremy using it?
I said it before, its NOT a good sign at all. It means lesbian in ASL. I wouldnt use it.
Yes Yes we know it is ASL for lesbian.
My grandfather was a lesbian so that makes me 1 quarter lesbian.
Hey...we're out there.
My Grandfather was also quite a thespian (mostly Summer Stock), but my folks never said I have any thespian in me.
It's just an act.
-
Same as Danny Thomas, right? I think he was probably one of the most famous Lesbians of all time.There's already a sign.
Have you not seen Jeremy using it?
I said it before, its NOT a good sign at all. It means lesbian in ASL. I wouldnt use it.
Yes Yes we know it is ASL for lesbian.
My grandfather was a lesbian so that makes me 1 quarter lesbian.
Hey...we're out there.
What part of Lesbia are you from?
Southern end, 'course.
(I remember how he always used to joke about that big Lesbian nose of his. Oh, and Uncle Tonoose, too! He was also a Lesbian, I believe)
Are you sure you don't have him confused as Lutheran?
-
There's already a sign.
Have you not seen Jeremy using it?
I said it before, its NOT a good sign at all. It means lesbian in ASL. I wouldnt use it.
Yes Yes we know it is ASL for lesbian.
My grandfather was a lesbian so that makes me 1 quarter lesbian.
Hey...we're out there.
What part of Lesbia are you from?
Southern end, 'course.
-
There's already a sign.
Have you not seen Jeremy using it?
I said it before, its NOT a good sign at all. It means lesbian in ASL. I wouldnt use it.
Yes Yes we know it is ASL for lesbian.
My grandfather was a lesbian so that makes me 1 quarter lesbian.
Hey...we're out there.
-
DUDE! Have you seen that frog?!?!? S/He's freaking HUGE!
True
-
Big boxes too - lovely
Yeah. Not a micro in the bunch.
-
Thats pretty funny that the hermit deleted his sexual picture from that log and hasnt shown back up in this thread.
What a hypocrite!
Sorry but the old saying applies: "...Glass houses...stones?"
Here is the deleted image if anybody is interested.
-
Wow. A simple cache page is the bane of society, now. I would bet a kid would be exposed to more inapproprate sexual content from 10 other outlets before ever seeing in in a cache page.
Yeah. A quick look at your avatar should be probably first on the list.
By the way that is not meant as criticism.
-
Life's about choices. They're your kids, and no one else's. You can control what they can and can't be exposed to while you take them caching. For bigger kids, it's a little harder to keep them from being exposed to sexually mature topics (or caches), and you have to trust that you gave them the right morals and good judgement to make good choices.
More upsetting than the whole "this is vulgar, delete it now" theory is the fact that someone out there feels offended for me, rather than letting me be an adult (or a parent, in some cases) and choose for myself how to view sex in my family.
Take some responsibility for your own actions, and remember to stay in your lane and out of other people's business. If it's not illegal, or risking other people's lives, it takes too much effort to be THAT concerned about it.
I 100% agree with you about parenting. I have a 12 and 17 y/o. However as well intended as you seem to be, it appears you're a little off topic. It's about expectations in this case. i.e. I take my 12 y/o daughter to a G movie and it has sex in it. I think you would agree this situation would be bad. The same way if the expectations this website and the caches are family friendly (rated G) and some turn out not to be rated G. Now if this website said "Use at your own risk" then I'd know what to expect.
Off topic? You went off topic way back here, not to mention this last one!Silly Dog!
It's only Off Topic when somebody calls you on it.
OH! Good call, by the way.
-
I read it before it was changed and Yes i would of approved it and no i didnt find it offensive at all. I found it funny though!
Im suprised that you found the cache page offensive by being "suggestive" and yet you still posted this picture on one of your logs kind of a hypocritical a bit if ya ask me.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...0d-111f066c91d8
aahhhmmmmmm----That's pic is just nasty.
"Reviewer!! Reviewer!!!
I think there needs to be some reprimand for posting this pic on a cache page!"
Hang on...Did he say;
stealthy as a Cunning FoxMrs B. Isn't that British slang?
-
I think its kind of funny that this thread has caused many people to look at her caches than would otherwise have seen them. Thanks for doing the deed, GPS-Hermit!! Its been fun!If you'll look at the CO's other hides, you'll see the rest of this series. #6 was mild with its suggestions compared to others, especially #1. I agree, kinda inappropriate, not vulgar. Smaller kids won't get these references and older people, if offended, just don't search for this series.Yeah I had the same thought earlier...Good advertising.
-
I approve much less of using the cache page as a forum to air your grievances. Either contact a reviewer or don't, but leave the cache page alone.
reviewer has been contacted - we will see what is said - I really want to know what the limits are in Geo-caching
This is a adult theme and we are not allowed adult material in the caches, along with weapons, drugs or knives. IN keeping with that we do have our limits on what should be done and this one is way over the limit.
Yeah bad form to post to a cache page like that.
-
Stuff like that can turn you into an Innkeeper later on in life.
-
Would you have approved it! this is a family oriented game and I don't see a place for to celebrate what one did in this case as appropriate for a cache! Would you have approved it.
No approval made. Just reviewed. Ask the volunteer reviewer.
-
People need to realize, you can't please everybody. If you are hiding caches just to get people to write a paragraph telling you how great the cache was just to elevate your self-esteem, then you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons. I'm new to geocaching, so I'm sure some won't take my post seriously, but I love this sport for many reasons. Most of which is that I get to spend time with my family finding the caches. I truly do appreciate all the caches people have, even the quick park and grabs and lamp posts. We may find 20 or so caches in one day and get home late. I may wait till the next morning to log them all in. I don't think it is necessary for me to write a paragraph for the many lamp post finds and such. A simple TFTC should be enough. I do write more if something interesting happens or if the cache is really special. I have a few caches myself, and I don't mind TFTC or such at all. I am just happy they found it and that's enough for me. So in closing, just remember, for some people, geocaching is there life, and they will be offended by a TFTC. Others (like me) enjoy it as a hobby and simply don't have the time or don't feel the need to write a thesis on every cache. Let the rude comments begin!
Well the thread isn't really about "TFTC" as a log but about bulk logging.
-
Thus, my proposal in post #2 for the panel of retired schoolteachers to judge each and every log submission for originality, spelling, grammar, plot and character development.
Can we get that same panel to review cache listings? At least for grammar and spelling?
I thank this is a great idea two. I wOod like to heRe what the review panel?.! says when they find miss-steaks. Are they going to correct them on there own!?! or will the cash owner half to dew it?
It's a great idea to have the logs reviewed for spelling and grammar. I think the forum moderators should be tasked with that assignment.
-
Say something about my cache in your log - something please.
Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.
I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.
Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.
As long as your cache isn't the umpteenth bison tube in a pine tree or blinky on a guardrail I've found today I'm sure I will find something to say.
Not StarBrand's caches. At least the ones that I have found thus far.
Example:
zoltig found ChRockI finally got the phone out for a picture of the chimney in the clouds and drizzle.
Nice cache location. I looked right at it and didn't realize that was the cache. The cache is in good shape and the location to view the Chimney was cool.
Thanks for the cache.
And the photo op:
-
<snip> That journalist and his camera man ain't free you know.
PSSST
The "camera man" is a woman.
I enjoyed visiting with Reid and Eric as we made the video and talked about how geocaching and 4 wheeling work well together.
It was fun to watch how Reid would set up the shots and take different angles from within the Jeep even as we got jostled along the trail.
That was a fun day.
-
To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.
"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.
Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.
There is nothing I can add to this. Well put.
briansnat Posted Today, 09:10 PMQUOTE(GRANPA ALEX @ Nov 22 2010, 10:00 PM)It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.
Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?
It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?
It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.
Sad that we've come to that point.
It is sad.
I feel the true heart and soul of geocaching, the way it was meant to be, does not exist these days.
well maybe you should find a differant hobbie if you feel that way.
SS
To avoid a gut wrenching remark to your statement, I decided to wait awhile to respond.
I feel the way I do because I so love this hobby and I do not want to see it deteriorate. For some reason, PowerTrails and smilies en masse seem to have gotten the frogs attention. Now it we have to have speed post "found it" log options for some people?
BD's response fills the bill here. I too, would "rather fight for it."
So for your callous remark, ...
-
To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.
"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.
Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.
There is nothing I can add to this. Well put.
briansnat Posted Today, 09:10 PMQUOTE(GRANPA ALEX @ Nov 22 2010, 10:00 PM)It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.
Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?
It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?
It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.
Sad that we've come to that point.
It is sad.
I feel the true heart and soul of geocaching, the way it was meant to be, does not exist these days.
-
Well, it's by no means anywhere near the oldest cache with it's original logbook, but a local cache that I adopted Tucker's Trove (hidden 3/3/02) still has it's 'original' logbook. The cache was heavily damaged in a wildfire, but the logbook contents survived mostly intact (but incredibly fragile). I scanned in and reprinted all the pages, and have bound them into a 'new original' logbook with plenty more new blank pages added. I think it turned out pretty well. Scanned Logbook Pages
It is both interesting and a little sad to see the length of the logs go down over the years. TFTC!
I am curious as to why the OP was asking - if for other than general curiosity...
Good job on scanning the pages and preserving the log. Thanks for posting. People actually, for the most part, made a log entry that described their hunt or the day or what they were doing when they found the cache...
The Wright Cache has its original logbook. This was placed back in the day when it was not uncommon to place a disposable camera in the cache so people could photo-document their find as well.
I had recovered the camera and posted the pics to the cache page. It was not a requirement to take a picture but most people did and always fun to look through. Kind of like preserving a bit of geocache history.
-
Something bad happened for all San Diego fans shortly before you posted that....
15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct!
I don't know WHAT you are talking about.
You don't say!?....
I never heard about an earthquake. I thought the fires/rain/mudslides were North of SD....
And may I add that I have been so concerned about little Falcon Heene that I hardly watch anything else.
O yeah, I can see how you would be a proud Denver fan ... a
UFO nut-case balloony, an annual Mike the Headless Chicken
Festival, and an aging rocket-scientist not to mention names.
Sheesh!
You can't be talking about me. I'm a young guy.
Nah!
You are the aging rocket-scientist from Alabama!
-
Seems like a MAGOR issue.
Sputnik 2010 a loggable Space Cache!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
It had to start somewhere.
Launch Time: Friday, October 4, 1957, 19:12 UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)
Launch Time: Friday, October 4, 1957, 22:12 MSK (Moscow Standard Time at the launch site)
Launch Time: Friday, October 4, 1957, 15:12 EDT (3:12 p.m.)
Launch Site: Baikonur Complex, U.S.S.R.
Signal from Sputnik first heard on U.S. radio: The evening of Friday, October 4, 1957.
Sputnik I burns up as it reenters Earth's atmosphere: January 4, 1958.