jerryo

I get my rock shoes resoled at feet first as they offer a postal service, good value and excellent products.

I would be inclined to say that they are under a lot of pressure from the side, rather than above. The people on the side my feel they are under pressure from above, though. Therein sometimes lies the dadgum poblem. "Dadgum": I ask you.

In my experience some people won't read them. Edited 'cos I can't quote properly

That's good to know! Try here.

I think there was over-moderation in this case: as far as I was concerned, I had said what I wanted to and the thread could have remained open. I had nothing further to add but I’m certainly going to defend myself publicly should others see fit to take a thread off topic in order to have a punt. To keep this one on topic in terms of moderating and the reason for the closure of the Muggle This! thread (Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into […] a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, we ask that you please use the Private Message feature), bear in mind that I was communicating by email to the other party but they were replying one-sidedly by posting logs on the cache page. In terms of this thread, then, how is one supposed to behave if replies to emails and PMs are done the way these were done?

The Spokes quotes are in italics Please do not avoid the issue here how is an icon on a GPS unit giving anyone all this information. I wasn’t avoiding the issue. It’s not an issue unless you chose to make it one. Most cachers check out the cache page before they set off. I have never heard of anyone just setting off and looking for caches without any information. I mean, you could end up at a multi, a virtual, even a puzzle … Oh. Has anyone ever spent 20 minutes looking for a cache only to get home to find it was a multi. I have. But if I’d seen this one I wouldn’t have tried it without some rope at least. Or some thought. My wife got his cache in less than a minute and with no danger at all. She didn’t: she got it, but it was not really safe. She is a good swimmer That is irrelevant: no one can swim in mud, which is where she would have ended up – head first. I could not however have got the cache without taking a lot of risks You said it: you risked your wife. Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache. That’s like downloading a list of hotels and staying in the first one you come to despite the fact that it’s five star and you find you can’t afford it the next day. There is a hint here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx Just for the record The Spokes are not whining in any way that their log was deleted. Just out of interest, why do you often talk about yourself in the third person? We did it and did take a Photo That comes out now? I can’t believe that you didn’t read the cache page even after you’d found the cache and seen the criteria for logging. Especially with its being a puzzle. But great delight it seemed, was taken in making it the end of a perfectly good cache at our expense instead. There was no delight in this at all. Don’t flatter yourself. I’ve enjoyed this cache: I’ve visited it umpteen times (at least 8 and that’s more than it’s been found) in its various incarnations and I’ve enjoyed writing my little logs. I even became quite ill because of it. It had a few people watching it and some of them seemed entertained. I archived the cache at my expense and because of what you did. we found it by chance did it easy (which I suspect upset the apple cart a bit) Not at all. When I set it in the river, I was told by a reviewer to make it a 5/5, when I repositioned it, I left it as a 5/5 for a while, then I realised that it wasn’t actually that hard so I downgraded it to 4/4. It should actually have been a 2/4, but I never got around to it. So the difficulty is not an issue and it was easy, especially with the right equipment. Incidentally, had you had the right gear, you may have been able to replace the lid properly as it was half off when I got there the other day, and the fact that it was a tight fit in the clips wouldn’t have been a problem had you done it the way I intended. It says on the page: “If you can't put it back, don't try to get it, please.” The response was OTT but that's up to the setter, but blaming us is not. Think about it. I wasn’t actually blaming you at the start: I was going to leave your find intact. I decided that it was people like you that I wasn’t going to be responsible for, certainly if ever there were any claims for compensation. I deleted your logs after you started getting antsy with me, and, as it says on the cache page (if you’d read it), at my discretion. If you’d replied to my emails instead of replying via the cache page it might have helped. That made it one-sided in your favour, not that I care. I find it rather amusing that in your logs you kept accusing me of “not being man enough” to leave your logs on the page, and the “manly thing to do” would be to have deleted the log. Manly? I’m not the one who encouraged a child under the safety railing of a bridge: “Laura who is 12 got underneath the bottom rail and said she could reach it.” You sent a child under the safety rail of a bridge? It says on the cache page that it is unsuitable for children, yet you tried it. Oh, I forget: you don’t read the pages. A foot bridge on a footpath by the river Weir hardly constitutes Ben Nevis does it. Nope. But under the footpath makes it a little more of a challenge.

I find that if I want to know what is involved in acquiring a cache that reading the page is usually useful. That tends to be why people write them. There you will find all of the information and attributes (under the word "attributes") pertaining to the cache. Are you seriously saying that you attempted to find a puzzle cache by merely visiting the coordinates on the page without ever reading the page itself?

Yo! Deceangi locked the cache at my request because someone who refused to log it properly and according to the stipulations on the page kept communicating to me via the page in response to my emails and this was in danger of becoming abusive. I can see what you mean about individuals making up their own minds about how to retrieve a cache and I agree to a large extent; however, I imagine that some of your extreme caches that require, say climbing equipment, can only be done by someone with said equipment and the concomitant knowledge of how to use it. I freely admit that I made a mistake in placing my cache, and that it could be acquired by someone prepared to take unnecessary risks didn’t cross my mind – although I tried it myself to see if it were possible. No, I decided, you’d have to be an idiot to attempt it. That’s why I added the logging requirements, which it turns out have made no difference to some. I wrote on the cache page, “The sort of person, in my experience of people, who blatantly ignores instructions and caveats is also the sort of person who would, in the event of a catastrophe, make haste to their favourite litigious boutique to see what damage they could do. I am aware of a caching situation several months ago where someone attempted to take legal action against a setter. I am also aware that it led to nought. That’s all very well, but I for one don’t want to explore the inside of a courtroom or scan the tortuous contents of a solicitor's letter, no matter that the outcome would be almost predetermined in my favour. For a plastic box? ‘Taint worth it”. No matter that there are all sorts of disclaimers both written and implied in this hobby, all it takes is an error on someone’s part (i.e. mine in this case) and away I am up before the beak and all that entails. It really isn’t worth it. I intend to set some arduous caches in the region but I have learned a valuable lesson. If someone needs to climb an 18m 6c or a 120 metre chimney to get the cache, then I’ll make sure that that’s the only way they’re going to get to it. That should actually make it safer as it would only be attempted by people with the required ability. “Muggle This!” was originally an underwater cache, with only one way of retrieval. I should perhaps have archived it then after the deluge that removed it rather than trying to preserve a challenging cache in the vicinity. Also, the bottom line: my cache, up to me.

Sparrows, Hedgehogs, Jeremy Clarkson.

Boris Johnson or Ken Livingston?

I don't think anyone would think you were being critical. I was before, but I'm having a nice day now Another guess: King Dinosaur? As in where's that king dinosaur? It is a film, though.

I don't think anyone would think you were being critical. I was before, but I'm having a nice day now Another guess: King Dinosaur? As in where's that king dinosaur? It is a film, though.

They're more likely to know this than the name of a specific poxy little bridge in the middle of nowhere and that of a nearby cache Judging by the lack of a correct answer, obviously not. You may have a point. You do have a point.

They're more likely to know this than the name of a specific poxy little bridge in the middle of nowhere and that of a nearby cache What's this emo , by the way, and why would I use it? I just did 'cos it felt right. Oh, the quiz: no connection to insects? How about arachnids like Tarantula?

Attack of the 50 Foot Woman

I can't speak for others, but I changed one of mine to members only recently and moved it a few hundred feet after it got muggled twice. Only time will tell if I did the right thing. Yeah....and if it gets muggled again, we'll all know it was a premium member that done it! It never crossed my mind that a cacher, premium member or not, would muggle a cache. I wouldn't start thinking that. As nobby.nobbs says, it's muggles that do it, not cachers. Also I really can't imagine your local chavs logging onto GC and looking for caches to raid while they're online sourcing new supplies of Lambrini.

Of course it was for a pub quiz. Why can't you just set a question without having a snipe just because someone tries to get the thread back on topic? Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question and it's off topic. Carry on: Uxoricide: wife killing.

Is it just me or has this all gone OT from the original thread?

1.462682084%, actually. I'm a mathematician, not an engineer , and statistically speaking, I would say some of them are worth doing. Probably.

You need PM for pocket queries, ignore lists, bookmarking (as opposed to watching) caches, and removing “found” caches on Google maps. To mention a few. Or at least you did. Just think of all those micros in the woods you can put on your ignore list with premium membership. I let mine lapse for months but I found it quite useful so I renewed.

I apologise. I was entirely wrong.

It won't be there, though, when you just click on "the travel bugs found thingy and click on a random old TB", which is what I said. It may still be there after you've entered it whilst making a log, although it's extremely unlikely to persist for very long.

But not the code on the bug itself that you need to create logs that move the bug around.

I'm sitting here waiting for my monthly email.

Sarah Palin without the slap?