Jump to content

Rockin Roddy

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    8943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rockin Roddy

  1. Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect. I know where you are coming from but sbell is right, an owner cannot be laid off from his business, just ask your state unemployment office. You would be better described, perhaps, as an Owner in name, until, as The Rambler pointed out, you have the deed in your name. When my Dad passed away I got the family farm, but it was not Legally mine until the deed was in my name, until then even though everyone around here considered me the owner, in the view of the state I was not. I very carefully worded my response to say not on paper...some missed that. However, you are mistaken in that, had my dad ever drawn a paycheck, he could have drawn unemployment as part of how the situation is. Or so our paper pushers say!
  2. Sorry, Roddy, you were doing so well steadfastly maintaining the 'let's be honest', 'don't twist the facts', 'full disclosure' and 'business ethics' bit... but claiming to own your Daddy's business where you cut the grass in the summer and which you might inherit one day isn't helping your credibility here! When it comes to the question of business ownership paper is ALL that counts! Can you sell it without Dad signing the papers? If not then you don't own it! 'Trim the greens well son and one day all this will be yours' does not make you an owner. So... unless there are facts not in evidence "I own a golf course" is indeed a lie. I don't think that anyone was out to discredit you personally. We argued against your beliefs of what happened in this thread, but that's not a personal attack. By introducing the statements that you own a business and then stating that in fact you just work in the summer for your Daddy's business you start to discredit yourself. You can call it anything you please. It is what it is and I will stand behind the very simple fact I am considered an owner of the golf course. That, my friend is how it is seen in the family, that is how it is. And no, I suppose you DON'T know the whole story, so maybe posting such things and not knowing is much like Nomex's situation and I do think it was out of line! Kind of a long drawn out way of politely calling me a liar. You haven't a clue, but you jump to conclusions....not bad!
  3. But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation. No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern. I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness! btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens! So it seem that the issue is that Nomex did not believe SF claim that he had checked on the cache an all was in order. This is good. It was hard to argue when sometimes this was problem and sometime the problem was that a cache could be archived just because nobody had found it. I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reviewers don't take everybody's word when it come to publishing or archiving caches. If this were the case we would not need reviewers. Since we all check the box on the submission form saying we have read and understood the guidelines why doe Groundspeak need reviewers? Are they calling all of us liars? The reviewers look at the cache page for certain guideline issues. The primary one they can check is proximity to an existing cache. But they also look for commercialism, agendas, caches neer railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. Frankly I'm shocked that they do this. I checked I read and understood the guidelines but I guess they would rather call me a liar and see for themselves. Some guidelines can't be checked by looking at the cache page. In this case, the reviewers do trust me and they go ahead and publish the cache. But suppose later on they get information that the cache is buried or that it is on private property that is posted "No Trespassing". What do they do then? They usually will believe this new information - no matter what its source is - instead of trusting that I told them the truth when I check that box. They might even archive the cache immediately if they think it could cause a problem with a land owner or manager. Or they might disable the cache and ask me to fix the issues. Now it does seem that in some situations, a simple note on the cache page that I've done the maintenance is sufficient. In other cases, the reviewers will ask that I provide addition information that might not go on the cache page. For example, if there is a permission issue they might want the name of the person who gave permission so they can contact them and verify this. The case of a missing cache is probably one of the harder situations to handle. First of all the information that cache is missing (or was not there in the first place) is often circumstantial. An easy cache that had many finds and is now getting DNFs or the case where someone finds swag and a geocaching note spread out over an area but no container make it easier for the reviewer to ask for the cache owner to check the cache and replace the container (or remove the geo-litter and archive the cache). In this case we had a difficult cache that had never been found. We may like to believe that simply the fact the cache was never found would not be enough to archive it. It seems there must have been some other evidence in this case that the cache was not there. TPTB have decided not to share this with us, which is a shame only because those who believe the cache was wrongly archived are not going to change their minds without knowing what this was. Whatever the evidence, Nomex believed there was no cache. He used the form response he generally used for a missing cache. Understandably, SF assumed that he simply needed to visit his cache and verify it was there. We don't know whether or not he actually did this, we have only his word. In a normal "cache is missing" case, a cache owner would post that he replaced the cache or that he found some other problem (such as cache migration) that caused the cache to be DNF'd. If the note that was posted seemed a reasonable explanation, the reviewer is going to believe it. (Of course if this happens a few times and nobody is finding the cache they may reach other conclusions). In this case however, the reviewer thought the the cache was a hoax. SF's response was clearly not going to change the reviewer's mind, so the archival was done. Note that SF still has an opportunity to get his cache unarchived. He now knows that the issue is that the reviewer believes there has been no cache to find for years. Instead of putting together evidence of a cache for his appeal, he simply says that the reviewers have treated him unfairly. Groundspeak upholds the decision to archive since there is no new evidence beyond that which Nomex had. SF destroys what evidence he may have had in a huff so there is no proof a cache ever existed. So now we have the people who believe that Groundspeak should always take the cache owner's word unless they are willing to put forth evidence to the contrary versus those that think Groundspeak should act even on weak evidence and that it is up to the cache owner to present evidence to overturn the decision. I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me!
  4. Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.
  5. Glad you had a good experience. Since I am currently unemployed, have more bills than money, no money to waste on gas for caching and it's cold and blustery, I am more than happy to "get my life" doing other things. But THANKS for the suggestion, if I get the chance, I certainly will see if I can add to my find count, THANKS! It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time! Others can answer for themselves! Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you! Don't mind if I do. If you do, in fact, own a working golf course (even though that you have previously stated that it was your father's (grandfather's???) if I recall correctly), how could you be unemployed? You could be underemployed, certainly, if it is not successful. We don't play much golf up here this time of year, it gets kinda hard to find the golf balls in the snow You bet, Skipherr!! But, we have held tournies in the snow before, I even had a "hole in one" in one of the tournaments! Paint the balls orange and be carefull where you step so you can see where your ball went...and carry a lot of spare balls just in case!! Since my main duties involves mowing the greens, the fairways and course maintenance, what would you call someone who was laid off for lack of work due to the weather? Unemployed...isn't that what I stated? See sbell, you do remember. So why the attempt to defame? Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper, but why not ask my dad who the owners are, why not ask the many customers we have? Oh, and who do you suppose will inherit the course one of these days??? Lord and economy willing!
  6. I want to make a statement right here and now, I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK. To top that off, Clan doesn't put the top on his tube of toothpaste, he distributes sour milk to orphanages so the poor kids only have sour milk on their Cheerios....he has a history of being a "bad man". I fully expect that he will now be arrested and charged with murder, right? Hey, let's not dig any deeper, I stated this and thus, it MUST be true. Just lock him up and get the gallows ready. Wait...we can't just go by hearsay? What? But that's exactly what sbell is suggesting with his latest post, isn't it? Since it was believed by some locals that the cache wasn't there, it MUST be true, right? And we know this to be true because some have come forward and given evidence which proves the CO is a "bad person"....wow, must be true then! FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no proof of ANY of the SILLY and nonfactual claims I made against Clan and only used him as an example to make a point. I hardly believe Clan Riffster is a "bad person". No hard feelings or intent of malice here, just a friendly example of how this all looks. Sorry Clan, hope I didn't upset you with the use of you in my demonstration.... I do like that sbell stated that he believes the PTB acted upon 3rd party info...hearsay if you will. Seems we're getting somewhere.
  7. ... Breaking the rules is bad enough. Boasting about it in a log that the entire world can see is asinine. ... Could be also that it takes more guts to post and take the ridicule then not say anything at all. As in, 'hey I did this, I'm owning up to it, judge me as you will.' HIGHLY doubtful. Most are boasting as if they will be honored with a plaque or given some special prize for their actions. Some are so proud of their ability to break the law and get away with it, they must shove it in peoples' faces. Sometimes, it's not the case, but mostly, it is! Well for me and most of the people I cache if, that is exactly the reason; full discloser. I think just like the idea that all cachers will bear the burden of a few bad apples, you've made a pretty global statement on people's motives. You might be right. But you might be wrong. If said logs were deleted then it would be a self-fixing problem. Seems to be back on the COs You seriously lost me. Are you saying you PURPOSELY break the law and then "come clean" so you can sleep better at night? Wouldn't it be easier and better to just NOT break the law so you don't have to "come clean"? Wow!! No, my friend. The owner didn't break the law, that's what those who go into closed places do. It's definitely NOT back on the owner...
  8. But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation. No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern. I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness! btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens!
  9. Glad you had a good experience. Since I am currently unemployed, have more bills than money, no money to waste on gas for caching and it's cold and blustery, I am more than happy to "get my life" doing other things. But THANKS for the suggestion, if I get the chance, I certainly will see if I can add to my find count, THANKS! It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time! Others can answer for themselves! Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread? Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you!
  10. ... Breaking the rules is bad enough. Boasting about it in a log that the entire world can see is asinine. ... Could be also that it takes more guts to post and take the ridicule then not say anything at all. As in, 'hey I did this, I'm owning up to it, judge me as you will.' HIGHLY doubtful. Most are boasting as if they will be honored with a plaque or given some special prize for their actions. Some are so proud of their ability to break the law and get away with it, they must shove it in peoples' faces. Sometimes, it's not the case, but mostly, it is!
  11. And that should be the final nail in the coffin. Groundspeak was right, the Archiving was properly done, and all this angst has been wasted. Great job Groundspeak, keep it up. I'm assuming that's sarcasm directed at TSD because the post really doesn't prove or disprove anything, it merely speaks to character? I like it, but you need to add smilies so others understand your motivation for posting it, my friend!! THANKS for the post TSD, but this just doesn't help in the discussion at hand. It does show to character as I pointed out, but character alone won't be convincing enough for most of us to jump to the conclusion the cache was faked. Truly, as I've said many times before, we're (most of us at least) are past the point of whether the cache existed or not, we are (well, I am at least, not putting words in others' mouths here) questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!
  12. Breaking the rules is bad enough. Boasting about it in a log that the entire world can see is asinine. What is really frightening is the fact that there are people in this thread defending rule breaking. I think part of this is because many don't see their actions as overly bad, they see it as a "white lie". Then to further that, they think that, since they didn't get busted for their actions, it is therefore OK and they feel they can brag that they thumbed their noses at the laws and at the rules the CO put on the cache page. Some people like to feel they "got away with something". Truly, some feel they're being sneaky when caching anyway, then add the air of breaking the law...the excitement level rises and their fun is brought up a level. I know of some who not only do this on occassion, they actually plan their trips so they can cache at night. They label themselves as if it's a badge of honor, a statement of their ability to be stealthy. They make up shirts which boast of their actions, they brag about it in these forums. It's not honorable to break the law, even a small law such as trespassing, while doing ANYTHING, but it's worse when you do so while caching. Caching has come a long ways from early on when many places closed their gates to caching out of fear that we bury or damage the lands. A lot of work has been put into establishing trust with governing bodies and building relationships, a lot of work that could easily be undone by a few careless acts such as thumbing your nose at the laws they wish upheld. When cachers are seen as no better than "hoodlums", we'll be just as accepted...
  13. Everything you've heard, or everything you choose to believe? It is not for GS to prove anything. At the end of the day it seems that TPTB are not extremely worried if you are happy with how this turned out. I believe I posted my thoughts. Everything I have heard. What you seem to have missed is that I said the evidence seems convincing? Does this sound like someone who is not willing to see both sides? It would be others here who are not willing to have an open mind, well, nor even read what is posted. As CR pointed out, many don't even know what the issue at present is. We would disagree on who has the burden of proving what, you are welcome to your opinion as I assume I am mine. As I have stated my position several times over and it has yet to sway you, I won't bother going in further circles. Whether TPTB are worried or not is not up to you or I to determine.
  14. Exactly, my MAIN point. Not my ONLY point, mind you, but my MAIN point! Now, if you could find one post where I said I refused to discuss this issue.... I added color to the more important part of that comment, the part you seemed to have missed.
  15. Firmware updates work fine w/ MacOS. http://www.delorme.com/support/SupportTemp...aspx?id=454#MAC Or you can call DeLorme, buy it over the phone, and they'll read the key to you then & there (I think it comes by email too, if you ask for it). You'll still get the card in the mail, but you won't have to wait for it. Yep, I was using mine before I ever received the card in the mail!!
  16. Glad you had a good experience. Since I am currently unemployed, have more bills than money, no money to waste on gas for caching and it's cold and blustery, I am more than happy to "get my life" doing other things. But THANKS for the suggestion, if I get the chance, I certainly will see if I can add to my find count, THANKS! It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time! Others can answer for themselves!
  17. I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy. Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously. Again, what you think is irrelevant. They have done all that is required and more. They have no obligation to provide you with proof of any kind, and in fact would be foolish to do so. And if you read the whole comment, you'd know I addressed this very thought!
  18. Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped. Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. Maybe I can't read either then, because that's what I thought you said... several times now. No, my friend, I said my main reason was to keep this at the top. I also said I was more than happy to debate. I would have to assume that debate would be about the discussion at hand, therefore this is completely wrong. I'd be happy to link it for you, but I don;t feel the burden of proof to be on me. In fact, I don't recall EVER saying I outright refuse to discuss this situation.
  19. I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy. Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously.
  20. Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped. Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type.
  21. This thread has been very curious in part because it is not just the people whom I see over and over insist that Groundspeak can do no wrong who have take the side the the cache was justly archived. And it not just the people who alway bash GS that have questioned this cache being archived (or at least the way it was archived). The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived. The reviewer sees whatever evidence he sees and reaches a conclusion that the cache should be archived. GS realizes that only in a few cases will the reviewer have absolute proof that a cache is in violation of guidelines. Reviewers routinely archive caches and leave notes indicating that a cache owner can still provide evidence that the cache is compliant with guidelines and get it unarchived. If the reviewers where to be required to have incontrovertible proof before archiving a cache, there job would be impossible. They are permitted by Groundspeak to use some judgment and make a decision based on what evidence is available. It is up to cache owners who feel there cache is unjustly being archived to provide evidence to change the reviewer's mind (or to get the ruling overruled on appeal). For many people, the fact that SF did not provide this evidence (and instead claims to have destroyed what evidence he might have had), says a lot more about whether there was a cache in the first place than any secret evidence that Groundspeak may hold. Toz, when the PTB not only archive, but call the owner a liar, they surely had ought to back that up.
  22. Not really. If you check the early pages of this thread, I wasn't taking sides. I basically held the position that TDE/SF should simply rove the cache's existence and have it re-enabled. Then TDE/SF started posting. The more he posted, the more I found him to be uncredible. Given that I know Miss Jenn to be honorable, people have vouched for Nomex, and he really had no dog in the fight, I landed where I am. You, however, have stuck with the very same position that you had at the beginning of the thread. I wonder why that is. I suspect that you just feel like bashing TPTB. I wonder if we checked your posting history if we wouldn't find a common thread. Yes, I consider that a personal attack. If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...
  23. If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache. That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there... If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar. And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there? If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't. I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed. Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here. And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped. So you're saying a rape victim doesn't have to have a rape kit to help their claim of rape? Fairly certain you know and understand what I'm saying here.
  24. I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn't change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it. They believe they have done enough. Their belief is the one that counts. Is it? I wonder why this thread went sooo many pages if that's true?
  25. Actualy they dont need to do anything, when it comes down to bare bones, It is their listing site and their rules ,, if you (or anyone else) don't like the way they run it ... you have the option to leave Well said, glad you made that point. So you're saying we should all just thank our lucky stars GS is here? btw, if you thought that was an original statement, you might read back through all the posts and count the number of times that's been said. Then, maybe you should look back and check out the various responses...and what the hey, insert any one of them here to properly illustrate my feelings about such a statement...or action!
×
×
  • Create New...