Jump to content

Rockin Roddy

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    8943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rockin Roddy

  1. Is there a point to this thread? :unsure:

     

    Sure is, it's right there to read if you want! B)

     

    I had been following this from the start. Still not sure about the point of it

    My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, (wait, I heard this before!) Rocky would you mind spelling it out for me?

    What are you trying to accomplish in this thread?

    :D

     

    Nope. Too lazy to bother. It's all there, please feel free, my friend! :P

  2. Bored now.

     

    This going nowhere, and i doubt it ever will ....................... let it lie

     

    NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! If we do, all the hard caches will be archived. We must, for the sake of difficult caches, keep this thread alive and well. If not, all hard caches will disappear and be archived.

     

    Oh brother....sad to see this type of posting from someone I thought was above this. :unsure:

  3. No, the similarities are not "really striking." My prior post illustrates why.

     

    I will simply accept that you are a ROGUE POSTER who will blindly charge ahead, regardless of the facts.

     

    You can call me what you wish, the facts are right there.

     

    GS archived a cache believed to be there, you posted that in the post you just pointed to. Are you saying that GS jumped in right from the start of archival and no reviewer was involved...even in the beginning? I see, from what info I can get (which is what I assume you mean when getting my facts, right?), that there is INDEED quite the similarity. Sorry. But, as I said, if you want me to know more, I am more than happy to check out anything you can direct me to...

  4. Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that?

    No, I don’t. It is not my intent to stop you from posting. And I would like to further point out that such strawman arguments are counterproductive.

     

    I thought my intent was clear: I simply asked you a question.

     

    You did not answer the question. You chose instead to obfuscate, to insult me, to belittle my post, to challenge my right to post my opinion, and to sprinkle in a few strawman arguments for added flavor.

     

    I would prefer that you address what I thought was a very reasonable question.

     

    Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay ...

    I agree. So why, then, have you filled this thread with opinion and accusation and debate based on hearsay, and information you know to be incomplete?

     

    I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

    Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

     

    (1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

    (2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

     

    These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

     

    I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

     

    Please point out where I insulted you, belittled you or challenged your right to post? If not, this is a strawman and I have no desire to play these games with you. :unsure:

  5. When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

     

    What are the other two caches?

     

    I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! B)

    The Pennsylvania cache you referenced several pages ago is factually NOT on point to the discussion in this thread. The cache was archived by Groundspeak, not a reviewer, and it wasn't archived because of a belief that there was no cache at the location. Since you continue to reference this "example" without checking your facts, your own actions are no better than the perceived behavior that your posts complain about.

     

    If your memory is so terrible, and you are that lazy, that you would continue to falsely say that the western Pennsylvania reviewer archived that cache because it was never there, then you should stop posting.

     

    I believe I did read that page and I said they were SIMILAR, not exact. The cache was closed and it did appear to have been in place. I'm sure there's also more to the story than is said, just like here. The similarities are really striking. I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :P

  6. When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

     

    What are the other two caches?

     

    I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! :P

  7. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

    The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

     

    This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

     

    Anything's possible Toz! B) I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

     

    In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

    I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that.

    :unsure:

    Not hardly. Show me, other than the three here, where a presumed active cache was archived even after insistance from the CO that it was there? Sure, we see GS archive caches when owners don't answer or tke the time to bring the cache back to compliance, that's not the case here at all. Nope, that's apples and oranges.

    There is no way to make an apples-to-apples comparison here. It has been made clear that this is a unique circumstance. It has also been made clear that there is much more to this story, and that the additional information is not going to be made public.

     

    Consequently, there is no way to dig up an equivalent case for any apples-to-apples comparison.

     

    Therefore: The fact that no one can demonstrate that this has happened before means nothing.

     

    Roddy:

    (1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

    (2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

     

    What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

     

    KBI, discussion is the only thing we have and can do in this situation. I am discussing. Is that so hard to understand? If this bothers you, please don't hesitate to not open the thread, but PLEASE don't come in and tell others what we should or shouldn't do, how we should or shouldn't think or what we should or shouldn't take away from this discussion. If your only reason to come into this thread is to post as you did above, why bother? Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that? I mean, others have done a much better job of trying and I'm still here, my friend! :P

     

    #2 on your little list there...that goes for a lot more in this thread than just this discussion (between you and I). Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay, on belief or on past actions alone, right? We should strive to get ALL the info before making a decision, right? And no, not just perceiving we have it all, but doing all it takes to KNOW we have it all...before acting.

     

    Not having all the info, as you have stated...does that mean we should just shut up and go away? I think not. And who's drawing ANY conclusions here? What conclusion should we even be trying to come to? I take it, you just don't understand what the reason for this discussion is. If you did, you'd realize I'm not here to decide on anything, not to make conclusions. I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to, but that's not my reason being here either.

  8. Here's the deal, I would love to see as many coins travel as possible, our messages are making a difference! With that in mind, my MICKEY DIVER coin is on the table, one of you releasers will definitely be the lucky winner!!

     

    The rules are simple, all coins released must follow the Todie's Wild Ride guidelines as far as name and mission goes (please only name them Todie's Wild Ride and not II), all coins must be released to travel. We'll start the release TODAY and end it in TWO MONTHS! This is not a race, just a release drive, the winner will be chosen from all eligible participants!

     

    To be eligible, you must release AT LEAST 5 coins. EACH 5 coin release will get your name in the hat, so the more groups of 5 you relase, the better your chance to win!!The release ends JANUARY 17th 2010, ALL coins must be placed in a cache by this time! People living in winter unfriendly environments CAN send their coins out to a friend to have them released for them, just make sure you let all of us know this will be happening so we know there may be a delay in releasing...we will take this into account!

     

    I may also have a coin (yes, it will be special) for the one who releases the MOST, so give this your best shot, you could walk away with a couple very nice and highly sought coins!! And of course, you just may SAVE A LIFE!

     

    New Releases:

     

    1) Gatoulis

    1) Todie's Wild Ride: Drive And Ride Responsibly

    2) Todie's Wild Ride: North Carolina Gold Micro Geocoin

    3) Todie's Wild Ride: Randaddy Gold Geocoin

    4) Todie's Wild Ride: German Flag Micro Geocoin

     

     

    2) Maine Family

    1) Todie's Wild Ride: Bikers Please Wear A Helmet

    2) Todie's Wild Ride: The Biker

    3) Todie's Wild Ride: Protect Your Head

    4) Todie's Wild Ride: The Traveler

    5) Todie's Wild Ride: You Are Someone Special

     

    3) Murphyrulez

    1) Todie's Wild Ride: Don't Crack My Nuts!!

     

    10 coins and 3 participants.

     

    Pay Attention. Bikers Wear Your Helmet. They Can Save Your Life.

     

    Actually, only two at this point! I believe Murphy plans on completing the 5 coin requirement, but so far, only two have!!

     

    THANKS for the list, my friend!!

  9. I would assume that you know the cache's location is within the danger area if you went to find it and it led you to within the area? I'm also assuming the area is fairly large leaving no doubt the hide is within that area? If this is, in fact, the case and the owner doesn't respond, a note to the reviewer is in order. IF the reviewer decides the cache is OK (likely after contacting the owner), I'm confident the listigng will be left active. If not, it'll either be archived or tremporarily disabled!

     

    Not bad form to look out for others...

  10. PN-40 and XMAP?

     

    Hi All,

    it looks like the PN-40 gets good reviews. Has anyone tried the Delorme XMAP software to allow loading of state GIS maps and air photos? The XMAP software is very expensive ($810) and only runs with Microsoft "Professional" operating systems, which does not seem justified with the PN-40 which Delorme tech support refers to as a "consumer grade" GPS.

     

    Has anyone found a sub $600 GPS that will load open source GIS maps and air photos? (most states now have GIS web sites with all kinds of free downloadable maps and georeferenced air photos down to half-foot resolution)

     

    I think you can get Xmap at a considerably lesser price, especially if you're a PN owner...I could be mistaken. I think, and again could be wrong, that you could likely acquire the PN/Xmap combo for under the $600 you're talking...

     

    Not 100% on this though.

  11. My goal for this year was to hit 500 by the end of the year. I just got number 700 this past weekend. :P

     

    Congrats!!

     

    My goal to hit 1000 was reached awhile back, but I'd love to hit 1500 soon...maybe on my cruise to Alaska in July?? Anyone wishing to see Alaska and/or witness my 1500th...there's plenty of room on the ship!! B):unsure:

  12. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.
    The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

     

    This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

    I disagree with the bolded bit. Given that the cache did not exist, SF/TDE's response to the maintenance request was a lie.

     

    Nomex need not have initially challenged SF/TDE on this issue. Nomex asked SF/TDE to check on the cache, thereby giving SF/TDE an honorable way out of his deception. All he had to do was to be truthful and report that the cache was not in place. At that point, it could have either been disabled for a time to allow SF/TDE to place a cache at the location or it could be archived. Instead, SF/TDE chose to attempt to perpetuate the lie and it bit him in the butt.

    My guess is that is the reason that Nomex's not did not specifically ask for proof the cache was there. If Nomex truly believed there was never a cache (and it seems that he did) it would not make much sense to tell the cache owner what he could do to continue to perpetuate the hoax. If SF really wanted a hoax cache, he could then quickly create the camouflage, photograph it in place, sent that in as proof, and in the meantime throw away the fake and still have a hoax. If there really was a cache, a reasonable cache owner would have simply shown evidence without being prompted for it and that would likely have satisfied the reviewers. However, I can imagine that sometimes a cache owner who has hidden a really hard cache might believe that if a reviewer ask him to check the cache, that all he has to do is post that he checked the cache. I still believe there is a fair likelihood that there was a cache to find. I'm looking for a way for reviewers to indicate that a cache owner can provide evidence that there really is a cache to counter whatever evidence made the reviewer believe there was no cache in the first place, and how to do this without telling a hoaxer what he has to do to continue his hoax.

     

    Define "reasonable". Tell me how you KNOW how a "reasonable" cacher would react. What professional training brought you to the ability to make these conclusions.

  13. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

     

    Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all?

     

    I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

     

    Have you seen anyone preaching doom and gloom? You sure have a way of twisting things to fit your own needs...which, in this case, seems to be just to be snarky? :unsure:

     

    I assume you're a grown-up, draw your own conclusions... :P

     

    Why, if there is no doom and gloom, as you say, has this topic drug on so long? Why should anyone, save for the cache owner and maybe some folks in his area be concerned? The only conclusion I can draw from is that folks are fearful that gs will start archiving hard to find caches with dnfs in great numbers.

     

    Do you believe your hard to find caches are now in danger of being archived, or that the hard to find caches in your area might be next?

     

    If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it possibly be causing so much strife?

     

    Or, maybe you guys think that you are preempting a future doom and gloom situation by firing down hard on gs right now. Nipping it in the bud. For the benefit of all.

     

    I think some folks here are just plain rankled by how this cache got archived. Fair enough that some folks have hard feelings. But... when you attach "It happened once, it can happen again" then you, yourself, have raised the doom and gloom flag. That is the conclusion I draw because it is soooo unrealistic to believe that a few questionable decisions (I add the "questionable" for your benefit) will lead to any sort of long term problems.

     

    (edit to repair quotes)

     

    MAYBE because it's a hot issue and, while it doesn't spell the end of caching in whole, it COULD happen to you or I. You know, just like a car accident could happen, but we still drive? I really give you more credit than I should be if you can't figure this out on your own, my friend!

  14. I've never done it myself (I've hosted only one event in 2006), but I came up with the brilliant idea of "bobbing for film canisters" in another one of these threads. You know, you could put prizes in them and stuff. I was only kidding, but someone (whom I've long since forgotten) said it was a great idea, and they were going to use it. I don't know if they did, or how it turned out though.

     

    Then again, H1N1. Never mind. :laughing:

     

    If they're bobbing in whiskey, things should be OK! :lol::P:laughing:

     

    Oh, I was going to suggest a scavenger hunt, too!!

  15. My goal is to get to the 500 found mark sometime before to much snow starts to fly around here. My plan is to go pick up the OP since him and his brothers are my caching buddies and then head over to Grand Rapids (the nearest good sized town) and grab 7 more smilies. Then for my 500th find milestone I'm going to go to one of the mall parking lots and make a LPC my 500th find just to be different than the way most folks schedule their milestone caches. :laughing:

     

    Maybe your nephews and you can make it dow for the Lazy Hayes Days IV weekend...maybe making number 750??

  16. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

     

    Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all?

     

    I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

     

    Have you seen anyone preaching doom and gloom? You sure have a way of twisting things to fit your own needs...which, in this case, seems to be just to be snarky? :laughing:

     

    I assume you're a grown-up, draw your own conclusions... :laughing:

  17. You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

     

     

    That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

     

    I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

     

    I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

    But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

     

    In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

    :lol:

     

    I see. Since two people say this, it must be true that ALL believe this?? I see your :P and raise you :laughing:

     

    Two people that spent a combined 7 (or more) hours looking for it.

     

    If Groundspeak had protected the cache owner by keeping the reason for archival silent, then we would be here reading a 25 page thread titled "Why Was This Cache Archived?", "Secret Reviewer Archival?" or "Secret Archive Tribunals?" :)

     

    What was the CO's intent, anyway? To put Groundspeak in a Catch-22 situation? :huh:

     

    You live in the same state, did YOU look for it Roddy? Perhaps you would have a different opinion. I do admire how you stand up for what you believe in, but your intense dedication to this thread also leaves me to believe that you know a little more than what you are saying.. :laughing:

     

    lol, I do, but that doesn't make a difference to the conversation!

     

    No, it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other. I did state that I was going to go after it....waaaay back in the beginning of the thread! And I would ASSUME that the CO's intent was to hide a hard cache. It was GS' actions which put them in THIS catch-22...not sure what you were meaning other than that?

  18. You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

     

     

    That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

     

    I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

     

    I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

    But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

     

    In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

    :laughing:

     

    I see. Since two people say this, it must be true that ALL believe this?? I see your :lol: and raise you :laughing:

  19. At the end of the day, any archived cache can be unarchived if it meets the guidelines.

     

    There were no photos taken and it simply vanished into thin air after archival; an appeal was made without proof.

     

    The "tweaks" to the archival note is welcome communication to the people who went and searched hours for it.

     

    It was the correct thing to do; if they swept it under the rug and did not reveal why it was archived, it would have caused even more consternation.

     

    Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

    -Mark Twain

     

    :laughing:

     

    Please. Can you back that "welcome" statement or are you simply assuming once again? I believe many of us have issues with the added word...as has been discussed over and over. The right thing to do would have simply archived with the same canned message as always, confront the CO in private and deal with it...IN PRIVATE! Pretending those who searched are "relieved" they weren't fooled... :laughing::lol:

×
×
  • Create New...