Chameleon Circuit

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: Well, of course we claimed finds for them. We found them, didn't we? Why don't you come to Fort Wayne and find 27 non-locationless caches, if you're so good? My understanding was that real geocachers logged locationless caches as notes. They don't want or need bogus "finds."

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:And picking my belly-button lint is "better things to do" than to try to explain anything to a sock puppet. But as a continued service to the geocaching community, he will keep at it. What a Rube! But what a smart, superior Rube.

quote:Originally posted by SR & dboggny:i think this thread demonstrates why we should be able to ignore certain users. since we cant do that, how about this; geoprincess, shut up! Who in hell are you, why should I care, and what did you contribute to the geocaching community today?

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:I'd tell you, GeoPrincess, but + You're too stupid to understand, and + I have better things to do. As your continued barrage of posts have proved, you are clearly wrong on both counts.

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: Actually, we went and found all those locationless caches to MAKE A POINT about how easy it was. But Geoprince-a$$ is good at missing the point. I didn't miss the point. You claimed finds for them. So now half of your team's logged finds are locationless caches? That's truly impressive.

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:Hey. We resemble that remark. (31 locationless in 6 hours on Saturday.) That's less than 12 minutes spent on each cache, including time spent commuting between them. I sincerely hope you weren't incovenienced by having to get out of your nice, warm car. But at least you have your memories of the experiences.

quote:Originally posted by bigredmed:Upfront, I don't like locationless caches. I have done a couple, and found them to be unsatisfying. Should these count in your cache total? Yes, of course they should. Each locationless cache logged as a find should decrease that person's find total by one.

Didya hear the one about the guy who thought locationless caches were "quality caches?" Unfortunately, there isn't a punchline.

quote:Originally posted by Mopar:Who should decide what caches are too dangerous? YOU SHOULD! Hey genius, isn't that what I said?

quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler: We need to police ourselves or others with more authority and less interest in our activity will do it for us. It is an unfortunate fact that some geocachers do not use good judgment when placing caches. It will be far less restrictive for geocaching in the long run if we take the initiative to remove and archive these caches ourselves. If we ignore caches we know or strongly suspect are illegally-placed, we are tacitly condoning the placement and share in the irresponsibility of the ones who place them. And if we, as a group, prove to be irresponsible, we invite and deserve the more restrictive oversight of government authorities. I agree 100%.

quote:Originally posted by Capn_Skully:I have read all the disclaimmers about dangers and other aspects of caching. In the past two days I have come across two cache sites I am not really happy about the danger aspect. ... Does Groundspeak actually read the descriptions people give? Oh, lots of us think the standards for cache approval are far too low. I think we should alert the administrators about caches we believe to be exceedingly dangerous, but it's up to us to use our heads and "just say no" when we unwittingly find ourselves doing a cache like that. quote:Originally posted by Capn_Skully: So what do you think? Should they be archived? Yup, but they shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Freelens: For you of, all people, to avoid caches where the hider has an attitude is just to funny. Sorry no offense intended but .... hahahaha. We are supposed to agree with you that wise guys have few finds when you "report" none. Thanks for the morning guffaw. Glad you had a laugh. We decide not to look for caches by certain usernames after having been disappointed doing other caches they had placed. If you had done any of the caches we placed under our team name and they had fallen short of your expectations, you would be wise to avoid our (team name's) other caches. Since we're sharing things that amuse us, I think it's funny that most the the forum posters with big personalities or attitudes write very placid, user friendly, "vanilla" cache pages. Incidentally, how does one conjugate "to funny?" [This message was edited by GeoPrincess on January 04, 2003 at 07:29 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by Geo-Johnson's:We love a good challenge. So when the cache owner challenges us by saying something like "if you can find it" or "a mean spirited multi-cache, are you up for it?".........well, it's on! We did a few of those, and the caches were invariably nothing out of the ordinary. So now we avoid caches when the cache description has "an attitude." If the cache were any good, the bluster wouldn't be necessary. I noticed from checking profiles that the guys writing these wiseguy cache descriptions usually have few finds, all of low difficulty.

We've done one of these. It was a multicache and was a lot of fun.

It depends on the cache rating. We will spend less than 15 minutes looking for a 1, but we'll spend all day on a 4.

Carry an "oo-gah" horn like Harpo did to announce your presence. Maybe the Geostore could stock the curled up ones that cachers could wear around their necks.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz: Don't worry, most geocachers (ones who post to these forums, anyway) are pedantic know-it-alls ... ... with bad breath and other personal hygiene issues.

You expect people who start a new "Test" thread every time they want to change their avatar or signature, and then proudly post three or four failed attempts to it rather than edit the initial one, to be able to handle a complicated procedure like logging a travel bug? These are the same people who worship one fellow as the Patron Saint of Geocaching simply because he knows how to use the "search" feature. (That simple task continues to appear to be "magic" to many site users.) Wake up! [This message was edited by GeoPrincess on January 02, 2003 at 04:13 AM.]

I don't go out into nature to listen to tunes.

quote:Originally posted by Wadcutter:I ran into a cacher a few weeks ago who laughed about listing fictitious coordinates on several of his caches that he had "hid". He said he and another cacher do that just to mess with each other. He admitted he had just listed a cache which the coordinates would take a person to the middle of a river but there was nothing there.

quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR: Expiration dates? I don't think so. I've heard the arguements of social trails and someone getting the "good spot." But a well maintained cache should be in place until it isn't. Folks in high density areas may appreciate expiration dates, but those of us with slim pickens don't. That doesn't really make sense to me. I would think that if the "picken's were slim" in a particular area, all the local cachers would have found the caches in short order and then had nothing else to seek. Over the long term, expiration dates would likely provide people in cache poor areas with more caches to seek, not fewer. I didn't suggest that a cache couldn't be renewed when its expiration date had arrived. By the way, expiration dates are not a new idea. There have been a few threads discussing this idea over the past few months.

quote:Originally posted by Dunedin: quote:Originally posted by GeoPrincess:Receive "I before e except after c." E before I in the case of this particular C, I'm afraid! Truly. That's what the rule means. (The poll owner edited his original misspelling to conform to the rule.) quote:Originally posted by freelens/mosie:Are the voting buttons not working on this poll or are just to stupid to select one. The poll buttons still don't work, and that is still the worst sentence I've seen all year.

Markwell's gripe is more evidence that the approval standards are far too low. A few caches like that in an area might be fun, but this sounds like overkill. It is also a good example of why caches tentatively approved by unknown and unseen administrators far away should be reviewed by someone familiar with the local area and "caching scene." It's also a good example of why caches should only be approved with specific "expiration dates."

quote:Originally posted by freelens/mosie:Are the voting buttons not working on this poll or are just to stupid to select one. Yes, at the time I attempted to take your poll the voting buttons were not working. Currently, they still aren't working. You still need to fix the "Idon't care," but I really don't care.

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:According to the "Recently Logged Caches" page, we were the first to log a find in the U.S. for 2003! Hmmmm, perhaps this should have been posted in the "You know you're addicted to geocaching..." thread. Right now, the last 40 logs of 2002 are still listed along with the initial 160 of 2003, and I don't see you listed. I suppose that's he penalty for not living in the PST zone.