zgrav

You can install Google Play on the Fire Phone without rooting the phone, and most of my apps installed from the Play Store onto the fire phone. But the paid geocaching app will show up in the list but the Play store reports it is not compatible with the phone. Oddly enough, the free starter version of the geocaching app is listed, but I have not tried it to see if it works. Fortunately, other geocaching apps are availablefor the Fire Phone from both the Amazon Android app and the Google Play app.

Well, it is at least conceivable that someone might know GIYF even if they did not generally know geocaching acronyms and terms. A bit of a long shot, but not inconceivable..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes

1. this latest discussion about the scope, content, and expectations we have when starting and participating in forum topics is certainly one that could stand alone as its own topic. 2. I don't care if it continues to exist in this thread, since this thread is a bit fuzzy around the edges anyway. 3. I also would not mind if this thread were relocated to the "off topic" section if that is possible, but I do prefer it be left open wherever it is placed.

If I wasn't enjoying reading the posts on this thread (for a few different reasons, including the surprising LOLs to a few comments) I wouldn't be reading it. My sympathies to anyone out there being forced to read this against their own wishes. That would certainly be an unusual punishment, but would it also be unconstitutionally cruel as well? Res ipsa loquitur.

experienced cachers that are tools were probably tools when they were newbie cachers as well. caching is not like finishing school. it leaves many of us just the way we came into the sport/game/hobby, except maybe with a little bit better geosense as we go along.

if folks are bringing pieces of rope from earlier waypoints you also are likely to have instances where the rope pieces are not returned properly. some folks will want to make a path on to the next closest cache when they log your final. also, you would want to somehow make sure that it was exactly those pieces of rope that were needed to prevent other caches from unraveling their survival bracelets to use at the final instead of your rope pieces. sounds like a fun challenge for the builder and eventually for the cachers that go after it.

I think this forum exchange is providing a lot of entertainment for at least some of the participants. So that is another external benefit of this event that is, for the most part, irrelevant to those in Rome. For those in Rome, the old saying may hold sway, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. But which Romans. The Repekians or the Cachus Proponents?

I can see the dilemma here -- you could have the flash mob at the same time as the other event and conflict with it to prove they are not coordinated -- but it would affect attendance. If you scheduled it too much earlier or later the same day it would also affect attendance because people would be less likely to go to both events if they were leaving the area in between. But coordinating at a time where you won't inconvenience the potential attendees also means you are coordinating it so it could be done in conjunction with the nearby event. Personally, as long as this is being planned independently it would be OK with me as a separate stand-alone event. Of course reasonable minds can differ, and do.

I have seen a small cemetery cache placed with permission that was interesting -- it is sunk in the ground with a small flat marker stone on top of it with "Geo. Cache" carved in it. Very creative, and an oddly appropriate place for a buried cache that was the last part of a multi that tracked a lot of historical figures buried in the cemetery. As noted above -- placed with permission. It is a great cache. Did the permission by the cemetery and by the reviewer make it OK to hide it this way? I think so.

In the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe there is a lamp post in the middle of the forest. Now THAT would be a cool place to hide an LPC......

I have seen local governments establish guidelines for cache placements that are more strict and clear about what you can and cannot do with placements. And of course those rules should all be followed if you are placing a cache in areas that are subject to those rules. The rules we all use for placements are ambiguous about items that are placed at least partially in the ground. So long as the hole was not excavated with tools, and the top of the cache is not underground, and no other placement rules were violated, I think it is a legitimate placement. I understand that others do not necessarily agree with that position, but this is a situation where I believe that reasonable people can agree to disagree.

For starters, I would just move the cache a few feet to the side and back into the greenery if that was an option. Seems unlikely that the ToxicCacher would have time to make a return trip to a cache, especially if every hard cache being logged takes a spray visit and then a return trip. I really enjoyed the first cache of that type that I found. Took me a couple of lengthy visits to the spot, even with what turned out to be some very good hints in the cache write-up. I understand the diverging views on whether the hide is OK or not, but it is OK to me. I think the spirit of the "don't bury" cache rule is to let cache hunters know they are never supposed to have to dig to find a cache, since it is the searching that can be more destructive to the area than the hiding. Like this example, for instance. (that does not mean it is OK for the hider to dig to place the cache, but that did not happen here either)

I like the original hint as well, but see why it was less obvious. Not so elementary, Dr. Watson.

Many of us have seen a magnetic cache that was deliberately NOT hidden where the magnet was used, and many of those cache descriptions may tell you it is a magnetic container. So it is surprising to read above that there was no magnet whatsoever on the cache container. Maybe there was originally and it got replaced, or maybe the write-up is just plain wrong. It seems obvious the cache owner likes it the way it is (wrong or not), and did not like you pointing out the error. You are right that the cache description seems to be misleading, perhaps intentionally so. But no one is going to do anything about it because at the end of the day, it is much ado about very little. Since you made the find and signed the log, you have the right to log the cache. You don't have the right to log it with your gripes, since that is pretty much antithetical to the way this sport/game/hobby is played. Cache hiders make the game possible, and the cache police are slow to chill them from doing so. From one point of view, if you "win" and the CO is PO'd enough to archive that cache in response, other geocachers lose because it is one less cache for them to find. I suspect most of the folks that have found that same cache were not too put out by being gamed by the CO, or at least they didn't let it spoil their fun. Folks that DNF'd it or gave up trying might be annoyed, but that usually is mollified when they eventually make the find. The suggestion to simply log a TFTC and move on is realistic. Move on with your life and find lots of better caches without trying to "prove" anything to the CO about whether he was right or wrong to publish the cache the way he did. And quibbling about this advice just makes it look like you are trying to find other places to wage your battle with the CO.

I like the puzzle --- recognize the challenge due to some similar ones I have published. The hint was nicely done as well. as far as the original sour grapes --- some folks like vinegar with their whine, some of us prefer the wine itself.

Interesting that they would grouse about logging a MOC but not ask you to delete their find on it!!!! <grin>

I want to offer the following: 1. My appreciation for the restraint of the moderator in recognition of the comments on this volatile thread going over a thousand. 2. My puzzlement at why anyone that wanted the thread to be locked wouldn't just take themselves out of the loop and quit reading it. if this has exceeded your personal threshold, let it go and move on. asking for it to be locked makes it sound like you are more interested in just stopping other people from being able to comment, rather than deciding for yourself whether to follow the discussion and participate. 3. My thanks for the wide range of comments shared by others ranging from thoughtful to inflammatory. It is a humanizing experience to appreciate the diversity of viewpoints, opinions, and humor within the geocaching community on a subject like this.

The standard that a person is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty was created for a criminal prosecution where a guilty verdict is based upon a conclusion that it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she has been charged. So if the proof fails, the defendant is "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." It does not mean the person is "really" innocent, although that is certainly one possibility. Or maybe the person was just "less guilty" than had been charged. That is one reason that a lot of criminal indictments will have a main charge and "lesser included offenses". Those lesser offenses often form the basis for plea agreements and compromises. A civil conviction is based upon a much lower standard using a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). And in both of those instances there can be technical reasons that some of the evidence that is "really" available cannot be considered by the court, even though that means the outcome of the proceeding will be based on less than all of the relevant information that may have been available. For instance, if the charge against someone is relatively minor and there are other crimes that need to be solved and prosecuted, the state is not going to spend a lot or resources tracking down other witnesses and gathering evidence for similar offenses that the defendant may have committed. Conversely, even in cases where the proof of one crime is weak, the government may go to great lengths to gather evidence against the defendant for other crimes. So Al Capone went to prison for tax crimes when the larger ring of criminal actions he "allegedly" committed could not be proven against him. Free ranging discussions of the issues by an interested community are not so limited, and a range of thoughts about the gravity of the offense and what information each person accepts as relevant or useful will vary widely. People that focus on the items that would be accepted in a criminal proceeding will have a different view than others who are considering a much larger pool of information. This ties into my thoughts in an earlier thread about how different groups may form their own conclusions about the defendant and respond to him differently (including shunning, to tie in another comment I made). There have been some very thoughtful exchanges in this thread along with some comments that put out a lot more heat than light. And even a lot of the heated comments have been entertaining or thought provoking. For those reasons, plus the information from the events that have been provided, I am glad the thread has been left open.

This turn of events reminds me of an old folk song (more or less) -- Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride, Uh-huh, Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride, Uh-huh, Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride. With a cache he carried by his side, Uh-huh, Uh-huh, Uh-huh. (my apologies to Froggie for the temporary displacement)

"as a whole". Is that a polite way of saying something rude?

When it comes to identifying appropriate types of punishment, never overlook the value of a good Shunning (from Wikipedia): Effects Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function. Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behavior were clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, if the group membership is seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules is inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring. A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member's closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds. Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.

The other shortcoming about the abandoned property "defense" is that the defendant had knowledge that this cache, and other caches apparently, were active. The cache remnants and cache listings in his car refute the notion that the property was not being actively maintained. So he knew the caches belonged to someone, and he certainly knew they did not belong to him. He also knew they were placed there for others to come find them, which means he knew or should have known that those items were supposed to be left where they were found. It is one thing to argue you can keep something you find in the woods if you hold a good faith belief that is has been abandoned, and another to claim you can take something when you know it is not abandoned. For that matter, since you know who the cache owner is, it seems like an open question whether you could claim ownership of it at all if you are the one removing it from where it was intentionally placed. Lots of technical defenses are available to any prosecution that requires the intent of the defendant to be shown, so perhaps we can take that as a given. I just want to highlight that what the defendant knew about the item he was taking could be relevant. The converse argument for litter is that it doesn't matter what the person who left it there thought about it if the law decides a cache is trash.

One item worth clarifying that is fueling some of the heat here is that there are multiple entities that can separately respond to this incident: 1. The legal system will respond to the particular facts in hand -- and that outcome will only be tied to whatever crimes are proven or admitted. It is unlikely to be a remedy for all of the stolen caches that this person may have taken over the years. 2. The individual's family and friends will probably learn about this. it's also possible that some of this circle have been aware of this activity all along, and may have even participated in it. Or those around him may be surprised and it may change some of the interactions in this person's life 3. The guy's employer may find out about it and also make decisions about whether this affects his job and security clearance. 4. The geocaching community itself is an affected entity, and has been for quite some time. I believe one appropriate way for the geocaching community to respond to such a situation is to put out a "Cache Maggot" or "To Cache a Thief" series of caches that all contain info from the news story and are placed at sites where caches were previously stolen. Pick the best examples, and let others learn about it in the future by seeking out those caches. Certainly the cache that Mr. Repek was arrested for taking would be one of the more significant ones in the series. 5. The individual cache owners are also affected parties, and are the victims whose caches were stolen. They can decide individually to interact with any of the above groups to voice their concerns and possibly affect the course of those actions. Perhaps the most aggrieved members in that group could also pursue other actions such as remedies in small claims court. There are rational steps to be taken in every one of those groups, and the more successful outcomes are likely to be the least inflammatory.

RSG -- you seem to want to frame your discussions around the particular legal case against this one individual and criticize others who are assuming this person is guilty before the legal system renders a decision. As noted earlier, there are some outcomes in the legal system that never reach a judgment of innocence or guilt using different types of sentencing before judgment provisions. Does that have anything to do with whether the person is really innocent or guilty? If you set aside those notions and just look at the allegations that one person stold hundreds of caches over a period of years, and assume that those facts are true, what do you think an appropriate outcome for that person should be if he or she were caught and convicted? Is it relevant to you whether any of those stolen caches were not lawfully placed? We know from this thread that a number of them were lawfully placed, and that some were repeatedly stolen from private property where they were placed with permission. Would you want to go through the entire list of caches this person removed and take into consideration how many of those caches were lawfully placed? Why is that relevant, if the person that was stealing them was not taking that issue into consideration (and I am asking you to assume for the case of this discussion that this is also true).