clps
-
Posts
75 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by clps
-
-
quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:Yes people do have the right to post anything they want. If it's on your property, you also have the right to have anyone who enters your property arrested for trespassing.
If it's not on your property, then tough luck. What right do you have to decide how others use public land?
_"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues"_ -Abraham Lincoln
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:quote:Originally posted by clps:
Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property?
Unfortunately yes. However, in the case of the geocaching.com site, if we were made aware it was your private residence we would extend a courtesy and remove the listing from the site.
As part of living next to a park like you do, you both have to deal with the benefits and the drawbacks of living near an "attractive nuisance."
As for this thread, it seems to be settled - Mopar looks like he summarized it well. I think my actions of removing the second was pretty clear. First posting wins if neither geocacher can get along and agree nicely on an issue.
It is this exact rationale that precludes me from even entertaining a notion of posting a cache, virtual or otherwise, on property that I own ...or anywhere else ...including the National Forest.
Until people get it thru their heads that use of Public lands is a priviledge, not a 'right', (like driving a car) then they will continue to see a crackdown on 'unauthorized' caches.
As the sport grows, the impact on public/private lands will grow too, and you can bet your bottom dollar that sooner or later, it will become illegal to post ANY type of cache on Public lands. All it takes is one virtual cache on a designated 'fragile' public lands to get the Forest Service's/BLM's attention, and then the game is over.
It's a shame that even this sites 'admin' doesn't seem to 'get it' when it comes to asking for cache permission on ALL property, public or private, for ALL caches.
As I said, anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously not a property owner.
(I stand corrected ...I was under the impression the Jeremy Irish was geocachings 'founder'.)
[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 09:18 PM.]
-
I own some acreage within the boundaries of a National Forest. The property is posted Private Property, No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Fishing, etc. at the gate. The 'gate' at the entrance to the property consists of two posts with a chain across, which can easily be stepped over or walked around (notwithstanding the aforementioned signs).
Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property? Do they have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache on the boundry of my property, or nearby in the National Forest, thereby increasing traffic and the ills that go along with the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
To me as a property owner, the answer is a resounding 'NO' on both counts.
The correct thing to do would be to ask permission from the owner of the property beforehand ...virtual or not, so that the property owner can have input on the matter, and decide whether or not the increased traffic is to his/her benefit, and how to deal with said traffic.
Anyone who says differently is obviously not a property owner themself. How would you like it if I placed a 'virtual' cache on the street in front of your house? Would you like the increased traffic, trash, whatever, that would accumulate because of it? I sincerely doubt it.
Geocachers need to think first before they act, and permission should be encouraged, not punished. If the parties involved cannot agree on a solution after a 'good faith' dialogue, then the virtual cache without permission should be canned, and the one that followed the rules and obtained permission first should be enabled.
[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 03:08 AM.]
-
You know, it's a sad state of affairs when the current U.S. administration has the general population (of apparently functionally illiterate joe-six-packs), so afraid of the 'terrorist' bogeyman that they are willing to not only give away our Constitutional protections ('Patriot Act' #1 ...and #2 coming soon), but are more than happy and willing to drop a dime on their neighbor for acting 'suspicious'. Does the word 'fascism' mean anything to you?
Probably not ...to the functionally illiterate (being spoonfed soundbites from Fox News ...as they watch American Idol).
[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 04:32 AM.]
-
And if that doesn't work out, let me know.
-
As much as it pains me to admit it ...being both a Magellan owner, and not exactly a fan of the 'omniscient' Cache Canucks...
This was never about Garmin, but was entirely about learning how to use your computer. Count your blessings that Garmin didn't bill you for the computer tech 'support' ...I would have if I was them.
-
Here is some more of their work.
Let's get it out of our heads that war is 'cool'. It is not ...it is killing, which is a nasty business ...and not the sanitized neatness being shown to us on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Support the US troops, as they have no choice but to be there ...it's their job.
But make no mistake, what is going on in Iraq is nothing to be proud of. Many of our servicepeople will never be the same after the experience ...and will likely have trouble in the years to come, if not physically (as in Gulf War Syndrome), then mentally ...haunted by what they are seeing.
-
I advised only against carrying an 'Uzi' while geocaching, anything else is entirely a personal preference.
-
The paragraph recounting the Israeli/American 'conversation' at the beginning of that anti-gun diatribe fails to mention that Israeli citizens are one of the most heavily armed citizen populaces in the free world. Many Israeli citizens personally carry fully automatic weapons, particularly in the Occupied Territories. No wonder they feel 'safer' there than in many American cities. I would imagine that just about anybody would feel much safer walking thru a major American city at night carrying one of http://www.imi-israel.com/imi/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.1.2.12.2.1.html these, although I would advise against carrying one while geocaching
-
A firearm is only a tool ...as is a swiss army knife, a cigarette lighter, a coil of rope, a GPSr, and a canteen full of water.
All of the above can save your life in an emergency.
Whether or not you think you need, or choose to carry, any or all of the above while geocaching is entirely a personal preference, IMHO.
-
quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:With the terrorist/criminal issues afront, people out wandering around with GPS units looking for Wireless hotspots would strike me as a big red flag. Having recently completed training for Omaha's Citizen's Patrol, one of the scenarios we are trained to report is exactly this kind of unfamiliar individual acting suspiciously lurking around a building that doesn't belong to him/her.
Wandering in the park with a GPS is called hiking, no one notices. Wandering around downtown with a GPS and a wireless device is called "begging to be arrested."
And I guess the cops should beat the individual with a nightstick while they're at it, on the off chance that it might be bin Laden himself that they are detaining for "suspicious behavior".
Really, people ..you get what you deserve, and it is just this type of viewpoint which is driving this country towards ruin.
IT IS NOT OK FOR THE POLICE TO QUESTION, SEARCH, AND/OR DETAIN A PERSON JUST BECAUSE THEY "LOOK SUSPICIOUS". This is the type of behavior that went on in the former USSR and Nazi Germany.
IT IS NOT OK FOR "CITIZEN PATROLS" TO TURN IN OTHER CITIZENS FOR "SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR". This is also the type of behavior that went on in the the former USSR and Nazi Germany.
Now, I don't know what goes on in Nebraska these days, but thankfully, out here in California, that type of behavior is still a violation of ones civil rights. If you're standing in the middle of the Golden Gate with a GPS, you can bet you'll be detained and questioned ...but standing next to a building, or most other places, (GPSr or not) in NO WAY should bring any "suspicion" or cause for any 'citizen patrol' to 'turn in' individuals. If you want to join a citizen patrol, go to the inner city areas and turn in the drug dealers if you like. They cause more death and destruction than any 'terrorists' possibly could, and the neighbors would be most grateful for your help.
It's called 'probable cause' people, and looking around with a GPS is not probable cause.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for being part of a 'citizen patrol' which turns in other regular citizens for 'suspicious behavior'.
The chance of one being actually affected by a 'terrorist' is less than being hit by lightning. Put your duct tape and plastic sheeting away, it's a ruse to promote a political agenda ...nothing more, nothing less. The 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia ...you don't see us penalizing the Saudi's, do you?
As for wireless networks, I'll keep mine low-key and WEP enabled, thank you. You're asking for trouble if you leave your wireless network wide open, unless you're providing a public access point, which is an entirely different story.
[This message was edited by clps on March 15, 2003 at 02:19 AM.]
-
I saw an interesting piece on CSPAN the past few days ...it was a walkthrough with the 101 Airborne Military Police as they were processed for deployment to Kuwait this past Sunday. The reporter followed them on the base (in Kentucky, I believe), from 7:00AM till around 5PM, when they finally boarded a (commercial) plane for the 23 hour flight. Very interesting to watch. Anyways, the point of this is: the MP's were each issued GPSr's as part of their 'essential gear' i.e. rifle, pistol, GPSr, gas mask, etc., ...stuff that was not to leave their sight ...even when they went to the john, as their CO so aptly put it.
Now, even though I strongly disagree with this war without UN Security Council backing ...(and no blackmailing of the council members allowed, either), the logistics and process of deploying so many individuals to the Gulf theater is still fascinating to watch.
And ...here's a little free advice to all you with 'gun references' in your sig or forum name:
I'm all for the second amendment and unregulated gun ownership for US citizens. I firmly believe that a well-armed populace is a polite populace. But, (and this is a big 'but') when you constantly use gun references in your sig, etc., you do, most certainly, just come across as a 'gun-toten' radical, (as a prior post stated), and lend credence to the anti-gun movement. Tone it down a bit publicly, and you'll do us all a favor, IMHO.
Secondly, some of you need to read the alternate press for a change, i.e. something other than the mainstream media, to give you a somewhat more balanced view of what the actual 'real picture' is. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com is a good place to start, if you can stand their somewhat extreme leaning toward the other side of the fence ...at least it gives you something to think about.
And finally, http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm may I suggest that you read the paper on truth suppression ...some of you are (unintentionally?) getting pretty good at it, ...especially with the name-calling. I fully expect you to label this post as a 'troll' too.
By the way, they didn't mention what brand/model of GPSr was being issued to the troops, anybody know?
(Oops, a few minor spelling/grammar corrections necessary)
[This message was edited by clps on March 13, 2003 at 04:03 AM.]
-
I wouldn't have expected such a well thought out response from you.
And ...in case you didn't notice, I chose my 'troll icon' just for you
-
So ...let me get this straight, Cache Canucks...
You are all for going to war with Iraq, killing untold numbers of innocent Iraqi citizens in the process ...yet you are 'offended' by an obtuse 'towel head' joke???
Please ...we wouldn't want to offend your delicate sensibilities.
-
You're being played for a fool.
Anyone who believes that duct tape and plastic sheeting is the answer is just not thinking straight.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1780.shtml
-
There is a learning curve with the SporTrak models ...the units are not the most intuitive, and the manual is boring (even for manuals, and I /like/ manuals).
With that said, however, there is a wealth of knowledge is the SporTrak manual. The SporTraks are loaded with features, and each time you pick up the manual you can learn something new.
-
because the armed forces purchased all available copies
I'd call them on the phone, explain the situation, and see what their response was.
-
Given the amount of hits that thread had, I'm sure everyone is well aware of our last exchange ...no need for you to attempt to start something up again.
Some didn't like the solid OD patch, I simply added a little color, and reiterated that no matter what color, it would likely have to be 'approved' first.
Pretty basic stuff.
-
In all honesty, I believe that the copyright/trademark would cover the actual 'design' of the logo ...more so than just the colors. Therefore, any release of such a patch would likely technically 'violate' copyright/trademarks, and need to be 'authorized' by the copyright/trademark holder.
In any case ...here's a mockup of a 'subdued colors' version ...for those that dislike solid OD ...or just prefer a little more color.
(Credit where credit is due ...this image was made by modifying the original image by Cache Canucks.)
[This message was edited by clps on January 19, 2003 at 02:07 PM.]
-
One other thing.
Its interesting that you think my viewpoints are 'anti-american' ...as you put it.
I guess anyone that doesn't agree with your gung-ho militaristic solution to the Iraq problem (or any other problem), is a 'commie' in your opinion ...which sort of makes my prior McCarthyism reference pretty accurate, I'd say.
Quite the contrary, in fact. I consider myslf a true american ...willing to speak out against a perceived injustice, even when that opinion is unpopular, or not 'politically correct'.
In the name of 'terror' we are giving up some of our fundamental American civil liberities, ...with, for instance, passage of legislation such as the (wrongly titled) 'Patriot Act' ...which is what I would call a truly 'anti-american' piece of legislation.
But I guess you don't mind that you've given up the right to be 'secure in your possesions' ...if it means you'll feel a little 'safer'.
-
I guess the best defense is a good offense ...so you once again resort to belittlement and name calling to attempt to assert your position.
To clear matters up ...I'm not 'denegrating' the internet, just stating some fundamental facts about it which you don't seem able to comprehend. I also see that you fail to understand some other fundamental basics behind the internet, that being ...everyone's opinion is equal, no matter who or what they are, whether a housewife in Peoria, a taxi driver in New York, or a 12 year old with an AOL account ...it doesn't really matter ...demographics don't matter here. Nor does your purported 'expert' opinion matter any more or less than anyone else's.
Finally, while we're at it, lets dispel a common misconception regarding 'serving your country' (i.e. military service).
The truth is, (unless you were drafted, which is an entirely different matter) most people entering the military in the U.S. ever since the abolishment of the draft enter for two primary reasons.
1) They have no other prospects in the job market.
2) They are looking for Uncle Sam to foot the bill for a continuing education, so that they WILL have job prospects when they leave the military.
I wonder what we would dig up regarding your demeanor at the time ...were we to question your friends, family, teachers, neighbors, acquaintances, drill sergeant, etc., at the time you chose to enter the military?
I can't wait to hear the revisionist history in the responses to this post.
-
I'm not apologizing for anything ...the fact is, this is the internet, and I could have a page up in ten minutes with photos of 'me' storming the beaches at Normandy, standing next to General McArthur, and chasing Rommel thru the desert ...or whatever. It doesn't mean its really 'me' ...or that its reality, it's just some photos on a website, period.
Here's a simple truth about the internet ...in case you're new to the medium. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, and it's very easy to manufacture 'proof'. I'm always skeptical (very skeptical, actually) of people attempting to bolster their 'word' based on who they claim to be, or the 'experience' they claim to have.
I'm not saying you are or you aren't who/what you claim to be, only that ...just because you claim to be something, doesn't mean I believe that you really are ...or that I believe what you say any more or any less because of it.
I guess the only person who really knows one way or the other is yourself, and when all is said and done, thats all that really matters.
If you reread my posts, my position hasn't changed one iota ...and I'm glad you finally copped to it being all about the oil
-
Or position changes here ...my position is still the same: (its pretty simple really)
1)I don't believe we should enter this conflict unless absolutely necessary, i.e. all other options are exhausted. And even then, we better be darn sure we go into this with UN backing, and full support from our 'allies' and other Muslim nations in the region.
2) We should be upfront and clear to the US public and others, as to our true motives ....to secure the oil in order to stabilize that commodity for the 'world' (read U.S.) market.
Only then can it be judged whether or not the U.S. public supports this country's (U.S.) energy policies.
As for the '12 year old in PJ's' comment ...if it doesn't apply, why should it bother you?
You folks make all types of comments regarding my supposed character and motives ... which doesn't bother me a bit. As some have correctly stated ...you should be able to state what you like, when you like. It's called 'freedom of speech' ....and it's what makes this country great.
-
The ones that actually DO the fighting (i.e. killing), aren't usually the chest thumping type. They are (as a rule) not exactly proud that they had to take human life in the name of their country, for whatever the reason, and do not 'brag' about being a 'warrior'. They usually don't like even talking about their tour of duty.
The chest thumpers are usually the ones that served well behind the lines, and didn't see a bit of action ...other than errant fire. It's hard to be a self-professed 'hero', I guess, when you're washing dishes on KP.
And I don't have a problem with fighting Saddam over the oil, the problem I have is the lying being done to the general public as to the 'real reason' for being there.
-
When all you do is follow the orders of your superiors, with no thought as to the consequence of your actions. Dare to think for yourself for even a fraction of a second about just what the heck you were/are doing over there in Iraq/Kuwait.
You probably still think it was about 'liberating the Kuwaiti people'. (It was about the oil then, too ....truth be known.)
It's funny how the response to my last post is all about trying to prove who you are or aren't, rather than addressing the points that were presented.
Go ahead and resort to name-calling and questioning others worth based on some lame statistics on a web site ...it's just what I would expect as a reply.
All kinds of chest thumping and posturing won't change the facts ...it's about the oil. Always has been, always will be in that neck of the woods. You're just to tied up in your own self-importance to see it.
Whether I choose to post cache finds or not is as relevant to this conversation as flying a kite. It's called 'privacy' ...something we may be in short supply of very soon if we keep on going down the direction we're headed as a nation.
When two caches collide, The follow up to Cache Wars.
in General geocaching topics
Posted
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I know the 1st amendment well. How in God's name you believe that the first amendment gives you the 'right' to geocache, or to post coordinates to property that does not belong to you, thereby making your actions an infringement on the rights of others ...is beyond me. Just as the 1st amendment does not give you the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, your right to 'free speech' ends when it infringes the rights of others ...i.e. property owners, whether they be public or private.
Likewise, if you do not comprehend that public land use is a privilege, and not a right ...either you obey the regulations of public land use or you are subject to civil penalties and/or jail ...then there is no sense trying to explain it to you.
Again, judging by your comments, you are not a property owner.
As for the lawsuit issue, you can bet that if someone posts coordinates that negatively impact public or private property (and without approval from the property owner), they may very well find themselves in court ...defending their actions.
I also liked the comment:
"Waaaa! this has been decided, and I don't like the direction this topic is taking ...lets lock this thread"
i.e. Monkey see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.
[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 10:45 PM.]