JeePSer

Looks like I will be in Hawaii for a few days in June myself. So I'll be keeping an eye on this thead in hopes of getting some good caches to add to my must do list while I'm there.

Looks like I will be in Hawaii for a few days in June myself. So I'll be keeping an eye on this thead in hopes of getting some good caches to add to my must do list while I'm there.

Looks like I will be in Hawaii for a few days in June myself. So I'll be keeping an eye on this thead in hopes of getting some good caches to add to my must do list while I'm there.

Just one more reason for me not to like Taylor Hicks. Soul Patrol

Who knew that Batman was a Senators fan.

Bob I find it very interesting that you started a thread about people holding on to TBs too long. The first one you had listed (Bearly Legal) was in your possesion from 7/1/04 to 8/1/04. Reminds me about a story concerning a Goose and a Gander.

I will first preface this by letting everyone know that I am a noob with only two finds. That being said, I thought that the concept of locationless caches might be interesting so I checked to see what ones are on the site. I reading through the list I have noticed that many of them will only allow one find per qualified place/thing. I also noticed that being new and the fact that most locationless caches are older there is usually a long log list.' This brings me to my point, finally. Is it possible that if only one log per place/thing is going to be allowed that part of the cache mainteance might be to list the specific qualifying finds in the description to save people (like me) from having to read through all the previous logs to make sure that the site I have in mind hasn't already been logged? I know it's a strange request. Just something I thought about as I was browsing through the list.

You guys are so lucky. I never find guns when I'm out geocaching. Of couse I don't carry anything that's good enough to trade for it anyway.

In one word....yes. Besides it is all meant in good fun, as I'm sure it is when other countries/people stereotype U.S. citizens.

We use FSR channel 2 What is FSR2? I know the geocaching channel is FRS channel 2. Is FSR a new service frequency? Could be a dyslexic cacher that just hit their 100th DNF due to mixed up coordinates.

You're welcome. Hmmm... wait a minute, I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but I'll bite. WAY OT It seems to me that Jeremy's post was correcting the figure right above it (i.e. $.82), where the author of such post meant to write $.08, as Jeremy noted. Jeremy didn't seem to be correcting any reference to .08 cents, which admittedly, as you noted, was incorrect. Just my .02 cents. Pan Wow was he really commenting on the rounding? I never woulda noticed if he hadn't said "round down" Note he did notate his correction properly as $.08 not .08 cents as the person did whom I was correcting.. Again thanks for coming out and contributing your two tenths of a cent, it's been a blast. Edit: On Topic -- I do agree that perhaps "exclusionist" is a much better term then "elitist". Thorin I think we're splitting hairs here. And by the way .02 cents is two hundreths of a cent and .2 cents two tenths of a cent.

IMHO.......No.

Still going off topic, but isn't that the same?? I mean to have a 'minority' and a 'majority' there has to be some disagreement. Your right. I guess the point that I was trying to make is that there are a few people wandering around the forums that want to remind people that in the whole scheme of things our geocaching problems are very minor compared to say world hunger. This is of course very true, but when they have a disagreement they seem to forget that being excluded from the opportunity to find an MOC (as an example) is pretty minor. Everything is all fun and games until their perceived geo-rights have been trampled. Using The Cow Spots' example in the big picture that mean if you don't pony up you're excluded from the chance to find less than 1/3 of a percent of all caches. And on top of that, I believe that most MOC are only kept that way for a short time. So what's the big deal. If you don't want to pay....don't. But don't start trying to label those that do and want to place an MOC. If Geo Ho or anybody else wants to place an MOC go right ahead. The reasons for doing it are as different as the individuals doing it. And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find when the cache is made public, that's cool too. (Although I don't see the point in that) But when we start trying to label somebody who doesn't agree completely with our geocaching practices things begin to get a bit out of hand. (edited for clarification )

please forgive for my OT observations: I find it interesting that when issues are brought up in the forum that the majority don't agree with the minority constantly reminds up that it's only a game....lighten up. But when the minority disagrees the majority is expected to sit back and listen while they drone on about how unfair and wrong it all is. If you don't want to part with any of your hard earned money to become a premium member there are certain things that you will not be able to be a part of. Get over it! The fact that I choose to do something that excludes others doesn't give a small but easily offended segment of the excluded the right to whine and complain endlessly about how mean I am to leave them out. It's only a game......lighten up.

A better question is......why do they make them? sorry to be off topic

You've got to be kidding......right? As a business Groundspeak offers additional services in hopes that it might promote more people to become premium members which in turn helps keep a place on the web to list caches. By your logic they could stop offering those services and still operate forever without any income. To think that using any service for free gives you the right to label someone that supports it monetarily for the way they choose to list their caches is ridiculous. I am not condeming anyone that chooses not to become a premium member. That is their choice. But you have no more right to call a premium member or their practices elitist than a premium member has to call you a free-loader.

I'm starting to wonder if some people on here take the position that they feel will get them quoted more than anybody else or they actually believe what they type here. Geocaching associated with being an Elitist.........who let Michael Moore in here.

If someone starts a topic and later decides to close it that is their right. It was their topic and the either got what they wanted from it or decided they didn't need any additional input. If you disagree with the topic being closed then start it back up yourself. The fact that someone thinks that the topic shouldn't have been closed doesn't matter.

I would agree that stolen seems like a pretty strong word under the circumstances. That being said whether the value is negligible or not it is not that persons to sell. I hate to make this overly simplistic but, is selling something that you don't own is right or wrong. I don't think that value enters into the picture. If I walk into Wal-Mart and pocket a Hotwheel to sell on ebay does the negligible value make it ok? Maybe I'm getting off topic here...but either way I will be quiet on the issue from this point on.

Unfortunatley there will always be a jerk or two that will try to profit from something like this. And the world is full of idiots with more money than sense that will buy. The best option in this case is for as many people to complain to ebay as possible and try to get the auction shut down. Of course that won't keep the guy from going to another auction site and listing it again. My understanding of travel bugs is that, even though they are out in the wild, they are still the property of the owner. The owner purchases the tag, the object it's attatched to and sets the goal. Then other cachers are generous enough to help the TB on it's journey. But it is still the owners.

Maybe I am more of a violent person than I thought. My philosiphy is, if something is biting me (mosquito, dog, human,...) I swat first and ask questions later. The only time I would even consider just flicking is if the biter was bigger than me.

I thought I was following along pretty well here. But based on this comment maybe I not quite sure who was responsible for bringing this issue up in the forum to begin with.

While we're at it maybe clothes should be made out of clear plastic too. That way people can't carry hidden knives and guns. Now that I think about it, there are better reason for clear plastic clothes than that.

I never have been quite able to figure out which I think is worse, people who would intentionaly harm other innocent people or people who are so paranoid that they put those ideas out there for the first idiot that is a few sandwiches shy of a picnic to stumble on. Personally I have never even thought of the possibility of such a thing. If somebody has that dismal a view of their fellow man maybe they ought to donate their GPSr to someone else and just stay home with the blinds closed checking to make sure their doors are locked ever 15 minutes or so. I'm not trying to walk through life with blinders on and do know that there are people out there that will do harm to innocents (9/11 for example). I think we might all be better off however, if we tried not to waste our energy and time being worried about what some deranged idiot might do with a new GPSr and his junior terrorist kit.

There are some good inexpensive basic units out there. For example: If you split the cost of a Garmin eTrex it would only be about $50 each. Possibly less if you can find a good deal on ebay. Just a thought.