LaPaglia

I highly doubt it. It has never worked with you.

The reason this started is because a cacher did not have the cache approved because the guideline was "too vague". Based on the other thread, the cache was about 400 feet away. I was listing the reasons why a cacher would place a cache near another cache. Am I wrong in the assumption that this is the reason this discussion started? As I think about it, perhaps this debate should be over the use "arbitrary". It seems pretty common that folks misunderstand it's usage and it is constantly having to be explained. If the guideline said "Although there is no specific technical reason for this distance, .10 mile (528 feet) does make a good seperation between caches to prevent saturation" or something like that. Since it was split from the other thread it is no longer about any one thread. Thanks for clearing your post up for me.

Im sorry but I dont understand what point you are trying to make.

That's fine with me if you think it's a good idea. I certainly didn't mean to have you issue something for every decision. Just for those that end up clarifiying a guideline in general or a change in interpretation. If you have a form letter for a situation it might help interested parties to see it before they place the cache. I guess I'm really just talking about a formal place to put all of these instead of having to hunt in the forums. The main problem in something like that is the fact that we treat each cache on a Case by Case basis. So it might be hard to develop a form that would work. But the idea has some merit.

I see it as a safety warning done in a lite hearted way

The wording is clear. First and foremost remember these rules are for this forum and are therefore different and in addition to the regular forum guidelines. This sentance is a complete thought, "No company or business postings/advertising is allowed." This is also a complete thought, "Charity Solicitations are also not acceptable." It doesn't say certain types are not acceptable is says they are not acceptable. Therefore it applies to apply to individual coins owned by a person and auctioned for a good cause, and to something like the Hurricane Katrina coins. This is the final thought that is complete in and of its self. "Groundspeak reserves the right to determine if an item for sale is inappropriate for this board." That is an Ace in the hole. It trumps everything. Discussing this rule, note is says rule not guideline therefore less flexible, is fine. These are discussion boards. The above is my discussion on this matter. The most important thing to remember is that it is not states as a guideline but as a rule and therefore it is more exact than a simple guideline. As to the other threads that have been mentioned it maybe that until now they have been flying under the radar and that is why they were not closed. Thank you Michael

what a lame glitch. don't they know how to count records in the members table? Don't quote me but I seem to remember its something to do with rebooting to change it, maybe not. Its been a long time and I might be totally wrong

Its a glitch, documented on the software borad of the people that wrote the software.

Quoted from Mopars post. Fizzy, can we get a corrected post from you on this????

a bitter bitter first hider whose cache is 687.5 mi NE from the users location. In addition I guess the part about a container that could last 3 months wasnt read either. So basically we have a plastic bag in the woods, with a TB and a piece of paper. No way this cache will last 3 months. it cant be maintained because the owner lives 670 miles from the cache and the reviewer is the bad guy. I know we all like being called Nazi's. Thats what happens when the reviewers try to follow the guideline and some poor poor lost soul doesn't take the time to read or understand. Instead they just get upset and start calling names. O well the total story is always more interesting than just the hiders one sided rant. (Bold added for clarity)

Wait and see for a while.

dup post

Because you have no proof. since most of us didn't log them in before we distributed them neither you nor anyone else would have any idea what happened to them. In other words, those that chose to steal them or hand them directly to their friends were just careful not to leave a trail indicating so. Is that about right? Since you are unable to understand the basic concept of making an accusation without proof I will leave you with these words to ponder. They are from the Groundspeak Terms of Use.

Because you have no proof. since most of us didn't log them in before we distributed them neither you nor anyone else would have any idea what happened to them. Just because you cant find the one with your name on it doesnt mean that who ever was responsible to distribute it failed. They could have place it at an event or in a cache and it got picked up and not logged. the whole point is you don't know what happened to it. No one knows. So you cant accuse some of the people who distributed them of not doing their job. Get over it, Get over yourself, you are not the almighty TB court with the ability to judge people with out any evidence. You are behaving very much like your namesake. He was wrong too. Get over it.

That's ok, Robe, you don't have to - I will. AFAIC, it's stealing, plain and simple. It's sad that so many Jeeps have ended up stolen. Some of them by the very people entrusted to place them into circulation in the first place. Thats pretty straight forward Joe. I think without an apology to the people that distributed them you are looking pretty bad, Joe.

There, I fixed it for you. Well Joe, it seems to bother you a lot more than it bothers a lot of other people. I wasn't accusing people that distributed them of keeping them. You were. So I figure, Joe, that you feel it is your sacred duty to free the jeeps from the Evil menace of people that are destroying your attempt to find one jeep with your name on it. Wouldn't it be easier, Joe, if you just played the game and didn't worry how others played it. Groundspeak didn't ask you to be the Saviour of all the trapped Jeeps. I'm not sure if they are worried about it or not. But I do know that they thanked all the people that distributed them and indicated that these same people did a good job. too bad you think you have to make accusations against these fine people. the least you could do Mr. Senator, is apologize for your false accusations. You cast dispersions on many good people and need to atone for that

Well what can I say.

Suddenly the REAL reason he is upset comes out. the one he wants to covet isn't in circulation

The beagle is lying next to the bug. The Pom is sniffing the bug. Nice try, though. I'm sure if you snoop around more, though, you'll find the bug that I imprisoned for about a month while I was in hospital. Neither do I. That's why I can't understand people that hold them forever, and I especially can't understand those that hoarde, like, say, 9 of them. I don't have a problem with people keeping a $1.99 toy either. What I *do* have a problem with is people denying OTHER PEOPLE a chance to enter the contest. You're right, I have logged one. And no, I have no intention whatsoever of entering the contest. I don't WANT a Jeep. I don't NEED a Jeep. But that doesn't make it right for you, me or anyone else to hang on to them any more than it does to capture a non-Jeep travel bug. Yeah, but I'll bet people that cache enough to hoarde a half dozen or more of them are QUITE familiar with what they are. It's a bit naive to think otherwise. I'm sorry you think that hoarding someone else's property and denying others the ability to have a fair chance is acceptable behavior. I think you should make it your personal mission to correct all the cachers who are not playing the game the way you want it played. Email all of them, Post their names in the forums. Call the police and report them. They must be evil since they don't play the game the way you have decided it should be played. Its nice at least to see you back off from claiming that those the distributed them were keeping them. But you keep looking, the hoarders are out there and you NEED to find them and save US from them. Tell me Sen. McCarthy how is that list coming?

I can get you one, hasn't even been retrieved from Jeep yet. Thanks, but no. I decided I couldn't get it to a cache in a timely manner so I didn't keep one for myself. I don't get out as much as I used to and didn't want to delay a jeep that someone else could be using. Thanks Again Michael

That's ok, Robe, you don't have to - I will. AFAIC, it's stealing, plain and simple. It's sad that so many Jeeps have ended up stolen. Some of them by the very people entrusted to place them into circulation in the first place. Statements like that so vague and snide that nothing good can come of them. IF you have someone you would like to personaly blame then write contact@ and complain but dont make statements like this you cast doubt on anyone who has had jeeps to distribute. There's no WAY to call anyone out because no one KNOWS who was entrusted with them. There are DOZENS, if not HUNDREDS of Jeeps that never made it into a single cache and are STILL listed as "in the hands of the owner" (Jeep 4x4). I suppose it's possible that Jeep never distributed them at all, but don't you think there would be all kinds of legal issues surrounding that and they would have done everything possible to deploy them? My statement does not cast doubt on every distributor. Clearly, quite a lot of them made it into circulation. You've contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you pull out your broad brush and assert that Jeep distributors have stolen Jeeps. So then what else would you call it when person A gives an item to person B with the understanding it is to be placed into circulation and it never makes it there? I will be more than happy to show you the 760 UNDEPLOYED Jeeps. Would you like me to just list them right here? It would be interesting to see if anyone actually has a list of what Jeeps were entrusted to whom. I'm sorry if logic escapes you. I don't need to know WHO a murderer WAS to know a murder was committed. A body and a smoking gun are plenty. That statement was a generality. The information is NOT public knowledge. If it is, I will gladly retract that statement just as soon as you point me to the information. Agreed. I believe you've successfully accounted for, oh, about 4240 Jeeps. Excellent work. Unfortunately, it's the other 760 I was talking about. Any ideas about those? Perhaps I could, but what would that accomplish? People who would take them without ever deploying them in the first place are not only untrustworthy (and yes, thieves), but also without shame. So you're saying that part of the "primary" responsibility of "deploying" a Jeep did not include actually logging them into the cache (physical or event) where they were left? Thats right, I had 108 jeeps to distribute. Some I mailed out. Some I distributed at events. None were logged in prior to releasing them. Some were even dropped into caches as a suprise without being logged in. There were no requirements to log them. I chose to keep them all virgin. All mine made it out. I dont even have one for me.

That's ok, Robe, you don't have to - I will. AFAIC, it's stealing, plain and simple. It's sad that so many Jeeps have ended up stolen. Some of them by the very people entrusted to place them into circulation in the first place. Statements like that so vague and snide that nothing good can come of them. IF you have someone you would like to personaly blame then write contact@ and complain but dont make statements like this you cast doubt on anyone who has had jeeps to distribute.

how much more do you need? I don't have any problems with it. Clean it up and I'll see if I can add it to the list of available emoticons If you are wondering WHEN the answer is "Working on it"

In this case his father is the land manager. That's possible, but not clear from the post. It's worded as if they adopted it but don't actually own it. If that were the case though, I would hope they have the courtesy to contact the other cache owners if they want it gone rather than just confiscate it. If this were the case you would hope the the hiders had the courtesy to ask permission to hide it in the first place.

Why would you remove their cache? Without their permission it's stealing. Beyond that there are half a dozen other listing sites it could be listed on. In this case his father is the land manager.