Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. No, I did not. And no I was not. And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.
  2. Whatever, I just don't appreciate deliberate lies (Mushtang, not sbell1), ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations that I am "twisting" someones words when I am not. My points have been based on my words. Obviously, at some level I have to address your views, but I have not twisted anything deliberately. So either we can discuss it or not, but I'd appreciate not calling me on the carpet for it unless you are willing to explain. Again, I've been extremely civil and polite to you and Mushtang and so far I get repeated personal attacks and little substantive response....yet, I am called the troll.
  3. That there is no proof he has adequate permission.
  4. That's what we do...in fact, I keep a little zip lock with a log book and pencil in them ready to go. In my less than 30 caches found I've used one once already. I don't carry micro replacements though...not sure what people do for those logs.
  5. Now who is twisting words? I speak for myself and my opinion. I don't follow anyones "lead"...he and I have our area of disagreement on permission.
  6. There is no issue. The cache owner did what they should. The land manager said "use the grassy areas". Until something comes up, there is no problem to solve. It wasn't the land manager. It was a grounds keeper.
  7. I'm sorry. I thought I was clear. The bit that I quoted was where you are twisting the positions of others. About the Wal-Mart photo guy?
  8. Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.By continuing to force the issue with the land managers, you risk themn making the decision that geocaching is more trouble than it's worth and having no caches allowed. That is why it is better to accept the word of the cache owner or ignore the cache, contrary to the position of a certain troll. That doesn't necessarily resolve the issue. If 90% of the cachers still go to a cache like this and cause a problem that is in clear violation of park rules then the issue is going to get raised when they want to find out the reason behind people continually going off the trails. I never offered up tattling to land managers as a solution. I would, however, offer up that people report it to the reviewer so that hopefully between the reviewer and the cache owner they can work this out before it gets to that level. It doesn't change the core issue, however. If they truly, honestly have adequate permission up front then this shouldn't be a problem. All this does is demonstrate how your destructive practice if going to someday cause problems versus actually encouraging cachers to be responsible and get proper permission.
  9. That's your opinion...yet, you fail to elaborate or cite a specific instance where I've done this. You just keep coming back to personal attacks or bogus accusations...
  10. Yeah, we have this old gas station in town with a couple rusted gas pumps and other things around that something like this would blend in with nicely without even needing to attach directly to something...it's privately owned, so would have to see if I could get permission.
  11. Then what's the trick to writing on frozen logs? As much as I hate them for everyday use, gel pens (or the ones that use liquid ink) work pretty good on frozen or wet paper. I keep a papermate liquid expresso pen (or other non-ball gel or liquid pen) with me just in case I come across a soaked log. Hm, if you say that works I'll try it...it would seem to me that moisture would cause those to bleed...not exactly sure what gel pen is, maybe I am thinking of the wrong style...I'll look it up.
  12. Then what's the trick to writing on frozen logs? I was going to try felt tip pen, but that was clear back in the truck...I am guessing that would've worked somewhat. The log was a completely soaked and matted piece of paper wrapped around a piece of a wooden matchstick. I replaced it with a small piece of National Geographic Adventure Paper. No extra charge. Is that a joke that I am missing? I don't get the National Geographic Adventure Paper thing...
  13. And, continue on with the ad hominem attacks. What's intriguing to me is that I am civil and polite yet I continue to get my character questioned by two individuals that will defend the right for people to place objects on others private property, and encourage others to do so, without a second thought. But, it is what it is...and the personal attacks and lack of honest debate show the truth in your position. Oh, and the need to deliberately continue to lie about blatantly incorrect facts.
  14. Why do you need to have it on your watch list? You don't get updates like you do when you own a cache? I know enough about TB's to know what they are when I find them...that's it.
  15. So the page says...if your knit-picking of the contact the OP is claiming is valid then it's equally valid toward the reference in the cache page. As I said before... Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.
  16. I didn't twist anyones position. The fact is, as good as local groups are for bouncing off ideas their opinions and information are not authoritative enough to substitute for adequate permission. For me to "twist words" I'd have to speculate or re-state others positions for them...which I have not done.
  17. Couldn't that cause potential issue with moisture and the ink ruining the log? This is one reason I've shied away from even using certain types of felt tips pens...seems like the ink in those tends to run when moisture hits the ink.
  18. I understand that many of them do that well. That's because many cachers, especially long time cachers, tend to be sensitive about protecting geocaching and maintaining integrity. The point is, however, that while it's good starting point it's not the finishing point. Regulations change, management changes and it's always the right thing to do to verify permission at the location you are wanting to place a cache. You can continue to elaborate over and over about the Wal-Mart photo guys not having the authority, but as I demonstrated earlier by talking specifically to Store Managers, who do have that authority, we can't assume anywhere we throw a frisbee is also suitable for placing caches or parking RV's.
  19. That makes absolutely no sense. This isn't about the finder. This is about the owner. I, as a finder, can't make a necessary distinction as to my comfort level with a cache? I take the risks for my actions seeking a cache. That is where my responsibility lies.
  20. First, the cache page certainly wouldn't be authoritative. I'd say the park manager and the park rules are authoritative. For example, the sign...for example, maybe the person FunnyNose spoke with...then again, maybe not. Second, what if...well, what if not?! The onus from the guidelines is for the owner to be able to provide that assurance.
  21. Uhm, perhaps his original point. Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules? The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from the reviewers, not the land manager.And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.Reread the post that I was replying to. 'Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?' This was the question to which my post referred. The cache description explained that permission was received for cachers to leave the trail as long as they stayed on the grassy areas. The question as to whether this is OK to be listed should be answered by the reviewers or TPTB, not the land manager. The land manager does not list geocaches. Making a call to the parks department out of the blue and talking to some random person accomplishes nothing. The answer to 'Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?' included 'The answer to that was found in the cache description.' Again, that is not an authoritative source. I was merely clarifying this aspect. I never elaborated on the whose responsibility it was. Obviously, that wasn't a point of contention.
  22. Yeah, I was looking at caches in that area too and that's the one I suspected... I sent the cache owner an e-mail to see if he can verify. Would be neat to hear the story from his perspective and if he's talked to them yet or even heard about it. I would think someone already contacted him about it.
  23. And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.
  24. Wal-Mart's are generally pretty good about letting RVer's use their lots, but the few we've stopped in and done this we've asked permission and received it. Some managers care. One manager said never worry about asking. We've only found one that said no to parking an RV there. On the one that said no we just went up the road to the next one...but only after throwing a frisbee around on their lot just because!
  • Create New...