Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. If you so choose...I never once judged his ability to maintain the cache. All I did was defend the possibility that the Reviewer was indeed not necessarily acting out of spite, or as you tried to paint it, with some sort of agenda. I also stated, numerous times, that I could agree to disagree with his perception of the archival. What I will not budge on his direct statement to put the onus on the Reviewer, and to shirk responsibility, when he said it's now not his cache and not his problem. That is plainly, undeniably wrong. He placed the cache, it's his cache, his responsibility. I disagree with this interpretation as you are painting it, but I am not defending anyone in this thread but me so see how people replied in your own way...I'll repeat, I don't think there are very many of us that would not help, even at this juncture in the thread, if they were closer. I don't think anyone contested this point. Well, here we go again with the veiled attacks on anyone who disagrees with RK. And, that's not entirely true...we do have some idea of the conversation because RK himself has stated it. However, he drug this thing into the public forum at his own desire with what information was available...so, it's going to get discussed, like I said...it is how forums work. No, you just complain when others complain because someone doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives... Which, no one is really doing, for the most part people are just looking at what available facts were posted and saying "whoa, there isn't obvious reason to throw the Reviewer under the bus". You apparently think there is and that RK was right in doing so...so be it.
  2. At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right. You are very good at twisting words to make people fit your preconceptions of them. "Judge not, least ye be Judged". I am not twisting words.Nor am I judging. It was my interpretation that you feel right and wrong is subjective. I don't agree with that statement in every instance. Many things are subjective, some are not, you didn't seem to offer much more than "what is right is subjective", so I rolled with it...
  3. Makes me wonder if applying some urethane or epoxy type coatings wouldn't more significantly increase their longevity. Also, I wonder if them being air tight isn't somewhat of a curse as much of a blessing...in climates where you have fluxuating humidity you are going to get moisture trapped in there just by virtue of it being in the air. Obviously, you need it water tight in flood-like situations to keep water out, but ultimately water will be trapped regardless I would think. Are the gaskets replaceable on them?
  4. We have several caches that have 5 or less logs for the last year and a half, with 1 of them having only 1 log in that time frame. We don't have all the details on the problem cache so we can't render an opinion on whether that cache should or should not have been archived. We have run into situations where the reviewer has taken a hard line for whatever reason he deemed appropriate and in that case We archived the cache and refused to place any other caches while he was the local approver. We have seen reviewers take a hard line against cachers and the cacher would bring the problem to the forums seeking advice and have other reviewers use their personal accounts to stir things in those threads. Most of the time nothing is ever resolved. As in this case, there will never be a solution that will make very many people who have responded to this thread feel like anything was accomplished. The only real accomplishment was to show how fast some people chose the hard and fast way to interpret the "guidelines". If so many people feel that the cache is becoming "Litter" perhaps someone will show a little Christmas spirit and go retrieve it for the reviewer. John The irony here in how these replies from you and your wife apply both to you and the OP are too much. I can take that entire argument and say it applies to your responses as well. This is an Internet forum. Many things don't get accomplished here. It's the nature of the beast. That being said, which stone that you are casting doesn't apply both ways? The OP's post didn't accomplish anything. The OP could show Christmas spirit and go get it. Heck, why don't YOU go get it? Does putting that challenge forward make your stance on this thread the center of altruism? There isn't probably one of us on here, including you and your wife, that wouldn't hesitate a second if it weren't a ridiculously cost intensive time sink. Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...but, I understand you've had personal conflicts with Reviewers and have a bad taste from previous altercations on the boards where you feel they were using underhanded means to defend, so I can see where you have chosen your stance and I respect that. It's no wonder he archived it.
  5. At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right.
  6. What about them? Ignore them, remove them or put your own in it sounds like to me. Religious, political, business...it would seem the nature of the object doesn't matter in regards to the solicitation rule in terms of cache content.
  7. What is allowed is between you and the cache owner. What most people actually do (I base this on empirical evidence) is log a note when they revisit a cache. What's the reason for that that you generally see in the notes? I've never noticed it before on any logs personally, but have seen it mentioned here numerous times...just curious, because I've revisited a cache or two on occasion with some people I was introducing to caching and never felt compelled to note it.
  8. I like runner Cover 2 depending on the cacher. Put pressure on the GPS and try to force a DNF...
  9. If you read the first post, that was not the question. My first post was pretty much venting. However since you bring up the quesion. I flat out don't think that caches should be archived on active owners unless their slowness hits geological proporations. I'm talking more than a year. Are you trying to insinuate you haven't been questioning the practice for what is now almost 3 pages and that Rambler just brought this up? It would seem to me, whether you directly questioned it or not in those exact terms, that you've been doing pretty much that from the beginning...including the original post.
  10. That's the way I interpret it which is why I stated I view the practice as an "end around". That's just my opinion.
  11. Would you trash out something more obvious that shouldn't be there, or conversely would you maintain another persons cache if it was in obvious need and you had the resources? I guess I view cache maintenance as owner responsibility, but also a community function. I am not trying to pick a bone with you...just kind of a food for thought thing. Personally, I know they won't publish caches for these types of things, so by virtue of that I view it as deliberate "end around" to try and get advertising into geocaching and wouldn't feel bad about taking that action. Again, as I stated earlier, I would be careful about it...for example, I've left a number of business cards stapled to log books because it was obvious that they were cachers and supporting geocaching and actively involved. I've even done business with some of them as a result of that. Interesting topic...
  12. I usually don't promote geocacher, per se, but if it comes up for whatever reason I explain it, if they are interested I go into more depth...I've converted quite a few people from Mugglism and they all have more finds than me except for one. Then again, it's not hard to surpass me at the rate I am able to get out. I've only taken one person with me, but that definitely did it for them.
  13. Putting things in ()'s doesn't really soften the nature of what was said...it's clear you feel people are being judgmental and rude...my point is that it's two-way street, when the OP starts off on that path, and replies as he did subsequently, then he's kind of reaping what he's sown. I am not disagreeing with your perception. I am saying it applies all the way around.
  14. Well, Shirley~...I guess when the OP shows so much love for the reviewer and the environment it tends to foster an ideal environment for virtual hugs...
  15. It would be interesting to survey how many use WAAS.
  16. I think most people are disappointed with the blatent, deliberate statement that he plain absolves himself from the responsiblity of creating the geo-litter. I think the other excellent point that was presented by briansnat, which I was unaware of not knowing the process inside and out, was that he could simply go forward with his normal plan on maintaining it on his own schedule and ask for it to be reactivated later and no harm done. I guess I am not seeing where you are reading most replies as "Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with"...and, in that regard, I agree. He doesn't have to. Conversely, being that the reviewer has chose to archive it and being that RK, himself, stated that he is aware this is outside of the guideline of a "few weeks", it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just maintain when he can then subsequently request it to be reactivated should it?
  17. I don't know, there isn't enough info. to determine all of that...there is apparently a cache there, the log status is unclear, and arguably someone would be disappointed if they posted a maintenance request. That last part probably depends on the cacher...I came across one this summer that you couldn't even find the cache container, yet the cacher before me logged a find because some of the contents were still findable scattered in the area, despite the fact that the physical cache was gone they logged a smiley and I logged a maintenance...so, everyone has a wide range of opinion on that aspect I suspect.
  18. Right is subjective. Renegade Knight is doing what he believes is right, you disagree. In the end who gets to decide what right is? I can see both sides of this debate but I can't tell you one is right and one is wrong. Honesty is commendable, period. Right is subjective, yet you make a point to deliberately point out that I am wrong...no, I don't adhere to that line of thinking. However, if you do, it's a bit of a double-standard to say I am wrong about it. By definition, it is not commendable to deliberately leave geo-litter in the world. Being honest about doing something you know is not the right thing to do isn't commendable. I'm right, subjectively... He's welcome to his interpretation of the guidelines and the decision. I already stated I'll agree to disagree on that, but I am not backing down on the fact that deliberately leaving geo-trash is wrong. That's just my stance. As has been pointed out...the archiving of a cache does NOT create geo-litter, nor can it anyway because it's virtual in nature, and all he has to do is maintain it on his own timeframe and ask for it to be re-published. Any way you slice it, it's ultimately his actions creating the geo-litter.
  19. As with many policies of the site, this one discourages the placement of original, interesting, or challenging caches. I can certainly see how those who think of placing a cache as throwing a film canister out the car window would be outraged that it would take a hider some time to perform maintenance on a cache. I had a cache archived in much the same manner as RK. I had worked hard on the original container; it took me about 6 months to find the perfect container, figure out how to put a logbook in it, and then how to place it. It disappeared after about 6 months, likely stolen by a cacher, because it was really not findable by muggles. I started immediately looking for a replacement container, and I had found one and even assembled it, but hadn't completely figured out the attachment mechanism, when the cache was archived by the local reviewer. So I just let it go. Disappointing, but apparently with the big emphasis on numbers, it matters more that the cache get put back into operation as quickly as possible than it does that difficult or original camo gets done correctly. I know my motivation to place anything that takes a lot of effort to prepare or would be difficult to place has been diminished considerably; the predominant attitude of the participants in this thread has reinforced those feelings. Read my previous replies. My problem is not with the OP's difference of opinion on the archival. It's with his deliberate refusal to go get the container he placed because he's throwing a tantrum over the decision. He placed the cache, period. Like the decision to archive or not it's his responsibility to go retrieve it. And, as has been pointed out, he can still go maintain it and have it re-published. So, I don't care which route he goes, but he emphatically stated he intended to let the cache rot as geo-litter, and that is irresponsible.
  20. Imo, if their are business card of cachers I don't have any problem with them...I've done business with two cachers that I saw their card in a log book. If it's just spammers out trolling cache locations to advertise something without participating, contributing to geocaching...I'd yank them.
  21. I agree with leaving it...if you are that intrigued with a place maybe it'd be more advantageous to try and promote geocaching in the region. Also, you have to consider that not all cultures are like the US. There are places that you may want to be putting tupperware with GPS coordinates with your name on it as a foreigner.
  22. Thanks, I don't even know where the nearest surplus store is...I should visit. I always wanted one of those green Army coats too.
  23. Honesty is commendable when you do what is right.
  24. How ridiculously irresponsible....I know you're notoriously one to never change your stance, but this is stupid hill to die on.
  • Create New...