egami

When people started getting hypersensitive about contents of cache pages.

Not typically. Although I would be careful taking that liberty in front of a library, school or other such building.

A word of warning if you use DEET. Make sure it's not on your fingers as it acts like paint stripper. After using this stuff during a recent trip to Florida, I found that all the markings on the control dial of my very expensive camera had been erased! Yeah, DEET is very harsh on clothing, plastics and many other surfaces. That's one of the reasons the military went away from 100% DEET usage.

My big problem with the whole "agenda" argument is that I think it's been blown a bit out of proportion in relation to its original intent: Imo, the rule regarding "agenda" should be done so in a manner consistent with the guideline which specifically addresses solicitation.

Actually, they don't recommend it for small children because it's not something you want to ingest and kids are prone to putting fingers in their mouths and it could inadvertently be ingested that way. But I've personally felt I've had the best protection with DEET.

Look at the bright side, at least we can McCain, Obama and Clinton ads on the forums.

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind. uhmm, veterans? uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that. I certainly agree that many, 'find the fire fighter memorial' caches aren't an agenda. However I don't make my support of fire fighters my reason why a cache should be listed. I checked the page AGAIN. I don't see the word support on it. I guess you just read it that way. No, I don't either. I'm just reading the responses here in the forums. That aspect, I believe, came from the OP content...

I am sorry you took my reply as being corrective of his opinion.

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind. uhmm, veterans? uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that. I think the right answer is the war. It's too close to the line of the war in Iraq. And, despite being for our troops, I can see where those who don't support the war, or our troops, generally view it as such. It is somewhat subjective. That's why I'd like an answer from Keystone or a mod. Where is the line exactly? The truth is it's gray a bit if you look at what's actively enforced. I mean, technically you can make a lot of caches an agenda if you wanted to take it to that level. So, if this cache is too close to the line then what is the proper way to recognize and support the troops now in Iraq with a cache. Because let's face it...if this were a WW2 memorial, there wouldn't have been an issue raised.

I actually agree with you, technically (but I think there are other violations if you take it that far). I've contemplated tossing out the suggestion that what if this was a cache description that said "don't support the troops" just to make a counter-point, but decided against it for fear of someone misinterpreting the point and my actual support of the military. However, on the other hand, I think there has to be a way you can still do a tribute to cache without crossing the "agenda" line. Or do you not see it that way? Because ultimately that is the line that is in question it seems.

Not sure where the "your" cache comes into play. Meaning a lot of people found it since him, any one of them could have contacted the reviewer, I don't know that his log and correspondance neccessarily have anything to do with the cache being re-reviewed. Actually I believe the reviewer said that in his email "That request came from another cacher and another reviewer." I'd think that someone who wouldn't be afraid to say what he thinks in his log, wouldn't be afraid to post an SBA saying why anyway. Ok, the "your" was confusing...since it wasn't my cache, but I see you were using the term generically. Likewise, a more polite intentioned person might try to avoid "rewarding" somebody by posting it publicly. If you choose to make that character judgment then so be it...it doesn't invalidate my point.

Here is the commentary from an online study I found a couple years back. The original web document has moved, but here is the source site: http://www.ct.gov/dph/site/default.asp

Not sure where the "your" cache comes into play. My point is merely that no one should ever assume e-mail correspondence is private. And, there is far cry difference from what is e-mailed in this exchange versus what a more polite intentioned person would be trying to avoid versus logging their frustration. Frankly, judging by the content of the e-mail, I don't feel sorry for someone that gets rewarded with that posted publicly. Just my opinion.

I don't know...from the way the report read the person who called it in didn't even get a look at the container. They seemed to react purely based on what they saw the cacher doing. Not that that's a bad suggestion...just that it may not of changed this particular outcome. The police spokesman quoted back the warnings embossed in the top of the decon container by way of explaining their (police) response, presumably to justify the call to the bomb squad (which was later canceled). Had the finder not been spotted, the markings wouldn't have been an issue. But the cops roll up on a 'suspicious activity' call and discover a strange, military-looking box covered with warnings... It probably wouldn't gotten any further had the cache been a plain-vanilla container. That's still purely speculative. Had any one of those officers, as I myself can do without a military background, known that to be a military style container then they'd of likely responded the same way. Frankly, having been in their shoes in a previous job, I would have been MORE suspicious of such container with removed markings. I can play the speculation game both ways. The fact is, it's NOT a guarantee and I did say it's still not a bad idea. Additionally, a better idea yet, is to include geocaching or other such markings to replace the warnings. Even that won't be fool proof in preventing something like this, however.

Dang it, I had to press '1' first. If you're reading this in Spanish, thank Dora the Explorer.

I don't think so. IF a reviewer sends an email regarding a specific cache, he/she is aware that the issue may end up being taken to the forums. At such time, the communication regarding the issue will be relevent to the thread and should be included in the thread. I think that it's important to remember that an email from a reviewer about a cache is not personal correspondence, it's business correspondence (even though their pay stinks). I think the reference was to the posted email from the Iraq Vet who found the cache and sent emails to the Cache owner. I agree, these emails should not have been posted in the forums. Actually I don't think there are any rules specifically regarding that in my recollection of the guidelines. Personally, I don't send anything to anyone in e-mail that I don't want printed or posted publicly. People shouldn't assume e-mail correspondence with anyone will remain private.

If you want to e-mail them to me I can host them so you can link to them.

I prefer to mail in rolls of pennies.

I don't know...from the way the report read the person who called it in didn't even get a look at the container. They seemed to react purely based on what they saw the cacher doing. Not that that's a bad suggestion...just that it may not of changed this particular outcome.

What's the GC number for this cache?

As long as you can throw a frisbee, imo.

Worst case, if Apple won't support it, PayPal might be willing to help you manage some sort of automated kickback. I am not too worried about it...I am mainly glad to be in among some of the first involved and enjoying the application. Going to start playing with it this weekend.

I just bought a Touch recently. Really looking forward to the localized applications being available.

Having been a moderator or admin on multiple boards, one of which was about as active as this one, the one thing I've noticed (and this is true on many boards where I am not a mod or admin) is that there is a natural tendency for things like that to have a chain reaction effect. A rule we had, on a couple boards actually, was essentially similar to a phrase commonly used in real life. It's the "it was funny the first time" rule. Many times some unique thread event is funny once and we'd let it go, but then every Tom, Dick and Harry that lacked originality seemed to think it'd be funnier multiple times after that. And, generally, it's not. It's not a lack of humor issue at all.

iPod Touch