cimawr

Yup. I'd cache with my dogs anyway - they pretty much go everywhere with me - but it doesn't hurt that they're the perfect cover in all sorts of circumstances, including urban ones. Park a block away, walk up with a dog or two on leash, stop while the dog sniffs about... nobody pays any attention. Even at shopping centers, park'n'rides, and the like, this works - people assume you're traveling, and the dog had to pee. Plus, the lurcher's quite handy at telling me when there are rats about in an urban setting... my dearly departed Jack Russell taught her that. And I agree 100% with those who say act normal, confident, like you belong; being "stealthy" only draws attention to you. People who need to be anonyomous on their jobs will tell you that; they don't sneak around in black, they dress and act like everybody else.

Alright, you, that one needed a beverage alert!!

The smiley happens when somebody attempts to use normal outline structure in a post by typing A or a, right parenthesis; B or b, right parenthesis, and so forth. Unfortunately, capital B, right parenthesis is the code for that particular smiley - same as colon, right parenthesis creates , semi-colon, right parentheis creates , and so forth ... and the forum's software automagically (and very annoyingly) edits lowercase b, right parentheses, replacing the lowercase with an uppercase and creating the smiley, because it ASSumes you meant to type the smiley. The only way to circumvent it is to put a space in between your letter and the parenthesis, like so: b ) - or use numbers: 1), 2) rather than a), , c) - that last was typed as all lowercase letters, but it'll show up on the forum with the smiley. Too bad there's not a way to turn smileys off; even when I use them, I prefer the text form.

A park could very well be a terrorist target, depending on the aim of the terrorists, how many people use the park, and/or what activities (such as parades or sports events) are scheduled to be held there. I believe you're forgetting - or are unaware - that the term refers to creating terror and confusion by killing civilians, not necessarily to damaging public structures/property, causing major disruption, or killing huge numbers of people. see: Terrorism

I always cache with my dogs, except on the rare occasions that I go out with my S.O. and his kids, in which case there simply isn't room in the car for all of us. (Four humans and at least three dogs. ) The dogs are good company, they enjoy the rides and the walks when we do park/woods caches, they're good "cover" - nobody pays much attention to someone walking dogs and/or letting them sniff the bushes - AND they're good security. They won't bite*, and are normally friendly, but they will bark ferociously if someone acts threatening or tries to enter the car... and their mere presence, as well as the fact that they're fairly obviously trained** is a deterrant to anyone who might think about grabbing me, snatching my backpack, etc. Although to be clear, I don't expect my dogs to actually protect me, just to be a deterrant. None the less, if I feel a cache is in an unsafe area, I'll leave without getting out of the vehicle, or turn around and leave if it doesn't become apparent until I'm on my way ... as in the case of the cache behind the homeless camp, which started you out in a nice little park. *Yes, I know that for a fact; they've been specifically trained NOT to, and the training has held when tested. **Interestingly, IME the fact that dogs will come when called, stay until released, sit or lie down on command, walk beside the handler off leash, stop barking when told, etc. , is often MORE of a deterrant than a dog which lunges or barks uncontrollably. The assumption tends to be that protective behaviour could be commanded....

Well, there IS fair warning about it on the cache page... Me, I wouldn't be particularly bothered by the rodents myself, but would probably give that one a pass since I cache with my dogs, and they're hunters.

Bingo! Short logs are a great indicator of caches you didn't enjoy. I remember when the ignore list was not available, and you got stuck with caches on your nearest unfound list, that you had no desire to find. Thankfully, they don't exist anymore. I wish that if a person didn't enjoy a cache, they could just say so, not try to hint by making a short log. I tend to make shorter logs lately, and I worry that someone (especially the owner) will think that it means I didn't like the cache, because so many others do that. So I end up saying lame things like, great cache, liked your cache, etc. Anyways. Just an observation. Just because it's short doesn't mean someone didn't like it. There could be other reasons, like mine. I'm with Ambrosia on this one. Sometimes I like a cache just fine, but I'm short of time when I'm logging*; or there simply isn't a whole lot to say about it, and/or about my search for it, other than "fun hide, thanks for the cache!". I'd hate to have anyone assuming that I think it's a bad hide just because I didn't write an essay... *There are times when 1) I'm on a dialup connection and 2) I'm sharing the time for that connection with three other people, two of them teens with homework to do (or Runescape to play ). So how much time I spend on writing a log (or reading/posting in here) depends on whether I'm in that situation, or at my other home base where I have a faster computer and DSL.

I'm not so sure. The cache page purported to be for that 'bridge cache' showed the cache to be some distance from the bridge. This leads me to believe that either that wasn't the cache referenced in the news story or that it was wrongly reported in the news I had gathered it was the same cache from comments by others, but now know that the NH bridge cache placed by the individual who placed the subject-of-this-thread cache was not on an I-95 bridge; I looked at his profile & located the map for his bridge cache, which shows it on a smaller road. He has, btw, archived all of his caches. . Anyone can be charged for anything, but I suspect that they would have difficulty convicting for anything 'worse', simply becausethey chose to evacuate a building. It kind of gets us back to the similar discussion in the Lite-Brite thread. Haven't read the Lite-Brite thread yet... will have to go edumacate myself. And I agree that making criminal charges stick wouldn't be as easy as placing the charges; however, there is quite a bit of precedent for holding those responsible liable for financial damages. For example, IIRC, the "disappearing bride" was found to be liable for the public expense of the police searches etc., and Turner Broadcasting is coughing up a million or so to cover the public expenses incurred by the city of Boston.

Actually, it appears that the I-95 bridge cache was placed by the same person... and per the question of where the bridge cache mentioned at the beginning of the thread was, I found this story linked in the "bomb cache" thread (bold emphasis added by yours truly): PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - Police aren't fans of a pastime involving a high tech navigation device. The department is sending out a message against GPS scavenger hunts after two reports of suspicious packages turned out to be prizes left for game participants. The most recent incident was Sunday, when Portsmouth police were called to a supermarket to examine a suspicious package stuck to an outdoor electrical panel. The metallic case duct taped to the panel turned out to be a prize for players in a GPS scavenger hunt. In November, police responded to a similar call when someone spotted a suspicious package stuck to the base of the Piscataqua River bridge. Police say attaching suspicious items to private property, bridges, electrical panels causes public alarm and can be punished as trespassing, disorderly conduct and worse if a building is forced to evacuate

Would be nice, wouldn't it? Which I'm one of those who feels that placing caches on certain electrical equipment is a Really Bad Idea. Panel boxes behind stores, poles with circuit boxes or meters, etc., are really poor choices IMO. It would depend on exactly what's meant by "under a bridge". If the bridge is large and/or high, crosses a wooded area, open fields, or the like, and the cache is in a publically acessible area well below it, that's one thing. If the cache is actually attached to the bridge's structure, or is in an area where the public really shouldn't be, that's another. I've done a cache which was placed - and is often found - by parking on the shoulder of a fairly major road just beside a bridge, climbing the guardrail, and then going under the bridge (which requires clambering over the boulders which are under the bridge to prevent erosion of the ground) to reach a wooded patch on the other side of the road. The actual cache location IS on the edge of a wildlife area which is legal to hike/walk/fish in, but not to hunt in. Me, I chose to hike nearly a mile in, from legal parking at one of the fishing areas, via a route which requires some bushwhacking as well as crossing a stream....

Yes and no. As has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum, there is a difference between "private property" in the sense of private residences, farms, etc. and "private property" which is legally open to the public, such as stores and parks. In any case, "parking lot micros" are, IMO, irrelevant to the incident in NH; the article clearly states that the cacher "attached an object TO ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT". The fact that it was "a box wrapped in duct tape" undoubtedly added to the suspicion...

The one for my S.O. arrived last Wednesday, and I passed it on to him the next day; he says thank you - and so do I! As a side note, by an interesting coincidence, it arrived on the same day as a WWII commemerative coin I'd ordered for my father - he was in the Army Air Corps, as ground support for the B-17 "Flying Fortresses" - and showing him the geocoin immediately elicted recognition of the service flag, and some remembrances of how they were displayed during WWII...

There's a difference??? Hm. And hereI always thought that stereotyping people because of their age, race, gender, etc. fell firmly in the category of "ignorant"....

That comes across as a very loaded/skewed way of asking the question, especially in the use of the word "brazen", which has a very negative connotation; the primary definition of the word is "shameless or impudent". See: brazen And the phrasing of "up to your standards", coupled with that, implies that you think everyone posting to the thread is being somehow snobby. I realize you may not mean it that way, but it's how it's reading to me. Perhaps some people are being a bit superior, but the main gist of this thread is about caches which are not well placed, with a secondary theme of what people PREFER. Getting back to your question, yes, when I find something about a cache which I think other seekers should be aware or forewarned of, I put a note on the cache page or put the information in my log (if I found the cache). However, more often than not, it's a cache that I've actually found, and that I don't necessarily think is a bad cache. For an example, go to GC104WV - Emma's Stash Cache - and read my FTF log. I LIKE that cache - I think it's great - but I wouldn't want someone unfamiliar to the area to come in looking for the cache, and have a dog or child killed because they don't know the train tracks are there and/or assume they're completely fenced off. As mentioned in my log, there HAVE been several dogs killed there; you can't see the tracks when you're walking into the park, and it's natural to assume that they'd be 100% fenced or gated because there are always dogs running free there. In the case of the cache-with-rats mentioned upthread, a) I was new to the sport (it was maybe the 5th cache I'd looked for); there were other logs complaining about the conditions, and c) it was archived shortly thereafter - so I didn't post anything. Now, yes, I would have posted a note or DNF and stated why I declined to search. Similarly, when I went looking for a cache and found myself in the middle of a homeless camp - the cache was placed on the other side of it - I absolutely planned to post, AND to drop an e-mail to the cache owners, but when I pulled it up on my computer I found it had been archived the week before. Hanging Out at Big Elk Creek I'm not sure what was up with that hide staying up as long as it did. However, the couple who placed it have about 50 caches; some of which I REALLY like - for example, Little Chapel and Granite Terrace (which is the perfect example of what an urban micro should be, IMO... although Port Deposit is only marginally "urban"), some of which are not my taste but not what I'd call a bad cache. And I've had courteous/pleasant e-mail exchanges with them several times with questions about other caches....so my assumption is that the homeless camp wasn't there when they placed it and/or that they didn't realize people were actually LIVING there. I'm also guessing that they archived it on the basis of a private e-mail detailing the circumstances; a lot of logs allude to it, but people were being perhaps too tactful.

Erm... I don't think everyone is talking about what THEY, personally, have gotten for a coin on eBay. AFAICT, no matter how you originally distribute your coins, they may end up sold there by someone else. Plenty of people seem to collect coins, then need some money later on (or want to raise money for a cause) and end up selling them. Which they have every right to do. What bugs me are the people who buy new coins, then turn around and advertise them on eBay as "SOLD OUT!" and "RARE!!", etc., when in fact the coins are still available from the original place of sale at a lower price. As to why those coins get purchased - plenty of cachers have no idea how to find coins anywhere else. They start caching, become aware of coins by seeing one or two in a cache, seeing them mentioned in general discussions, and so forth; they want some of their own, and eBay is an easy place to find them. It's NOT particularly easy for a newbie to figure out where to get coins, you know, especially when you consider that only a small fraction of people who cache read the forums at all, let alone spend a lot of time on this very specialized forum.

<whacks self in forehead> Nevermind. The memory banks just returned the fact that the store I used to patronize there was Geppi's, so of course that Steve would be Steve G.

That's not the same Steve who had the store in Harborplace, is it?

There aren't many I REFUSE to get, but plenty I bypass, give only a cursory look for, and/or won't make a special trip for because they don't particularly interest me. WRT micros, I'm actually more likely to bypass a micro in the woods than a guardrail or lamppost one; I just don't find spending ages looking for something tiny when I could be hiking particularly appealing - although I usually only bother with guardrail/lamp/dumpster types if I happen to be near them anyway, and have a bit of time to spare. I'm also not a big fan of caches which require "stealth" by virtue of being placed in conspicuous areas of shopping centers, in front of stores, and so forth, althougj I may look for them if it's a place that can be accessed when the store is closed, or take a quick look if I happen to be there anyway. As far as aborting a search - similar to other posters, I generally won't give more than a cursory look, or will turn back, if I find an area full of garbage or broken glass, smelling of urine, occupied by the homeless, full of ratholes, etc. One of my UNfavorite DNF caches (which was finally, mercifully, archived after several complaints) turned out to be buried* somewhere in the ground cover under some shrubbery next to a dumpster - with live**, and obvious, rat tunnels all through the area. NO thanks; I wasn't sticking my hands in there!! I'm still amazed that the person who hid the cache was apparently ignorant of what those holes all over the place were. I will also bypass or quickly abort my search if I find that cache placement makes me feel as if I'm invading a resident's privacy - although I've only run into a few of those. Caches near playgrounds, OTOH, aren't a problem for me; being a small 40-something female who caches with dogs, I don't set off anybody's alarm bells. *Yes, buried. There was a thick layer of pine needles and mulch, and reading all the way back through all the logs revealed that it was literally buried in them. **I had my lurcher with me, and she told me loud and clear that there were rats at home.

Sent an e-mail for my S.O. - hope that's kosher. He is a cacher (I supplied his account name in the e-mail), but doesn't have time for the forums; retired Army, 21+ years of service in a wide variety of places including Bosnia.

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread - I've only been caching for 6 months, and have only been to one event, so maybe I'll run into somebody really rude someday, but so far, I really can't say I've encountered any real rudeness. Most I've communicated with have been perfectly civil. (I'm NOT counting the occasional snerky or trollish exchange in here. And even in here, I've not had any real rudeness aimed at me personally, although I have seen some aimed at others.) Although, at the one event I've attended, there really wasn't much in the way of welcome to newcomers, and the one "big name" cacher (who is also a big FTF hound) encountered did come across as rather self-important, and not at all interested in talking to anyone who wasn't "somebody". Since 3 other newbies who attended told me they got the same impression, well.... But that's not really what I'd call "rude", just somewhat self-centered. And all the other cachers we encountered while out actually hunting the event caches were friendly. As far as other in-person encounters, I've never really run into any other cachers, although I did once see someone leaving a roadside cache as I approached. The only "rude" I think I could say I've encountered there would be the anonymous jerk who destroyed or stole all the TB hotels for about 50 miles around recently... and I do think it thoughtless and self-centered, if not downright rude, when somebody in a big hurry to rack up numbers on a cache run doesn't bother to replace caches properly.

There are racist people everywhere, not just in Tennessee and Georgia, and there are tensions between the races - which, btw, covers a lot more ground than just "white" and "black" people (go do a Google on the issues with the Hmong in the MidWest, or with Asian immigrants in London) - everywhere as well. But I can just about guarantee you that people who actually live there know perfectly well that the term "coonhunter" means "person (of any race) who hunts raccoons" and does NOT have any double entendre attached, and would think that you attempting to caution people who actually have experience in the matter, and/or who actually live in the areas you're talking about (rather than just having been there on vacation a couple of times) about it is, well... a bit presumptuous.

Erm - do you actually live in the "deep south", and/or anywhere that people actually go hunting? While it's true that the word "coon" has a secondary derogatory meaning, I've never known "coonhunting" to mean anything but exactly what it does - hunting racoons, often with the aid of coonhounds - nor anybody to take it the wrong way except those ignorant of the fact that yes, people do hunt for raccoons. Reminds me of the ridiculous thread we had once on a dog NG when some city slicker saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker reading "I hunt Black & Tans", misread it as "I hunt Blacks & Tans", and jumped to the absurd conclusion that the driver of the truck was a Horrible Redneck Racist. She was so full of Righteous Politically Correct Indignation (all based on her inability to read properly, and her ASSumption that "black and tans" referred to skin color) that she wasted quite a lot of bandwidth refusing to accept that "Black & Tans" meant "Black & Tan Coonhounds", and "I hunt <fitb dog breed>" means "I hunt with <fitb dog breed>", and there was NO implied double meaning.... even when I gave her a link to the website where the bumper sticker was sold, along with stickers saying "I hunt Blueticks", "I hunt Redbones", "I hunt Beagles", "I hunt Fiests", and so forth.

Huh. And THAT one has just been disabled because it's missing!

Heh. As far as people trying to pronounce it, yeah, that spelling's definitely easier. My sister -the one who now lives in Wales- used to have a a dog named Dafydd, Dafi for short, but we gave the vet his name as Davi to make things easier. (You probably know this, but in mercy to others reading the tangent - it's the Welsh version of David, pronounced Dah-veeth.) Although I'd've thought most people at least know how to pronounce "Sean", so I wouldn't have thought "Sion" would be THAT much of a leap.... especially if they ever heard of Sinead O'Connor.

I'm envious! Spider and Jeanne are among the few "celebrities" I'd actually like to meet. (And now you've made me not only want to go dig up my copy of "Stardance", but my old PC game "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon". )