Placement Permission

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

It seems pretty easy to go from hero to zero around here, and now that I have managed to do so I have a question I couldn't ask before. (Whether or not I was ever anyone's hero is not the topic here, it's an apt expression of how I feel, please leave it alone! )

 

This is a legitimate question and certainly not a troll, please treat it as such, and though it mentions and questions certain reviewing practices it is not an attack on Reviewers - I have the utmost respect for them and the job they're doing. In that light I hope the moderators will allow these questions to be asked and discussion to follow.

 

With the recent advent of certain self-appointed Cache Cops searching the profile of anyone who offends them and reporting questionable cache listings to TPTB to get them archived (GCNXEC, for example), and the support such actions received in a recently closed thread on this topic, this question comes to mind:

 

When will folks glom onto the REAL dirty little secret of geocaching, the one that can truly harm the game and actually harm geocachers, and begin to address caches hidden without permission?

 

It is my understanding that every cache listing has two checkboxes at the bottom, one that commits that the cache listing complies with Groundspeak's Listing Guidelines and one that commits that the owner will abide by Groundspeak's Terms of Service.

 

The very first line of the Guidelines, under Off-Limit (Physical) caches, is

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location."

 

Not being a Reviewer I can't speak for them, but I suppose most Reviewers accept the checking of those boxes as proof that permission was acquired, as spelled out in the Cache Listing Guidelines, except perhaps where the Reviewer is aware of landowner restrictions or has had previous issues with the cacher.

 

It's a trust thing; Groundspeak can't function without its Reviewers, and Reviewers have a life. I suppose they don't want to spend it questioning the permission contact info for every hide, so there it is - Unless they have reason not to, Reviewers pretty much have to trust the cacher on this issue.

 

Cachers by and large being basically honest folk this works to a degree, but I postulate that many cachers don't see the importance of permission, or don't know how/where/from whom to get it, and just check these boxes to get their listing published, meaning, I believe, that MOST hides don't have permission, and the Reviewers must know it, though they may disingenuously hide behind 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!'

 

That most folk have no idea who to ask for permission to place an Altoids tin on a guardrail, or who can permit a keyholder to be placed under a sewer cover or for an ammo box to be hidden in a city park has to be known to Groundspeak and their Reviewers, but that's not their worry, is it; the cacher certified with those checkboxes that he had permission from SOMEBODY, and for this game to work TPTB accept that!

 

So, it appears to me that we geocachers live in a world where we turn a blind eye to one of the most fundamental 'rules' of geocaching, despite the fact that this one 'rule' can be the most damaging to the game and to geocachers.

 

Now, I would think that caches placed without permission are a far graver danger to geocaching than, say, logging pocket caches at an event, yet I don't see anyone doing anything about it!

 

Where's the panic and anxiety over caches placed without permission? This is a direct threat to geocachers!

 

If my supposition is correct, and it is true that most caches do not have permission, and landowners discover this, aren't we in great danger of losing lands to place caches? Will all of geocaching not suffer a huge disgrace?

 

If I am right, don't Reviewers have to fess up that they 'know' this and don't do anything about it? Doesn't Groundspeak? Oh, I forgot the mantra - 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!'.

 

The Reviewers I have met are smart people, surely they have to know that they are regularly being lied to!

 

If this is the case, is Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!' an acceptable practice?

 

No doubt expert legal minds created that, so I am sure it's quite a legal way to deny reality, Groundspeak and Reviewers can say with a straight face 'I believe that all of the caches I list have permission because the owner checked the boxes saying they did', but if they know that most caches do not in fact have permission, is that acceptance of the geocachers checkbox commitment in fact not encouraging the placement of caches without permission?

 

Perhaps they do not know it, perhaps I am in fact wrong that most don't have permission, I can't find where anyone has run a study on the issue. If I am wrong and most caches do have permission and Reviewers have good reasion to take cacher's checkbox assertions at face value, I will apologize for stating my belief.

 

Perhaps we need our cache police to start an investigation into the matter to determine if I am right or wrong?

 

Why do I feel this issue is critical to the future of our game and need be explored?

 

I know personally one geocacher that was arrested while hunting an illegally placed cache; he was prosecuted for Criminal Trespass and ordered not to geocache for one year by an Arkansas judge, and I have heard of all sorts of unfortunate things happening to cachers looking for caches that were placed without permission.

 

I myself have been detained by police and/or landowners and told to have caches removed from property where they had no permission being.

 

If the folks who are so hyped about honor and protecting the game are willing to spend time and effort ferreting out illegal caches, why not these illegal caches?

 

Shouldn't we all, as responsible geocachers, be asking the landowners of every cache we find whether it was placed with permission?

 

Shouldn't we file a Should Be Archived note to every cache where we find that no permmission exists?

 

We do want to clean up the game, don't we?

 

Shouldn't Groundspeak add a couple of data fields to the listing page to require the contact info of the permission giver?

 

If that permission contact info was on every cache listing would it not stop most of the harrasment and woe geocachers hunting caches placed without permission experience?

 

Wouldn't it reassure landowners that we geocachers are in fact seeking permission for our hides, as we say we are in our game's guidelines?

 

Wouldn't it drastically reduce the number of caches placed without permission and thereby relieve the fear many geocachers have (rightly) of being busted while unknowingly hunting an illegaly placed cache?

 

Having been called a liar and every kind of cheat recently for my misguided but well-intended actions I wonder how those who intentionally say they have permission but don't will be treated?

 

Just a question that's been on my mind. I really would like to hear from the players and protectors of the game just how this incipient crisis can be ignored.

 

Ed

[+SG-MIN]

I am not a reviewer, nor do I envy their work. I fully agree with you on the need for appropriate permissions to be obtained, but "ensuring" that seems like a monumental task aside from the honor systems. Even if there were a persmissions contact area, how could a reviewer know that contact information was authentic and not just the cache placer's cell number.

 

On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission.

 

The ones that are obviously over the line and in need of permission are "business caches" whether they are the cracker barrel caches, or the dreaded wally-world caches. If I were a business owner I could deffinetly want to know of a cache on my property. Those would also be easier to follow up.

 

"clink" "clink" - there's my 2 cents.

[CoyoteRed]

So, it's okay until you don't perceive yourself as the paragon of geocaching manliness you once thought yourself to be? You got caught with your figurative pants down and now you need to bring everyone down to your level to make yourself feel better? "I'm not so bad, because every one else is just as bad." I don't buy it.

 

We're going to rehash perceived permission versus explicit permission versus adequate permission? Do we really need to go over this yet again?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"We're going to rehash perceived permission versus explicit permission versus adequate permission? Do we really need to go over this yet again?"

 

Yes, I believe we do, or admit that we selectively enforce the rules we like and ignore those that we don't want to deal with.

[CoyoteRed]

"We're going to rehash perceived permission versus explicit permission versus adequate permission? Do we really need to go over this yet again?"

 

Yes, I believe we do, or admit that we selectively enforce the rules we like and ignore those that we don't want to deal with.

 

Well, in that case, I have to say we all need to archive all caches where there is no "adequate permission."

[heckle]

Someone remind me what round this is as I have lost count.

[+sbell111]

It seems pretty easy to go from hero to zero around here, and now that I have managed to do so I have a question I couldn't ask before. ... This is a legitimate question

You got me on that one. As I began to read your post, I was going to key on your question and not allow my perception of it to be colored by any past drama. Unfortunately, as I read more and more of your post, I discovered that there wasn't one question, but approximately 74 of them. Giving my opinion of all of them would be way too much work. Therefore, I must give an answer that I hate to read. 'Do a search.' The issue of permission has been addressed in about a bazillion threads.

 

If your initial search doesn't work, try searching on 'frisbee'.

[+Criminal]

Odd, but you just made a point that works against you. The review process depends on the community (the hider) and the honor system as well as the reviewer. The caches that were archived, and are the reason for this sour-grapes thread about them, demonstrate a total breakdown of the honor system.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Criminal

[+AuntieWeasel]

It's not like this hasn't come up before. We've all had the permissions discussion many times. Heck, I'd even chime in with my same old responses if I really believed this thread was honestly about securing proper permissions.

 

I'll save it for when this one comes around for real again.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"Well, in that case, I have to say we all need to archive all caches where there is no "adequate permission.""

 

My point exactly! With all the angst over following the guidelines to the letter how can we not?

[+SG-MIN]

apparantly as a newbie to the forums, I am missing some info on previous dramas. What a shame.

[+Deliveryguy428]

apparantly as a newbie to the forums, I am missing some info on previous dramas. What a shame.

 

Here is what you need to do, turn around now before it is too late, grab your GPS, go out, cache, and have fun and let everyone else keep kicking the sand around in the sandbox. Now if you got about 2 full days of free time feel free to mead the multiple threads to catch up. My best bet would be...go cache and have fun

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Odd, but you just made a point that works against you. The review process depends on the community (the hider) and the honor system as well as the reviewer. The caches that were archived, and are the reason for this sour-grapes thread about them, demonstrate a total breakdown of the honor system.

 

Trust me, it's not a sour-grapes post, it is a legitimate question.

 

It is one that as a Reviewer I felt I hadn't ought to touch, but now that I am just a geocacher really want to know about.

 

Yes, I have seen the previous discussions, no, it's never been resolved, so it is worthy of being asked again.

 

I am not coming to these forums with any animosity or anger, what happened. happened, no big deal. I am still a cacher and ask this question out of genuine interest, as I said, it's not a troll or an attempt to bring others down.

 

I just want to know how we can decide which guidelines we as a community will follow.

[+Criminal]

Odd, but you just made a point that works against you. The review process depends on the community (the hider) and the honor system as well as the reviewer. The caches that were archived, and are the reason for this sour-grapes thread about them, demonstrate a total breakdown of the honor system.

 

Trust me, it's not a sour-grapes post, it is a legitimate question.

 

It is one that as a Reviewer I felt I hadn't ought to touch, but now that I am just a geocacher really want to know about.

 

Yes, I have seen the previous discussions, no, it's never been resolved, so it is worthy of being asked again.

 

I am not coming to these forums with any animosity or anger, what happened. happened, no big deal. I am still a cacher and ask this question out of genuine interest, as I said, it's not a troll or an attempt to bring others down.

 

I just want to know how we can decide which guidelines we as a community will follow.

I'm not aware of any caches that were placed without adequate permission. If you are, address the issue.

[+SG-MIN]

Oh I had no interest in getting the low down. If I am not caching, it seems like it is much more uplifting to browse area caches I plan on getting then getting bogged down in the semantics and personalities of the forums. I bit on this thread because as a new cacher, I am honestly interested in the preservation of the sport, and the intergrity of the search. As such, my first comment stands.

[+Deliveryguy428]

I missed your very first post, sorry, I see it now

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm not aware of any caches that were placed without adequate permission. If you are, address the issue.

 

Unlike what you did to me, I am not about to go searching folk's profiles to expose illegal caches.

 

My position is simply that many caches placed without permission are out there, and nothing is being done about them.

 

This is a gross violation of the Groundspeak guidelines and should be of great concern to the ethical geocachers who so loudly protect their vision of our game, yet it's not.

 

I have to wonder why?

 

Who determines which guidelines will be enforced?

[+Deliveryguy428]

My position is simply that many caches placed without permission are out there, and nothing is being done about them.

 

PC or not PC type caches he does have one point I can finally understand. Lets look at some of the more popular known caches that were hidden as way back 3 years ago or so, today would they get pass guidelines, I doubt it. I know one that is archived, but it went down because of construction issues and not because someone wanted to be the schoolyard tattle-tail

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Lets look at some of the more popular known caches that were hidden as way back 3 years ago or so, today would they get pass guidelines...

 

Guidelines change, and certain things are 'grandfathered' in, that's why the 'prior placements do not create a precedence' guidelines exist.

 

My issue is about caches being placed today that are listed without question that have no permission.

 

If we are to live up to the standards being espoused by some here then this cannot continue.

[+Deliveryguy428]

And these caches are, if you feel you need to purge the bad ones out to perserve the sport..

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And these caches are, if you feel you need to purge the bad ones out to perserve the sport..

 

Nope, not going to be dragged into a witch hunt and start identifying caches - that would help no one, and ignores the essential question.

[+vree]

if you search for a cache and it appears to be hidden without adequate permission, hit the SBA. i've done it, got a little flack and have moved on with no regrets. i count on other cachers to do the same. i should hope that the community polices itself.

[+Deliveryguy428]

So you complain about it, says something needs to be done, but you wont do anything about it...did I miss something?

 

I go throw out a micro in the first Burger King parking lot, I click the boxs, it get aprroved, you go find it, you don't like it, and you question if is has permission and should it be archived? How do you know I am not the manger of that Burger King? How do you know I am not friends with the owner? How do you know I did or did not get permission?

 

In general my motto is for anything in life people complain about "either do something about it or stop talking about it"

[+sbell111]

... My issue is about caches being placed today that are listed without question that have no permission.

I'll play your game, but only briefly.

 

When you were a reviewer, did you ever list caches that you knew 1) required permission and 2) did not have that permission?

[+tozainamboku]

This is very amusing. I know that when a property owner or land manager contacts Geocaching.com about a cache placed without permission it gets archived immediately without question. It seems that Geocaching policy regarding caches placed without adequate permission is perfectly consistent with their policy regarding abuse of cache logs. It may be that guidelines should more clearly state when Geocaching.com will get involved in policing cache logging practices. The guidelines requiring adequate permission seem to be fine as they currently exist.

Edited June 13, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+vree]

So you complain about it, says something needs to be done, but you wont do anything about it...did I miss something?

 

I go throw out a micro in the first Burger King parking lot, I click the boxs, it get aprroved, you go find it, you don't like it, and you question if is has permission and should it be archived? How do you know I am not the manger of that Burger King? How do you know I am not friends with the owner? How do you know I did or did not get permission?

 

In general my motto is for anything in life people complain about "either do something about it or stop talking about it"

wow. i guess i wasn't really speaking about caches on a business' property because i haven't really run into that. the SBA that i posted was on utility equipment and "no tresspassing" was clearly posted about 10 feet from what looked like ground zero on the gps.

 

what would you suggest i do about it, then?

 

but feel free to flame broil away.

[+AuntieWeasel]

what would you suggest i do about it, then?

I don't think he was talking to you. I think he was talking to the OP.

 

You did something about it, and it was the correct thing.

[+Deliveryguy428]

E-mail the owner, explain the situation and see what they say, if you still feel uncomfertable with their answer contact the local reviewer and ask this opinion. Slapping a SBA without first getting information in my opinion is a little disrespectful.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

I'll play your game, but only briefly.

 

When you were a reviewer, did you ever list caches that you knew 1) required permission and 2) did not have that permission?

 

Yes, more often than not, except where I knew there to be landowner limitations.

Edited June 13, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[uperdooper]

And these caches are, if you feel you need to purge the bad ones out to perserve the sport..

 

Nope, not going to be dragged into a witch hunt and start identifying caches - that would help no one, and ignores the essential question.

 

you may not want to be dragged into a witch hunt, but you sure seem to be trying to start one.

 

'scuse me while i get my torches and noose.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Do I hear the rumblings of a bridge monster?

[+Mystery Ink]

So you complain about it, says something needs to be done, but you wont do anything about it...did I miss something?

 

I go throw out a micro in the first Burger King parking lot, I click the boxs, it get aprroved, you go find it, you don't like it, and you question if is has permission and should it be archived? How do you know I am not the manger of that Burger King? How do you know I am not friends with the owner? How do you know I did or did not get permission?

 

In general my motto is for anything in life people complain about "either do something about it or stop talking about it"

wow. i guess i wasn't really speaking about caches on a business' property because i haven't really run into that. the SBA that i posted was on utility equipment and "no tresspassing" was clearly posted about 10 feet from what looked like ground zero on the gps.

 

what would you suggest i do about it, then?

 

but feel free to flame broil away.

What if they did get permission you should try asking the cache owner before you click SBA maybe the cache is before the No Trespassing sign.

Click Ignore....

Edited June 13, 2006 by Mystery Ink

[+Ed & Julie]

And these caches are, if you feel you need to purge the bad ones out to perserve the sport..

 

Nope, not going to be dragged into a witch hunt and start identifying caches - that would help no one, and ignores the essential question.

 

So I give up trying to figuring out what you want.

 

You used to be a reviewer (aparently?).

If you reviewed a cache that you thought did not have adiquate permission, did you place the cache on hold and confirm permission with the cache owner, or did you just approve the listing?

 

Who is at fault there?

 

You have been given the solution...write a SBA log on the cache page *if you can prove* no permission has been granted.

 

If you do not want to participate in the solution, why keep discussing the problem (and getting nowhere)?

 

Ed

Edited June 13, 2006 by Ed & Julie

[+sbell111]

 

I'll play your game, but only briefly.

 

When you were a reviewer, did you ever list caches that you knew 1) required permission and 2) did not have that permission?

 

Yes, more often than not, except where I knew there to be landowner limitations.

Your answer is a contradiction. If you knew that the location required specific permission and you further knew that the required permission was not received, did you list the cache or not?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

you may not want to be dragged into a witch hunt, but you sure seem to be trying to start one.

 

'scuse me while i get my torches and noose.

 

Hang on here, I am trying to address a legitimate issue. That is what these forums are about, right?

 

How come folks want to make it personal? You don't like me or the question?

 

It IS an unconfortable question, isn't it?

 

The hundreds of geocachers that know me personally don't appear to think ill of me, so give the personal twist a pass and try to stay with the question, please.

[+sbell111]

Please answer my question.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Your answer is a contradiction. If you knew that the location required specific permission and you further knew that the required permission was not received, did you list the cache or not?

 

The answer is not a contradiction - If I knew the landowner required permission for a certain location I required it before listing the cache.

 

However, since ALL geocaches require permission I listed the vast majority where I had no specific knowledge of landowner requirements.

 

See the difference?

[uperdooper]

 

you may not want to be dragged into a witch hunt, but you sure seem to be trying to start one.

 

'scuse me while i get my torches and noose.

 

Hang on here, I am trying to address a legitimate issue. That is what these forums are about, right?

 

How come folks want to make it personal? You don't like me or the question?

 

It IS an unconfortable question, isn't it?

 

The hundreds of geocachers that know me personally don't appear to think ill of me, so give the personal twist a pass and try to stay with the question, please.

 

it's not personal. i don't even know you, but i do know a "i think i'll make trouble" post when i see it.

 

you should have addressed this issue when you were a reviewer. now it just seems like sour grapes. you can pour sugar on it all you want, but they will still be sour.

[+sbell111]

<snip> because my question was answered

Edited June 13, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The answer is not a contradiction - If I knew the landowner required permission for a certain location I required it before listing the cache.

 

However, since ALL geocaches require permission I listed the vast majority where I had no specific knowledge of landowner requirements.

 

See the difference?

I see that you are trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist.

 

By your own testimony, if the reviewer knows of specific permission requirements, he ensures that they are met. If he does not, he lists that cache based on the affirmation of the cache owner. If it is later found that the cache did not have adequate permission, it is archived.

 

I don't see the problem.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I suppose I was *A* problem, and got myself fired for it!

 

Is it a problem for me to now ask questions here, even painful ones? I certainly hope not.

[+Renegade Knight]

Long post. Here is my short answer.

 

If your cache is listed and approved by this site. I will only email you on the permission issue if the land owner/manager/self appointed land managing nazi yells at me.

 

I am very protective of my caches and dislike when even reviewers take an action without emailing me first.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[uperdooper]

i don't see how the question is so painful! i haven't lost any sleep over it.

 

you seem to be the only one that is bothered by it.

[+vree]

E-mail the owner, explain the situation and see what they say, if you still feel uncomfertable with their answer contact the local reviewer and ask this opinion. Slapping a SBA without first getting information in my opinion is a little disrespectful.

meh, the cache owner thought so too. he emailed me and told me so. i replied and said, "if it's a legit hide with permission, please excuse my rudeness and delete the SBA." he promptly archived it. i will probably email first the next time i run into something like that, but based on his reply i still would have hit SBA.

 

i don't think cachers should be put into situations where they can get into trouble (for example, being charged with criminal trespass). what saddens me is that seven other cachers found this particular cache and no one said anything. i'm sorry but i find it hard to believe that *any* utility company is going to offer permission to hide a cache on their equipment. and i'm not going to just ignore it.

[+Recdiver]

I’d only give him a 4.5 out of 10 points for his effort to deflect the record run/PC attention from himself. However I’d give him a 6.5 for his tenaciousness.

[+Team Cotati]

I am not a reviewer, nor do I envy their work. I fully agree with you on the need for appropriate permissions to be obtained, but "ensuring" that seems like a monumental task aside from the honor systems. Even if there were a persmissions contact area, how could a reviewer know that contact information was authentic and not just the cache placer's cell number.

 

On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission.

 

The ones that are obviously over the line and in need of permission are "business caches" whether they are the cracker barrel caches, or the dreaded wally-world caches. If I were a business owner I could deffinetly want to know of a cache on my property. Those would also be easier to follow up.

 

"clink" "clink" - there's my 2 cents.

 

There seems to be something a bit contradictory about this: "On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission." Are you recommending that everyone get proper permissions at all times or not?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

i don't see how the question is so painful!

 

Me either, but evidently it is, because no one seems to want to touch an answer, they all want to go off on tangents!

 

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

[uperdooper]

i don't see how the question is so painful!

 

Me either, but evidently it is, because no one seems to want to touch an answer, they all want to go off on tangents!

 

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

 

i don't think it's a matter of no one wanting to touch an answer. i think some of us are just trying to figure out why you're getting your short-curlies in a bunch about it now. your timing is a little suspect.

[+SG-MIN]

I am not a reviewer, nor do I envy their work. I fully agree with you on the need for appropriate permissions to be obtained, but "ensuring" that seems like a monumental task aside from the honor systems. Even if there were a persmissions contact area, how could a reviewer know that contact information was authentic and not just the cache placer's cell number.

 

On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission.

 

The ones that are obviously over the line and in need of permission are "business caches" whether they are the cracker barrel caches, or the dreaded wally-world caches. If I were a business owner I could deffinetly want to know of a cache on my property. Those would also be easier to follow up.

 

"clink" "clink" - there's my 2 cents.

 

There seems to be something a bit contradictory about this: "On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission." Are you recommending that everyone get proper permissions at all times or not?

 

Personally I do not have any guard rail caches - but it begs the questions of implied concent. At what point is "explicit" permission needed. I belive this is where AlabamaRambler is getting upset. To answer your question, PROPER permission is always needed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I’d only give him a 4.5 out of 10 points for his effort to deflect the record run/PC attention from himself. However I’d give him a 6.5 for his tenaciousness.

 

LOL, if I had any desire to hide, slink away shamefully, I would have either dissappeared from these forums or changed my name!

 

I am proud of my caching experiences, and don't have any desire to deflect attention from them, the positive or the negative.

 

Did I screw some things up? Yep. Will it kill me? Nope. Life goes on. Did I learn some things along the way? Sure. But I rest confidant that I did more right than wrong and contributed to my community in every way I know how.

 

You folks should give my real or percieved mistakes a rest, however, and deal with the question at hand.