GeoHypocrisy

[+briansnat]

Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

 

Main Entry: threat

Pronunciation: 'thret

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust

 

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

2 : one that threatens

3 : an indication of something impending

[trackinthebox]

Where is the cache at? in the gardens? On the property elsewhere? Please give some more details here - container? method of hide?

 

This IS a National Historic site so I can understand the hesitation to list.

 

It is a micro and far AWAY from the historic site as stated. In a field FAR away from flowers, butterflies and pretty little birdies as well.

 

Once again, it is the mansion that is the historic site.

[trackinthebox]

Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

 

Main Entry: threat

Pronunciation: 'thret

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust

 

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

2 : one that threatens

3 : an indication of something impending

 

A more correct term then would be:

 

promise

 

prom‧ise  /ˈprɒmɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is‧ing.

 

–noun 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.

2. an express assurance on which expectation is to be based: promises that an enemy will not win.

3. something that has the effect of an express assurance; indication of what may be expected.

4. indication of future excellence or achievement: a writer who shows promise.

5. something that is promised.

–verb (used with object) 6. to engage or undertake by promise (usually used with an infinitive or a clause as object): She promised to go tomorrow.

7. to make a promise of (some specified act, gift, etc.): to promise help.

8. to make a promise of something to (a specified person): Promise me that you will come.

9. to afford ground for expecting: The sky promised a storm.

10. to engage to join in marriage.

11. to assure (used in emphatic declarations): I won't go there again, I promise you that!

–verb (used without object) 12. to afford ground for expectation (often fol. by well or fair): His forthcoming novel promises well.

13. to make a promise.

Edited October 18, 2006 by trackinthebox

[+LDove]

I looked closely at the web site for this location as well. It seems they are very concerned with conservation and habitats near this facility. I agree that you need to submit more information about where you will place it, what type of container, etc... AND get permission. If this is not something you want to do, pick another location... simple as that. I have had to get permission for several caches for the reviewers that were gray areas "in the rules" - I wanted it bad enough so I made the effort and got it. The reviewers in the long run are acting in our best interest by not getting land owners upset with this and banning it altogether. Go there with plenty of information on what geocaching is and your intentions to call attention to this historic place.

 

edit: spelling goofs

Edited October 18, 2006 by lonesumdove

[+baloo&bd]

No skin in the game here.

 

Sure seems like you are getting all upset about a service you are using for free and unresonably so due to the gazzilion other places you can hide it.

 

Even though you complained improperly and not through proper channels, you have been heard now. Move on and enjoy yourself. Arguing back and forth in the manner you are in the forums is not going to resolve anything but will harden others against your position.

Edited October 18, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+El Diablo]

Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

 

Main Entry: threat

Pronunciation: 'thret

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust

 

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

2 : one that threatens

3 : an indication of something impending

 

A more correct term then would be:

 

promise

 

prom‧ise  /ˈprɒmɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is‧ing.

 

–noun 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.

2. an express assurance on which expectation is to be based: promises that an enemy will not win.

3. something that has the effect of an express assurance; indication of what may be expected.

4. indication of future excellence or achievement: a writer who shows promise.

5. something that is promised.

–verb (used with object) 6. to engage or undertake by promise (usually used with an infinitive or a clause as object): She promised to go tomorrow.

7. to make a promise of (some specified act, gift, etc.): to promise help.

8. to make a promise of something to (a specified person): Promise me that you will come.

9. to afford ground for expecting: The sky promised a storm.

10. to engage to join in marriage.

11. to assure (used in emphatic declarations): I won't go there again, I promise you that!

–verb (used without object) 12. to afford ground for expectation (often fol. by well or fair): His forthcoming novel promises well.

13. to make a promise.

 

If you have such great power to totaly upset the world of geocaching, why don't you just get the NPS to reverse their decision about caching and this will become a moot point.

 

I don't care who you are, you are making threats... Well unless you are the head of the NSA. In which case black helicopters should be overhead here in about 15 minutes. Otherwise I'll assume you're not.

 

El Diablo

[+Bad_CRC]

so this guy is angry because he was told to get permission, which is one of the first guidelines before placing any cache?

 

and the grounds is that there are other caches he thinks didn't follow the rules, so therefore nobody has to?

 

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

[bogleman]

If the mansion is open to the public send them over to look at something near the front door (address) or count the bricks in the north wall that will provide them with the numbers for the next stage of a multi or mystery cache that is hidden outside of the areas that are causing the concern. I am sure that you could work something out without having to actually place a cache in the specific area and still be able to have a cache out in the wild.

 

Stop slamming your head against the wall and try to work things out, things are being made much more difficult than needed.

[+briansnat]

Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

 

Main Entry: threat

Pronunciation: 'thret

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust

 

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

2 : one that threatens

3 : an indication of something impending

 

A more correct term then would be:

 

promise

 

prom‧ise  /ˈprɒmɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is‧ing.

 

–noun 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.

2. an express assurance on which expectation is to be based: promises that an enemy will not win.

3. something that has the effect of an express assurance; indication of what may be expected.

4. indication of future excellence or achievement: a writer who shows promise.

5. something that is promised.

–verb (used with object) 6. to engage or undertake by promise (usually used with an infinitive or a clause as object): She promised to go tomorrow.

7. to make a promise of (some specified act, gift, etc.): to promise help.

8. to make a promise of something to (a specified person): Promise me that you will come.

9. to afford ground for expecting: The sky promised a storm.

10. to engage to join in marriage.

11. to assure (used in emphatic declarations): I won't go there again, I promise you that!

–verb (used without object) 12. to afford ground for expectation (often fol. by well or fair): His forthcoming novel promises well.

13. to make a promise.

 

 

So it only took two short weeks at this sport for you to judge the many thousands of wonderful people who make up the geocaching community and declare them to be your "enemy". That says a lot about you and what it says ain't that good.

Edited October 18, 2006 by briansnat

[+WascoZooKeeper]

I've heard of local, state, and national parks; local, state, and national forests; local, state, and national recreation areas.

 

But what are local, state, and national Wal-Marts?

 

[+Criminal]

SNIP Well unless you are the head of the NSA. In which case black helicopters should be overhead here in about 15 minutes. Otherwise I'll assume you're not.

El Diablo

That seems to be becoming a regular occurrence with you.

[+StarBrand]

 

Once again, it is the mansion that is the historic site.

I think this statement is the basis of all the argument.

 

You believe the grounds to have nothing to do with the historic site and reviewers believe that it does. Unless you can demonstrate via pictures or some other method that it is actual off the grounds, I would have to err on the side of caution and believe that the grounds are indeed a protected part of the Historic site. At any rate - what could it hurt to at least ask for permission? If it is really harmless they will probably gladly grant it.

 

The areas (grounds) around almost every historic site are considered to be a part of the site. Just makes sense to me and the reviewers but clearly not you. I am sorry for that.

 

If I am misreading the situation then please correct me....

 

How about the offset idea - will it work for you??

 

...and can you please back off the threats - not helping anybody here......

[+benh57]

I've heard of local, state, and national parks; local, state, and national forests; local, state, and national recreation areas.

But what are local, state, and national Wal-Marts?

 

Wal-Mart is a nation-wide system of parks set up for geocaching.

 

To go with the caches they also include a place to buy supplies.

[+LDove]

I've heard of local, state, and national parks; local, state, and national forests; local, state, and national recreation areas.

 

But what are local, state, and national Wal-Marts?

 

They are... where I buy my underwear, socks and bean dip

[+ThePropers]

If the mansion is open to the public send them over to look at something near the front door (address) or count the bricks in the north wall that will provide them with the numbers for the next stage of a multi or mystery cache that is hidden outside of the areas that are causing the concern. I am sure that you could work something out without having to actually place a cache in the specific area and still be able to have a cache out in the wild.

 

Stop slamming your head against the wall and try to work things out, things are being made much more difficult than needed.

 

I had to take it off my ignore list because it was just too entertaining. The point is he doesn't want to work things out or be reasonable or come up with a compromise. Much like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, he is just going to yell and stamp his feet and make threats and tell us how important he and is family is and how powerful his walmart manager friend is. It's kindof like the guy who gets caught speeding and then tries to get out of the ticket by arguing that everyone else zipping by is speeding.

 

I wonder how many threats...errr...promises he has to make before he gets banned? I cannot believe he's still active.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

 

"Pardon me . . . do you expect to be needing us over here?"

[+Semper Questio]

There is an even easier answer.

 

If you don't like the rules in this sandbox, go find another to play in. But odds are, there will be rules in those also.

 

Maybe you should look into building your own sandbox! But wait, there are syntax rules when coding html, java, php, etc. also. Wow. This could be harder for you than I originally thought.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I wonder how many threats...errr...promises he has to make before he gets banned? I cannot believe he's still active.

 

We could start a pool We'd need a volunteer to keep his profile page up, and keep hitting "refresh".

[+Recdiver]

so this guy is angry because he was told to get permission, which is one of the first guidelines before placing any cache?

 

and the grounds is that there are other caches he thinks didn't follow the rules, so therefore nobody has to?

 

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

On the other hand he has a point. Placing caches on private property doesn't seem to give any one heartburn but gawd-forbid someone try to place a cache in a forest far from anyone or anything.

[+El Diablo]

SNIP Well unless you are the head of the NSA. In which case black helicopters should be overhead here in about 15 minutes. Otherwise I'll assume you're not.

El Diablo

That seems to be becoming a regular occurrence with you.

 

LMAO!! It's what I get for putting people like you on my magazine. It tends to draw unwanted attention.

 

El Diablo

[+Recdiver]

 

Once again, it is the mansion that is the historic site.

I think this statement is the basis of all the argument.

 

You believe the grounds to have nothing to do with the historic site and reviewers believe that it does. Unless you can demonstrate via pictures or some other method that it is actual off the grounds, I would have to err on the side of caution and believe that the grounds are indeed a protected part of the Historic site. At any rate - what could it hurt to at least ask for permission? If it is really harmless they will probably gladly grant it.

 

The areas (grounds) around almost every historic site are considered to be a part of the site. Just makes sense to me and the reviewers but clearly not you. I am sorry for that.

 

If I am misreading the situation then please correct me....

 

How about the offset idea - will it work for you??

 

...and can you please back off the threats - not helping anybody here......

Why not err on the side of the cache placer and not a reviewer that may have never come within a 100 miles of the cache site?

 

edit cuz fat fingers cain't speel so gooder

Edited October 18, 2006 by Recdiver

[+Cornerstone4]

 

I wonder how many threats...errr...promises he has to make before he gets banned? I cannot believe he's still active.

 

Apparently, throwing a tantrum and calling the reviewers hypocrites is still acceptable, so he/she has not been banned.

 

However, at the current rate of escalation, the OP can't be far off from invoking Godwin's Law, and that should finish things off.

[+Recdiver]

If the mansion is open to the public send them over to look at something near the front door (address) or count the bricks in the north wall that will provide them with the numbers for the next stage of a multi or mystery cache that is hidden outside of the areas that are causing the concern. I am sure that you could work something out without having to actually place a cache in the specific area and still be able to have a cache out in the wild.

 

Stop slamming your head against the wall and try to work things out, things are being made much more difficult than needed.

 

I had to take it off my ignore list because it was just too entertaining. The point is he doesn't want to work things out or be reasonable or come up with a compromise. Much like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, he is just going to yell and stamp his feet and make threats and tell us how important he and is family is and how powerful his walmart manager friend is. It's kindof like the guy who gets caught speeding and then tries to get out of the ticket by arguing that everyone else zipping by is speeding.

 

I wonder how many threats...errr...promises he has to make before he gets banned? I cannot believe he's still active.

And you are coming across as the evil older brother that is egging on the spoiled sibling to see just how far they will go.

(Yes I speak from experience as I was the evil older brother that made life hell for my younger sister and brother)

[+The Jester]

Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

Hmmm, the FACT is your FACTS are a threat:

I will not provide written permission for this cache but I WILL guarantee that every local, State and National Wal*MArt, Lowes, and Home Depot, etc. demands written permission for every geocache placed or bans them outright if I continue to be subjected to these unreasonable demands.

 

And that will be just the beginning....

That's only one example of the threats you have contributed to this thread. The all come down to: "Let me do what I want, or I'll screw up things for everybody else that I can!" Yep, sounds like someone I want to play this game with.

[+LDove]

so this guy is angry because he was told to get permission, which is one of the first guidelines before placing any cache?

 

and the grounds is that there are other caches he thinks didn't follow the rules, so therefore nobody has to?

 

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

On the other hand he has a point. Placing caches on private property doesn't seem to give any one heartburn but gawd-forbid someone try to place a cache in a forest far from anyone or anything.

Huh? Since when is he trying to place it away from anyone else? He wants TO PUT IT ON/NEAR/CLOSE TO A HISTORICAL SITE.

[+El Diablo]

 

I wonder how many threats...errr...promises he has to make before he gets banned? I cannot believe he's still active.

 

Apparently, throwing a tantrum and calling the reviewers hypocrites is still acceptable, so he/she has not been banned.

 

However, at the current rate of escalation, the OP can't be far off from invoking Godwin's Law, and that should finish things off.

 

Well I know that Bryan, Nate, and Hydee work hard to keep Jeremy off the forums so he can do what he does best....but this guy has 3 threads going about the same topic... it's just a matter of time.

 

El Diablo

[+Semper Questio]

On the other hand he has a point. Placing caches on private property doesn't seem to give any one heartburn but gawd-forbid someone try to place a cache in a forest far from anyone or anything.

 

Yeah, I've often wondered about the caches in parking lots, cemeteries, and HOA neighborhood parks (where it is posted for HOA resident use only), and other similar locales.

[Keystone]

Hi,

 

Although I am a reviewer in Pennsylvania, I have not reviewed any of the OP's cache hides in Eastern PA. As a reviewer in Western PA, however, I am quite familiar with the Allegheny National Forest policy featured on the OP's cache page for some odd reason. As others have noted, geocaching policies for National Forests are decided at the local level. The ANF policy applies only to the ANF. I also keep tabs on the Wayne National Forest policy in Ohio, which reads very differently. I am not aware of any specific written policy governing geocaching on the Grey Towers National Historic site.

 

The OP's misplaced reliance on the ANF policy is ironic, because that very policy prohibits caches in developed areas. The thinking of the forest rangers is to keep the caches out in the woods where nobody will bump into them, and away from buildings, boat ramps, picnic grounds and other areas where muggles are a likely issue. So, IF the ANF policy were to apply to Grey Towers, it would have gotten a form letter response that we place on cache pages where the coordinates point to one of the Allegheny National Forest's developed areas. The aerial photo shows the cache coordinates to be in a developed location. (By the way, I think the ANF policy is terrific -- there is no paperwork, just follow the simple guidelines including staying well away from developed areas.)

 

The reviewer has questioned permission in this case due to the nature of the facility involved (a site of historic importance to the US Forest Service), and also because the OP has made statements that require us to disregard the usual assumption that adequate permission has been obtained. It does not arise out of any personal bias towards someone who's only been geocaching for a couple of weeks. Reviewers take special care to work with newcomers on their early cache placements. Establishing a positive working relationship early on is vital to the future growth of our activity. The overwhelming majority of newcomers experience little or no problems in getting a cache published. And upon receiving proof of permission, this cache can easily be published as well.

 

The Wal-Mart arguments, the cemetery cache arguments, etc., are extraneous to this discussion. They are the subject of many other forum threads, so I'll just reference those and encourage someone to do a search and bump one of them if so inclined.

 

The threats and personal attacks are likewise extraneous to this discussion. Please remember that the reviewers are geocachers too. We *like* to publish caches for everyone to find. If we cannot publish a cache it is because the guidelines require us to ask a question first.

[+Recdiver]

so this guy is angry because he was told to get permission, which is one of the first guidelines before placing any cache?

 

and the grounds is that there are other caches he thinks didn't follow the rules, so therefore nobody has to?

 

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

On the other hand he has a point. Placing caches on private property doesn't seem to give any one heartburn but gawd-forbid someone try to place a cache in a forest far from anyone or anything.

Huh? Since when is he trying to place it away from anyone else? He wants TO PUT IT ON/NEAR/CLOSE TO A HISTORICAL SITE.

The Point I was trying to make wasn't about the cache he is so obsessed with it was about the fact that we all laugh at and accept lame Wal-mart micros which are on private property without permission and over regulate (in my opinion) caches placed in the forest.

And to save you time, Nope I’ve never placed a cache. Got the Ammo cans all loaded and ready to go however so far I haven’t had the energy to wade through the layers of carp it would take to get one placed that wasn’t on private property, or in a National Park, or a State/county/city park.

That all said I'll drop it since I don't want to derail his rant.

 

edit cuz these stoopid fingers ain't workin so good today

Edited October 18, 2006 by Recdiver

[+El Diablo]

so this guy is angry because he was told to get permission, which is one of the first guidelines before placing any cache?

 

and the grounds is that there are other caches he thinks didn't follow the rules, so therefore nobody has to?

 

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

On the other hand he has a point. Placing caches on private property doesn't seem to give any one heartburn but gawd-forbid someone try to place a cache in a forest far from anyone or anything.

Huh? Since when is he trying to place it away from anyone else? He wants TO PUT IT ON/NEAR/CLOSE TO A HISTORICAL SITE.

The Point I was trying to make wasn't about the cache he is so obsessed with it was about the fact that we all laugh at and accept lame Wal-mart micros which are on private property without permission and over regulate (in my opinion) caches placed in the forest.

And to save you time, Nope I’ve never placed a cache. Got the Ammo cans all loaded and ready to go however so far I haven’t had the energy to wade through the layers of carp it would take to get one placed that wasn’t on private property, or in a National Park, or a State/county/state park.

That all said I'll drop it since I don't want to derail his rant.

 

I've placed a dozen caches, all in public parks with no questions asked. Which means unless you a abrerrant you shouldn't have to wade through a lot of carp? Also you aren't derailing a rant, you are derailing a temper tantrum.

 

El Diablo

[+briansnat]

I've placed a dozen caches, all in public parks with no questions asked. Which means unless you a abrerrant you shouldn't have to wade through a lot of carp? Also you aren't derailing a rant, you are derailing a temper tantrum.

 

I have you beat. I've placed 170 caches. Of those one (that's 1 of 170) was questioned. I was able to satisfy the reviewer's concern and it was published without further problems.

 

It is relevant to this discussion because the OP claims that the review process is onerous and unfair, yet thousands of cache owners - those who adhere to the guidelines - will disagree with him.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

That would also explain his entitlement mentality. My Grandfather's second cousin's next door neighbor's drinking buddy's veterinarian's landscaper was distantly related to Kennedy. Does that mean my area reviewers will ignore those pesky guidelines when it comes to my hides?

 

OK, back on topic:

Hat's off to Keystone for his much needed words of wisdom.

 

Track, you want to hide a cache. Your reviewer seems to think it needs permission. Your options at this point are fairly straight forward:

1) Obtain permission

2) Partake in a civil discussion, explaining why it does not need permission

3) Rant & rave like a spoiled brat, making threats as you go.

 

Honestly, which option do you think has the better chance of success?

[+wiseye]

WOW! Panties on that tight and twisted must really hurt!!

And how did your Cheerios taste?

 

The brochure seems to indicate that the house and 100 acres were GIVEN TO, not purchased by the TAXPAYERS.

 

The 100 acres seem to be included in the site, don't ya think?

 

How was the Smokey the Bear Trail excursion? To your liking I hope!

[+jimear1e]

It seems trackinthebox is upset there are rules to the game. Most games have rules and this should not come as a shock. With the popularity of the sport growing hourly, rules are imperative. We may not like them, but they are how WE play the game.

 

I have had no dealings with the reviewers in this case but am aware of the job they and others like them have undertaken. It is their responsibility to make sure to the best of their ability that we have not placed a cache in a location that would be detrimental to its surroundings or intentionally break any laws. They can not physically visit each location so they have to use the reference material available to them at the time of the cache submission. I had to have permission and permits for several caches and it did not seem such a burden. The reviewers in my area are very active with our state and local agencies and our reputation is in good stead as a result.

 

When I started, not long ago, I used the experience of the local cachers by asking questions and I still do. This is an approach you might want to employ in the future.

 

Unless you wish to list this on another service, grow up and play by the rules. Threats and lineage won't cut it.

[+wimseyguy]

This responce will surely get lost in the suffle, but trackinthebox (although misguided) is right about our willingness to grant permission to WalMart Caches. I doubt they have permission, and as he pointed out, it is private property.

 

Of course that does nothing for his other arguement.

 

Not lost in the shuffle.

 

And yes, why is private property not an issue when taxpayer paid for lands such a big deal where there is no big deal?

 

Umm maybe because the taxpayer paid for lands have rangers and land managers who are concerned with upholding the policies that their office bound bosses have handed down to them? That means that they actively scan the geocaching.com listings looking for out of bounds caches and pull them when they see them.

 

The big box retail managers are too worried about sales, staffing, and shrink (theft) to be bothered with some idiot lifting the lamppost skirt to sign his name on a soggy scrap of paper in a film can.

 

BTW, I ate cheerios for breakfast several hours before I saw this thread. Maybe that's why I'm feeling kinda queezy now?

 

And I catered several events with Kennedy's present, and got falling down drunk with one of them pretty often in college. Does that give me extra credit in this thread?

[+WascoZooKeeper]

How was the Smokey Bear Trail excursion? To your liking I hope!

I've never been on a bear trail, but llama treks are fun!

 

[+9Key]

So it only took two short weeks at this sport for you to judge the many thousands of wonderful people who make up the geocaching community and declare them to be your "enemy". That says a lot about you and what it says ain't that good.

I couldn't agree with you more, Brian.

 

Whatever you do, dude, don't ruin the game for others. There are thousands of families and individiuals that enjoy this game - my family included. Just because you have a beef doesn't give you the right to ruin it for everyone.

[CacheNCarryMA]

But llamas can sometimes be gurks - what with the spitting and all.

[+biosearch]

This has been entertaining, to say the least. One begins to read it and can not stop.... where will it go from here. And then looking over the post in the NE forum that were done by the OP are a facinating preface to this whole tirade.

 

The National Park Service oversees a great deal of different types of public lands. These include National Parks, National Forests, National Recration Areas and National Historic Sites. It is the responsibility of the Superintendent of each site to regulate the use of that site by the public. This may be one of the issues that effects the confusion and discussion concerning what is permitted and what is not. I have done work with the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. I must have permission to simply step on Preserves Commission land. To collect plant specimens I must have written permission from the state office. That permission is limited to a specific time period and must have a stated reason. All specimens must be housed in a regulated/registered plant collection. Geocaching, needless to say, is impossible.

 

So what do Ky Nature Preserves Commission sites have to do with this issue. This come in to the issue of "rights" to put out anything anywhere unless it is private property. It can be regulated, it is regulated, a person can complain all that they want, but that is the way of it. As a biologist I can try to explain why, what the effects can be, etc. But I'm sure those of you that have geocached in areas that are well traveled understand the issues, if you want to. Or you can ignore them.

 

It is not only amusing to watch this post, but the rant by the OP concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more than amusing. This combined with the "I thought this was a closed issue" before posting to this forum, also caused a chuckle.

 

The most interesting, and yet unanswered, item is "who is trackinthebox". What I mean is, he has stated "you have no idea who I am" and followed that up with his supposed ability to "do" things. I'm overly curious, really, and would love to hear some explanation.

 

Finally, what can be done. Who will he contact to cause problems. Geocaching is so well known now that if any organization is interested in discovering what might be on their land, they can simply create an account and look them up themselves. I'm sure that Walmart has the ability and the personnel to accomplish this. (Of course if I were a private company, such as Walmart, and there was a method to pull even one more customer in to their location you wouldn't find me complaining.)

 

Fascinating, simply fascinating. For those of you following this thread I suggest going back and reading the OPs other posts (in the NE forum). It is even more entertaining then this rant.

 

Sorry this ran so long, the OP seems to have dropped off and I've got some time on my hands....

[+nfa]

what do you think about additional logging requirement caches?

 

Jamie

Edited October 18, 2006 by NFA

[+cimawr]

 

I'm hoping the OP is a teenager, which would lend some context to that weird argument.

 

If you think this thread is weird, go read the one he started last week in the Northeast forum.

WRT age, he's certainly ACTING like a young teenager, including spitefully disabling the two caches he DID get approved, and which other cachers were enjoying.

 

And that's something of an insult to young teens; my S.O.'s kids are not quite 14, and neither of them would act like that, nor would my sister's kids have behaved that way at that age (well, outside of sibling squabbles and the like ).

[+WascoZooKeeper]

I'll put it another way, my Grandfather was a personal friend of Governor Gifford Pinchot. Also, my family assisted with the dedication ceremony at Grey Towers by President Kennedy in 1963. (Easily verified in "When President Kennedy Visited Pike County" by Norman B. Lehde)

Wow, small world.

 

My sister went on a date once with Bronson Pinchot, and at home I have a Kennedy half-dollar. (Easily verified by looking in my change jar)

Edited October 18, 2006 by WascoZooKeeper

[+baloo&bd]

Shhhh....quiet....listen....I think he went away.

[+Renegade Knight]

...When I'm done, count on caches being PERMISSION ONLY or BANNED at store parking lots, which by the way are PRIVATE PROPERTY unlike Federal lands which are TAXPAYER PAID PROPERTIES.

 

Cemeteries? Forget about em. I know reporters that are going to have an ABSOLUTE FIELD DAY with that one! Nobody is going to want GPS toting geeks walking all over their dead families and friends faces when I'm done.

 

The Department of Cacheland Security couldn't leave well enough alone but this time you picked the wrong toes to step on there Sonny Jim.

 

You peed in this boy's Cheerios once too often so I'd advise you to be on the lookout for that Roto Rooter Truck backing down your driveway. It'll be dumping it's contents through the kitchen window into YOUR Cheerios.

 

With that plan all that Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness you are so fond of will be gone for yet more of us than it is already. Think about it.

 

I get the feeling that you are better at communicating in person than in the forums. I suspect a lot of your orginal message was lost because of the forum format, and that in person we would have been able to pick up more and perhaps understand the bigger picture you were trying to convey better.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+uxorious]

You have no idea who I am

 

Your right we don't know who you are, nor do most of us care. I will say though if you are over 18 years old I would be surprised. What is important is not who you are, but how you are treated. It sounds to me like you are being treated the same as any other cacher.

 

From reading this thread I wonder, do you know the difference between National Forest Service, National Parks, National Recreation areas, and National Historic sites. They all have different rules.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

At the conclusion of the dedication ceremony, the President inquired as to the possibility of leaving a letterbox at the site, having recently become interested in this little-known but well-established pastime. When the President was advised that permission was required for placing letterboxes at historic sites, he concurred that this was a reasonable policy to protect important local and national treasures. He stepped into the Superintendent's office; after a few moments of conversation, he emerged with a signed letter of permission in his hand, and proceeded to place his letterbox in a convenient, yet challenging, location.

[+Renegade Knight]

... HOA neighborhood parks (where it is posted for HOA resident use only), and other similar locales.

 

Interesting point. If HOA has the ability to invite guests to the park per the HOA rules, I'd say they can invite cachers to their cache placed in the park. As an aside I Think HOA's are evil.

[+cimawr]

 

It is not only amusing to watch this post, but the rant by the OP concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more than amusing. This combined with the "I thought this was a closed issue" before posting to this forum, also caused a chuckle.

 

 

I noticed that, as well - OP doesn't get the response he wants in the orginal forum and thread, so he says "the issue is closed"... and then promptly restarts the issue in another.

 

The other things that amused me about the claim that the reviewers were "discriminating" because he's new were :

 

1. He's conveeeeenietly neglected to mention, in either the rants... err, threads, that I've read, that despite having only been geocaching for two weeks, and having found less than 20 caches, he HAD two caches approved and being found by others. I guess he doesn't realize that we can go look at his profile and see the caches... as well as the fact that he's disabled them out of spite.

 

2. A friend of mine recently had her first cache approved when she'd been caching for about 2 months, and had a total of, IIRC, 12 finds. Her reviewer questioned the placement, she had a civil exchange of e-mails with him, and the cache was approved.

What's both funny and ironic about that WRT the OP's blather is not only that her cache was approved when she was so new (thereby disproving the OP's claims of "bias"), but that her reaction to being quesitioned etc. was FAR more mature.... despite the fact that she's in middle school. (Yes, I'm friends with someone 30 years my junior. )

[+briansnat]

The other things that amused me about the claim that the reviewers were "discriminating" because he's new were :

 

1. He's conveeeeenietly neglected to mention, in either the rants... err, threads, that I've read, that despite having only been geocaching for two weeks, and having found less than 20 caches, he HAD two caches approved and being found by others. I guess he doesn't realize that we can go look at his profile and see the caches... as well as the fact that he's disabled them out of spite.

 

Waaaaaait a second! Are you trying to say that despite his claims of discrimination that he has had two caches published here? That can't possibly be true because it would blow his argument about reviewer bias out of the water.

[+El Diablo]

Shhhh....quiet....listen....I think he went away.

 

His mom probably took his computer away.

 

El Diablo