GeoHypocrisy

[+D@nim@l]

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.

[+Mopar]

Actually, the cool thing about life, liberty, and freedom is this privately owned website is free to discriminate against him if they feel like it. They can ban him from the site just because they happen to like Cheerios, if they want, and there isn't a thing him or the kid down the street who saw every episode of "Law and Order" his attorney can do about it.

God bless America!

[+Semper Questio]

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.

 

Yeah, but then there's the whole, "who invited you?" thing and whether a gc.com listing constitutes an "invitation."

 

As an aside I Think HOA's are evil.

 

You and me both, RK!

[Guyute1210]

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.

I've been quietly watching this and the NE thread...

 

Not only does he have 2 other caches published, he posted RULES on them about it being on state game lands and has listed the rules (i.e. blaze orange, etc) and the other in a park (i.e. closed dusk til dawn, etc). Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

[+Semper Questio]

Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

 

Is ANYONE suprised?

 

Anyone?

 

Bueller?

 

{crickets chirping}

 

[+WascoZooKeeper]

Not only does he have 2 other caches published, he posted RULES on them about it being on state game lands and has listed the rules (i.e. blaze orange, etc) and the other in a park (i.e. closed dusk til dawn, etc). Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

Well, DUH!

 

That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?

[+Moose Mob]

Not only does he have 2 other caches published, he posted RULES on them about it being on state game lands and has listed the rules (i.e. blaze orange, etc) and the other in a park (i.e. closed dusk til dawn, etc). Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

Well, DUH!

 

That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?

Hey, you aren't allowed here without your Llama. (or Duck)

[+Semper Questio]

BTW and COMPLETELY OT, WZK - I LOVE your avatar! Hilarious! And oddly enough, that's kinda how all babies look to me. {as I put on my flame-retardant suit }

 

Now, back to the soap opera.....

Edited October 18, 2006 by Semper Questio

[+Semper Questio]

Hey, you aren't allowed here without your Llama. (or Duck)

 

How 'bout an attack 'dillo?

 

[+TheManInStripes]

Now, even if the reviewer in question was completely wrong, nothing will be done about it. From what I know about the folks running this business, none of them will ever give in to threats.

 

Agreed. That's why the OP should just find out where the reviewer lives and go firebomb his housse without warning!!

 

IT'S A JOKE!! I'M JUST KIDDING!! PLEASE DON'T BAN ME AGAIN JEREMY, OR REVIEWRS, OR MODS, OR ANYONE ELSE!!!

Edited October 18, 2006 by TheManInStripes

[+D@nim@l]

Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

 

Is ANYONE suprised?

 

Anyone?

 

Bueller?

 

{crickets chirping}

 

 

No, as best as he understood it, he was following rules outlined by both land mangers. One for the Allegeny National Forest (which allows it without permission as long as long as it is not in a prohibited area) and one for the SGL, however he got the land manger for the first instance wrong. So he ranted and looks like fool, let him. Now hopefully someone in that area is now educated about favorable cache placing guidlines in the Allegheny National Forest and some decent caches will appear. At the same time, I hope he does contact the big box stores cause that is the only way that nonsense is going to stop.

 

And to say that reviewers are not biased or that they do not things at times for personal reason is wrong too.

If you want more information on that you may contact me.

Edited October 18, 2006 by D@nim@l

[+WascoZooKeeper]

Not only does he have 2 other caches published, he posted RULES on them about it being on state game lands and has listed the rules (i.e. blaze orange, etc) and the other in a park (i.e. closed dusk til dawn, etc). Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

Well, DUH!

 

That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?

Hey, you aren't allowed here without your Llama. (or Duck)

Unfortunately, we eventually had to get rid of the duck.

[+biosearch]

Now I've only been a member for five months, but I waited at least that long to make sure that I understood something about it before I placed my first cache. Then I answered all of the concerns that the reviewer had, and posted a line on the cache, and in the physical cache, that the location of the cache was my responsiblity and I should be contacted if there were any issues with the cache. Had the review still disagreed with the placement, regardless of whether I disagreed with the issue, especially since I thought it was such a great location, I would have abandoned the idea. I think that any responsible cacher would/should do the same.

 

But then there are those that don't feel that way and everyone suffers when caches are placed where they really arn't in the best location.... I'm guessing that the OP is one of those...

[+DiS02]

I'm not for or against either side here.. but from a neutral side I can understand why he feels the way he does.

 

He has been near harrassed since he first posted this in the NE folders, when this had almost died out over there someone had to fan the flames again. And again. And again. (sigh)

 

Regardless of who he is, who his reviewer is its all moot. Point is, even if he gets 1 person in the position of power to listen it can mean hell for the rest of us.

 

Me personally, one of our stupid politicians wants the NPS to come to my state.. for the 'tourists'. I'm trying to figure out how thats going to affect my placing caches since the politician wont say what parks he wants involved & believe me, we dont have many in this small state. 8(

 

Instead of fanning him on, let it die, please.

Thanks

[+oldsoldier]

Um, did his threat follow through? Are walmart lamp post caches REALLY banned?

 

I had dinner with the president once. The first Bush. And, sat next to Colin Powell. Does that make me cooler than him?

[+mtn-man]

If a reviewer is demanding a cache hider get permission to place a cache on Forest Service land (assuming the rules in PA are similar to WA) then the reviewer should be reeducated or fired. However, all the threatening and posturing was a little premature given that the other, more acceptable methods weren’t tried.

 

Now, even if the reviewer in question was completely wrong, nothing will be done about it. From what I know about the folks running this business, none of them will ever give in to threats.

Just so you know, there is no blanket approval nationwide from the Forest Service. Here in GA we were almost banned from the National Forest and now we have tight controls from them. They have allowed us to place caches again after a moratorium, but we had to apply for a blanket permit that was negotiated by the GGA.

 

Never assume anything.

[+Renegade Knight]

Um, did his threat follow through? Are walmart lamp post caches REALLY banned?

 

I had dinner with the president once. The first Bush. And, sat next to Colin Powell. Does that make me cooler than him?

Not until you have dinner with me.

 

Then I can say "I know someone who..." but still won't have planted my butt at any famous table.

[+El Diablo]

He has been near harrassed since he first posted this in the NE folders, when this had almost died out over there someone had to fan the flames again. And again. And again. (sigh)

 

Instead of fanning him on, let it die, please.

Thanks

 

Fan the flames? The OP has started 3 threads on this topic. This is the latest one. I'm actually suprised this one hasn't been shut down as being redundant.

 

El Diablo

[+wimseyguy]

...and repetitive too.

[+briansnat]

He has been near harrassed since he first posted this in the NE folders, when this had almost died out over there someone had to fan the flames again. And again. And again. (sigh)

 

You aren't reading the same thread I saw then. Rather than "harrasment", I saw OP start off with an attitude in his very first post and receive several measured and respectful answers in return. He then stepped up his attacks on Groundspeak, the reviewer and the review process and people joined in to tell him he was out of line.

 

It was the OP who wouldn't let it go and escalated things along the way. Then he comes here and starts all over.

[+disenchanted]

This guy has disabled all 2 (that's two of his caches. He has now officially ruined Geocaching for all of us.

 

Well, wait. I went to find a micro today and it was a DNF, so did he manage to make this one go missing???

 

Better give him what he wants or the entire sport will be DESTROYED! Can't you hear the maniacal laughter????

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

My response when someone threatens me with "do it or else" is to simply tell them "Go for it". I don't care who you think you are or who you claim to know.

Of course if the IRS says it I'll say yes sir, right away sir, but that's different, they really are mean.

 

On the famous front my great great grandfather on my mothers side was John Chapman, aka Johnny Appleseed, does that give me the right to hide caches in any apple trees I want, since he may be the reason they are even there?

[trackinthebox]

Wow, so many posts to answer. Sorry I can only get to a few but I was busy today.

 

First: I removed the cache that started this thread. Too much trouble.

 

Second: I removed "OS in the Woods" that will be archived after this post. Sorry to those who could have had fun with this. It was a nice location.

 

Third: don't worry. I haven't talked to anyone YET... but I will be retreiving my other cache soon. Unless someone wants a free ammo box. I won't be needing it......

 

Forth: To all you people that live outside of PA and have always wondered..

 

Yes, people from Pennsylvania are like the family from "Everybody Loves Raymond."

 

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?

 

That would be too easy I guess. And very true. They don't know the people around here who could give a rats ... about a tin box in the woods or a M&M Mini Container in a tree....... They have more important things to do around here like stopping their kids from getting into dope.

 

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.

 

The "Tri State Cache" was the first cemetery cache I did and was sickened that I had to walk through graves to get to it.

 

Very poor taste and disrespectful to the dead if not illegal. But allowed just the same. Go figure...

 

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.

 

Gasp! You mean people could actually enjoy a cache from ME? Outrageous! Call the Cache Police! We cant have that...

 

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.

 

And what makes me so interested in YOUR right to those things when mine has been and is being trashed?

 

I am better at communicating in person like everyone else is but I do write how I am feeling, no doubt about that.

 

Like I said, dont worry, I haven't talked to anyone YET.....

 

I've been quietly watching this and the NE thread...

 

Not only does he have 2 other caches published, he posted RULES on them about it being on state game lands and has listed the rules (i.e. blaze orange, etc) and the other in a park (i.e. closed dusk til dawn, etc). Now obviously the OP only wants to follow rules/regulations/guidelines that he likes...and should be able to ignore the ones he doesn't like.

 

I posted those rules in MY caches as it was alluded to if I wasn't anal about these things, my caches wouldn't be published...

 

 

No, as best as he understood it, he was following rules outlined by both land mangers. One for the Allegeny National Forest (which allows it without permission as long as long as it is not in a prohibited area) and one for the SGL, however he got the land manger for the first instance wrong. So he ranted and looks like fool, let him. Now hopefully someone in that area is now educated about favorable cache placing guidlines in the Allegheny National Forest and some decent caches will appear. At the same time, I hope he does contact the big box stores cause that is the only way that nonsense is going to stop.

 

And to say that reviewers are not biased or that they do not things at times for personal reason is wrong too.

If you want more information on that you may contact me.

 

I haven't contacted anyone yet but man, I have got to say, I am ONE FURIOUS INDIVIDUAL at this exact moment in time..........

 

I have an itchy dialing finger that I am REALLY trying to hold back.........

 

And thank you. Yes bias is everywhere you look these days.

 

I'm not for or against either side here.. but from a neutral side I can understand why he feels the way he does.

 

He has been near harrassed since he first posted this in the NE folders, when this had almost died out over there someone had to fan the flames again. And again. And again. (sigh)

 

Regardless of who he is, who his reviewer is its all moot. Point is, even if he gets 1 person in the position of power to listen it can mean hell for the rest of us.

 

Me personally, one of our stupid politicians wants the NPS to come to my state.. for the 'tourists'. I'm trying to figure out how thats going to affect my placing caches since the politician wont say what parks he wants involved & believe me, we dont have many in this small state. 8(

 

Instead of fanning him on, let it die, please.

Thanks

 

Near harassed? Now that is a bit of an understatement but at least someone sees it.

 

Still holding back that itchy dialing finger.......

 

Fan the flames? The OP has started 3 threads on this topic. This is the latest one. I'm actually suprised this one hasn't been shut down as being redundant.

El Diablo

 

1) First thread was about NPS bias (Which turned out to be true if you read the whole thread and see the caches archived as a result)

 

2) Second thread was about no need for permission on US Forest Service property.

 

3) Third thread was about a cache that I placed on US Forest Service property and was denied.

 

The same? No..........

 

 

You aren't reading the same thread I saw then. Rather than "harrasment", I saw OP start off with an attitude in his very first post and receive several measured and respectful answers in return. He then stepped up his attacks on Groundspeak, the reviewer and the review process and people joined in to tell him he was out of line.

 

It was the OP who wouldn't let it go and escalated things along the way. Then he comes here and starts all over.

 

Look man. You would have an attitude too if you researched an area for days that have caches and had one of yours denied. Stop lying.

 

And it's not "all over". Different lands altogether. That was NPS, this is US Forest Service which has no policy at this site?

 

If the US Forest Service has no policy at Grey Towers why do the reviewers demand excessive permission?

 

Or ANY AT ALL?

[uperdooper]

take care of that itchy dialing finger.

 

[+briansnat]

Look man. You would have an attitude too if you researched an area for days that have caches and had one of yours denied. Stop lying.

 

Actually no I wouldn't. I would forget about it and find another spot. To me, Its not worth getting worked up about. Its a big country and there are plenty of other places to hide caches.

Edited October 18, 2006 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

It is a National Historic Site - it is well known that caching is limited or banned or frowned upon in/on historic sites at local, state and national levels all across the country. Caching may or may not be allowed there but I don't blame anybody for proceding with caution in this case. - especially if you poured gas on the situation and explicitly stated you don't need permission...(which sounds like the case.)

 

Work with us here - if the goal is to lead folks to this area then you can accomplish it by using an offset type cache. If, on the other hand, your goal is to point out your perception of hypocricy then you have done that. Time to move on.

[+oldsoldier]

So, are the walmart LPCs banned yet? I am waiting for the shoe to drop...

 

In all honesty though, I undertsand your anger. But, decisions made in anger are quite often regretted later. No offense, but, if you gotta throw names around, you are dealing with inadequacy issues. I dont care one way or another who you're related to, who walks you dog, etc; you come off throwing names and threats, people are gonna react. A mature conversation begins with an open mind, not an open mouth.

[trackinthebox]

So, are the walmart LPCs banned yet? I am waiting for the shoe to drop...

 

In all honesty though, I undertsand your anger. But, decisions made in anger are quite often regretted later. No offense, but, if you gotta throw names around, you are dealing with inadequacy issues. I dont care one way or another who you're related to, who walks you dog, etc; you come off throwing names and threats, people are gonna react. A mature conversation begins with an open mind, not an open mouth.

 

I'm still holding back that finger....

 

Nonetheless, I was forced into an aggressive posture from the word go here.

 

You don't live in PA and you don't know the kind of self righteous tripe they spew in this part of the country. It's sickening......... and infuriating!

 

Just watch some old "Everybody Loves Raymond" episodes with the PA family. VERY accurate depiction.

[+ThePropers]

Look man. You would have an attitude too if you researched an area for days that have caches and had one of yours denied. Stop lying.

 

Actually no I wouldn't. I would forget about it and find another spot. To me, Its not worth getting worked up about. Its a big country and there are plenty of other places to hide caches.

 

Me neither. Thousands (tens of thousands?) of us have had caches denied, yet nobody has responded like this. Oh boo-hoo, your cache didn't get approved. Get over it, and join the club.

 

I think it's obvious that your cache is not going to be approved though, despite how much you whine and complain. If anything, you've pretty much alienated the entire geocaching community.

 

May I suggest that this topic has been sufficiently beaten to death? He had a question/concern, it's been answered (repeatedly), guidelines have been explained and/or pointed out, suggestions/solutions have been made. Must we continue with it?

 

Not to mention that he has now insulted our entire state's population....

Edited October 18, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Snoogans]

Better give him what he wants or the entire sport will be DESTROYED! Can't you hear the maniacal laughter????

 

I find these topics tiresome, since they show up every few months.

 

Admittedly, I haven't read but the first few posts on page one a then skimmed the last page.....

 

Anyone see a connection to Texan78 & the Stop*Geocaching.com bunch???

 

Something in the wording of the OP seems familiar....... dunno.... Maybe I've just seen this type of thing too many times and it all runs together..... *yawwwwn*

[trackinthebox]

It is a National Historic Site - it is well known that caching is limited or banned or frowned upon in/on historic sites at local, state and national levels all across the country. Caching may or may not be allowed there but I don't blame anybody for proceding with caution in this case. - especially if you poured gas on the situation and explicitly stated you don't need permission...(which sounds like the case.)

 

Work with us here - if the goal is to lead folks to this area then you can accomplish it by using an offset type cache. If, on the other hand, your goal is to point out your perception of hypocricy then you have done that. Time to move on.

 

Just one more place I won't put a cache. Thats all.

 

I don't like the prospect of filling out forms in triplicate to play a "game".

 

Rather rediculous concept once you really think about it..........

 

In any event.........

 

This has still gone unanswered:

 

If the US Forest Service has no policy at Grey Towers why do the reviewers demand excessive permission?

 

Or ANY AT ALL?

Edited October 18, 2006 by trackinthebox

[+Bad_CRC]

I went to a crapload of work for my first cache. lots of trips and lots of work to place it in an amazing spot on what showed to be public property from the survey map I used.

 

then it was denied because I hadn't submitted permission with it.

 

 

strangely enough, I was embarassed that I hadn't followed the rules and wasted the reviewer's time... I didn't decide I wanted revenge on the world.

 

of course, I'm not a crazy friendless psycho. (not implying anything of course, just a coincedental statement)

[trackinthebox]

of course, I'm not a crazy friendless psycho. (not implying anything of course, just a coincedental statement)

 

You can insult me until the end of time, between the lines or otherwise and I will still be civil.

 

However, that finger is REALLY getting itchy now............

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've passed Grey Towers a few times. I hadn't realized what an interesting place it looks to be (thanks to the link someone provided.) I shall have to visit it on my next visit to Milford.

Perhaps I should put a Virtual Cache at this site! That's it! Of course, when it gets denied as not acceptable by the guidelines, I could rant and rave? After all, I have am entitled to excercise my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Aren't I? The Declaration of Independence promises me that, doesn't it? Rules, regulations and guidelines can't deny me the right to whatever I want, can they?

Well, if that doesn't work out, I could place a cache under the Route 206 bridge, couldn't I? The view from the walkway is spectacular! The Department of Homeland Security wouldn't deny my rights to do whatever I wanted to do, would they? Guidelines? Don't my rights superceed those? After all, there was once a cache on the Brooklyn Bridge!

[/sarcasm mode off]

Or, I could try to work within the guidelines, work with my reviewer (instead of insulting him/her). One can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Hide caches in areas where they are permitted. 'National' anything raises questionmarks. (Or it should.) Check those out carefully! Interact with the reviewer. What permissions are specifically required here? Ah! Worthington State Forest is owned and regulated by the state of New Jersey, despite what erroneous, non-official websites might claim.

In the meantime, I need to work on putting out my Virtual Cache at Grey Towers!

[Keystone]

It is a National Historic Site - it is well known that caching is limited or banned or frowned upon in/on historic sites at local, state and national levels all across the country. Caching may or may not be allowed there but I don't blame anybody for proceding with caution in this case. - especially if you poured gas on the situation and explicitly stated you don't need permission...(which sounds like the case.)

 

Work with us here - if the goal is to lead folks to this area then you can accomplish it by using an offset type cache. If, on the other hand, your goal is to point out your perception of hypocricy then you have done that. Time to move on.

 

Just one more place I won't put a cache. Thats all.

 

I don't like the prospect of filling out forms in triplicate to play a "game".

 

Rather rediculous concept once you really think about it..........

 

In any event.........

 

This has still gone unanswered:

 

If the US Forest Service has no policy at Grey Towers why do the reviewers demand excessive permission?

 

Or ANY AT ALL?

I answered in my first post to this thread; perhaps you missed it. That post was my attempt to provide a pretty complete explanation of the review process for your cache.

 

If my post was too long, Starbrand's post (which you quoted above) is an excellent two-sentence summary.

 

EDIT: for that matter, the reviewer note which your reviewer placed on your cache page said pretty much the same thing!

Edited October 18, 2006 by Keystone

[+Cornerstone4]

 

However, that finger is REALLY getting itchy now............

 

Oh please! Do it or don't do it, just stop threatening about doing it.

[uperdooper]

 

However, that finger is REALLY getting itchy now............

 

Oh please! Do it or don't do it, just stop threatening about doing it.

 

really! it's getting rather boring.

[+ThePropers]

 

However, that finger is REALLY getting itchy now............

 

Oh please! Do it or don't do it, just stop threatening about doing it.

 

really! it's getting rather boring.

 

**golf clap** I third the notion of putting up or shutting up. There comes a time in every young man's life where he has to say to himself "Will my connections to the local walmart supervisor be sufficient enough to get geocaching banned nationwide?" and I believe, for you, that time is now.

 

Go forth, young paddawan, and spread chaos and fear wherever you shall travel.

 

My apologies if your finger is itchy from a run in with poison ivy. If so, please get it looked at by a doctor.

Edited October 18, 2006 by ThePropers

[+El Diablo]

 

 

 

Fan the flames? The OP has started 3 threads on this topic. This is the latest one. I'm actually suprised this one hasn't been shut down as being redundant.

El Diablo

 

1) First thread was about NPS bias (Which turned out to be true if you read the whole thread and see the caches archived as a result)

 

2) Second thread was about no need for permission on US Forest Service property.

 

3) Third thread was about a cache that I placed on US Forest Service property and was denied.

 

The same? No..........

 

 

They are all the same subject. Your little whinny self was denied and like the 2 year old you are you stamped your feet and hoped all would yield to your antics. Why you haven't been banned is beyond me. You've made threats to reviewers...yet you are still here.

 

I'll probably get banned before you.

 

El Diablo

[+Kabuthunk]

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.

Oh pfft, like saying that will do anything. Being in technical support, I've dealt with my fair share of people who think "everything has to be my way, otherwise I'll sue the company and shut you down forever".

 

Like the book Animal Farm, the quotation of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" applies quite heavily to the OP methinks.

[+wvcoalcat]

I accept your apology.

[+Artemis]

Guidelines for placing a geocache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/

 

Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 11/02/05) prior to placing your geocache.

 

Followed by:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

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

 

Looks like all the reviewer in question has done is asked for the name of the person who granted permission as permission is required on every cache placed.

 

Not sure where the ranting or threats is coming from, one would think a family friend of a Governor would know all about politics and be very good at playing them without childish threats of 'You have no idea who your messing with'

 

Nuff said.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Artemis

[trackinthebox]

Why you haven't been banned is beyond me. You've made threats to reviewers...yet you are still here.

 

I'll probably get banned before you.

 

El Diablo

 

Who is "threatening" anyone?

 

There is quite a difference between the word you keep insinuating and the one it really is which is promise.

 

That was discussed a ways back. Perhaps you should take a look?

[+El Diablo]

Guidelines for placing a geocache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/

 

Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 11/02/05) prior to placing your geocache.

 

Followed by:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

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

 

Looks like all the reviewer in question has done is asked for the name of the person who granted permission as permission is required on every cache placed.

 

Not sure where the ranting or threats is coming from, one would think a family friend of a Governor would know all about politics and be very good at playing them without childish threats of 'You have no idea who your messing with'

 

Nuff said.

 

Because he is an idiot that can't read guidelines?

 

El Diablo

[+Bad_CRC]

You can insult me until the end of time, between the lines or otherwise and I will still be civil.

However, that finger is REALLY getting itchy now............

 

Was looking more at what would motivate someone to freak out and go off the deep end like this, and phrased it in a non constructive way. I apologize.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

It is a National Historic Site - it is well known that caching is limited or banned or frowned upon in/on historic sites at local, state and national levels all across the country. Caching may or may not be allowed there but I don't blame anybody for proceding with caution in this case. - especially if you poured gas on the situation and explicitly stated you don't need permission...(which sounds like the case.)

 

Work with us here - if the goal is to lead folks to this area then you can accomplish it by using an offset type cache. If, on the other hand, your goal is to point out your perception of hypocricy then you have done that. Time to move on.

 

Just one more place I won't put a cache. Thats all.

 

I don't like the prospect of filling out forms in triplicate to play a "game".

 

Rather rediculous concept once you really think about it..........

 

In any event.........

 

This has still gone unanswered:

 

If the US Forest Service has no policy at Grey Towers why do the reviewers demand excessive permission?

 

Or ANY AT ALL?

I answered in my first post to this thread; perhaps you missed it. That post was my attempt to provide a pretty complete explanation of the review process for your cache.

 

If my post was too long, Starbrand's post (which you quoted above) is an excellent two-sentence summary.

 

EDIT: for that matter, the reviewer note which your reviewer placed on your cache page said pretty much the same thing!

 

But you didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, you are so unfair and biased to the poor little guy.

 

Seriously Keystone you have got to be the single most polite poster I've ever seen on any board, keep it up, with luck it's contagious.

 

Criminal also gets my vote for sheer honesty in posting.

[+Cornerstone4]

 

Because he is an idiot that can't read guidelines?

 

El Diablo

 

 

Careful El D!

 

That one is going to get your warning meter spiked! In the end, he wins this round if you get banned before him.

 

(Just this tiny round mind you.) He's fighting an up-hill, losing battle on the other front.

[+BlueDeuce]

Did you ever hear this joke?

 

This guy 'Dave' had to go away on a very important business trip to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, so he asked his brother 'Fred' to watch over his house while he was gone.

 

Dave called Fred that night from his Motel 6. "Is everything all right with my house?" he asked.

 

"Your house is fine," Fred replied.

 

"How's my cat doing?" Dave asked.

 

"Your cat's dead."

 

"My cat's dead? That's a terrible way to tell me that news," Dave said. "You should have prepared me for it. You should have said, the first night I called, 'Your cat's on the roof, and we can't get it down.' Then the second night, you could say, 'I called the fire department, but their ladder's too short.' Then, finally, the third night, you could say something like, 'The fire department tried to rescue your cat, but she died in the process.' At least then I'd be prepared."

 

"I'm sorry," Fred said. "I didn't think of that at the time, but it makes sense."

 

"Ok, Thanks. So how's mom doing?" Dave asked.

 

"Well, Mom's on the roof, and we can't get her down".

[+El Diablo]

 

Because he is an idiot that can't read guidelines?

 

El Diablo

 

 

Careful El D!

 

That one is going to get your warning meter spiked! In the end, he wins this round if you get banned before him.

 

(Just this tiny round mind you.) He's fighting an up-hill, losing battle on the other front.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

 

El Diablo

[trackinthebox]

 

Because he is an idiot that can't read guidelines?

 

El Diablo

 

El Diablo, you really should get that temper checked...

 

Oh wait, El Diablo.............

 

Ok, never mind, I get the name

 

What guidelines?

 

Oh wait, There aren't any posted at Grey Towers.

 

Or ANY other National Forest or US Forest Service site in PA besides the site listed.

 

So what gives the reviewers a right to place permissions that aren't there when I said that I am responsible for my own caches? Trust me, IF any heat came because of them, I could take it. But there wouldn't be any as I know the area.

 

Do YOU know MY area?

Edited October 19, 2006 by trackinthebox