Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Aushiker

"Liar Caches"

Recommended Posts

Well said, Snoogans! I have not reproduced all of your lengthy post due to space consideratiions, but thank you for saying that!

 

Dang I wish you had left in this part:

 

Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau wouldn't have let this cache fly in the up-front world of consumer business dealings - which, of course, this isn't.

 

Personally, I would have gone bigger with the name dropping. I.E. The President of the United States would have shipped that cache owner off to Guantanimo with the rest of the terrorists.

 

I know it's bad form to laugh at your own jokes but I'm still chuckling about that one. :laughing:

 

It's like she's saying someone that ISN'T running for office couldn't get elected if they wanted too. I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I remember the reporter who said something similar about him got cut to shreds for it even by their own peers. :ph34r:

You had me until you mentioned Rush. That just poisoned your entire point, for me, because it forced me to consider the fact that you ignored her basic issue by nipping at her verbiage. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
In fact, because of this phenomenon of not reading cache listing pages, more and more owners of extreme caches -- including myself -- are taking the extra precautionay step of not listing the acutal cache starting coordinates as the primary coordinates listed at the top of the cache listing page (and blindly downloaded to GPSrs by mass-download programs) and rather either burying the actual coordinates in text form in the text body of of the description or even posting prerequisite screening requirements for seeking the cche, where those who meet the requirements must contact the cache owner to obtain the true cache coordinates.

Aren't caches that require you to contact the owner for the true coords a violation of the placement guidelines? What kinds of issues do you have getting those approved?

 

-eP

It is not exactly true that the placement guidelines prohibit owner-screened dissemination of cache waypoint information. Rather, the case is that the guidelines suggest that this may not always be most advisable. Allow me to briefly quote here from an excellent esteemed reviewer who was recently working as the reviewer for one of my Psycho caches:

The listing guidelines frown upon having to e-mail the cache owner in order to obtain the coordinates for the cache. "A puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be."

Again borrowing from my correspondence with the reviewer, the concern that geocaching.com admins have about owner-disseminated waypoint coordinates seems to be several-fold, and includes the following concerns:

  • that there may be serious delays in releasing the information after receipt of a request
  • that owners might play favorites, and send such information sooner to their geo-friends than to their "geo-enemies" or to strangers; i.e., using the method to discriminate against qualified cache seekers. (What I want to know here is how did they find out that I gave LPYankeefan coordinates for a spot 500 miles out in the cold Atlantic ocean off the coast of Iceland as the starting waypoint for my new cache? Darn! Drat!)
  • the possibility that the method might become used too frequently for too many caches, rather than only in those special cases where circumstances dictate that employment of such a method is wise.

However, in the right settings and circumstances, reviewers do grant execptions allowing geocachers to employ this method for caches where there is demonstrable need. In fact, I could easily cite a half-dozen such "owner-sends-coordinates-via-email-or-PM" exceptions for caches (none of them mine) which have been granted in MD and surrounding states alone; it is my opinion that in each case, the reviewers made a wise decision in granting the exception to allow this practice.

Share this post


Link to post

Well said, Snoogans! I have not reproduced all of your lengthy post due to space consideratiions, but thank you for saying that!

 

Dang I wish you had left in this part:

 

Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau wouldn't have let this cache fly in the up-front world of consumer business dealings - which, of course, this isn't.

 

Personally, I would have gone bigger with the name dropping. I.E. The President of the United States would have shipped that cache owner off to Guantanimo with the rest of the terrorists.

 

I know it's bad form to laugh at your own jokes but I'm still chuckling about that one. :ph34r:

 

It's like she's saying someone that ISN'T running for office couldn't get elected if they wanted too. I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I remember the reporter who said something similar about him got cut to shreds for it even by their own peers. :D

You had me until you mentioned Rush. That just poisoned you entire point, for me because it forced me to consider the fact that you ignored her basic point by nipping at her verbiage.

 

Well, thank goodness I'm NOT a journalist. :ph34r::laughing: I should have said: TO ME it's like she's saying someone that ISN'T running for office couldn't get elected if they wanted too.

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

I still kind of liked her article and I certainly agree with her that caches should be rated appropriately.

Share this post


Link to post

A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

I still kind of liked her article and I certainly agree with her that caches should be rated appropriately.

 

I found it entertaining, in a smug superior way, but negative to the sport/hobby/activity in the context it was given. I assume she has written a series of articles on geocaching for that paper from the way it was presented. If not, then she could have done better to present geocaching as a whole in a better light.

 

I don't care much for a sour grapes article written as revenge (that's the way I see it knowing both sides) for herself and her little peer group. When you want to give honest critique it's best to start with a positive and end with a positive, stick to the facts and back them up, and most of all DON'T DROP NAMES placing words/actions upon persons/entities unrelated to the issue.

 

On the one hand you have expectation and entitlement taken a bit too far and on the other you have an embattled cache owner who archived a well liked cache to silence a vocal minority that lives a couple hundred miles away. A vocal minority that really carries a grudge, given that this allllll happened months ago and the article is dated 1/9/07. Slow news day. :ph34r:

 

I wish the cache owner would tell the story here that I was told, but I respect their wish to stay quiet. Some folks just don't have as thick a skin as others. I also wish that they would reactivate the cache. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I happen to love liar's caches. I would hope that this game never devolves to satisfy the most gullible amongst us. Maybe it's my snarky sense of humor, but I giggle like a school girl when I hear about really stupid people doing really stupid things, then blaming someone else for their inevitable demise. I've read cache pages from a whole chit load of liars caches, and I've never failed to pick up on what kind of cache it was. Maybe Geocaching as a whole needs to be dumbed down so the idiots intellectually challenged who share our ranks never get disappointed or offended? God, I hope not.

Share this post


Link to post

I happen to love liar's caches. I would hope that this game never devolves to satisfy the most gullible amongst us. Maybe it's my snarky sense of humor, but I giggle like a school girl when I hear about really stupid people doing really stupid things, then blaming someone else for their inevitable demise. I've read cache pages from a whole chit load of liars caches, and I've never failed to pick up on what kind of cache it was. Maybe Geocaching as a whole needs to be dumbed down so the idiots intellectually challenged who share our ranks never get disappointed or offended? God, I hope not.

I must agree. Some people seem to have forgotten that there are no guarantees in life, that life and all activities carry some risks, most of them rather fun risks, and that we have a choice at all times, deep within our hearts, whether to react to such things as tall tale caches with humor and appreciatiion or with a victim attitude. Choice.

 

Personally, I would hate to see geocaching reduced to a lowest-common-denominator mentality -- much as has happened with much of television programming -- where we must cater to placating the feelings and demands of the lowest comon denominator of people who are participating in the sport, the people with small minds and even smaller hearts and who wear a victim mentality on their sleeves.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems this isn't the only thread about it - it's on GPS-Stash as well.

 

Too bad the griping had to be done in the media, though.

 

It's on MnGCA.org too.

 

Those who have been through the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People will notice the Circle of Influence starting to collapse as you get to the more up to date posts. Even the locals are getting tired of yesterday's news made NEW in the press. What FUN. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Even the coords are bad? How is that supposed to be fun for the finder?

Share this post


Link to post

A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Even the coords are bad? How is that supposed to be fun for the finder?

 

Dunno - ask the 24 that have found it in the last 30 days without complaint!

Share this post


Link to post
I happen to love liar's caches. I would hope that this game never devolves to satisfy the most gullible amongst us. Maybe it's my snarky sense of humor, but I giggle like a school girl when I hear about really stupid people doing really stupid things, then blaming someone else for their inevitable demise. ...
I tend to agree with you. However, the purpose of the terrain/difficulty ratings is to allow people to know what to expect and decide if they are up to the task. If it is our position that those ratings should be ignored, why do we have them?

Share this post


Link to post
A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Even the coords are bad? How is that supposed to be fun for the finder?
Dunno - ask the 24 that have found it in the last 30 days without complaint!
That's not actually an answer, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Even the coords are bad? How is that supposed to be fun for the finder?
Dunno - ask the 24 that have found it in the last 30 days without complaint!
That's not actually an answer, is it?

Yup, I think so; 24 geocachers found it in the last 30 days without a single complaint and you, who has never found a single one of my hides, much less this one you question, want to gripe about it?

 

Yes, I think it's an answer, and the answer is obvious!

Share this post


Link to post
A liar's cache can be fun even when it's the owner that's lying! Hide It And They Will Come #2 is a complete lie - the listing was made in jest.

 

The difficulty, terrain, type of hide and contents are all spurious, the coords are 75' off - it's actually a 1/1 ammo can on my front porch in plain view from the street filled with goodies.

 

Many of the finder's perpetuate the lie on their own by making up silly oh-that-was-hard logs.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

Even the coords are bad? How is that supposed to be fun for the finder?
Dunno - ask the 24 that have found it in the last 30 days without complaint!
That's not actually an answer, is it?

Yup, I think so; 24 geocachers found it in the last 30 days without a single complaint and you, who has never found a single one of my hides, much less this one you question, want to gripe about it?

 

Yes, I think it's an answer, and the answer is obvious!

What's obvious is that your ego causes you to share everything you do as if it is so naturally the right thing to do. In contrast to this is the general consensus that coordinates should be as accurate as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
I happen to love liar's caches. I would hope that this game never devolves to satisfy the most gullible amongst us. Maybe it's my snarky sense of humor, but I giggle like a school girl when I hear about really stupid people doing really stupid things, then blaming someone else for their inevitable demise. ...
I tend to agree with you. However, the purpose of the terrain/difficulty ratings is to allow people to know what to expect and decide if they are up to the task. If it is our position that those ratings should be ignored, why do we have them?

 

I cook the difficulty and terrain on most of my caches to keep the unprepared folks away. I make no secret of it. In all this time I've had something like 1 or 2 emails where a finder thought I should change the ratings.

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post
I happen to love liar's caches. I would hope that this game never devolves to satisfy the most gullible amongst us. Maybe it's my snarky sense of humor, but I giggle like a school girl when I hear about really stupid people doing really stupid things, then blaming someone else for their inevitable demise. ...
I tend to agree with you. However, the purpose of the terrain/difficulty ratings is to allow people to know what to expect and decide if they are up to the task. If it is our position that those ratings should be ignored, why do we have them?

 

I cook the difficulty and terrain on most of my caches to keep the unprepared folks away. I make no secret of it. In all this time I've had something like 1 or 2 emails where a finder thought I should change the coords.

Do you mean coords or ratings? From what you are sying, I take you to mean that you use slightly higher difficulty/terrain ratings than clayjars tool would suggest. That is somewhat different than listing a 1/1 as a 5/5.

Share this post


Link to post

G'day

 

Came across this article in another forum - http://www.hometown-pages.com/main.asp?Sec...ArticleID=14633

 

Anyone experienced this? Thoughts on it? Good joke or something sinister?

 

Curious as to what people think.

 

Andrew

 

Yes I was one of those MN. Personnally I won't ever do a cache by this placer because of the BAD taste it left in our mouth. Not sinister but wrong, might have been a good joke if all the money that was put into doing this cache and the excitment of the group to take on a challenge esp since the owner was contacted, new we were coming and actaully made an event out of the cache which turned out to be a lie.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that if the cache description suggests, recommends or even just hints that you will need to hire or buy "specialised equipment" when you don't actually need it, then that is most definitely out of order and should be reported to the cache reviewers! :laughing:

 

I'd be pretty hacked off with a setter who thought it might be funny to hear in the log about how much money I'd wasted finding their cache!

 

On the other hand, I have done caches where previous finders have written extraodinary logs detailing how much trouble they had in finding the cache! Usually though after re-reading the cache description and checking the difficulty and terrain rating it becomes obvious that they are just having a laugh. (None of these caches though have hinted at needing special equipment).

 

The reviewers were contacted and nothing was done.

Share this post


Link to post

I only had to look at the map and read a couple logs to recognize what this is...I mean people claim to be bringing stilts, rope ladders, cordless saws and gas lanterns. I think it's pretty obvious it's a liar's cache, but again, I suppose if you've never heard of one or realized they existed, you might not catch on.

 

If I was driving a long distance to this cache, I would verify with the cache owner what kindof equipment to bring (as with any high-difficulty-terrain cache), and then I would hope that he would point out that maybe I shouldn't be driving 2 or 3 hundred miles for the cache.

 

I particularly like how the difficulty is only 4.5 though...lends that sense of realism.

 

As far as liar's caches go, I'm not a big fan of them, for the same reason the OP points out. Unless it's blatantly obvious, it could lead to bad experiences. The cache in question here is pretty subtle. Granted the coordinates for the parking are really close to the first stage, but since it's a multi, you can't count on that being a good indicator of the difficulty.

 

The owner was contacted and never let on the truth which is what trully PISSED off our group.

Share this post


Link to post
Do you mean coords or ratings? From what you are sying, I take you to mean that you use slightly higher difficulty/terrain ratings than clayjars tool would suggest. That is somewhat different than listing a 1/1 as a 5/5.

 

Yes ratings. I fixed the post. Thanks for pointing that out. I was in a hurry to make it to a meeting on time.

 

To answer: Some of my cooked ratings are slight and a few are grossly overblown. Anyone taking the time to prepare would know which is which.

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

I think that if the cache description suggests, recommends or even just hints that you will need to hire or buy "specialised equipment" when you don't actually need it, then that is most definitely out of order and should be reported to the cache reviewers! :laughing:

 

I'd be pretty hacked off with a setter who thought it might be funny to hear in the log about how much money I'd wasted finding their cache!

 

On the other hand, I have done caches where previous finders have written extraodinary logs detailing how much trouble they had in finding the cache! Usually though after re-reading the cache description and checking the difficulty and terrain rating it becomes obvious that they are just having a laugh. (None of these caches though have hinted at needing special equipment).

 

The reviewers were contacted and nothing was done.

 

What would you have had them do?

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the best source of information on any cache are the previous finders logs. I've yet to see a 'liar's cache' page that didn't have some logs that were so far over the top that you didn't know what you were getting into. :laughing:

 

Or maybe I've never actually found a liars cache. :ph34r:

Well, to me, this matter of "tal tale" caches is a matter of personal opinion and preference. I happen to like well-designed and well-executed tall tale caches myself. However, having said that, I happen to firmly believe, as I have stated before, that a tall tale cache must be categorized by the owner only as a mystery/puzzle (aka "?" or riddle) cache, due to the special additional logging requirements. I do NOT like seeing tall tale caches categorized as traditional or multi-stage caches; I feel that this can cross the line of being too misleading.

 

As I mentioned above, I happen to like such caches when they have been very well-crafted by their creator and particularly if the early finders helped to build the myth and turn it into a really fun tale, with just the right amount of silliness and impossibility. Some of my favorite caches have been tall tale caches. In fact, judging by the content of some past threads on this topic of tall tale caches, much as seems to be true for several well-known high-volume posters on this forum. It is also true that in some cases, I have traveled long distances just to tackle such tale caches, knowing that they were tall tale caches. And, two other well-known tall tale caches located between 300 and 900 miles from my home are still high on my "want to do" list, and I will get to them someday. On the other hand, there are some tall tale caches that, to me, are just kinda silly and boring (or is a better word banal?) and, even though they may be located in my area, I simply choose to ignore them. So, for me, it all comes down to a matter of personal preference, just as some of us love guardrail and lamppost skirt urban micros and some hate them, and some of us love bacon and eggs for breakfast while others will only eat grits with fried grasshoppers and butter for breakfast.

 

What kinda amazes me in the case cited by the OP is that it appears that both the author of the news article and the team of finders cited chose such an extreme response as that of publicly "exposing" the tall tale nature of the cache. To me, this sounds very judgemental and rather fundamentalist and extreme, and I could personally only remotely justify such a response if there had been some very serious deception involved, with no hints as to the true nature of the cache, and/or if the cache had been miscategorized as a traditional or multi instead of as a puzzle/riddle cache (the latter to indicate the additional requirements.)

 

Much as wimseyguy pointed out in his earlier post cited above, it has been my experience that it is ALWAYS possible to discern if a cache is a tall tale cache, even if the owner has miscategorized it as a traditional or multi. However, we live in an era of fast food, power caching, grab and go caches, fast fixes and sound bites, and I notice with some dismay that more and more cachers nowadays are choosing to seek caches without first carefully reading the cache listing page, and instead they just blindly forge ahead using only the waypoint coordinates which some generic mass-download program generically dumped into their GPSr from the gc.com site. This type of casual "blind" is of particular concern to me as the owner of a number of extreme terrain caches that could easily get a seeker killed if they did not know what they were getting into. In that vein, Snoogans shared a great cautionary tale here about 10 months ago about some ill-prepared seekers -- who had never read the cache listing page -- of one of his extreme cachers who blundered onto posted private property and were almost killed. Likewise, from my vantage point here, I have witnessed my share of bizarre misdventures because a cacher failed to read the cache listing page for an extreme cache. In fact, because of this phenomenon of not reading cache listing pages, more and more owners of extreme caches -- including myself -- are taking the extra precautionay step of not listing the acutal cache starting coordinates as the primary coordinates listed at the top of the cache listing page (and blindly downloaded to GPSrs by mass-download programs) and rather either burying the actual coordinates in text form in the text body of of the description or even posting prerequisite screening requirements for seeking the cche, where those who meet the requirements must contact the cache owner to obtain the true cache coordinates.

 

In closing, allow me to repeat: I have never seen, and I have never heard of, a tall tale cache whhose true nature would not become immediately obvious to any intelligent geocacher if they were to read the cache listing page and the previous logs carefully, and if they were to exercise other nominal due diligence such as looking at the maps and the topo maps linked from the cache listing page. :ph34r:

 

As to the outing of the cache it was actually in an email from the owner that if we were so unhappy at the expereince why don't we publicly out the cache. That is what we did at her suggestion. Since the owner had been contacted before hand about the cache and choose, knowing we were driving so far would have expenses of a overnight stay AND built an event out of this, decet was certainly involved and is what set this particular group off when it came to this cache. After we found out the truth several phone calls were made to cachers who were plannign to drive out EARLY the next morning to tell them the truth. When everyone meet the owner that night all were polite even through the owners speech about how the qaulity caches had gone down hill, how she couldn't cache anymore because of it, how many look up to her and she is a mentor to other cachers. Lets say this just fueled the fire of this groups anger and YES the owner KNEw at that poimt we had already found it.

Share this post


Link to post

The reviewers were contacted and nothing was done.

What would you have had them do?

 

Crowd (from Jesus Christ Superstar):

 

Crucify him! Crucify him!

Remember Caesar

You have a duty

To keep the peace

So crucify him!

You'll be demoted

You'll be deported

So crucify him!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post
If cachers are foolish enough to invest in Chain Saws, Rappelling Equipment, and or any other specialized equipment, without some research like checking maps, or even consulting the owner, they have nothing to complain about. ...
Ummm, you might want to reread the thread and links. The cache owner was contacted and ensured the group that the cache was the real deal.

 

Unless the accusing parties want to show some proof, it's ALL hearsay. Including this: I was in contact with the cache owner when this first blew up and they refused to defend themselves publicly, but insisted those claims were false. I have the email and NO I won't post it. Hearsay.

 

I am sorry i don't have all the emails that went back and forth but here is one for you:

 

>From: "

>To: "

>CC:

>Subject: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:03 -0600

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from smtp.myclearwave.net ([63.109.97.44]) by bay0-mc12-f6.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:50:56 -0800

>Received: from cwmail1.myclearwave.net (cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net [10.10.100.10])by smtp.myclearwave.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTPid 6B57B170F7F; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:24 -0600 (CST)

>Received: from HP (at235.myclearwave.net [72.2.210.235] (may be forged))by cwmail1.myclearwave.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kADNo7CC032208;Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:23 -0600

>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlK3oXsmRrh6gU=

>X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1163461824-35e700380000-hfTUuY

>X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.15:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi

>X-Barracuda-Connect: cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net[10.10.100.10]

>X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1163461824

>References: <BAY118-F205C34E2E1C3888D513AE3C0F40@phx.gbl>

>X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869

>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962

>X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by ClearWave Mail Firewall at myclearwave.net

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.26

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.26 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=5.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=HTML_FONT_BIG

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.25924Rule breakdown below pts rule name description---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------0.26 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size

>Return-Path:

>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2006 23:50:56.0513 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FEA7710:01C7077E]

>

>Hello,

> Finally the truth is becoming known. Yes all involved have an investment in time. My time so far is 15 hours. Face the truth , sometime somebody was going to spill the beans.

>

> To complain that we weren't at the send off, oh, come on, keeping the joke up has stopped. Make it a puzzle. Lil Otter, you created the cache and schedule you own time. Coming to the send off is your choice, we didn't ask for you to be there. Just like our time, you didn't ask that we plan the trip and event. That is our responsibility.

>

> The bad form for the cache started with it being created and approved. (copied from earlier email p.s. please feel free to pass this email on to those you know have received the mass email reference to the "Gauntlet" so that they too can see the bad form involved was NOT on the WISCONSIN side but on the MINNESOTA side..)

>

> One of the stated purposes of the cache is bonding. Yes, we had a great time at Twin Bluffs!

>

>Accordiongal/Jean

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Saundra Urbacke

> To:

> Cc:

> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:07 PM

> Subject: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>

>

> First off let me make it CLEAR that only I have emailed and I am behind it all. HOW DARE YOU PUT OUT A FRIGGING cache like this. Trust me I went to my reviewer about this crap. This team from MN told you we propbalby would not be there and to go on without us as we had found it and we had one with a bad back who may or may not be up to the task of getting up in the am at 7am.

>

> Second several of us have LOTS of money into your friggin joke of a cache. Between the food, the gas, the dogs kenneling, I alone have over 300.00 so no it's not some inoccent little thing. Nor do I plan on letting you set up other MN Cachers who are looking for a true challange. When I go for a 4.0 cache that is what I expect. Thank goodness for the Twin bluffs Cache in the New Lisbeon Area which could fufill this desire.

>

> This would be one thing IF we were in the area and a special trip and $$ were not invested. The polite thing to do would have been for YOU to email me and let me know the truth behind this cache so we would not have wasted our time or money.

>

> You sat there Sat night talking about how great YOU are and the QUALITY of your CACHES and how you take people place they would eant to be and RIPPING on others who hide less then worthy caches. I'm sorry tell me what is so interesting about a PUBLIC Boat landing in which the neighbors are very UNHAPPY about the cache.

>

> Third you called Red Devil at the site a few minutes after 700 in which she told you we would not be out there.

>

> Several of the emailed cachers are very THANKFUL and happy that they are not making the same mistake we did. They'll do the cache but not as a special trip or save for a milestone like many on our trip did.

>

> GeoPink was not asked tho his time is appreciated to host us nor was Coastagal, that is SOMETHING you all CHOOSE to do on your own with no expectation from the MN group.

>

> BTW I and GeckoOne will not be posting a FIND on this cache and therefore are not required to fufill keeping the secret!

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Always feel free to let your dreams run free.

>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From:

> To:

> CC:

> Subject: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:19:44 EST

> MIME-Version: 1.0

> Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1]) by bay0-mc2-f17.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:22:00 -0800

> Received: from by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id y.c10.9950eb0 (48600);Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:19:45 -0500 (EST)

>

>

> In a message dated 11/13/2006 11:11:18 A.M. Central Standard Time, writes:

> In regards to The Gauntlet.. Let the Games Begin!!

>

> Nice scam. If it wasn't so far away I'd think the idea was really cool.

>

> But don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

>

> Regards.

>

> Bart

>

>

> Greetings Bart,

>

> I realize that accordiongal (perhaps others) are mass mailing emails to many..

>

> I feel sad that the MN group organized by CamoCacher felt so put out that they blew off their scheduled meet at the Gauntlet and let us there standing in the cold for an hr + at 7am in the morning... I'd call it bad form on what they did and are doing now... but thank you for understanding that only these cachers found fault in this cache and decided to ruin it for other MN's (IL cachers that drive just as far enjoyed becoming part of the Gauntlet survivors group).... secret emails seem like a childish way to ruin a cache... why not just publicly post their mind and force me to close the cache..

>

> By the way.. this cache was created in 3/21/2004 won "Cache of the Month" in May 2005, and "Cache of the Year 2005"..

>

> Here's the behind the scene's time/effort that went into hosting these last visitors..

>

> GeoPink Travel Time to Host the visitors from Minnesota... 6 hrs.

> GeoPink Time at event: 3.5 hrs

> GeoPink time at Gauntlet sendoff: 1.5 hrs

> Total time - Host to the Minnesota events that they setup... 11 hrs.

> (GeoPink is Wisconsin's Geocaching Assoc. President)

>

> Coastiegirl04 Travel Time to assist with hosting the visitors from Minnesota.. 5 hrs.

> Coastiegirl04 Time at event: 4 hrs

> Coastiegirl04 time at Gauntlet sendoff: 1.5 hrs

> Total time - assistant hostess to the Minnesota events that they setup... 10.5 hrs

> Plus she grouped with one of the cachers that showed up for the 7am Sunday Gauntlet and spent Sunday caching with him.

>

> The Lil Otter Travel time to both events: 2.5 hrs.

> The Lil Otter time at event: 3.5 hrs

> The Lil Otter time at Gauntlet sendoff: 1.5 hrs.

> Total time - Hostess to the Minnesota events that they setup.. 7.5 hrs.

>

> Usually the hosts/hostess' put in extra time with grouping after the Gauntlet to be guides to the area's best caches/challenges i.e. Devil's Lake toughies as well as other major hiking experiences.. (all these people have already done the cache before so no special "point" gained for all their time and effort)

>

> If they would have planned their attack of the Gauntlet in warmer weather I would have offered up my backyard for free camping.. (done many times before) I could not offer up my HOME to so many... which would be understandable. But I did offer up camping for the weekend to this group.

>

> I have never had to deal with this type of "game" in which backstabbing goes on because most realize it's not a PRANK but a way to bond with all the cachers before them that did the Gauntlet.. I'm so sorry that they ruined it for you by spreading private emails and playing "bad" sport... As quoted from a survivor of the Gauntlet "The best part of The Gauntlet is going through the motions of planning, getting all the gear set, taking pictures in the parking lot, etc." I'm sorry that the one(s) that leaked the information now ruined that for others.

>

> ~The Lil Otter

>

> p.s. please feel free to pass this email on to those you know have received the mass email reference to the "Gauntlet" so that they too can see the bad form involved was NOT on the WISCONSIN side but on the MINNESOTA side..

>

> c.c. All named in above email so they deserve to receive this email

> GeoPink (Wisconsin's Geocaching President and Host that weekend)

> CoastieGirl104 (assistant hostess that weekend)

> The Lil Otter (Hostess that weekend and owner of the cache)

> CamoCacher (Organized Saturday night event and Gauntlet 7am Sunday gathering)

> AccordianGal

>

>

>

>

>Call it hearsay if you want. I deleted out the emails for all involved for privacy.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that if the cache description suggests, recommends or even just hints that you will need to hire or buy "specialised equipment" when you don't actually need it, then that is most definitely out of order and should be reported to the cache reviewers! :laughing:

 

I'd be pretty hacked off with a setter who thought it might be funny to hear in the log about how much money I'd wasted finding their cache!

 

On the other hand, I have done caches where previous finders have written extraodinary logs detailing how much trouble they had in finding the cache! Usually though after re-reading the cache description and checking the difficulty and terrain rating it becomes obvious that they are just having a laugh. (None of these caches though have hinted at needing special equipment).

 

The reviewers were contacted and nothing was done.

 

What would you have had them do?

 

Minor changes such as terrain and difficulty and a hint as a disclaimer as to the truth. Up until this cache I had never come across a Liar's cache and only asked the original questions because someone suggested it to me to confirm the cache was real.

Share this post


Link to post

BTW I didn't know about the article until recently and after it was already started for publishing so don't know who helped the author write the article from our group nor as far as I know do i know Lisa.

 

BTW the 400 is actually misconstrued a bit. I spent over 400.00 between hotel, gas (I drive a big truck), kenneling my dog, a trip to meet with 2 other cachers to plan, and then the food on the trip.

Share this post


Link to post

This will likely be my last post to this thread, because I have pretty much made the points I had hoped to make, but for those of you who have been following this thread and have not yet visited the cache listing page for the cache (GCHZKB) in question, I would like to heartily encourage you to do so. I spent some time looking at the cache page earlier today, and discovered that the vast majority of finders, from day one, loved it immensely, and also noticed the fact that this cache won the Cache of the Month award for May 2005 and the Cache of the Year Award for 2005 from Wisconsin Geocaching Association. I also found in the log entries a great recent note by Greyhounder on the whole matter which contained some relevant comments (which I have highlighted in italics), as follows:

As I have always said -- each cache is what you make of it and what you bring to it. Caches that you loved, may be hated by others and vice versa. For me this cache was about the smile that it brought to my face when I signed the logbook. It was part of a very memorable day for me spent with fantastic people.

 

Thank you Otter!

Bec

 

Lastly, as someone has pointed out, if it is true that one of the recent seekers who complained really did spend quite a bit of money on specialized outdoor gear just for this outing, their investment is hardly lost: Wisconsin is full of many high-terrain rating caches which will require use of such gear, and also offers many non-geocaching outdoor adventure opportunities -- ranging from kayaking and hiking to rappelleing, rock-climbing and caving -- as well which will also offer ample excuse to put this gear to use. So, the person hardly wasted their money.

 

After reading the cache listing page, the one that I feel that was not totally kosher about this cache was the fact that it was listed as a traditional multi-stage cache, and not as a puzzle/riddle cache. Since the site currrently does not offer a "special requirements for logging" category nor an attribute icon denoting the same, I personally believe that all special requirements caches should bear a puzzle/riddle classification to indicate the special requirements for logging.

 

Personally, I travel once in a while to Wisconsin to give seminars, and I would have been happy to have tackled this cache during one of my trips. Sorry to see that it was archived by the owner!

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team

Share this post


Link to post
This will likely be my last post to this thread, because I have pretty much made the points I had hoped to make, but for those of you who have been following this thread and have not yet visited the cache listing page for the cache (GCHZKB) in question, I would like to heartily encourage you to do so. I spent some time looking at the cache page earlier today, and discovered that the vast majority of finders, from day one, loved it immensely, ...

On the other hand, the point of the cache is to lie... :laughing:

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Is there bad feelings in general between Minnesota and Wisconsen like there is between New Jersey and, well, everybody else? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Is there bad feelings in general between Minnesota and Wisconsen like there is between New Jersey and, well, everybody else? :laughing:

 

No

Share this post


Link to post

Is there bad feelings in general between Minnesota and Wisconsen like there is between New Jersey and, well, everybody else? :laughing:

 

No

It was a joke (except for the bit about New Jersey. That's the truth.)

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Is there bad feelings in general between Minnesota and Wisconsen like there is between New Jersey and, well, everybody else? :laughing:

 

No

It was a joke (except for the bit about New Jersey. That's the truth.)

 

Why do people not like Jersey?

Share this post


Link to post

I must agree. Some people seem to have forgotten that there are no guarantees in life, that life and all activities carry some risks, most of them rather fun risks, and that we have a choice at all times, deep within our hearts, whether to react to such things as tall tale caches with humor and appreciatiion or with a victim attitude. Choice.

 

Personally, I would hate to see geocaching reduced to a lowest-common-denominator mentality -- much as has happened with much of television programming -- where we must cater to placating the feelings and demands of the lowest comon denominator of people who are participating in the sport, the people with small minds and even smaller hearts and who wear a victim mentality on their sleeves.

 

There are, of course, many different senses of humor. Perhaps I have strange sense of humor. Okay, I do. I laugh heartily at decoy caches. "Nope. Not here."

What is being discussed here strikes me as being as funny as tripping an old lady using a cane. Ha ha ha.

Odd that you mention 'least common denominator'. This kind of a cache takes a very sick sense of humor. But with the 'least common denominator' even sick humor like this is permitted. Small minds and small hearts? You have it wrong. The people with the small minds are the ones who put out caches like these. Humiliating people is funny?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if this was mentioned in here, as I skimmed a bit. I remember a long time ago in the forums a thread about a "liar cache" that had something to do with nuclear waste and stuff. The logs were hilarious, obviously fake in their reporting. It was like reading a cool science fiction book. It made me feel like making a cache like that, even though I'm an extremely honest person. But seeing the angst here makes me pause...

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure if this was mentioned in here, as I skimmed a bit. I remember a long time ago in the forums a thread about a "liar cache" that had something to do with nuclear waste and stuff. The logs were hilarious, obviously fake in their reporting. It was like reading a cool science fiction book. It made me feel like making a cache like that, even though I'm an extremely honest person. But seeing the angst here makes me pause...
I don't have a specific problem with liar's caches. Creating a cache that requests that the finders create a wacky tale sounds like big fun. However, I think the ratings should be in the ball park.

 

(Lately, nearly every time I type 'the' it comes out as 'teh'. It's very irritating.)

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless the accusing parties want to show some proof, it's ALL hearsay. Including this: I was in contact with the cache owner when this first blew up and they refused to defend themselves publicly, but insisted those claims were false. I have the email and NO I won't post it. Hearsay.

 

The reasoning behind my not speaking out about this publically was because of my concerns about a MN/WI border squabble.. I have asked all those that responded to them in a disrespectful manner to follow my lead and not do any personal attacks. I will state plainly that I did not lie to them.. the only email I got prior to their visit was an invite to their event and to the gathering they planned. I was never informed that they came JUST to do the Gauntlet.

 

Below is my email I wrote to Snoogans which is mentioned above.. I also wrote to thank others that were

assisting them.

 

[11/17/06 -

Greetings Snoogans,

 

Thank you so much for your efforts to mentor/help those Gals from MN understand that it was not mean spirited sport on the Liar's cache they are talking about.. They've been hammering me all week both publically and privately.. even mass email to others to hammer me in emails as well as to put on the cache page that one of their group DIED ( I had to delete that log )but was swamped again with emails to handle..

 

I had (for their arrival).. two others (one was the Wisconsin Geo President) there to play host/hostess to the area's best (tough) caches.. but the MN group went to the cache a day early.. even though they created the meet time on Sunday 7am.. the 3 of us (Hosts) were there standing in 20 degree weather waiting for them.. they blew us off... so missed out on all the fun/attention we give to the out of state visitors..

 

They did other caches on the way to and from on their trip.. even talking about getting a hotel with a waterpark to swim etc..

 

I won't publically correct all their errors.. it'll only turn into a fight.. because everything I've done has been twisted so far.. so I wash my hands of trying to explain that we were there to "ENJOY" and bond with them .. not a PRANK.. etc.. to laugh at them..

 

I just hope that one day they'll realize that they could have enjoyed their trip/adventure without turning it into a personal attack upon me.

http://www.mngca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t...c&start=120

 

It's just getting to me and it's been a long week of handling all this mess.. just glad they are behaving on this forum..

 

When I hear of out-of-staters coming into this area.. I offer camping in my yard.. etc.. I go all out to cancel all I would have done so I am freed up during those days that they are in the area.. Please understand that I am NOT sitting there "laughing" at them.. but all that do the Gauntlet become an elite group called the Gauntlet "survivors".. (not my doing but named by the others that have done it).. we even talk alot of having 'survivor' gatherings.. we have been having a blast.. many that already do the Gauntlet return when they see a group massing.. it's a constant 'good time'..

 

But I think that if these gals hadn't snuck to the Gauntlet (unfair advantage to the others that were to show up the next day) and would have waited til their 7am Sunday 'meet'.. everything would have been so different.. and they would have had great memories etc..or if I was a 'cute' male.. not a female.. it could have been different.. hard to say what really riled them the most. But we did have fun at the pre-Gauntlet event the night before.. just wished they'd have actually spoke how ticked off they were.. not all this behind the scenes drama and email mass attack.. death logs etc..

 

Hard times.. long week.. but I'm glad that they are beginning to understand about liar caches.

 

Thanks again for helping them realize...and allowing me to explain a bit..

 

~The Lil Otter

 

p.s . I never lied to them or misled them.. but because I am not publically correcting them.. things are getting more warped about how they wish to see me.. I'm just a cacher that has 2.5yr old 'fun' cache which is done with good intentions.. But nothing I could say or do made a difference with the chips on their shoulders. ]

end of email

 

My cache was located in the top vacation spot in the midwest... surrounded by Rocky Arbor, Mirror Lake, Devil's Lake, Buckhorn, Roche-A-Cri State Parks.. all located within 30 miles of the cache. I came prepared with a listing of all the caches within the area.

 

At last I now can publically thank JoGPS's cache for giving me the idea of my Gauntlet's format..

 

I would just hope that now after almost 2 months of problems that these gals would finally think that they have 'won'.. My cache is archived.. When I asked CamoCacher etc to cease with the petty attacks/pranks.. she plainly stated in email "You repead what you sowed."

 

~The Lil Otter

 

ps.. I do not enjoy being pulled into public forums where bashing takes place.. so please refrain from any personal attacks..

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure if this was mentioned in here, as I skimmed a bit. I remember a long time ago in the forums a thread about a "liar cache" that had something to do with nuclear waste and stuff. The logs were hilarious, obviously fake in their reporting. It was like reading a cool science fiction book. It made me feel like making a cache like that, even though I'm an extremely honest person. But seeing the angst here makes me pause...
I don't have a specific problem with liar's caches. Creating a cache that requests that the finders create a wacky tale sounds like big fun. However, I think the ratings should be in the ball park.

 

(Lately, nearly every time I type 'the' it comes out as 'teh'. It's very irritating.)

Have you been talking with n00b too much lately? :ph34r::laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure if this was mentioned in here, as I skimmed a bit. I remember a long time ago in the forums a thread about a "liar cache" that had something to do with nuclear waste and stuff. The logs were hilarious, obviously fake in their reporting. It was like reading a cool science fiction book. It made me feel like making a cache like that, even though I'm an extremely honest person. But seeing the angst here makes me pause...
I don't have a specific problem with liar's caches. Creating a cache that requests that the finders create a wacky tale sounds like big fun. However, I think the ratings should be in the ball park.

 

(Lately, nearly every time I type 'the' it comes out as 'teh'. It's very irritating.)

Have you been talking with n00b too much lately? :laughing::ph34r:

I've been trying to hang out in off-topic more to cleanse my attitude and it might have rubbed off. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure if this was mentioned in here, as I skimmed a bit. I remember a long time ago in the forums a thread about a "liar cache" that had something to do with nuclear waste and stuff. The logs were hilarious, obviously fake in their reporting. It was like reading a cool science fiction book. It made me feel like making a cache like that, even though I'm an extremely honest person. But seeing the angst here makes me pause...
I don't have a specific problem with liar's caches. Creating a cache that requests that the finders create a wacky tale sounds like big fun. However, I think the ratings should be in the ball park.

 

(Lately, nearly every time I type 'the' it comes out as 'teh'. It's very irritating.)

 

I agree with SBell111 I also don't have a problem with them as long as it isn't so subtle or to have wrong info such as terrain/difficulty and if asked questions about the cache if the owners are honest. Heck even one step further when you know a specific event is being done for a cache because of its difficulty an honest owner would email the host and explain the truth and request it be kept secret and if others are known to be planning a trip that they email the owner first.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless the accusing parties want to show some proof, it's ALL hearsay. Including this: I was in contact with the cache owner when this first blew up and they refused to defend themselves publicly, but insisted those claims were false. I have the email and NO I won't post it. Hearsay.

 

The reasoning behind my not speaking out about this publically was because of my concerns about a MN/WI border squabble.. I have asked all those that responded to them in a disrespectful manner to follow my lead and not do any personal attacks. I will state plainly that I did not lie to them.. the only email I got prior to their visit was an invite to their event and to the gathering they planned. I was never informed that they came JUST to do the Gauntlet.

 

Below is my email I wrote to Snoogans which is mentioned above.. I also wrote to thank others that were

assisting them.

 

[11/17/06 -

Greetings Snoogans,

 

Thank you so much for your efforts to mentor/help those Gals from MN understand that it was not mean spirited sport on the Liar's cache they are talking about.. They've been hammering me all week both publically and privately.. even mass email to others to hammer me in emails as well as to put on the cache page that one of their group DIED ( I had to delete that log )but was swamped again with emails to handle..

 

I had (for their arrival).. two others (one was the Wisconsin Geo President) there to play host/hostess to the area's best (tough) caches.. but the MN group went to the cache a day early.. even though they created the meet time on Sunday 7am.. the 3 of us (Hosts) were there standing in 20 degree weather waiting for them.. they blew us off... so missed out on all the fun/attention we give to the out of state visitors..

 

They did other caches on the way to and from on their trip.. even talking about getting a hotel with a waterpark to swim etc..

 

I won't publically correct all their errors.. it'll only turn into a fight.. because everything I've done has been twisted so far.. so I wash my hands of trying to explain that we were there to "ENJOY" and bond with them .. not a PRANK.. etc.. to laugh at them..

 

I just hope that one day they'll realize that they could have enjoyed their trip/adventure without turning it into a personal attack upon me.

http://www.mngca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t...c&start=120

 

It's just getting to me and it's been a long week of handling all this mess.. just glad they are behaving on this forum..

 

When I hear of out-of-staters coming into this area.. I offer camping in my yard.. etc.. I go all out to cancel all I would have done so I am freed up during those days that they are in the area.. Please understand that I am NOT sitting there "laughing" at them.. but all that do the Gauntlet become an elite group called the Gauntlet "survivors".. (not my doing but named by the others that have done it).. we even talk alot of having 'survivor' gatherings.. we have been having a blast.. many that already do the Gauntlet return when they see a group massing.. it's a constant 'good time'..

 

But I think that if these gals hadn't snuck to the Gauntlet (unfair advantage to the others that were to show up the next day) and would have waited til their 7am Sunday 'meet'.. everything would have been so different.. and they would have had great memories etc..or if I was a 'cute' male.. not a female.. it could have been different.. hard to say what really riled them the most. But we did have fun at the pre-Gauntlet event the night before.. just wished they'd have actually spoke how ticked off they were.. not all this behind the scenes drama and email mass attack.. death logs etc..

 

Hard times.. long week.. but I'm glad that they are beginning to understand about liar caches.

 

Thanks again for helping them realize...and allowing me to explain a bit..

 

~The Lil Otter

 

p.s . I never lied to them or misled them.. but because I am not publically correcting them.. things are getting more warped about how they wish to see me.. I'm just a cacher that has 2.5yr old 'fun' cache which is done with good intentions.. But nothing I could say or do made a difference with the chips on their shoulders. ]

end of email

 

My cache was located in the top vacation spot in the midwest... surrounded by Rocky Arbor, Mirror Lake, Devil's Lake, Buckhorn, Roche-A-Cri State Parks.. all located within 30 miles of the cache. I came prepared with a listing of all the caches within the area.

 

At last I now can publically thank JoGPS's cache for giving me the idea of my Gauntlet's format..

 

I would just hope that now after almost 2 months of problems that these gals would finally think that they have 'won'.. My cache is archived.. When I asked CamoCacher etc to cease with the petty attacks/pranks.. she plainly stated in email "You repead what you sowed."

 

~The Lil Otter

 

ps.. I do not enjoy being pulled into public forums where bashing takes place.. so please refrain from any personal attacks..

 

I'm sorry did the event not indicate that we were coming for YOUR cache? I'm sorry the event in which was posted, you were invited to and is called The MN Purple Invasion of "The Gauntlet"

 

Hmmm went a day early, yep to check out the first stage of a MULTI (which it is not) and check out the area, now if we'd know the truth A) we probably wouldn't have made an event or gone to the cache but if we had so decided to still make the trip the outcome would be different and no one would have gone to the "first" stage early only to find out the truth.

 

Blew you off - you were told we probably wouldn't be there and a phone call that morning a few minutes after 7am told you we would not be there and to go one with the cachers who did not go the night before.

 

Your sex has nothing to do it with, I could care less or could any of our group.

 

excuse me the qoute you put is not in response to that....what you wrote is that the "a cacher died" post what was worng and my response to you (after CCing Jeremy from Groundspeak into the discussion which i have yet to figure out why you did but wha'ever) is that your cache requests that we basically make the logs bigger better and wild which we did and you didn't like and I stated you "reap what you sow."

 

By the way this has nothing to do with winning nor did any of the GIRLs have anything to do with the writing of the article.

Edited by CamoCacher

Share this post


Link to post
If cachers are foolish enough to invest in Chain Saws, Rappelling Equipment, and or any other specialized equipment, without some research like checking maps, or even consulting the owner, they have nothing to complain about. ...
Ummm, you might want to reread the thread and links. The cache owner was contacted and ensured the group that the cache was the real deal.

 

Unless the accusing parties want to show some proof, it's ALL hearsay. Including this: I was in contact with the cache owner when this first blew up and they refused to defend themselves publicly, but insisted those claims were false. I have the email and NO I won't post it. Hearsay.

 

I am sorry i don't have all the emails that went back and forth but here is one for you:

 

>From: "

>To: "

>CC:

>Subject: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:03 -0600

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from smtp.myclearwave.net ([63.109.97.44]) by bay0-mc12-f6.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:50:56 -0800

>Received: from cwmail1.myclearwave.net (cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net [10.10.100.10])by smtp.myclearwave.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTPid 6B57B170F7F; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:24 -0600 (CST)

>Received: from HP (at235.myclearwave.net [72.2.210.235] (may be forged))by cwmail1.myclearwave.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kADNo7CC032208;Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:23 -0600

>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlK3oXsmRrh6gU=

>X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1163461824-35e700380000-hfTUuY

>X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.15:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi

>X-Barracuda-Connect: cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net[10.10.100.10]

>X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1163461824

>References: <BAY118-F205C34E2E1C3888D513AE3C0F40@phx.gbl>

>X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869

>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962

>X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by ClearWave Mail Firewall at myclearwave.net

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.26

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.26 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=5.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=HTML_FONT_BIG

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.25924Rule breakdown below pts rule name description---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------0.26 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size

SNIP

 

Can someone point out where LO deceived anyone in these emails? I'm getting a headache trying to read through it all and figure out who said what. All I see is bickering in the aftermath.

 

BTW- Little Otter posted the email she sent to me. That is exactly what I was talking about in the post I quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
If cachers are foolish enough to invest in Chain Saws, Rappelling Equipment, and or any other specialized equipment, without some research like checking maps, or even consulting the owner, they have nothing to complain about. ...
Ummm, you might want to reread the thread and links. The cache owner was contacted and ensured the group that the cache was the real deal.

 

Unless the accusing parties want to show some proof, it's ALL hearsay. Including this: I was in contact with the cache owner when this first blew up and they refused to defend themselves publicly, but insisted those claims were false. I have the email and NO I won't post it. Hearsay.

 

I am sorry i don't have all the emails that went back and forth but here is one for you:

 

>From: "

>To: "

>CC:

>Subject: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:03 -0600

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from smtp.myclearwave.net ([63.109.97.44]) by bay0-mc12-f6.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:50:56 -0800

>Received: from cwmail1.myclearwave.net (cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net [10.10.100.10])by smtp.myclearwave.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTPid 6B57B170F7F; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:24 -0600 (CST)

>Received: from HP (at235.myclearwave.net [72.2.210.235] (may be forged))by cwmail1.myclearwave.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kADNo7CC032208;Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:50:23 -0600

>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlK3oXsmRrh6gU=

>X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1163461824-35e700380000-hfTUuY

>X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.15:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi

>X-Barracuda-Connect: cwmail1.mcyelarwave.net[10.10.100.10]

>X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1163461824

>References: <BAY118-F205C34E2E1C3888D513AE3C0F40@phx.gbl>

>X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [GEO] bflentje contacting The Lil Otter from Geocaching.com

>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869

>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962

>X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by ClearWave Mail Firewall at myclearwave.net

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.26

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.26 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=5.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=HTML_FONT_BIG

>X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.25924Rule breakdown below pts rule name description---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------0.26 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size

SNIP

 

Can someone point out where LO deceived anyone in these emails? I'm getting a headache trying to read through it all and figure out who said what. All I see is bickering in the aftermath.

 

BTW- Little Otter posted the email she sent to me. That is exactly what I was talking about in the post I quoted.

 

I'm sorry i don't have the very first email that I sent her. I know one question that was asked was something like: How long does it take the average cacher to do the cache. (The reasoning was so we could set a time to make sure we could all be heading home in a decent enough time to go to work on Monday.) The response was something like: I can't tell you how long but I would bring some extra caches in case it doesn't take you long. (BTW it takes the average cacher about 5 mins to find the ammo can in the pile of concrete rubble at the side of a boat launch in which there is not much hiding spots).

 

Now could that possibly say it doesn't take long - maybe but maybe not. This weekend we did the LAIR cache in which the article has a photo. I once again emailed the owner regarding the cache, the terrain and if it was dog friendly, etc. It's a 3 hour drive for us. I got a pleasant and lengthy and very informative email. He told me alot and also said if we were 50 like him it might take 2 hours to do. Our group, which was 3 of us from the Gauntlet trip got to the cache and signed in about 30-45 mins and then spent another hour exploring and taking photos. and then any easier route back in about 15 mins. So different people with different skills esp on a 4 terrain could take differnt amounts of time and was a legit answer had the cache been real.

 

Edited to add: This email was sent before we set up the event because we were still discussing things and getting details arranged before putting up the event post.

Edited by CamoCacher

Share this post


Link to post

First one was fun, second one was "been there done that", after that it was boring.

 

First one I did came out late one night, so I posted a find on it with some story even though I hadn't gone, to delay the FTF crew. Later when I had time, I really went out and found it. Guess what - I was FTF!

 

Hey - it was a liar's cache after all.

Share this post


Link to post

The continuing story of Peyton Place

 

pptv.jpg

 

Ryan O'Neal was ON Peyton Place! I never knew. A bit before my time.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...