Problem Solved

1.1k · December 29, 2007

Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...

It's no wonder he archived it.

Let's also not forget that RK clearly stated that if he couldn't get to it in the Spring, he would do it next Summer. With this attitude, what is the reviewer to do. I urge anyone to go read the actual archived cache page linked earlier in this thread. The reviewer was as nice as she could be. Longevity in the game shouldn't give you special privileges.

This isn't said to gang up on RK, but these are things that he has said, which is the only thing we can form an opinion of him and the situation from. Most of us don't know him personally.

I have read it. I also read Renegade Knights (his name isn't "RK") post where he stated he communicated privately with the reviewer, not through posts on his cache page, so anyone basing their judgements from the cache page is using very insufficient data.

4.1k · December 29, 2007

Yeah, I mean, how many people are going to go look for a cache in a year?

We have several caches that have 5 or less logs for the last year and a half, with 1 of them having only 1 log in that time frame.

We don't have all the details on the problem cache so we can't render an opinion on whether that cache should or should not have been archived.

We have run into situations where the reviewer has taken a hard line for whatever reason he deemed appropriate and in that case We archived the cache and refused to place any other caches while he was the local approver. We have seen reviewers take a hard line against cachers and the cacher would bring the problem to the forums seeking advice and have other reviewers use their personal accounts to stir things in those threads. Most of the time nothing is ever resolved.

As in this case, there will never be a solution that will make very many people who have responded to this thread feel like anything was accomplished. The only real accomplishment was to show how fast some people chose the hard and fast way to interpret the "guidelines".

If so many people feel that the cache is becoming "Litter" perhaps someone will show a little Christmas spirit and go retrieve it for the reviewer.

John

The irony here in how these replies from you and your wife apply both to you and the OP are too much.

I can take that entire argument and say it applies to your responses as well. This is an Internet forum. Many things don't get accomplished here. It's the nature of the beast.

That being said, which stone that you are casting doesn't apply both ways? The OP's post didn't accomplish anything. The OP could show Christmas spirit and go get it. Heck, why don't YOU go get it? Does putting that challenge forward make your stance on this thread the center of altruism?

There isn't probably one of us on here, including you and your wife, that wouldn't hesitate a second if it weren't a ridiculously cost intensive time sink.

Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...but, I understand you've had personal conflicts with Reviewers and have a bad taste from previous altercations on the boards where you feel they were using underhanded means to defend, so I can see where you have chosen your stance and I respect that.

It's no wonder he archived it.

You're right, we should demand a daily time schedule of how RK has spent all his time this past year and then decide if he is fit to continue owning any caches.

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

1.1k · December 29, 2007

Yeah, I mean, how many people are going to go look for a cache in a year?

We have several caches that have 5 or less logs for the last year and a half, with 1 of them having only 1 log in that time frame.

We don't have all the details on the problem cache so we can't render an opinion on whether that cache should or should not have been archived.

We have run into situations where the reviewer has taken a hard line for whatever reason he deemed appropriate and in that case We archived the cache and refused to place any other caches while he was the local approver. We have seen reviewers take a hard line against cachers and the cacher would bring the problem to the forums seeking advice and have other reviewers use their personal accounts to stir things in those threads. Most of the time nothing is ever resolved.

As in this case, there will never be a solution that will make very many people who have responded to this thread feel like anything was accomplished. The only real accomplishment was to show how fast some people chose the hard and fast way to interpret the "guidelines".

If so many people feel that the cache is becoming "Litter" perhaps someone will show a little Christmas spirit and go retrieve it for the reviewer.

John

The irony here in how these replies from you and your wife apply both to you and the OP are too much.

I can take that entire argument and say it applies to your responses as well. This is an Internet forum. Many things don't get accomplished here. It's the nature of the beast.

That being said, which stone that you are casting doesn't apply both ways? The OP's post didn't accomplish anything. The OP could show Christmas spirit and go get it. Heck, why don't YOU go get it? Does putting that challenge forward make your stance on this thread the center of altruism?

There isn't probably one of us on here, including you and your wife, that wouldn't hesitate a second if it weren't a ridiculously cost intensive time sink.

Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...but, I understand you've had personal conflicts with Reviewers and have a bad taste from previous altercations on the boards where you feel they were using underhanded means to defend, so I can see where you have chosen your stance and I respect that.

It's no wonder he archived it.

You're right, we should demand a daily time schedule of how RK has spent all his time this past year and then decide if he is fit to continue owning any caches.

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

Well said John, thank you and Shirley to.

AS I said before, people are rushing to judgement way to easily, I wish I could make the run out there myself to help out.

December 29, 2007

I have read it. I also read Renegade Knights (his name isn't "RK") post where he stated he communicated privately with the reviewer, not through posts on his cache page, so anyone basing their judgements from the cache page is using very insufficient data.

Yes I know his name. People often refer to me on here as Loco, or Loco5 and I don't get my panties in a wad about it. It's faster to type, big deal. Guess you must always log, Took Nothing, Left Nothing, Signed Log instead TNLNSL too. :rolleyes:

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

Drop everything? It's been half a year! And the post was placed here by RK complaining about the situation. No one posted here complaining about RK. We just don't agree with his view on the issue. It's a forum, that sort of thing will happen.

I'm sure most of us will happily help another cacher out. But RK clearly stated he didnt' want anyone else's help. He wanted to do it all himself when he was good and ready and if he didn't get to it in another 6 months then so be it. And that if someone offered to help, he'll tell them "no thank you". That sort of attitude has no place in geocaching. It's the sort of attitude that people have that place crummy caches. I'm not saying RK's are crummy, but it's the same attitude none-the-less. The "I don't care what you think of me or my caches and I'll do what I please irregardless of the guidelines I agreed to follow" attitude. That's what most of us have had issue with, and what most of us were shocked to see come out of RK's mouth (someone alot of us respected in the geocaching community).

Edited December 29, 2007 by elmuyloco5

1.1k · December 29, 2007

I have read it. I also read Renegade Knights (his name isn't "RK") post where he stated he communicated privately with the reviewer, not through posts on his cache page, so anyone basing their judgements from the cache page is using very insufficient data.

Yes I know his name. People often refer to me on here as Loco, or Loco5 and I don't get my panties in a wad about it. It's faster to type, big deal. Guess you must always log, Took Nothing, Left Nothing, Signed Log instead TNLNSL too.

LOL

\

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

Drop everything? It's been half a year! And the post was placed here by RK complaining about the situation. No one posted here complaining about RK. We just don't agree with his view on the issue. It's a forum, that sort of thing will happen.

I'm sure most of us will happily help another cacher out. But RK clearly stated he didnt' want anyone else's help. He wanted to do it all himself when he was good and ready and if he didn't get to it in another 6 months then so be it. And that if someone offered to help, he'll tell them "no thank you". That sort of attitude has no place in geocaching. It's the sort of attitude that people have that place crummy caches. I'm not saying RK's are crummy, but it's the same attitude none-the-less. The "I don't care what you think of me or my caches and I'll do what I please irregardless of the guidelines I agreed to follow" attitude. That's what most of us have had issue with, and what most of us were shocked to see come out of RK's mouth (someone alot of us respected in the geocaching community).

You didn't read far enough. Renegade Knight (I'm not to lazy to type his name) also said if someone insisted on helping anyway he would be very grateful for it. Simply put, he wants people to help him because they truly want to, not because he asks them and they feel obligated to do it. This world would be a much better place if everyone felt that way.

December 29, 2007

Oh, you got me.....wow that was harsh......sarcasm intended. Yes I'm sooooooo lazy because I choose not to type a few extra letters. Pulease! It's always the people that have so little to back up their side of the argument that like to attack others about spelling and grammar. It doesn't help you make your point, it just helps you look like a "you know what".

I read the whole post. I also read the following statement.....

I'm not going to take time off from work, spend vacation, call in sick to deal with a cache. I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there.

hardly what I call tragic events that should keep you from maintaining a cache closer than a good majority of people drive to work. He agreed when he listed it that he would take the time and spend the gas to maintain if it needed it. If I, and everyone else on here have to follow the guidelines....so does he.

You must remember that when you come on a forum you are judged for the info that you give on the situation. We have no idea what went on between the reviewer and RK (yep being lazy again) because he didn't tell us. But, he wants us to side with him. He can't have it both ways.

You also forget that he just placed a cache......yet he doesn't have time to take care of the ones he already owns. It doesn't matter if someone did die, or he just would rather see a movie that day. If you need to take care of your cache, it's your responsibility to do so, by whatever means you need to whether that is help from someone else or not. Maybe that means that he needs to let the reviewer in on the real reason he couldn't take care of it.....if it was a serious reason. Either way, the cache is still his. He still agreed to take care of it. No matter what "take care of it means", he's supposed to take action. If that means that he has to archive it to "take care of it", then so be it. His reviewer sounded very polite and very willing to try to make things work out. I seriously doubt that she was being cruel and archiving it in spite of him. The log showed that she asked him to post a note so that others new what to expect. He didn't, yet he's on this forum everyday and has almost 20,000 posts. Something says to me that he could have posted a note like she asked.

I'm ex-military and so is my husband. You can't pay bills from Bootcamp, you have to find someone who can take care of those things for you when you are away. If you get shipped to Iraq and cant' take care of things back home, you have to find a way to get them handled. You can't just stop paying your bills, or leave your pet behind to fend for itself. If more people in this world realized what their responsibilities were and took care of them, it would be a much better world!

No one is saying that RK is horrible for not maintaining his cache. I'm sure a majority of us would have happily helped out if we lived close enough and knew that he needed it. We take offense to his attitude that it's no big deal that he hasn't and doesn't have a good plan as to when he will take care of it in the next 6 months. Not to mention that he feels it's the reviewer's responsibility to go clean it up because she archived it?!?

Edited December 29, 2007 by elmuyloco5

4.5k · December 29, 2007

I have read it. I also read Renegade Knights (his name isn't "RK") post where he stated he communicated privately with the reviewer, not through posts on his cache page, so anyone basing their judgements from the cache page is using very insufficient data.

Yes I know his name. People often refer to me on here as Loco, or Loco5 and I don't get my panties in a wad about it. It's faster to type, big deal. Guess you must always log, Took Nothing, Left Nothing, Signed Log instead TNLNSL too.

LOL

\

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

Drop everything? It's been half a year! And the post was placed here by RK complaining about the situation. No one posted here complaining about RK. We just don't agree with his view on the issue. It's a forum, that sort of thing will happen.

I'm sure most of us will happily help another cacher out. But RK clearly stated he didnt' want anyone else's help. He wanted to do it all himself when he was good and ready and if he didn't get to it in another 6 months then so be it. And that if someone offered to help, he'll tell them "no thank you". That sort of attitude has no place in geocaching. It's the sort of attitude that people have that place crummy caches. I'm not saying RK's are crummy, but it's the same attitude none-the-less. The "I don't care what you think of me or my caches and I'll do what I please irregardless of the guidelines I agreed to follow" attitude. That's what most of us have had issue with, and what most of us were shocked to see come out of RK's mouth (someone alot of us respected in the geocaching community).

You didn't read far enough. Renegade Knight (I'm not to lazy to type his name) also said if someone insisted on helping anyway he would be very grateful for it. Simply put, he wants people to help him because they truly want to, not because he asks them and they feel obligated to do it. This world would be a much better place if everyone felt that way.

There are lots of cachers who would be glad to help and i'm actually surprised it hasn't happened with this cache. Even so, the cache's owner is the one who is responsible for performing maintenance.

This is not rocket science folks. RK (his initails have been used for years on here, i'm not too lazy :rolleyes: ) stated the facts in his original post. He has more important things in his life going on then to go maintain the cache at this time. I honestly feel that he would make good on his promise to perform maintenance in a few months but this goes against GC.com guidelines which he agreed to follow when he submitted the cache. It seems there has been plenty of leeway given on this cache, months have gone by, so this is not a knee jerk reaction by the reviewer. The archival of the cache was the proper thing to do.

1.4k · December 29, 2007

I do? I've read my statement several times and I still don't see where I said "You are wrong". In fact I went to great pains to keep it as neutral as possible, he believes he is right, you believe he is wrong. Neither of you are being dishonest, you both believe you are right, therefore his honesty and yours are both commendable, or in other words, honesty is always commendable, period. Unless you are saying Renegade Knight is being dishonest, in which case I disagree with you, but those are opinions, not facts.

At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right.

You are very good at twisting words to make people fit your preconceptions of them.

"Judge not, least ye be Judged".

I am not twisting words.Nor am I judging. It was my interpretation that you feel right and wrong is subjective. I don't agree with that statement in every instance. Many things are subjective, some are not, you didn't seem to offer much more than "what is right is subjective", so I rolled with it...

1.4k · December 29, 2007

You're right, we should demand a daily time schedule of how RK has spent all his time this past year and then decide if he is fit to continue owning any caches.

If you so choose...I never once judged his ability to maintain the cache. All I did was defend the possibility that the Reviewer was indeed not necessarily acting out of spite, or as you tried to paint it, with some sort of agenda.

I also stated, numerous times, that I could agree to disagree with his perception of the archival.

What I will not budge on his direct statement to put the onus on the Reviewer, and to shirk responsibility, when he said it's now not his cache and not his problem. That is plainly, undeniably wrong. He placed the cache, it's his cache, his responsibility.

The cache is archived and people seem to think he should drop everything and go retrieve it. Unfortunately we live several states away and don't have the time nor money to make that kind of trip. If we lived closer we would gladly go do the needed maintenance run for RK.

I disagree with this interpretation as you are painting it, but I am not defending anyone in this thread but me so see how people replied in your own way...I'll repeat, I don't think there are very many of us that would not help, even at this juncture in the thread, if they were closer.

The point we were making is very simple, it is only 1 cache and it will not cause the end of caching whether the cache is archived or not, whether the cache is repaired and put back into service or not, or even if it is never retrieved.

I don't think anyone contested this point.

We have no knowledge of what has been privately sent back and forth between RK & the reviewer and don't really care. There has been so much Christmas spirit shown by so many of the people here that it is easy to understand why so many people only Find caches and never hide them or participate in these forums.

Well, here we go again with the veiled attacks on anyone who disagrees with RK. And, that's not entirely true...we do have some idea of the conversation because RK himself has stated it.

However, he drug this thing into the public forum at his own desire with what information was available...so, it's going to get discussed, like I said...it is how forums work.

We do maintenance, if needed, on caches we find. We don't wait for someone to ask for help before rendering it. And we don't complain because someone doesn't fit our preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives.

John

No, you just complain when others complain because someone doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what should be the important things in their lives...

Which, no one is really doing, for the most part people are just looking at what available facts were posted and saying "whoa, there isn't obvious reason to throw the Reviewer under the bus". You apparently think there is and that RK was right in doing so...so be it.

1.1k · December 29, 2007

Oh, you got me.....wow that was harsh......sarcasm intended. Yes I'm sooooooo lazy because I choose not to type a few extra letters. Pulease! It's always the people that have so little to back up their side of the argument that like to attack others about spelling and grammar. It doesn't help you make your point, it just helps you look like a "you know what".

hmm, pretty touchy aren't we, you have me in stitches here. THe LOL should have tipped you off in the last post.

Simply put, you are, again, jumping to judgement with no facts. People try so hard to prove they are rightr on these boards that anyone who sides against them is the enemy. Look what you posted earlier " (someone alot of us respected in the geocaching community)."

Respected, past tense. I respected my Dad. In 2000, I voted for Bush, he voted for Gore. I strongly disagreed with his choice and his reasons, but my respect for him never waivered. If RK :rolleyes: ever had your respect then he has it just as strongly now, if you don't respect him now then you never did. It's easy to respect so,meone when they side with us, it only counts if you respect those who side against you.

I read the whole post. I also read the following statement.....

I'm not going to take time off from work, spend vacation, call in sick to deal with a cache. I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there.

hardly what I call tragic events that should keep you from maintaining a cache closer than a good majority of people drive to work. He agreed when he listed it that he would take the time and spend the gas to maintain if it needed it. If I, and everyone else on here have to follow the guidelines....so does he.

You must remember that when you come on a forum you are judged for the info that you give on the situation. We have no idea what went on between the reviewer and RK (yep being lazy again) because he didn't tell us. But, he wants us to side with him. He can't have it both ways.

You also forget that he just placed a cache......yet he doesn't have time to take care of the ones he already owns. It doesn't matter if someone did die, or he just would rather see a movie that day. If you need to take care of your cache, it's your responsibility to do so, by whatever means you need to whether that is help from someone else or not. Maybe that means that he needs to let the reviewer in on the real reason he couldn't take care of it.....if it was a serious reason. Either way, the cache is still his. He still agreed to take care of it. No matter what "take care of it means", he's supposed to take action. If that means that he has to archive it to "take care of it", then so be it. His reviewer sounded very polite and very willing to try to make things work out. I seriously doubt that she was being cruel and archiving it in spite of him. The log showed that she asked him to post a note so that others new what to expect. He didn't, yet he's on this forum everyday and has almost 20,000 posts. Something says to me that he could have posted a note like she asked.

I'm ex-military and so is my husband. You can't pay bills from Bootcamp, you have to find someone who can take care of those things for you when you are away. If you get shipped to Iraq and cant' take care of things back home, you have to find a way to get them handled. You can't just stop paying your bills, or leave your pet behind to fend for itself. If more people in this world realized what their responsibilities were and took care of them, it would be a much better world!

No one is saying that RK is horrible for not maintaining his cache. I'm sure a majority of us would have happily helped out if we lived close enough and knew that he needed it. We take offense to his attitude that it's no big deal that he hasn't and doesn't have a good plan as to when he will take care of it in the next 6 months. Not to mention that he feels it's the reviewer's responsibility to go clean it up because she archived it?!?

You still aren't reading what he has posted. You say "You also forget that he just placed a cache......"

You obviously failed to read when he explained that the cache was placed jointly with another cacher and is right beside his place of work. It is much easier to place a cache with help a few feet from where you are than it is to drive 30+ miles to maintain a cache you placed that is probably buried neck deep in snow anyway.

As for your comment about finding someone to pay your bills, who do you ask? A close family member or some guy you never heard of until you started caching? I'm a lot like Renegade Knight in that regard, I don't ask for help. When I was fixing Dads truck once, I crawled out, grabbed a tool, and crawled back under the truck while he was standing right beside it. When he commented that he would have gladly handed it to me had I asked, I realized that the thought of asking for anything never crossed my mind, if I can't do it, it doesn't happen.

The pump in my well went out this fall, I had no water for three weeks. Finally, on Christmas Day I asked my brother to come over and help me pull the pump, and I hated doing it. Had I the money I would have hired someone to fix it before I asked for help, but I can't afford it and there is no way I can pull it without help.

You are all judging him here, but I can understand where he's coming from, and if you could look beyond your own biased world views and see that there are numerous sides to right you wouldn't be so quick to condemn him.

1.4k · December 29, 2007

You are all judging him here, but I can understand where he's coming from, and if you could look beyond your own biased world views and see that there are numerous sides to right you wouldn't be so quick to condemn him.

There is nothing right about deliberately leaving geo-litter. I am not judging "him". I am saying that stance, that small, tiny aspect of his life is wrong. We all have faults...some of us are just willing to acknowledge them when they are obviously, blatantly wrong.

Overall, I think he is genuinely a pretty good guy and I respect a lot of his opinions, but disagreeing with one of them doesn't equate to judging him as a whole.

Edited December 29, 2007 by egami

1.1k · December 29, 2007

I do? I've read my statement several times and I still don't see where I said "You are wrong". In fact I went to great pains to keep it as neutral as possible, he believes he is right, you believe he is wrong. Neither of you are being dishonest, you both believe you are right, therefore his honesty and yours are both commendable, or in other words, honesty is always commendable, period. Unless you are saying Renegade Knight is being dishonest, in which case I disagree with you, but those are opinions, not facts.

At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right.

You are very good at twisting words to make people fit your preconceptions of them.

"Judge not, least ye be Judged".

I am not twisting words.Nor am I judging. It was my interpretation that you feel right and wrong is subjective. I don't agree with that statement in every instance. Many things are subjective, some are not, you didn't seem to offer much more than "what is right is subjective", so I rolled with it...

Nowhere did I in any way shape or form say right and wrong are subjective did I? You said honesty is comendable when you do the right thing. I say honesty is comendable, period. You take that to mean I think it's fine to do the wrong thing. what I said is that if you do the wrong thing, as judged by others, but believe you are doing the right thing, as judged by you, and you remain honest about it, then that honesty is still comendable. NOT doing the wrong thing, but the HONESTY.

Is that really this hard to understand? No wonder you have no clue what Renegade Knight is truly saying.

His comments about letting the reviewer retrive the cache is his form of protest, no different than tree huggers chaing themselves to trees to stop the bulldozers, right or wrong that's what they feel they must do to get peoples attention to their concerns.

And that's MY interpretation.

1.4k · December 29, 2007

Nowhere did I in any way shape or form say right and wrong are subjective did I?

Yes, you did...can you find it? You said explicitly:

Right is subjective.

Go back, do a search, it's plain as day...post #95, there I did it for you.

You said honesty is comendable when you do the right thing.

I don't believe honestly is commendable when you deliberately, blatantly do something wrong...you don't see it that way, fine.

Edited December 29, 2007 by egami

1.1k · December 29, 2007

You are all judging him here, but I can understand where he's coming from, and if you could look beyond your own biased world views and see that there are numerous sides to right you wouldn't be so quick to condemn him.

There is nothing right about deliberately leaving geo-litter. I am not judging "him". I am saying that stance, that small, tiny aspect of his life is wrong. We all have faults...some of us are just willing to acknowledge them when they are obviously, blatantly wrong.

I'll bet you a tenspot you have faults you fail to acknowledge, and if you've never taken a stand for something others considered "obviously, blatantly wrong" then you've never taken a stand. The average motorist throws more litter out his car window on the drive home than that one little cache can equal, do you chase them down and lecture them on right and wrong? I've lived long enough to see that most of the ironclad, right and wrong facts I cherished in my ignorant youth are nowhere near as clearcut and obvious when looked on with abit more experience, and it is invariably those who are dead certain, I won't budge sure about something who really have no clue what the problem even is.

December 29, 2007

hmm, pretty touchy aren't we, you have me in stitches here.

If RK ever had your respect then he has it just as strongly now, if you don't respect him now then you never did. It's easy to respect so,meone when they side with us, it only counts if you respect those who side against you.

You still aren't reading what he has posted. You say "You also forget that he just placed a cache......"

You obviously failed to read when he explained that the cache was placed jointly with another cacher and is right beside his place of work. It is much easier to place a cache with help a few feet from where you are than it is to drive 30+ miles to maintain a cache you placed that is probably buried neck deep in snow anyway.

As for your comment about finding someone to pay your bills, who do you ask? A close family member or some guy you never heard of until you started caching?

Touchy, no, just tired of the same stupid comments about grammar and spelling that end up on every forum. mistyping something or being a poor speller, or just simply not wording something perfectly when quickly typing your thoughts is normal and in no way reflects intellect or intention. It's just a dumb thing to bring up as it serves no purpose in the argument at hand.

You see the thing about respect is it is earned, but can be lost. I respected him but no longer do. Not because he failed to maintain his cache. I lost respect because he felt he no longer needed to clean up after himself because the reviewer made him mad. He decided to leave his cache as litter because she archived it against his wishes. My 3 6-9 year olds know to pick up after themselves. I expect more from an adult. His response on this matter was childish and irresponsible. We all have things happen in life that we don't like; we all have to do things that we don't want to. Just be the grownup and pick up after yourself. I've had caches denied before, doesn't mean I just leave them out there to rot. I go clean them up and find somewhere else or some way else to make them work. I don't know RK and therefore didn't respect him for anything other than his past views on geocaching subjects. Trashing up the planet because he's sulking is a big deal to me. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. I have stated on these forums many times how strongly I feel about CITO. Therefore, I can't respect someone who would behave in such a manner. Trash thrown out of a car window is against the law and the offender can be fined if caught.

Who would I ask to pay my bills? I asked my parents at the time. Some people, however, don't have someone they can trust to do so. They have to hire a lawyer or accountant to do it for them. It's part of life. If you haven't been in the military, perhaps you don't understand some of the things that we must do to take care of our responsibilities in life. I understand that civilians may not realize that you can't pay bills, but it's the way it is. We also can't use q-tips, have mirrors, and a host of other normal items in life. But we don't sit in the corner and have a tantrum, we get on with life.

Asking a person you don't know to help with your cache is no big deal. Would I hand over my financial info to a perfect stranger that isn't licensed and trusted to do, no. I don't see how asking a stranger to take care of a cache would harm any personal info you have. Why not ask? You stated a moment ago that all strangers should by nature help eachother out and fix caches, how would these strangers differ? Not asking for help doesn't make you admirable, it just makes you stubborn.

Edited December 29, 2007 by elmuyloco5

1.4k · December 29, 2007

I'll bet you a tenspot you have faults you fail to acknowledge, and if you've never taken a stand for something others considered "obviously, blatantly wrong" then you've never taken a stand.

You don't have to bet anything...I, as a man, can acknowledge that I have faults I probably don't acknowledge...it's part of life.

The average motorist throws more litter out his car window on the drive home than that one little cache can equal, do you chase them down and lecture them on right and wrong?

This isn't about them, but they are just as wrong if they know that is truly not the right thing to do, yes. If you want to pretend that RK doesn't know that's not the right thing to do then go ahead. I don't believe that. I've seen him preach here before about it...but now that he's throwing a little tantrum about this incident it's all the sudden ok to use a deliberate wrong to right the situation in his mind.

I've lived long enough to see that most of the ironclad, right and wrong facts I cherished in my ignorant youth are nowhere near as clearcut and obvious when looked on with abit more experience, and it is invariably those who are dead certain, I won't budge sure about something who really have no clue what the problem even is.

Again, pretend he doesn't know that in his youthfulness or whatever excuse you want to make for him, but I've seen him preach against it here before and he knows that isn't the right thing to do.

His opinion about the archiving is his and he is entitled to it, but when he stoops to deliberately shirking responsibility...that is wrong, period.

1.1k · December 29, 2007

Nowhere did I in any way shape or form say right and wrong are subjective did I?

Yes, you did...can you find it? You said explicitly:

Right is subjective.

Go back, do a search, it's plain as day...post #95, there I did it for you.

You said honesty is comendable when you do the right thing.

I don't believe honestly is commendable when you deliberately, blatantly do something wrong...you don't see it that way, fine.

If you "deliberately, blatantly do something wrong", you aren't being honest.

When you learn what honesty is then perhaps you can begin to see reason, for now you are beyond reason.

Seriously, you are clueless here about the entire conversation, mine and Renegade Knights. This is not a slam or insult, simply the reality of the situation, you are twisting everything to fit what you want to believe we are saying instead of reading it as written. What I have posted makes perfect sense as written, unless the reader wishes to believe otherwise. Perception is reality here, and your perception appears to be beyond correcting at this time. Perhaps someday you'll figure out what I told you, if you ever do, you'll realize you are wrong. We can only hope.

Peace.

1.4k · December 29, 2007

If you "deliberately, blatantly do something wrong", you aren't being honest.

When you learn what honesty is then perhaps you can begin to see reason, for now you are beyond reason.

Seriously, you are clueless here about the entire conversation, mine and Renegade Knights. This is not a slam or insult, simply the reality of the situation, you are twisting everything to fit what you want to believe we are saying instead of reading it as written. What I have posted makes perfect sense as written, unless the reader wishes to believe otherwise. Perception is reality here, and your perception appears to be beyond correcting at this time. Perhaps someday you'll figure out what I told you, if you ever do, you'll realize you are wrong. We can only hope.

Peace.

Whatever, I see you dodged the fact that I directly quoted where you said what you denied you said. I think that alone speaks volumes of your stance.

I like RK, he's a good guy, but I don't have respect for him on that one aspect of deliberately leaving geo-litter. Doesn't mean I hate him. Doesn't mean I am judging him, but I believe that is wrong.

Peace.

1.1k · December 29, 2007

I'll bet you a tenspot you have faults you fail to acknowledge, and if you've never taken a stand for something others considered "obviously, blatantly wrong" then you've never taken a stand.

You don't have to bet anything...I, as a man, can acknowledge that I have faults I probably don't acknowledge...it's part of life.

The average motorist throws more litter out his car window on the drive home than that one little cache can equal, do you chase them down and lecture them on right and wrong?

This isn't about them, but they are just as wrong if they know that is truly not the right thing to do, yes. If you want to pretend that RK doesn't know that's not the right thing to do then go ahead. I don't believe that. I've seen him preach here before about it...but now that he's throwing a little tantrum about this incident it's all the sudden ok to use a deliberate wrong to right the situation in his mind.

I've lived long enough to see that most of the ironclad, right and wrong facts I cherished in my ignorant youth are nowhere near as clearcut and obvious when looked on with abit more experience, and it is invariably those who are dead certain, I won't budge sure about something who really have no clue what the problem even is.

Again, pretend he doesn't know that in his youthfulness or whatever excuse you want to make for him, but I've seen him preach against it here before and he knows that isn't the right thing to do.

His opinion about the archiving is his and he is entitled to it, but when he stoops to deliberately shirking responsibility...that is wrong, period.

If he honestly believes he is right, then right or wrong his honesty remains, and honesty is commendable.Period. Everything we make is litter, landfills bury it so we won't see it, but it's still there and it's still litter. So he leaves one cache out, who really cares? Yes it should be removed but if he doesn't do it, and it's even still there, eventually someone will find and remove it, or it will be buried and forgotten. Right or wrong it's still a very insignificant problem, I prefer to fight my battles over things that matter, like helping a great cacher who has encountered problems he'd prefer not to use as an excuse that prevents him from acting as quickly as some would like. Guidlines are flexible, stuff happens, and life goes on. Trust me, 100 years from now nobody will know or care about his geolitter, and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

1.1k · December 29, 2007

If you "deliberately, blatantly do something wrong", you aren't being honest.

When you learn what honesty is then perhaps you can begin to see reason, for now you are beyond reason.

Seriously, you are clueless here about the entire conversation, mine and Renegade Knights. This is not a slam or insult, simply the reality of the situation, you are twisting everything to fit what you want to believe we are saying instead of reading it as written. What I have posted makes perfect sense as written, unless the reader wishes to believe otherwise. Perception is reality here, and your perception appears to be beyond correcting at this time. Perhaps someday you'll figure out what I told you, if you ever do, you'll realize you are wrong. We can only hope.

Peace.

Whatever, I see you dodged the fact that I directly quoted where you said what you denied you said. I think that alone speaks volumes of your stance.

I like RK, he's a good guy, but I don't have respect for him on that one aspect of deliberately leaving geo-litter. Doesn't mean I hate him. Doesn't mean I am judging him, but I believe that is wrong.

Peace.

I didn't dodge anything, I know what I said, I wrote it, and I didn't say what you keep inplying I said. :rolleyes:

1.4k · December 29, 2007

...and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

Then that would also apply to you disagreeing with my perception.

1.1k · December 29, 2007

...and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

Then that would also apply to you disagreeing with my perception.

Exactly! What you and I think only matters to us, and I'll readily admit that I maybe 100% wrong on everything, I can only say what I think now.

December 29, 2007

I say honesty is comendable, period. Is that really this hard to understand? No wonder you have no clue what Renegade Knight is truly saying.

He says that he forgot about the cache needing repair, but on a brief inspection of some of his posts over the past few months, he's mentioned that he has a few caches that need repair and that he doesn't plan to do it until Spring. Hmmmmm.....someone isn't being truthful here.

Seems the guy you're defending for being so honest....isn't being quite as forthright as you assumed.

December 29, 2007

Trust me, 100 years from now nobody will know or care about his geolitter, and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

Ummmmm...that pretty much sums up every humans' life. But we keep living...don't we? Heck we might as well shut this site down....what's the point? We're all going to be worm food. Club a baby seal. Seems like cop out to me.

But his honesty IS commendable........seems like a pretty low standard for commendations around here...

He says that he forgot about the cache needing repair, but on a brief inspection of some of his posts over the past few months, he's mentioned that he has a few caches that need repair and that he doesn't plan to do it until Spring. Hmmmmm.....someone isn't being truthful here.

Well then, he must be commended on his intelligence that allowed him to come up with an excuse that sounded truthful........and that fits a larger overall truth in the universe......yeah.......that's it.....

It is much easier to place a cache with help a few feet from where you are than it is to drive 30+ miles to maintain a cache you placed that is probably buried neck deep in snow anyway.

Where was that thought process when he placed the cachce? 30+ miles? That's a commute......

Edited December 29, 2007 by PhxChem

December 29, 2007

One man's litter is another man's historical artifact in a museum 200 or a thousand years from now.

An ammo can with trinkets and a logbook would be much better to see in a museum than Styrofoam cups from Mc D's.

8.9k · December 29, 2007

I'll bet you a tenspot you have faults you fail to acknowledge, and if you've never taken a stand for something others considered "obviously, blatantly wrong" then you've never taken a stand.

You don't have to bet anything...I, as a man, can acknowledge that I have faults I probably don't acknowledge...it's part of life.

The average motorist throws more litter out his car window on the drive home than that one little cache can equal, do you chase them down and lecture them on right and wrong?

This isn't about them, but they are just as wrong if they know that is truly not the right thing to do, yes. If you want to pretend that RK doesn't know that's not the right thing to do then go ahead. I don't believe that. I've seen him preach here before about it...but now that he's throwing a little tantrum about this incident it's all the sudden ok to use a deliberate wrong to right the situation in his mind.

I've lived long enough to see that most of the ironclad, right and wrong facts I cherished in my ignorant youth are nowhere near as clearcut and obvious when looked on with abit more experience, and it is invariably those who are dead certain, I won't budge sure about something who really have no clue what the problem even is.

Again, pretend he doesn't know that in his youthfulness or whatever excuse you want to make for him, but I've seen him preach against it here before and he knows that isn't the right thing to do.

His opinion about the archiving is his and he is entitled to it, but when he stoops to deliberately shirking responsibility...that is wrong, period.

If he honestly believes he is right, then right or wrong his honesty remains, and honesty is commendable.Period. Everything we make is litter, landfills bury it so we won't see it, but it's still there and it's still litter. So he leaves one cache out, who really cares? Yes it should be removed but if he doesn't do it, and it's even still there, eventually someone will find and remove it, or it will be buried and forgotten. Right or wrong it's still a very insignificant problem, I prefer to fight my battles over things that matter, like helping a great cacher who has encountered problems he'd prefer not to use as an excuse that prevents him from acting as quickly as some would like. Guidlines are flexible, stuff happens, and life goes on. Trust me, 100 years from now nobody will know or care about his geolitter, and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

That's odd, you've been fighting this battle for some time now...does this matter that much to you?

RK (sorry if the initials irk you, they've been used since I started visiting these forums...and long before) may feel he's right on the maintainence issue (I don't, no one gets special treatment here and just because he doesn't WANT to isn't a good reason, it's an excuse), he may even feel the reviewer is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to do her job (again, I don't! I think the job done was exactly the job needing done)...but pretending the geolitter is now the responsibility of another because HE wasn't allowed to take his sweet time in fixing something...WOW!

And yes, I have a lot of respect for the guy, but he's losing more and more every time he posts how he's going to pout and not do his duty. (I don't think I'm alone here by reading the replies posted by many others I also respect here)! Get over it, get on with it and learn from it!

As for the not asking for help thing...pride is a two-edged sword...being proud is great! Having too much pride to ask for help if needed...well, don't go crying to those you COULD have asked for help from when things turn out as they do!! Expecting someone to just KNOW you need help and offer it without being asked...we're all psychic now? As RK stated, he didn't post info to the page (worried about maggots I believe)...everyone should just KNOW about the problem??

8.9k · December 29, 2007

I'll bet you a tenspot you have faults you fail to acknowledge, and if you've never taken a stand for something others considered "obviously, blatantly wrong" then you've never taken a stand.

You don't have to bet anything...I, as a man, can acknowledge that I have faults I probably don't acknowledge...it's part of life.

The average motorist throws more litter out his car window on the drive home than that one little cache can equal, do you chase them down and lecture them on right and wrong?

This isn't about them, but they are just as wrong if they know that is truly not the right thing to do, yes. If you want to pretend that RK doesn't know that's not the right thing to do then go ahead. I don't believe that. I've seen him preach here before about it...but now that he's throwing a little tantrum about this incident it's all the sudden ok to use a deliberate wrong to right the situation in his mind.

I've lived long enough to see that most of the ironclad, right and wrong facts I cherished in my ignorant youth are nowhere near as clearcut and obvious when looked on with abit more experience, and it is invariably those who are dead certain, I won't budge sure about something who really have no clue what the problem even is.

Again, pretend he doesn't know that in his youthfulness or whatever excuse you want to make for him, but I've seen him preach against it here before and he knows that isn't the right thing to do.

His opinion about the archiving is his and he is entitled to it, but when he stoops to deliberately shirking responsibility...that is wrong, period.

If he honestly believes he is right, then right or wrong his honesty remains, and honesty is commendable.Period. Everything we make is litter, landfills bury it so we won't see it, but it's still there and it's still litter. So he leaves one cache out, who really cares? Yes it should be removed but if he doesn't do it, and it's even still there, eventually someone will find and remove it, or it will be buried and forgotten. Right or wrong it's still a very insignificant problem, I prefer to fight my battles over things that matter, like helping a great cacher who has encountered problems he'd prefer not to use as an excuse that prevents him from acting as quickly as some would like. Guidlines are flexible, stuff happens, and life goes on. Trust me, 100 years from now nobody will know or care about his geolitter, and if it won't matter in 100 years t's not worth getting upset about now.

That's odd, you've been fighting this battle for some time now...does this matter that much to you?

RK (sorry if the initials irk you, they've been used since I started visiting these forums...and long before) may feel he's right on the maintainence issue (I don't, no one gets special treatment here and just because he doesn't WANT to isn't a good reason, it's an excuse), he may even feel the reviewer is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to do her job (again, I don't! I think the job done was exactly the job needing done)...but pretending the geolitter is now the responsibility of another because HE wasn't allowed to take his sweet time in fixing something...WOW!

And yes, I have a lot of respect for the guy, but he's losing more and more every time he posts how he's going to pout and not do his duty. (I don't think I'm alone here by reading the replies posted by many others I also respect here)! Get over it, get on with it and learn from it!

As for the not asking for help thing...pride is a two-edged sword...being proud is great! Having too much pride to ask for help if needed...well, don't go crying to those you COULD have asked for help from when things turn out as they do!! Expecting someone to just KNOW you need help and offer it without being asked...we're all psychic now? As RK stated, he didn't post info to the page (worried about maggots I believe)...everyone should just KNOW about the problem??

24.7k · December 31, 2007

Closure:

The time frame I gave the reviewer was "This spring, Possibly sooner" for when I could maintain it. The reviewer knowing that archived the listing citing "a few weeks" as reasonable and my schedule as not. They neglected to include the possibly sooner in their archive note. I suspect the cache was in place before the guidelines was updated beyond a general statement that you should maintain your cache. That would make it grandfathered and my schedule just fine. Regardless it was archived and the majority of folks agreed saying "now that it's archived, you need to maintain it anyway".

"Possibly sooner" was a trip I was taking where I was unsure that it would work out for maintaining the cache. It did. The cache is fixed on the time schedule that I said I could do. When I stopped at the site there were hundreds of Geese down on the Snake River. I had to pause just to take it all in. They all took off in flight at the same time. It was truly impressive. One of those moments that are too few. It reminded me why I Like this spot.

Back to the guidelines.

The option the reviewer gave me was to ask to list it again. The site, the reviewer and the majority of folks in this thread have clearly said "You can't maintain your cache well enough to have it listed on this site therefor it needed to be archived". That's pretty clear from the tone of the posts. Apparently I can maintain it well enough to get it relisted though.

They say insanity is doing the same thing an expecting a different outcome. List my cache, something happens, my schedule to maintain is too slow, the cache is archived against my will, I get annoyed, cache is maintained, cache is relisted, lather rinse repeat. Looks like insanity to me.

So I have a choice. Insanity, or try something different and see if it works better. Just like passing on a cache maintenance run to have lunch with my wife is an easy choice. So is this one. This cache will remain archived on this site.

1.1k · December 31, 2007

a whole lot of excuses and justification going on.

You didn't meet the obligations of a cache owner,

the cache was archived accordingly.

the end.

the same rules apply to everybody.

24.7k · December 31, 2007

I say honesty is comendable, period. Is that really this hard to understand? No wonder you have no clue what Renegade Knight is truly saying.

He says that he forgot about the cache needing repair, but on a brief inspection of some of his posts over the past few months, he's mentioned that he has a few caches that need repair and that he doesn't plan to do it until Spring. Hmmmmm.....someone isn't being truthful here.

Seems the guy you're defending for being so honest....isn't being quite as forthright as you assumed.

In the forums it's easy to recall caching issues. I'm talking caching. That's a no brainier. Forums I tend to do a Break, Lunch, Evenings when I'm avoiding tiling showers, or paying bills. Forum time is not generally time I can break away and go caching.

The thing that you really not "getting" is that I'm not headed out for a day of caching. I'm heading to home depot to fix my shower. Naturally I'm pondering things like how to space tile. Even if I tattooed the reminder on the back of my hand I'm not going to get to it before I can get to it.

If you spent a little more research you would see that my last find was when?

August. I took time on a trip I didn't know I was making until the week before to find 2 caches in Fairbanks. Call me crazy but in Fairbanks I"m really not in a position to do much to maintain my caches in Idaho. So that leaves the next closest caching trip. That turns out to be June. 2nd. Alas it was June 13th when I realized that there may be an issue with the cache in this thread, and posted on it. If you look for all the caching fun I've had since then, where I "forgot to maintain my cache while finding caches" it's not there. None. Zip. Nada. Not recorded is a day that I did break away and go replace a cache that hadn't hid the reviewer radar. Then more recently I made some time to check another cache and place one. Still not finds. Yesterday, on the schedule I told the reviewer I fixed this cache. Still no finds.

Yes, I still have a couple of caches to maintain. Things have reached a point where I have a bit more time than I did before. Still, I'll get to them as time and life permit. Not before.

24.7k · December 31, 2007

a whole lot of excuses and justification going on.

You didn't meet the obligations of a cache owner,

the cache was archived accordingly. ...

I maintained my cache. That is the obligation of the cache owner.

You are confusing a flexible guidelines for how fast I should do it for something other than what it is.

Period end of story.

1.1k · December 31, 2007

I maintained my cache.

when?

December 31, 2007

I say honesty is comendable, period. Is that really this hard to understand? No wonder you have no clue what Renegade Knight is truly saying.

He says that he forgot about the cache needing repair, but on a brief inspection of some of his posts over the past few months, he's mentioned that he has a few caches that need repair and that he doesn't plan to do it until Spring. Hmmmmm.....someone isn't being truthful here.

Seems the guy you're defending for being so honest....isn't being quite as forthright as you assumed.

In the forums it's easy to recall caching issues. I'm talking caching. That's a no brainier. Forums I tend to do a Break, Lunch, Evenings when I'm avoiding tiling showers, or paying bills. Forum time is not generally time I can break away and go caching.

The thing that you really not "getting" is that I'm not headed out for a day of caching. I'm heading to home depot to fix my shower. Naturally I'm pondering things like how to space tile. Even if I tattooed the reminder on the back of my hand I'm not going to get to it before I can get to it.

If you spent a little more research you would see that my last find was when?

August. I took time on a trip I didn't know I was making until the week before to find 2 caches in Fairbanks. Call me crazy but in Fairbanks I"m really not in a position to do much to maintain my caches in Idaho. So that leaves the next closest caching trip. That turns out to be June. 2nd. Alas it was June 13th when I realized that there may be an issue with the cache in this thread, and posted on it. If you look for all the caching fun I've had since then, where I "forgot to maintain my cache while finding caches" it's not there. None. Zip. Nada. Not recorded is a day that I did break away and go replace a cache that hadn't hid the reviewer radar. Then more recently I made some time to check another cache and place one. Still not finds. Yesterday, on the schedule I told the reviewer I fixed this cache. Still no finds.

Yes, I still have a couple of caches to maintain. Things have reached a point where I have a bit more time than I did before. Still, I'll get to them as time and life permit. Not before.

If you read my post properly, you'd see I wasn't talking about when you last found one, or where. I saw everything you're talking about in your profile. I was commenting that you said directly on this thread that you had "forgotten" about the cache for 6 months which is what lead you to the recent archival. I said that in looking through your posts over the last few months, you have mentioned those caches that you've needed to do maintenance on several times. If you're at work when you remember them why can't you write it down? I have to write things down too to remember to do them. Most people do as we're a busy society. Just own up to the fact that you weren't being truthful with your statement. My beef isn't with the fact that you "forgot" to do maintenance, it's with your attitude since it's been archived. It's no big deal to be too busy to take care of a cache, just don't get all upset when the reviewer does her job.....accept it and move on.

Edited December 31, 2007 by elmuyloco5

8.9k · December 31, 2007

THANK-YOU RK!! Sorry to see that one go, maybe you could adopt it out if you'd rather not have it re-listed??

At any rate, as long as it's not just geolitter laying at the bottom of a ravine, I guess life is good!!

December 31, 2007

Stick a fork in this one folks, it's done!

As the OP so elequently said with his topic heading - Problem Solved.

What amazes me is how this became a 4 page thread.

Happy New Year.

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

December 31, 2007

It could be a 12 page thread and you still don't decide when the thread is done.

To RK, I don't have a problem with you taking time to maintain your cache. I have a problem with the attitude you have toward a reviewer doing their job and the fact that if you have time to place caches in the general area of this cache(this was said earlier in this thread) you could have taken that time to maintain this cache instead of creating a new one.

I think someone should go pickup the container for you an get a free cache container.

24.7k · December 31, 2007

It could be a 12 page thread and you still don't decide when the thread is done.

To RK, I don't have a problem with you taking time to maintain your cache. I have a problem with the attitude you have toward a reviewer doing their job and the fact that if you have time to place caches in the general area of this cache(this was said earlier in this thread) you could have taken that time to maintain this cache instead of creating a new one.

I think someone should go pickup the container for you an get a free cache container.

I've outlasted 4 or more local reviewers. This reviewer is doing the same job as the other reviewers who came and went. The reviewer doesn't matter. My orginal issue was having my cache archived against my will. You may have missed the post where I said this reviewer did their job as good as anyone and they are who I would hire if I wanted someone to do that job for me.

As for the cache I placed. It's not in the general area of this cache. It's the opposite direction. I had about an hour, maintained one cache placed the new one to get a TB back in circulation and give the locals a good cache for christmas.

Lastly, why would you advocate anyone stealing a cache? It's an active cache that's activly maitained. The listing for this site is archived. That doesn't spell death for a cache or other listings.

24.7k · December 31, 2007

... I was commenting that you said directly on this thread that you had "forgotten" about the cache for 6 months which is what lead you to the recent archival....

Actually you were commenting that I was not being honest.

When the reivewer sent their "your cache has been under the weather" note I said to myself "oh that's right I forgot about that cache". Doesn't mean that I could have done a dang thing about it before then even if it's all I thought about night and day.

Pretty simple when you get right down to it. It's your perogative to find malice and ill intent lurking in the shawows if you like. I'm guilty of being annoyed my cache was archived and I'm guilt of slower maintaince than this site would like. Beyond that you are just seeing what you want to see.

4.5k · January 1, 2008

RK, I've always enjoyed seeing your posts and have usually agreed with your way of thinking in them. Unfortunately, this is one of the very few that i do not agree with you in.

Like i stated before, i do think that you would have gotten out to do the maintenance on that cache. But i would think that you could see that this is just too long to leave a cache disabled and possibly in need of maintenance. Forget guidelines for a moment,,, don'tcha think that 6+ months without a good reason is a bit long to let a cache go? There is a point where something needs to be done with a disabled cache. Can you imagine how many disabled and worthless caches there would be if everyone was given an allowance of 6 or more months to perform maintenance?

It's regrettable that you had forgotten about it for those few months. I've done the same thing on a cache or two myself but i can honestly say that i wouldn't be upset with a reviewer for doing his or her job. If anything, i'd be upset with myself for screwing up in the first place. On top of that, if i really cared that much about the cache, then i would make arrangements to get out there, fix it, then contact the reviewer and have it unarchived! <_<

January 1, 2008

... I was commenting that you said directly on this thread that you had "forgotten" about the cache for 6 months which is what lead you to the recent archival....

Actually you were commenting that I was not being honest.

When the reivewer sent their "your cache has been under the weather" note I said to myself "oh that's right I forgot about that cache". Doesn't mean that I could have done a dang thing about it before then even if it's all I thought about night and day.

Pretty simple when you get right down to it. It's your perogative to find malice and ill intent lurking in the shawows if you like. I'm guilty of being annoyed my cache was archived and I'm guilt of slower maintaince than this site would like. Beyond that you are just seeing what you want to see.

You indicated that you don't intend to do anything with the cache so it's geotrash. I don't see that as stealing a cache.

4.1k · January 1, 2008

You indicated that you don't intend to do anything with the cache so it's geotrash. I don't see that as stealing a cache.

If the cache is also listed on another site, then it isn't geotrash. If he did maintenance on the cache and left it archived on GC, but did NOT archive it on the other site, that would be the same as muggling it.

John

5.3k · January 2, 2008

There is nothing right about deliberately leaving geo-litter. I am not judging "him".

Yes, you are.

Maybe you should re-read your own posts for content.

Having done this whole "geocaching" thing for a long time, I understand and respect where RK is coming from. You don't. That's fine; just don't pretend you aren't judging him.

5.3k · January 2, 2008

a whole lot of excuses and justification going on.

You didn't meet the obligations of a cache owner,

the cache was archived accordingly. ...

You are confusing a flexible guidelines for how fast I should do it for something other than what it is.

As I wrote before, this whole "fix your cache within a week of a trouble report or else you are scum" attitude is a key part of why there are so many lame LPC hides. The guidelines (or their implicit enforcement, as evident in this thread) discourage original, hard-to-reach, or otherwise interesting caches.

It's really a shame. And it's not even intentional on the part of Groundspeak. It's a simple matter of not thinking things through very carefully.

January 2, 2008

If the cache is also listed on another site, then it isn't geotrash. If he did maintenance on the cache and left it archived on GC, but did NOT archive it on the other site, that would be the same as muggling it.

Actually, he basically said it was the reviewers problem since the reviewer archived it.

Apparently, the reviewer now owns it.

He also said it WAS turned into geotrash by the reviewer.

January 2, 2008

The guidelines (or their implicit enforcement, as evident in this thread) discourage original, hard-to-reach, or otherwise interesting caches.

The flip side (assuming what you say is correct) is that there will be more caches MIA. Seems like it's a trade-off one way or another.

How many months (or seasons) do you have to get multiple DNF's and maintenance logs before the owener needs to take responsibility.

In cases I've seen, the reviewer actually gives the cache owner more than just a couple of weeks. That is, if the reviewer even catches it immediately. These things can go on for months before a reviewer even takes action.

8.9k · January 2, 2008

a whole lot of excuses and justification going on.

You didn't meet the obligations of a cache owner,

the cache was archived accordingly. ...

You are confusing a flexible guidelines for how fast I should do it for something other than what it is.

As I wrote before, this whole "fix your cache within a week of a trouble report or else you are scum" attitude is a key part of why there are so many lame LPC hides. The guidelines (or their implicit enforcement, as evident in this thread) discourage original, hard-to-reach, or otherwise interesting caches.

It's really a shame. And it's not even intentional on the part of Groundspeak. It's a simple matter of not thinking things through very carefully.

I can't speak for what was said to the reviewer, but just from what I have read written by RK himself. RK said he'd get to it when life wasn't so important. WHEN will that be?? Life ALWAYS seems to get in the way of something or another, so when can a TRUE timeline be established for the maintainence that RK had agreed would be important enough to allow the hide? The reviewer asked and likely got the same vague answer he gave here...when I have time (I read that as "when it's important enough to me to take time from my regular life" or "when I feel like it"). It wasn't good enough for the reviewer as it really didn't answer the question. Obviously, caching used to be important to RK, maybe now it's not as important??

The hide TRULY couldn't be too important to him as he "forgot" about it for how long?? And his memory was such that he forgot about that cache even when he was logging into the site and posting replies? I may put it off and want to forget it for awhile, but the funny thing is, IF I post a message to my cache, it's right there in front of me in my profile to remind me every time I log in! (and it stays right there until I post another note to a cache, pick up a TB or find a cache). I know, RK has a "maggot" problem in the area and didn't want to advertise the cache was there...hey the cache is listed already...no surprise at all that the cache is there. If the cache is soooo remote that even maintaining it is hard, how much danger would this cache really be in if a note were added mentioning the cache will be maintained soon (or saying the maintenance was completed)??

As I have said, I respect ALL our CMs...well, really most anyone who's been here longer than myself (respect elders thing I was instilled with), I don't think ANYONE should get special treatment though! You shirk your duties (purposely or otherwise) and you lose your cache! When you go down to the license bureau to renew your driver's license, you don't wait until life isn't too important, you do it at their schedule or face tickets and fines...they just don't care if life is more important (and that's even if you're a day late). Aren't we all glad the guidelines ARE flexible?

January 2, 2008

After spending way to much time on message boards, I have developed a theory of internet arguments. The longer a debate goes on, the further apart the parties become. They get pushed further and further to extremes in defense of their positions while attacking the other person.

I think RK posted originally to vent and if he had waited a day or two to post, it would have been a much different post. But then he starts getting attacked from all sides and the debate rages. If I were him, I'd hate to log on and see what was waiting for me in this thread. It is a rare time when additional debate moves people closer in opinion, and then it usually is a couple people who see each other in the "real world".

Bottom line, based on his experience, RK is probably entitled to a little more slack because he has proven to be reliable and responsible. RK should have cowboyed up and said he'd get to it ASAP, reasonable, and feasible. Perhaps acknowledged it is part of his life. Made it know it is on his to do list, and he too is concerned. And thanked the reviewer for the extra time.

Peace in the New Year! :laughing:

January 2, 2008

You indicated that you don't intend to do anything with the cache so it's geotrash. I don't see that as stealing a cache.

If the cache is also listed on another site, then it isn't geotrash. If he did maintenance on the cache and left it archived on GC, but did NOT archive it on the other site, that would be the same as muggling it.

John

There has been no mention of the cache being listed on another site.

January 2, 2008

After spending way to much time on message boards, I have developed a theory of internet arguments. The longer a debate goes on, the further apart the parties become. They get pushed further and further to extremes in defense of their positions while attacking the other person.

I think RK posted originally to vent and if he had waited a day or two to post, it would have been a much different post. But then he starts getting attacked from all sides and the debate rages. If I were him, I'd hate to log on and see what was waiting for me in this thread. It is a rare time when additional debate moves people closer in opinion, and then it usually is a couple people who see each other in the "real world".

Bottom line, based on his experience, RK is probably entitled to a little more slack because he has proven to be reliable and responsible. RK should have cowboyed up and said he'd get to it ASAP, reasonable, and feasible. Perhaps acknowledged it is part of his life. Made it know it is on his to do list, and he too is concerned. And thanked the reviewer for the extra time.

Peace in the New Year!

Great post. To tell the truth when I first read this thread I thought RK was just trolling to make a point. Disabled caches are one of my peeves. There are many in my area that have been disabled for months, owned by people that are out caching on a daily basis. How disappointing to find out that there are people that think they should be able to do their cache maintainence when they feel like it or get around to it.

5.6k · January 2, 2008

You indicated that you don't intend to do anything with the cache so it's geotrash. I don't see that as stealing a cache.

If the cache is also listed on another site, then it isn't geotrash. If he did maintenance on the cache and left it archived on GC, but did NOT archive it on the other site, that would be the same as muggling it.

John

There has been no mention of the cache being listed on another site.

Have you read all of the thread? Reread RK's 12-30 "closure" post. Two quotes: "The cache is fixed on the time schedule that I said I could do." & "This cache will remain archived on this site." (emphisis mine)

The cache is fixed, but remains archived on GC. Why would he do that (fix, not remove) if it wasn't also listed somewhere else? And, why does he have to state anywhere that the cache is listed elsewhere, that's his business and has nothing to do with these forums.

Problem Solved

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment