Jump to content

Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?


M2
Followers 15

Recommended Posts

 

Since the geocaching.com google maps clearly show the boundaries of that park and the relationship to any geocaches, why would they bother with mapsource?

 

I wouldn't trust the gc.com google maps either. I know of a few instances where the Google maps are innacurate in regards to managing agency/management status.

 

In this case I think the maps are pretty good. I remember seeing the park boundary markers near this cache: GCMFWV

 

D!

Link to comment

DeserTrekers couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/12/2008

 

Log Date: 1/12/2008

And it was because we ran into two rangers at the site and they said these cache hides inside the park are not leagal. Since I was a park range in my past life, we agreed not to look for these until they are cleared from the sup. (Future Cachers might take note of this!!!)

 

 

This Cache is not in the ABDSP their sign is a good 1/2 mile away.

 

It takes two rangers to remove Caches. 0002019C.gif

 

Time for some budget cuts I think.

 

Someone else found this one the same day so maybe it's still there ???

 

I looked at their map and Scissors Crossing is not part of ABSP. It just shows how this is a power trip and they probably high fived each other when they got back in their vehicle. It makes me wonder when they'll start blurring the lines in Ocotillo Wells SVRA as well.

 

Dave

 

Not according to this map ABDSPmap.pdf. Most of Scissors crossing is inside the park.

 

Scott :laughing:

Link to comment
Not according to this map ABDSPmap.pdf. Most of Scissors crossing is inside the park. Scott :laughing:
Also according to Mapsource the entire Scissors crossing is outside the park:

That map I gave the link from is for an Environmental Impact Report that the State Parks is filing, I doubt that they would use a map that had incorrect boundaries on it. I would put much more faith in it then a third party mapping source.

 

Scott :antenna:

Link to comment
Not according to this map ABDSPmap.pdf. Most of Scissors crossing is inside the park. Scott :laughing:
Also according to Mapsource the entire Scissors crossing is outside the park:

That map I gave the link from is for an Environmental Impact Report that the State Parks is filing, I doubt that they would use a map that had incorrect boundaries on it. I would put much more faith in it then a third party mapping source. Scott :antenna:

Scott, I agree. The point I was making is that maps do vary quite a bit. By the way those maps say "Proposal" and it looks like the Scissors crossing area is different again on those maps. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Not according to this map ABDSPmap.pdf. Most of Scissors crossing is inside the park. Scott :laughing:
Also according to Mapsource the entire Scissors crossing is outside the park:

That map I gave the link from is for an Environmental Impact Report that the State Parks is filing, I doubt that they would use a map that had incorrect boundaries on it. I would put much more faith in it then a third party mapping source. Scott :antenna:

Scott, I agree. The point I was making is that maps do vary quite a bit. By the way those maps say "Proposal" and it looks like the Scissors crossing area is different again on those maps.

 

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

The rangers should consider not pulling these caches because it is a 'gray area'. If this is what actually happened to the I Hate Rocks cache.

Link to comment
I just checked the link from the state parks website and Mapquest also shows Scissor's Crossing as outside the park's boundaries.

 

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?zoom=...16.40600#center

I just did the same thing! I have also noticed that Mapquest seems to be more updated than Google Maps lately:

471ed742-d6a8-40f2-856a-625dda5e6cb4.jpg

Someone is sending data to these maps sites. So now I am wondering which one is right.....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I just checked the link from the state parks website and Mapquest also shows Scissor's Crossing as outside the park's boundaries.

 

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?zoom=...16.40600#center

I just did the same thing! I have also noticed that Mapquest seems to be more updated than Google Maps lately:

471ed742-d6a8-40f2-856a-625dda5e6cb4.jpg

Someone is sending data to these maps sites. So now I am wondering which one is right.....

 

I want to learn to post the map directly like that. I'm so deficient in my techno skills.

 

Dave

Link to comment
I want to learn to post the map directly like that. I'm so deficient in my techno skills. Dave
It's easy:

1) Download a free screen capture program like Screenhunter 5.0. It lets you hit F6 and then drag your mouse over any part of the screen to make a jpg on your desktop.

2) Then upload the jpg from your desktop to here

3) Then click on the image so that the only thing you see on the screen is that image and copy and paste that url.

4) Then click on the image upload icon (little tree) above the forum posting area and paste it the url you copied.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I want to learn to post the map directly like that. I'm so deficient in my techno skills. Dave
It's easy:

1) Download a free screen capture program like Screenhunter 5.0. It lets you hit F6 and then drag your mouse over any part of the screen to make a jpg on your desktop.

2) Then upload the jpg from your desktop to here

3) Then click on the image so that the only thing you see on the screen is that image and copy and paste that url.

4) Then click on the image upload icon (little tree) above the forum posting area and paste it the url you copied.

You might be able to skip the download and install. Right-click any image on a page and select "save image as" then follow the rest of the instructions.

Link to comment
I want to learn to post the map directly like that. I'm so deficient in my techno skills. Dave
It's easy:

1) Download a free screen capture program like Screenhunter 5.0. It lets you hit F6 and then drag your mouse over any part of the screen to make a jpg on your desktop.

2) Then upload the jpg from your desktop to here

3) Then click on the image so that the only thing you see on the screen is that image and copy and paste that url.

4) Then click on the image upload icon (little tree) above the forum posting area and paste it the url you copied.

You might be able to skip the download and install. Right-click any image on a page and select "save image as" then follow the rest of the instructions.

The download was for capturing a portion of a map. If you are just posting an existing picture off the Internet then it is easier to do it that way. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Not according to this map ABDSPmap.pdf. Most of Scissors crossing is inside the park. Scott :antenna:
Also according to Mapsource the entire Scissors crossing is outside the park:

That map I gave the link from is for an Environmental Impact Report that the State Parks is filing, I doubt that they would use a map that had incorrect boundaries on it. I would put much more faith in it then a third party mapping source.

 

Scott :laughing:

A public document like that producted under the authority of the park, should be accurate enough for a cache. If it's not it should be corrected.

Link to comment

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

If you're going to put a cache NEAR the park boundaries, then I'd use the most accurate map I could get my hands on. Any map produced by the California Department of Parks and Recreation should be accurate enough. I'm still trying to locate a highly detailed topo map that shows an accurate boundary, but at this time, the one I gave the link for is the best I could find.

Link to comment

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

If you're going to put a cache NEAR the park boundaries, then I'd use the most accurate map I could get my hands on. Any map produced by the California Department of Parks and Recreation should be accurate enough. I'm still trying to locate a highly detailed topo map that shows an accurate boundary, but at this time, the one I gave the link for is the best I could find.

 

But if you were a park superintendent, and you didn't want to have geocaches (that do 'so much harm' to the environment) placed within your park, wouldn't you provide easy to find links to accurate maps? It shouldn't become a search for the Holy Grail. If the maps that are linked to their own state website aren't accurate then remove the links.

Link to comment

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

If you're going to put a cache NEAR the park boundaries, then I'd use the most accurate map I could get my hands on. Any map produced by the California Department of Parks and Recreation should be accurate enough. I'm still trying to locate a highly detailed topo map that shows an accurate boundary, but at this time, the one I gave the link for is the best I could find.

 

Does it really matter? They are still going to remove it anyways and there ain't jack we can do :laughing:

Link to comment

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

If you're going to put a cache NEAR the park boundaries, then I'd use the most accurate map I could get my hands on.

 

 

We don't need no stinkin Maps.

 

There are at least 14 new Caches in the OHVRA the you can see the ABDSP boundary makers from GZ. What 's better seeing the boundary maker or a map

 

We don't need no Stinkin Maps

 

00020149.gif Yes Mr Ranger the Cache is not on YOUR land.

 

I thought it was public land Mr Ranger ? 000201C0.gif

Link to comment

 

Since the geocaching.com google maps clearly show the boundaries of that park and the relationship to any geocaches, why would they bother with mapsource?

 

I wouldn't trust the gc.com google maps either. I know of a few instances where the Google maps are innacurate in regards to managing agency/management status.

 

Google maps are accurate.

 

Run a PQ, load into gsak, press the googlearth button.

 

Rocket science.

Link to comment

So what is a geocacher to do? The maps that the state provide show an area that is not part of "their territory" and we're supposed to say we'll maybe I shouldn't geocache here because maybe it's a part of the park.

 

If you're going to put a cache NEAR the park boundaries, then I'd use the most accurate map I could get my hands on. Any map produced by the California Department of Parks and Recreation should be accurate enough. I'm still trying to locate a highly detailed topo map that shows an accurate boundary, but at this time, the one I gave the link for is the best I could find.

 

Does it really matter? They are still going to remove it anyways and there ain't jack we can do :ph34r:

There are options. It's just a matter of folks wanting to pony up and force the issue.

Link to comment
DeserTrekers couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/12/2008

 

Log Date: 1/12/2008

And it was because we ran into two rangers at the site and they said these cache hides inside the park are not leagal. Since I was a park range in my past life, we agreed not to look for these until they are cleared from the sup. (Future Cachers might take note of this!!!)

 

This Cache is not in the ABDSP their sign is a good 1/2 mile away.

 

It takes two rangers to remove Caches. 0002019C.gif

 

Time for some budget cuts I think.

 

Someone else found this one the same day so maybe it's still there ???

 

The next day

 

lionhouse75 couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/13/2008

 

Log Date: 1/13/2008

Well, maybe we just didn't look under/over/around/in the right rocks or the Park Rangers already found it and removed, either way, Team Lionhouse75 and WindyMatters had no luck with this one either.

 

 

OK what do I do now ,replace it this weekend when I go out . Replace it every two weeks when I go out after that.

 

Or just archeive it. 0002018E.gif

Link to comment
DeserTrekers couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/12/2008

 

Log Date: 1/12/2008

And it was because we ran into two rangers at the site and they said these cache hides inside the park are not leagal. Since I was a park range in my past life, we agreed not to look for these until they are cleared from the sup. (Future Cachers might take note of this!!!)

 

This Cache is not in the ABDSP their sign is a good 1/2 mile away.

 

It takes two rangers to remove Caches. 0002019C.gif

 

Time for some budget cuts I think.

 

Someone else found this one the same day so maybe it's still there ???

 

The next day

 

lionhouse75 couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/13/2008

 

Log Date: 1/13/2008

Well, maybe we just didn't look under/over/around/in the right rocks or the Park Rangers already found it and removed, either way, Team Lionhouse75 and WindyMatters had no luck with this one either.

 

 

OK what do I do now ,replace it this weekend when I go out . Replace it every two weeks when I go out after that.

 

Or just archeive it. 0002018E.gif

 

 

 

;):D I bet it's still there...let's see if YOU can find it! hahaha Go for it Skillet..we know you love rocks...go find it.hehehe..sorry I couldn't resist. ;) I know this is all frustrating. Hey..they haven't taken Grapejuice yet!

Link to comment
DeserTrekers couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/12/2008

 

Log Date: 1/12/2008

And it was because we ran into two rangers at the site and they said these cache hides inside the park are not leagal. Since I was a park range in my past life, we agreed not to look for these until they are cleared from the sup. (Future Cachers might take note of this!!!)

 

This Cache is not in the ABDSP their sign is a good 1/2 mile away.

 

It takes two rangers to remove Caches. 0002019C.gif

 

Time for some budget cuts I think.

 

Someone else found this one the same day so maybe it's still there ???

 

The next day

 

lionhouse75 couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/13/2008

 

Log Date: 1/13/2008

Well, maybe we just didn't look under/over/around/in the right rocks or the Park Rangers already found it and removed, either way, Team Lionhouse75 and WindyMatters had no luck with this one either.

 

 

OK what do I do now ,replace it this weekend when I go out . Replace it every two weeks when I go out after that.

 

Or just archeive it. 0002018E.gif

 

 

 

;):D I bet it's still there...let's see if YOU can find it! hahaha Go for it Skillet..we know you love rocks...go find it.hehehe..sorry I couldn't resist. ;) I know this is all frustrating. Hey..they haven't taken Grapejuice yet!

 

Sounds like a great one to keep certain people occupied for a long time. Do you have a nano? ;)
Link to comment

Up above Skillet was sorta implying all the maps may be wrong - I will agree more than not. You'll have to go to the field to see the actual boundary markers - if there are any.

 

For example, based on the official Anza map, most of the Cut Across Trail and the Military Wash are within park boundaries. However, I just drove out there this past Friday and the Anza boundaries around the Ocotillo Wells Vehicular Recreation Area are clearly marked, even fenced in some sections. And most of the Cut Across Trail between the Military and Bank washes, as well as the entire Military Wash, falls within the Ocotillo Wells Vehicular Recreation Area.

 

MapSource is also wrong here. It's hard to tell with Google Maps/Earth as the entire area is one big green blob with no visible boundaries [for the above noted areas].

Link to comment

The Spring CITO is coming up, I wonder if M.R. that commie pinko will approve it or make me get the Rangers Permission , since it is in the ABDSP 0002006A.gif

 

I wonder what the Rangers think when they drive down that stretch of highway and see those Geocacher signs. Maybe they will remove them too. 0002007E.gif

Link to comment

I mentioned this on another forum, but aren't geocaches a bit like peak or summit registers? There locations are listed on websites by location, people open them up and sign their name and the date.

 

Maybe we should inquire upon the superintendent to remove all of these within the park as well.

Link to comment

I mentioned this on another forum, but aren't geocaches a bit like peak or summit registers? There locations are listed on websites by location, people open them up and sign their name and the date.

 

Maybe we should inquire upon the superintendent to remove all of these within the park as well.

 

Please let us know what he says, will you?

Link to comment

Did anyone noticed this 2nd article in the paper?

 

I discovered it as the 2nd link on this site.

 

Which is the Geocaching Info link on this site.

 

I may have more news to relay, but I'm waiting for clarification before I do so.

I cannot comply with the Forum Guidelines if I write what I really want to write about what Jorgensen says in his letter to JustRuns.

I have requested geocaching.com to ask their participants to cease placing physical geocaches within Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, and the State Wilderness Areas within the region. Geocaches have never been authorized, so you can imagine our surprise and consternation to find there are somewhere between 440 and 1,000 geocaches within the Park . . .

Requested . . . ???????? They just started stealing the caches without even posting Notes on the cache pages. They have known there were caches in the Park, and some caches have been there for more than six years. Why didn't the Park Management behave in a professional manner, giving some notice for a change in their Policy? :D When they removed the caches, why didn't they leave notes on the caches pages? :) Why didn't they give the cache owners time to remove their cache containers before they were stolen? :D

 

. . . People report that in some cache sites, there is no longer a need for a GPS, since the last few hundred feet are so traveled by foot traffic, you can walk right to the cache.

"People report . . ." **** ****!!!!

 

Some of the caches that have been removed had fewer than six visitors per year for the last couple of years. How could those few footprints cause any damage when other parts of the park are overrun with so many other visitors -- not Geocachers -- it looks like a Greyhound bus delivered the crowd to the area . . . ?

 

Grrrrrrrr! B)

 

Is it time to write our letters to Jorgensen's supervisor/s yet? ? ? ? ?

Link to comment
Did anyone noticed this 2nd article in the paper?

 

I discovered it as the 2nd link on this site.

 

Which is the Geocaching Info link on this site.

 

I may have more news to relay, but I'm waiting for clarification before I do so.

Thanks for sharing that Chuy. The Superintendent still has the cache count wrong. I guess the truth isn't convincing enough so he had to beef up the number. Plus nobody seems to be aware of geocaches that were placed in areas like he describes. There are other types of caches out there. IMHO, the hole dug near the very popular morteros was not done by a geocacher. I'm not sure why geocachers are being singled out. We are a tiny fraction of the visitors and we aren't the ones throwing truckloads trash out our car windows that is picked up by us at every CITO event.
Link to comment

..."People report . . ." **** ****!!!!

 

Some of the caches that have been removed had fewer than six visitors per year for the last couple of years. How could those few footprints cause any damage when other parts of the park are overrun with so many other visitors -- not Geocachers -- it looks like a Greyhound bus delivered the crowd to the area . . . ?

 

Grrrrrrrr! :)...

 

Lying to get what you want is a time honored tradition that has evolved along with the human race. The kinds of people who report tend to put the spin on their report that will get the effect they want. My kids laying in the park watching the stars at night become hooligans raising a ruckus. A cache with 6 visits a year becomes a paved trail of wanton destruction to a sensative spot that should never have had a cache.

 

Lying works. Just as any girl who's ever dated a guy who didn't call.

Link to comment

Several people have made the comparison between caching and peak logs. If I look at this practice from the rangers' point of view I could say that there are relatively few peak logs in comparison to caches. So the impact on the environment is lessoned by their smaller number and by the remoteness and difficulty of the location. If, however, I apply the rangers definition of trash I worry that peak logs may be disappearing soon too. They're just not as easy for rangers or volunteers to remove.

 

I certainly don't want to see the removal of peak logs, but it does strike me as unfair that our hobby has been singled out.

 

I also wonder about primitve camping in ABSP. This is something that many people love to do and is promoted by the state park. It's a big part of what makes the park special. But it also reminds me of something Parsa told when the powers that be in ABSDP came up with another bright idea. Primitive camping once required an On your Honor fee. The only problem with this system was that the park being so huge it made no sense to have to submit your fee all the way to the Park Headquarters. All that driving isn't so good for the environment, not to mention that most people didn't know or care. Obviously that was one decision that they reversed.

 

Compared to geocaching, primitive camping is much worse than geocaching. In particular I was thinking about the rule about how far off the trail caches were allowed to be placed. Well, when primitive camping, how far off the trail are you allowed to go when you 'have to go'?

 

Sorry for my disjointed rambles but this is still bugging me.

 

Dave

Link to comment

Several people have made the comparison between caching and peak logs. If I look at this practice from the rangers' point of view I could say that there are relatively few peak logs in comparison to caches. So the impact on the environment is lessoned by their smaller number and by the remoteness and difficulty of the location. If, however, I apply the rangers definition of trash I worry that peak logs may be disappearing soon too. They're just not as easy for rangers or volunteers to remove....

 

Two comments.

Caches and peak registers are pretty much the same insofar as what they are. Neither is trash by any stretch of the word.

 

However one thing peak registers have is that they are a long established cultural and historic tradition. If a park system gets any Federal Money they may very well have given up any right whatsoever to remove a peak register. That is if they like federal money. The feds do not like the destruction of cultural and historical resources.

Link to comment
I wonder what the Rangers think when they drive down that stretch of highway and see those Geocacher signs. Maybe they will remove them too.

A question we need to consider seriously is whether we should "remove them" (which is to say, cease our involvement in cleaning up that section of highway.)

 

I bring up this possibility not as a protest. I doubt there is anything positive to be gained in doing this as a protest. Instead, I think we need to consider this as an investment. Collectively, we put a lot of time into keeping that part of the desert clean. If we continue to CITO a segment of highway, should we continue to invest in ABDSP? Should we invest elsewhere?

 

Something to think about...

Edited by Let's Look Over Thayer
Link to comment

Do you guys remember JustRuns talking about pirate caches? (See the last paragraph.)

 

Now, take a look at this, and this.

 

No, that's not our Dave Smith (SuperDave!); I checked with him - whew!

abdspgeocacher does not exist on geocaching.com . Whoever he really is; I don't think this is the proper way to respond.

 

I didn't register on the Yahoo group to view how they list their caches, but notaranger forwarded a list abdspgeocacher sent to Jorgensen.

 

4b1fe64c-f998-4c84-ad99-3139d8900a18.jpg

Edited by Chuy!
Link to comment
I wonder what the Rangers think when they drive down that stretch of highway and see those Geocacher signs. Maybe they will remove them too.

A question we need to consider seriously is whether we should "remove them" (which is to say, cease our involvement in cleaning up that section of highway.)

 

I bring up this possibility not as a protest. I doubt there is anything positive to be gained in doing this as a protest. Instead, I think we need to consider this as an investment. Collectively, we put a lot of time into keeping that part of the desert clean. If we continue to CITO a segment of highway, should we continue to invest in ABDSP? Should we invest elsewhere?

 

Something to think about...

That was my point earlier. It's an "I'll scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine" thing. We are doing nothing for the areas that support us. You could leave the signs for the time being just in case a miracle happens....
Link to comment
Do you guys remember JustRuns talking about pirate caches? (See the last paragraph.)

 

Now, take a look at this, and this.

 

No, that's not our Dave Smith (SuperDave!); I checked with him - whew!

abdspgeocacher does not exist on geocaching.com . Whoever he really is; I don't think this is the proper way to respond.

 

I didn't register on the Yahoo group to view how they list their caches, but notaranger forwarded a list abdspgeocacher sent to Jorgensen.

 

4b1fe64c-f998-4c84-ad99-3139d8900a18.jpg

Good find Chuy! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I met abdspgeocacher in Borrego Springs before the holidays. He and his partner are avid geocachers and they own a business in Borrego Srpings. Their business depends on tourists and many of their customers geocache. They feel Jorgensen's policy will negatively impact theirs and others business unnecessiarly.

 

Abdspgeocacher copied me on his emails to Jorgensen. and Jorgensen's reply. Too bad the rest of the messages he sent Jorgensen, and the replies, weren't included here. Abdspgeocacher wrote that all the pirate caches would be removed if Jorgensen made a reasonable accomodation allowing controlled caches. Jorgensen's reply was dismissive.

 

Abdspgeocacher's objective is to convince Jorgensen to modify the policy to allow caches that comply with some reasonable rules. You may not agree with his method of convincing Jorgensen but at least he is not simply "laying down" without a fight. Maybe it is his and my age. We were young adults in the 1960s. We protested using civil disobedience when government officials were wrong! We failed sometimes but often we got changes done. I cheer him on for doing something rather than simply complying.

 

 

Roger Mullins

Crest

justruns@cox.net

Link to comment
abdspgeocacher does not exist on geocaching.com . Whoever he really is; I don't think this is the proper way to respond.

How to Win Friends and Influence People 101

 

If you have a low level of positional authority (e.g. a geocacher) and want something from someone who has a high level of positional authority (e.g. a park superintendent), DO NOT (I repeat DO NOT) punch them in the nose! Do not continuously poke them with a pointy stick! Do not stomp on their toes! Do not place a flaming bag of s*** on their front porch and ring the doorbell! It's NOT going to convince them to change their minds.

 

Or to put it another way, do not get in a p*ssing match with someone who has more p*ss than you do.

 

:rolleyes: Sheesh! You'd think people would have more sense... :)

Link to comment
Do you guys remember JustRuns talking about pirate caches? (See the last paragraph.)

 

Now, take a look at this, and this.

 

No, that's not our Dave Smith (SuperDave!); I checked with him - whew!

abdspgeocacher does not exist on geocaching.com . Whoever he really is; I don't think this is the proper way to respond.

 

I didn't register on the Yahoo group to view how they list their caches, but notaranger forwarded a list abdspgeocacher sent to Jorgensen.

 

4b1fe64c-f998-4c84-ad99-3139d8900a18.jpg

Good find Chuy! :)

 

 

 

:rolleyes: Wow...I think this is really sad. Out of respect to geocaching.com I feel they shouldn't have even labeled them "geocaches". MR and GC.com are working hard to come to an agreement with the ABDSP and this kind of goes against our claim of "responsible, outdoors-loving" citizens. I hope this doesn't backfire and hurt in the long run. jl

Link to comment

"Don't get into a Pi--ing Match with someone who has more Pi-- than you"

Really! So just "Roll Over"?

 

If we had followed that theory in the 60s there would still be Segregation, there would not be Voting Rights legislation or any of the Civil Rights legislation. We would probably have lost another 68,000 young men in Viet Nam. We stood up to Authority and got changes made. Those in power don't change unles they are forced to change. You don't get changes without making change.

Link to comment
Don't get into a Pi--ing Match with someone who has more Pi-- than you.
Really! So just "Roll Over"?

 

If we had followed that theory in the 60s there would still be Segregation, there would not be Voting Rights legislation or any of the Civil Rights legislation. We would probably have lost another 68,000 young men in Viet Nam. We stood up to Authority and got changes made. Those in power don't change unles they are forced to change. You don't get changes without making change.

Marco and Miss Jenn asked everyone to hold their horses so nobody would inadvertantly undermine their negotiations. That isn't rolling over, it's being smart.
Link to comment

"If you have a low level of positional authority (e.g. a geocacher) and want something from someone who has a high level of positional authority (e.g. a park superintendent), DO NOT (I repeat DO NOT) punch them in the nose! Do not continuously poke them with a pointy stick! Do not stomp on their toes! Do not place a flaming bag of s*** on their front porch and ring the doorbell! It's NOT going to convince them to change their minds. "

 

Let's see. Jorgensen is a "High Authority" and a citizen (read tax payer) is a "Low Authority". So I guess you are saying we need to be afraid of "pissing off" a government official. Sorry but that's not what I call democracy.

 

I can't say I agree with the idea of Pirate caches but I do applaud abdspgeocacher for doing something rather than "Rolling Over" like it appears most here suggest.

 

I guess I don't understand what Jorgensen could do if Groundspeak refused to comply and simply continued to allow caches within the Park to be posted. Continue to follow the previous policy of reviewing locations etc. as Marco has done for a long time. Sure, Park personnel could remove them one by one but soon they would get tired of doing that. With budget cuts looming, they won't have the budget to do it much longer anyway. Maybe the Budget Cuts the the Governator is talking about will lay off Jorgensen.

Link to comment
"If you have a low level of positional authority (e.g. a geocacher) and want something from someone who has a high level of positional authority (e.g. a park superintendent), DO NOT (I repeat DO NOT) punch them in the nose! Do not continuously poke them with a pointy stick! Do not stomp on their toes! Do not place a flaming bag of s*** on their front porch and ring the doorbell! It's NOT going to convince them to change their minds. "

 

Let's see. Jorgensen is a "High Authority" and a citizen (read tax payer) is a "Low Authority". So I guess you are saying we need to be afraid of "pissing off" a government official. Sorry but that's not what I call democracy.

 

I can't say I agree with the idea of Pirate caches but I do applaud abdspgeocacher for doing something rather than "Rolling Over" like it appears most here suggest.

 

I guess I don't understand what Jorgensen could do if Groundspeak refused to comply and simply continued to allow caches within the Park to be posted. Continue to follow the previous policy of reviewing locations etc. as Marco has done for a long time. Sure, Park personnel could remove them one by one but soon they would get tired of doing that. With budget cuts looming, they won't have the budget to do it much longer anyway. Maybe the Budget Cuts the the Governator is talking about will lay off Jorgensen.

Nobody is rolling over. As I said before we are patiently waiting for our negotiators to see what they can accomplish. Setting up pirate caches is probably the worst thing that could be done. It's kind of hard to convince someone that we are cooperative and willing to follow park guidelines if people go behind their backs and do that. :lol:
Link to comment
"Don't get into a Pi--ing Match with someone who has more Pi-- than you"

Really! So just "Roll Over"?

 

If we had followed that theory in the 60s there would still be Segregation, there would not be Voting Rights legislation or any of the Civil Rights legislation. We would probably have lost another 68,000 young men in Viet Nam. We stood up to Authority and got changes made. Those in power don't change unles they are forced to change. You don't get changes without making change.

Now hold your horses....just where did I say anything about rolling over? There are far better ways to change someone's position than a p*ssing match (regardless of who has the most p*ss.)

 

Those in power don't change unless they are persuaded to change. Yes, force can be the means of persuasion but if you think that the American government was "forced" to end it's involvement in Vietnam, you need to go back to the history books. No one was holding a metaphoric gun to Nixon's head when he declared "Peace with Honor".

 

And by the way, even back in those Grand Glorious Days when right thinking people stood up and said "No More!" there were well-intentioned folks (like The Weatherman Group) who damaged the cause with their misplaced tactics...

 

The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator and Statesman

So to bring this back to the matter at hand, I will applaud abdspgeocacher for having his heart in the right place but I cannot and will not applaud the tactic he has chosen.

Edited by Let's Look Over Thayer
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 15
×
×
  • Create New...