Quick question

[+Too Tall John]

From WalMart's site:

We value each of our customers and allowing overnight parking can enhance the one-stop shopping convenience for RV'ers, where permissible.

The "where permissable" phrase has been added because in some areas, local ordinances do not allow RV's to overnight in their parking lots. Local area regulations are one more reason permission should not be assumed, RVing, Frisbee, or geocaching. Edited January 15, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+sbell111]

From WalMart's site:

We value each of our customers and allowing overnight parking can enhance the one-stop shopping convenience for RV'ers, where permissible.

The "where permissable" phrase has been added because in some areas, local ordinances do not allow RV's to overnight in their parking lots. Local area regulations are one more reason permission should not be assumed, RVing, Frisbee, or geocaching.

Trust me on this one thing: local caching organizations have been very good at staying up on local regulations. Probably much better than WalMart photo guys. Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

Another assumption.

[+sbell111]

Another assumption.

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

[+egami]

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

 

I understand that many of them do that well. That's because many cachers, especially long time cachers, tend to be sensitive about protecting geocaching and maintaining integrity.

 

The point is, however, that while it's good starting point it's not the finishing point. Regulations change, management changes and it's always the right thing to do to verify permission at the location you are wanting to place a cache.

 

You can continue to elaborate over and over about the Wal-Mart photo guys not having the authority, but as I demonstrated earlier by talking specifically to Store Managers, who do have that authority, we can't assume anywhere we throw a frisbee is also suitable for placing caches or parking RV's.

[+sbell111]

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

 

I understand that many of them do that well. That's because many cachers, especially long time cachers, tend to be sensitive about protecting geocaching and maintaining integrity.

 

The point is, however, that while it's good starting point it's not the finishing point. Regulations change, management changes and it's always the right thing to do to verify permission at the location you are wanting to place a cache.

 

You can continue to elaborate over and over about the Wal-Mart photo guys not having the authority, but as I demonstrated earlier by talking specifically to Store Managers, who do have that authority, we can't assume anywhere we throw a frisbee is also suitable for placing caches or parking RV's.

You are twisting a couple people's positions.

[+egami]

You are twisting a couple people's positions.

 

I didn't twist anyones position.

 

The fact is, as good as local groups are for bouncing off ideas their opinions and information are not authoritative enough to substitute for adequate permission.

 

For me to "twist words" I'd have to speculate or re-state others positions for them...which I have not done.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[Mushtang]

You are twisting a couple people's positions.

If I were in an honest debate with someone, I would agree with you and be able to show how he's twisting our words.

 

Since he's a self admitted troll, I'd remind you that you're only feeding him. Apparently he's still "trying to see how far these guys were trying to take it."

[+egami]

And, continue on with the ad hominem attacks.

 

What's intriguing to me is that I am civil and polite yet I continue to get my character questioned by two individuals that will defend the right for people to place objects on others private property, and encourage others to do so, without a second thought.

 

But, it is what it is...and the personal attacks and lack of honest debate show the truth in your position. Oh, and the need to deliberately continue to lie about blatantly incorrect facts.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+sbell111]

What's intriguing to me is that I am civil and polite yet I continue to get my character questioned by two individuals that will defend the right for people to place objects on others private property, and encourage others to do so, without a second thought.

 

But, it is what it is...and the personal attacks and lack of honest debate show the truth in your position. Oh, and the need to deliberately continue to lie about blatantly incorrect facts.

The fact that you continue to twist other's positions tells me that you either do not believe that you have a strong position, or that you don't truly believe in your position. (Your previous posts suggest that it's the latter.) Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

That's your opinion...yet, you fail to elaborate or cite a specific instance where I've done this. You just keep coming back to personal attacks or bogus accusations...

[+sbell111]

That's your opinion...yet, you fail to elaborate or cite a specific instance where I've done this. You just keep coming back to personal attacks or bogus accusations...

I'm sorry. I thought I was clear.

 

The bit that I quoted was where you are twisting the positions of others.

[+egami]

That's your opinion...yet, you fail to elaborate or cite a specific instance where I've done this. You just keep coming back to personal attacks or bogus accusations...

I'm sorry. I thought I was clear.

 

The bit that I quoted was where you are twisting the positions of others.

 

About the Wal-Mart photo guy?

[+sbell111]

<SNIP>

 

Whatever. This has wandered way too far from topic.

Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

Whatever, I just don't appreciate deliberate lies (Mushtang, not sbell1), ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations that I am "twisting" someones words when I am not. My points have been based on my words. Obviously, at some level I have to address your views, but I have not twisted anything deliberately. So either we can discuss it or not, but I'd appreciate not calling me on the carpet for it unless you are willing to explain.

 

Again, I've been extremely civil and polite to you and Mushtang and so far I get repeated personal attacks and little substantive response....yet, I am called the troll.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+sbell111]

Whatever, I just don't appreciate deliberate lies (Mushtang, not sbell1), ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations that I am "twisting" someones words when I am not. My points have been based on my words. Obviously, at some level I have to address your views, but I have not twisted anything deliberately. So either we can discuss it or not, but I'd appreciate not calling me on the carpet for it unless you are willing to explain.

 

Again, I've been extremely civil and polite to you and Mushtang and so far I get repeated personal attacks and little substantive response....yet, I am called the troll.

You are called a troll because you admitted to trolling. I believe that you are twisting the position of others and I referenced examples.

 

If you want to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me.

[+egami]

You are called a troll because you admitted to trolling.

 

No, I did not. And no I was not.

 

And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+sbell111]

And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.

Huh? You're not on my block list.

[+egami]

And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.

Huh? You're not on my block list.

 

Not yet anyway?

 

I PMed you a while back regarding something and you didn't respond...so, I assumed you ignored it.

[+sbell111]

And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.

Huh? You're not on my block list.

 

Not yet anyway?

 

I PMed you a while back regarding something and you didn't respond...so, I assumed you ignored it.

I certainly may have decided not to respond, but you are not being ignored.

[+egami]

And I am not PMing you because, as before, you ignore them.

Huh? You're not on my block list.

 

Not yet anyway?

 

I PMed you a while back regarding something and you didn't respond...so, I assumed you ignored it.

I certainly may have decided not to respond, but you are not being ignored.

 

You acted surprised like you hadn't seem a message...regardless, it doesn't matter either way. I am not going to PM you over it. Best to let it die since we can't make progress on the open forum I see no reason to believe it'd be different in PM.

[+Too Tall John]

Another assumption.

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

 

Regardless, arguing that since one was wrong once thus is wrong again is a fallacy.

[+simpjkee]

wow. it keeps going.

[+sbell111]

Another assumption.

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

 

Regardless, arguing that since one was wrong once thus is wrong again is a fallacy.

Actually, the position I was taking is that if one swears that he is correct and then shown to be wrong, his future swearing should not be given much weight.

[+egami]

wow. it keeps going.

 

Well, it was a "quick question" thread, so it'll end on page 12 versus page 79....maybe...

[+Too Tall John]

Another assumption.

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

 

Regardless, arguing that since one was wrong once thus is wrong again is a fallacy.

Actually, the position I was taking is that if one swears that he is correct and then shown to be wrong, his future swearing should not be given much weight.

The more important part of my post was the first part, which you have conveniently ignored:

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

[+sbell111]

Another assumption.

Sort of, but not really.

 

Our local group has worked very closely with local policy makers to stay up on this type of thing. There have been many posts here in the forums that show that other groups do this, as well. Given that they work so closely to stay on top of things and that this does not fall within the scope of the job of WalMart photo guys and that they have been proven wrong on issues that they stated they knew they were correct on, leads me to stand behind the second part of my post, also.

 

(The fact that I used the word 'probably' probably insulates my statement against the chance that there is some super-informed WalMart photo guy out there somewhere. Given the size of WalMart, this is no doubt possible.)

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

 

Regardless, arguing that since one was wrong once thus is wrong again is a fallacy.

Actually, the position I was taking is that if one swears that he is correct and then shown to be wrong, his future swearing should not be given much weight.

The more important part of my post was the first part, which you have conveniently ignored:

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

Youstated that WalMart had policies that make it impossible for its store managers to give permission. This has been shown to be not true.

[+Team Cotati]

Nobody is suggesting that we're allowed to place geocaches on Walmart property whenever we like and they can't do a dang thing about it. But for some reason most of the replies to those of us saying you don't always need express permission have sounded like that's what we're saying.

 

They don't understand why it's ok for kids to play hide and seek in their own neighborhood without getting express permission from each and every home on the block. They wouldn't understand the connection between geocaching as an adult and hide and seek as a kid either.

 

"Nobody is suggesting that we're allowed to place geocaches on Walmart property whenever we like and they can't do a dang thing about it. But for some reason most of the replies to those of us saying you don't always need express permission have sounded like that's what we're saying."

 

You're right on that one for sure. You're not allowed, you're just doing it. And they for sure can do something about it, if and when they so choose. And THAT you can't do a dang thang about.

[+sbell111]

... and the 'obvious restatement of what was said solely for trolling purposes' award goes to?

[Mushtang]

I'm in a fun mood, so I'll bite.

 

You're right on that one for sure.

I know I'm right. And I also know you completely misunderstood what I was saying, or as Sbell suggests you're just stirring the pot as a troll.

 

You're not allowed, you're just doing it.

We're assuming it's okay sometimes, and just doing it. I'm not suggesting that we hide caches when we know for a fact we shouldn't. Nobody else is either (that I've seen).

 

And they for sure can do something about it, if and when they so choose.

True. I've also said this before too. Walmart can say in many different ways that they don't want a cache in their parking lot. Either at the store level a manager can say no to someone that asks, or he can contact the web site if someone didn't ask, or he could leave a note on the cache if he understands how it works, etc. Or, at the corporate level, they can make a decision that no caches shall ever be allowed, then they could contact the web site, and within a very short time all Walmart caches would be gone. Easy peasy. I've never said this wasn't the case.

 

And THAT you can't do a dang thang about.

Again, true, and again, I never said otherwise.

 

So I don't really see what you're arguing against. Care to try and restate your objection so I'll understand?

[+egami]

Youstated that WalMart had policies that make it impossible for its store managers to give permission. This has been shown to be not true.

 

Wal-Mart corporate didn't respond to my inquiries about geocaching policies. I've seen comments on these forums both ways about a corporate policy being pro-cache or anti-cache and I've yet to see anyone post any actual link backing this assertion up on either side. If someone posted that information I'd like to see it.

[+Too Tall John]

I'm assuming you are saying I was proven wrong somewhere. When was that, exactly?

Youstated that WalMart had policies that make it impossible for its store managers to give permission. This has been shown to be not true.

Property Wal-Mart is putting aside in easement is a completely different animal than a Wal-Mart parking lot. I have been speaking to Wal-Mart corporate policies as they would apply to that.

 

I never had to deal with any easement land, so it never really even occurred to me. You could take almost any rule and if you searched hard enough come up with a time when the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't make the rule any less valid. I apologize for my error of omitting the possibility that Wal-Mart would allow caching on land they aren't developing into a store.

 

Since this situation has happened, I say bravo to Wal-Mart, and bravo to the folks who approached them. You won't get the same response if you asked to put a cache on Wal-Mart property developed for retail use, though.

 

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+sbell111]

... You won't get the same response if you asked to put a cache on Wal-Mart property developed for retail use. ....

You might want to take another read of the other thread. I think that you are misunderstanding how the parking lot is laid out.

[+egami]

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

 

No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing.

 

It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.

[+sbell111]

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

 

No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing.

 

It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.

Actually, what you've read a number of times is the photo guy stating that WalMart has policies that forbid geocaches and others stating that this cannot be true, since WM has been known to have permitted some caches.

[+egami]

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

 

No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing.

 

It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.

Actually, what you've read a number of times is the photo guy stating that WalMart has policies that forbid geocaches and others stating that this cannot be true, since WM has been known to have permitted some caches.

 

Actually, I've never read that...I have read numerous responses asserting people use that line, but not sure I've ever actually seen it.

[+sbell111]

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing.

 

It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.

Actually, what you've read a number of times is the photo guy stating that WalMart has policies that forbid geocaches and others stating that this cannot be true, since WM has been known to have permitted some caches.

Actually, I've never read that...I have read numerous responses asserting people use that line, but not sure I've ever actually seen it.

I guess that you didn't read the other thread.

 

There are way too many threads about the same topics.

[+Team Cotati]

"...since WM has been known to have permitted some caches." As if WM indicates something more than a single store someplace as yet unknown.

 

There is only one entity that is Wal-Mart Stores, inc. That entity is located in the little hamlet of Bentonville, Arkansas. Now I'm not saying that Wal-Mart Coporate might not have delegated these big decisions to some lower level. I am just saying that there is no credible evidence to indicate that that is in fact the case.

 

But trust me, if, in the unlikely event that I were ever want to hide a cache on their property AND I had recieved the permission from someone who I reasonable thought was THE store manager.......I'd do it.

 

Of course I also fully understand that at some future date either the same or a different person who is THE store manager might ask that the cache be removed. The cache would then be removed. additionally if the manager either could not or chose no to contact me, he might have the nerve to actually have it removed any way.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Team Cotati

[Mushtang]

But trust me, if, in the unlikely event that I were ever want to hide a cache on their property AND I had recieved the permission from someone who I reasonable thought was THE store manager.......I'd do it.

 

Of course I also fully understand that at some future date either the same or a different person who is THE store manager might ask that the cache be removed. The cache would then be removed. additionally if the manager either could not or chose no to contact me, he might have the nerve to actually have it removed any way.

Your arguments sound more and more like you're agreeing with what we've been saying this entire thread.

 

If you feel you need express permission, get it. If you get it, hide one.

If they tell you that they don't want one there, don't hide one.

If they object to one that is there, remove it.

[+sbell111]

"...since WM has been known to have permitted some caches." As if WM indicates something more than a single store someplace as yet unknown.

 

There is only one entity that is Wal-Mart Stores, inc. That entity is located in the little hamlet of Bentonville, Arkansas. Now I'm not saying that Wal-Mart Coporate might not have delegated these big decisions to some lower level. I am just saying that there is no credible evidence to indicate that that is in fact the case.

 

But trust me, if, in the unlikely event that I were ever want to hide a cache on their property AND I had recieved the permission from someone who I reasonable thought was THE store manager.......I'd do it.

 

Of course I also fully understand that at some future date either the same or a different person who is THE store manager might ask that the cache be removed. The cache would then be removed. additionally if the manager either could not or chose no to contact me, he might have the nerve to actually have it removed any way.

That was a pretty aggresive post. It took me two reads to realize that you were agreeing with me.

 

BTW, are there any caches under the bridge?

[+Too Tall John]

BTW, are there any caches under the bridge?

Since a troll can be defined as someone who "will chum the waters with...insults...and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...will take the bait," wouldn't an unsolicited question such as the one quoted above be considered trolling?

Edited January 24, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+sbell111]

BTW, are there any caches under the bridge?

Since a troll can be defined as someone who will chum the waters with...insults...and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...will take the bait," wouldn't an unsolicited question such as the one quoted above be considered trolling?

Perhaps, but I've come to realize that certain posters really, really enjoy trolling and will work hard at ratcheting up the angst level in threads. I feel that their hard work should be recognized.

[+geowizerd]

Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

 

No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing.

 

It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.

Actually, what you've read a number of times is the photo guy stating that WalMart has policies that forbid geocaches and others stating that this cannot be true, since WM has been known to have permitted some caches.

 

I'm sure almost everyone, at one time or another has had someone say "I'm not supposed to do this, but...."

 

They may even be less ambigous, and say "Sure, go ahead". That doesn't mean that it's not against corporate or company policy.

 

If you feel you need express permission, get it.

 

If it's on private property, you DO need express permission, whether you feel you do or not.

[+sbell111]

If you feel you need express permission, get it.

If it's on private property, you DO need express permission, whether you feel you do or not.

That is not necessarily true and has been discussed at length.

 

BTW, I can't figure out who you were quoting, there. Please leave the tags intact when quoting someone so people can bounce back to the quoted post to read it in it's proper context. Thanks.

Edited January 24, 2008 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Train Wreck!

Onlookers watch in shock and disbelief.

Edited January 24, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+mvigor]

Are any of you who are arguing here actually trying to do some good, or do you all just like sucking the fun out of the whole forum?

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Are any of you who are arguing here actually trying to do some good, or do you all just like sucking the fun out of the whole forum?

 

I've had alot of fun reading it personally so I disagree that they are sucking the fun out of the Forum.

[Mushtang]

Are any of you who are arguing here actually trying to do some good, or do you all just like sucking the fun out of the whole forum?

We're debating the topic of permission, whether it needs to be express, assumed, etc. and how to determine which is appropriate.

 

If that means that this particular topic, or this particular thread on the topic, is not fun for you, there's an easy way for you to avoid reading it. I would prefer that you continue to enjoy the forums as much as possible and not be upset about topics might bother you.

 

I've never understood why someone would come into a thread and complain that the conversation in the thread upsets them. It's like people that go looking for a micro cache, find it, and then complain that it was a micro. But that's just me.

[+Rockin Roddy]

wow. it keeps going.

Yes....amazing! Seems some just like to argue to see their words in print!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Are any of you who are arguing here actually trying to do some good, or do you all just like sucking the fun out of the whole forum?

We're debating the topic of permission, whether it needs to be express, assumed, etc. and how to determine which is appropriate.

 

If that means that this particular topic, or this particular thread on the topic, is not fun for you, there's an easy way for you to avoid reading it. I would prefer that you continue to enjoy the forums as much as possible and not be upset about topics might bother you.

 

I've never understood why someone would come into a thread and complain that the conversation in the thread upsets them. It's like people that go looking for a micro cache, find it, and then complain that it was a micro. But that's just me.

What's funny is how some will argue just to argue!!

 

Not you Mushtang.....but could you please refresh my memory on where you'd consider needing "expressed"? I agree there are places where asking permission isn't needed....but how does one determine this??

 

I'd say any park having a cache....BUT, that's not always the case (and placing a cache in the wrong park could spell big trouble for caching). Maybe all cemeteries?? Well, no....some are privately owned...but how would one know this???

 

So my thought on this...how do you TRULY know you can place a cache w/o asking?? A gut feeling qualify? Because you feel you have the right?? Just let me know where the line gets drawn!!