signing log

[+herrozerro]

Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

That takes you down a road to no challenging caches of any kind. Once we start placing all caches for the lowest common denominator then the hobby is truly done. I cache to be entertained. If there are no entertaining caches--or so few it might as well be--then the hobby would not be worth doing.

 

Back to the original point. There was a "normal" cache that was hidden. The CO appeared to place it with the intent that it was easy to get and log. Then the CO denied someone a "find" because, though she found the cache, she was unable to reach it due to a physical "limtation". I personally think the CO was not being a very good person (not to offend you with language). I believe the CO was not acting in the good intent of the "game" and was taking an elitist stance.

I don't know, but the way I'm reading this is you don't want "normal" to actually be "normal," but something less to include everyone. Again lowering the hobby to the least common denominator.

 

I do believe we will be on the opposite sides of this issue. From your statements it sounds like you're the type of person who takes "compassion" to point that it would unduly burden the rest of us. I'm not that type of person. I believe in balance. I believe in signing the log. I don't particularly care if the failure is genetics or showing up sans pen. Sign the log or don't claim the find.

 

I just had a thought. By being geocachers are we being elitist in the first place? I mean muggles are left out.

[+bittsen]

 

If my hobby were solving so called impossible puzzles, (which its not btw) and lets say puzzle caches were disallowed because someone like you has his undies in a bunch because you dont like them. Why should I be discrimiated for your conveniance?

I assure you, my undies are not in a bunch. Just as some would argue that ALR caches serve a purpose, you say others do. I don't set the rules. I have merely said, a few times, I don't see the need for caches with additional tools beyong a GPS and a body. That was how the "game" was born, isn't it?

Likewise a cache in a cliffface. Im not a rockclimber or anything like that and I probably wouldnt go after one. But lets say I know one nearby and after years of looking at it and going "Grumble grumble stupid elitest cacher owner" I actually go out and learn to rockclimb. I think the cache acommplished something that 1/1's will never do. Inspire someone to go out and learn/accomplish something.

At the same time the cliff face cache could serve as a reminder to those who are unable to go rock climbing due to age or other physical restraints, just what they can't do and never will. Two sides to every argument

 

Niche caches are just that, minorities in the sea of common caches. Are they catering to a certain crowd? Yes. Elitist? Probably not.

Elitist is my word. I am sure the word has a completely different meaning to you.

See #2 and 3 on this page

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elitist

Are you being selfish because something doesnt cater to you? Yes.

I never asked for ANY cache to cater to me.

Edit: Actually someone taking the time to cater to a minority is probably more generious then you give them credit for.

Some could see things that way. Of course catering to a minority wouldn't be exclusionary.

[+bittsen]

 

I just had a thought. By being geocachers are we being elitist in the first place? I mean muggles are left out.

 

No, muggles are free to join in any time they want to. There are no limiting factors other than the need for a computer.

[+gof1]

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Thats been one of my points all along.

Do the cache owners actually read the written logs? What about the micros? Do the cache owners actually record all the names of people who have found them?

Sorry, but you point has changed so many times I'm not sure what we are talking about anymore. I read the paper log every time I go out to one of my caches. Do I make it a point to record and compare the names? Only if I have a reason to suspect a problem.

 

I still am having a problem understanding why you seem to think ill of the fact that there are caches for every type of cacher?There are caches for those who like puzzles and for those who can't hike. Caches for those who like to climb and those who love history. There are caches for those who can't swim and for those don't like the woods. I think the most elitist thing mentioned in this thread is your apparent belief that caches shouldn't exist if they don't please your particular sensitivities.

 

And I'd like to point out that most of the people you are arguing with agreed that the op should have been allowed to log. They just don't think that it is the case in every incident.

[+bittsen]

 

I don't know, but the way I'm reading this is you don't want "normal" to actually be "normal," but something less to include everyone. Again lowering the hobby to the least common denominator.

 

I do believe we will be on the opposite sides of this issue. From your statements it sounds like you're the type of person who takes "compassion" to point that it would unduly burden the rest of us. I'm not that type of person. I believe in balance. I believe in signing the log. I don't particularly care if the failure is genetics or showing up sans pen. Sign the log or don't claim the find.

 

You have no idea how wrong you are about me. ~LOL~

[+Renegade Knight]

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Thats been one of my points all along.

Do the cache owners actually read the written logs? What about the micros? Do the cache owners actually record all the names of people who have found them?

 

I try to get out and check on my caches for general maintenance and checking logs is one of my favorite things to do. so at least one.

Locally about 40% of the finds are never recorded on the web site. I enjoy reading the paper logs. When I archive a cache or swap in a new log book I'll take the time to read the logs.

[+gof1]

 

Well, maybe your online logs tend to be of the TFTC, TNLNSL type, but mine generally tend to be much more interesting than the logs in the cache.

 

OK, so call it a pat on the back, call it a warm fuzzy, or call it an ego-booster... its all the same thing.

 

You focus on only what you want to see. I had several good reasons why i plant caches and i included your reason because i would be lieing if i ommitted it to prove my point.

 

My point is that there is also a physical log, and to me its the ore inportant log. The digital one in my eyes is the one of conveniance. I get a not online when someone logs my finds. but I can also get away form the computer and go out and visit my caches and find outthat my caches are 10x more popular then i thought.

 

We seem to see things differently. Caching is not smilies on a screen. to me its getting out and going places in RL.

 

In my experience the online logs are usually more complete. The authors tend to take more time with them than they do while on the trail. That is, of course, the authors that take time to write more than their name in tje log and TFTC online.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I have a confession. I don't know what an ALR cache is.

Additional Logging Requirement. No longer allowed.

 

Ah, so many puzzle caches fall into a grey area then...

And the ones who say "You must email me with the text from the sign that is next to the oak tree" as well. Or is that a classic example of an ALR?

Yes that would be a classic ALR. (or perhaps you saw this on a virtual cache).

 

ALRs got banned because there are a lot of people who agree with bittsen. They believe that geocaches that ask you to do something beyond finding as cache are just a way for annoying control freaks to make you do something you don't want to do. We all want to find caches. Why is someone asking us "to stand on my head, wiggle my ears, facing east, flashing my genitals, just to get a smiley"? At first the guidelines were changed to have such caches listed a unknown type. That way, at least, you would have to read the cache page before you looked for the cache and could decide if you wanted to do it. You could always just skip the caches that asked you to do something you didn't want to do. However, by recognizing such caches some people hid ones that asked for some pretty ridiculous things. I think the reviewers would have no problem drawing the line at flashing your genitals but there was a big gray area between a simple fun task that would add to the experience of finding the cache and the obviously unacceptable. Based on prior experience trying to write guidelines that dealt with these gray areas, TPTB declared that all ALRs would be optional - that as long as the cacher had signed the physical log book, the owner could not delete an online find just because they person did not to the ALR. Of course this still allowed a cache owner to delete the online log if the finder did not sign the physical log.

 

An exception was made to ALRs for what are called challenge caches. These are cache where you must complete a geocaching related challenge (such as finding a cache in every county in your state) in order to log a find online.

 

Outside of ALR are the caches where the cache owner has placed a physical or mental challenge just to get to the cache and sign the log. bittsen may feel that these caches are elitist if the challenge is one that most cachers cannot do. He is entitled to this opinion. However, I believe that most geocachers understand that not every cache is meant for them. Plenty of cache hiders choose to hide mostly caches that anyone (or at least most cachers) can find. They like putting out caches that will get lots of finds. But they are many people who actually prefer a challenging cache that not everyone is able to do. Caches are placed in terrain that requires special equipment, others use hiding techniques that require some problem solving in the field and maybe some special equipment to retrieve the cache (maybe the cache is in that pole and if I pour water in the cache will float out), and some require a puzzle to be solved at home just to get coordinates. None of these are considered ALRs because they put the challenge before finding the cache and signing the log. These caches are very popular with some segments of the geocaching community. It would be a shame if we were forced to hide (and find) only caches that were doable by a majority of geocachers. The diversity in the kinds of geocaches hidden makes the game popular. With people hiding the kinds of caches they like to find, the numbers of different types of caches stays pretty much in proportion to numbers of caches who enjoy finding them.

 

Now from time to time I have seen where a few people in a area try to out do one another by hiding difficult puzzles. The non-puzzlers in the area start to complain that there are too many new puzzles or that the puzzles are blocking an area where they want to hide a traditional cache. In the cases, I have seen these puzzle wars are short lived and soon the puzzles fall back to just a small number of the caches placed. In the long run most of the caches placed will be ones that most caches can find and a few puzzles and 5 star terrains will be there for the people that like that sort of thing.

[+herrozerro]

snip

 

Alright, well even without a cache, a cliff itself would still be there being an impossible obstical.

 

So lets argue exclusionary.

 

Anyone who can rockclimb is a part of an Elite club. Same with someone who can Kayak. someone who can solve Puzzles in a part of an Elite few. I can juggle, does that make me an elitist when i juggle in front of my non juggling friends?

 

There is a cache in antartica. Aside from probably being never found because of the conditions i guess its an elitist cache because almost no one will have access to it.

 

There are caches in other countries I will never visit. Stupid Elitist Cache owners, why cant they come to my area and plant their caches here where i can get them?

 

Life isnt fair. and making it fair for everyone would detract from it.

 

If i placed a cache underwater, I would expect people with the resources to go after it. Or inspire someone to do it. I dont think of the hydrophobiacs who will stare at the cache on the map and curse me for placing a cache they will never be able to find.

[+bittsen]

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Thats been one of my points all along.

Do the cache owners actually read the written logs? What about the micros? Do the cache owners actually record all the names of people who have found them?

Sorry, but you point has changed so many times I'm not sure what we are talking about anymore. I read the paper log every time I go out to one of my caches. Do I make it a point to record and compare the names? Only if I have a reason to suspect a problem.

 

I still am having a problem understanding why you seem to think ill of the fact that there are caches for every type of cacher?There are caches for those who like puzzles and for those who can't hike. Caches for those who like to climb and those who love history. There are caches for those who can't swim and for those don't like the woods. I think the most elitist thing mentioned in this thread is your apparent belief that caches shouldn't exist if they don't please your particular sensitivities.

 

And I'd like to point out that most of the people you are arguing with agreed that the op should have been allowed to log. They just don't think that it is the case in every incident.

 

I don't think thats the case in every incident either.

 

What you, and apparantly several others, are missing is that I am voicing my opinion about ridiculous (imho) guidelines for "claiming a cache" and ridiculous (imho) caches.

Am I offended that they exist? Absolutely not. Do I see them as a needed aspect of the game? Absolutely not. Am I hurt because they are there? Absolutely not. Do I laugh that people actually find these enjoyable? Yes, but then I am also equally amused by some people and their "other" methods of enjoyment (edited because this is a site that should be safe for families)

[+bittsen]

 

Ah, so many puzzle caches fall into a grey area then...

And the ones who say "You must email me with the text from the sign that is next to the oak tree" as well. Or is that a classic example of an ALR?

Yes that would be a classic ALR. (or perhaps you saw this on a virtual cache).

 

ALRs got banned because there are a lot of people who agree with bittsen. They believe that geocaches that ask you to do something beyond finding as cache are just a way for annoying control freaks to make you do something you don't want to do. We all want to find caches. Why is someone asking us "to stand on my head, wiggle my ears, facing east, flashing my genitals, just to get a smiley"? At first the guidelines were changed to have such caches listed a unknown type. That way, at least, you would have to read the cache page before you looked for the cache and could decide if you wanted to do it. You could always just skip the caches that asked you to do something you didn't want to do. However, by recognizing such caches some people hid ones that asked for some pretty ridiculous things. I think the reviewers would have no problem drawing the line at flashing your genitals but there was a big gray area between a simple fun task that would add to the experience of finding the cache and the obviously unacceptable. Based on prior experience trying to write guidelines that dealt with these gray areas, TPTB declared that all ALRs would be optional - that as long as the cacher had signed the physical log book, the owner could not delete an online find just because they person did not to the ALR. Of course this still allowed a cache owner to delete the online log if the finder did not sign the physical log.

 

An exception was made to ALRs for what are called challenge caches. These are cache where you must complete a geocaching related challenge (such as finding a cache in every county in your state) in order to log a find online.

 

Outside of ALR are the caches where the cache owner has placed a physical or mental challenge just to get to the cache and sign the log. bittsen may feel that these caches are elitist if the challenge is one that most cachers cannot do. He is entitled to this opinion. However, I believe that most geocachers understand that not every cache is meant for them. Plenty of cache hiders choose to hide mostly caches that anyone (or at least most cachers) can find. They like putting out caches that will get lots of finds. But they are many people who actually prefer a challenging cache that not everyone is able to do. Caches are placed in terrain that requires special equipment, others use hiding techniques that require some problem solving in the field and maybe some special equipment to retrieve the cache (maybe the cache is in that pole and if I pour water in the cache will float out), and some require a puzzle to be solved at home just to get coordinates. None of these are considered ALRs because they put the challenge before finding the cache and signing the log. These caches are very popular with some segments of the geocaching community. It would be a shame if we were forced to hide (and find) only caches that were doable by a majority of geocachers. The diversity in the kinds of geocaches hidden makes the game popular. With people hiding the kinds of caches they like to find, the numbers of different types of caches stays pretty much in proportion to numbers of caches who enjoy finding them.

 

Now from time to time I have seen where a few people in a area try to out do one another by hiding difficult puzzles. The non-puzzlers in the area start to complain that there are too many new puzzles or that the puzzles are blocking an area where they want to hide a traditional cache. In the cases, I have seen these puzzle wars are short lived and soon the puzzles fall back to just a small number of the caches placed. In the long run most of the caches placed will be ones that most caches can find and a few puzzles and 5 star terrains will be there for the people that like that sort of thing.

 

Well written. Thanks.

[CoyoteRed]

I have merely said, a few times, I don't see the need for caches with additional tools beyong a GPS and a body.

That's fine if you only want to go commando. Don't try to force in on others.

 

I'm sure the folks that own, and are invested in, the McGPS are banking on folks like you. You only want simple caches where you only need the coordinates. That's fine. I think it's pretty cool. There's a lot of room for folks like you. Don't fool yourself in thinking that's the whole geocaching universe, though.

 

That was how the "game" was born, isn't it?

The first few, yes, but it quickly expanded with the early pioneers trying different things. Some took. Some didn't.

 

You might be surprised that early adopters contemplated altering benchmarks with a metal stamp in order to provide an off-set to the cache. Or there was an idea for a cache that was on a circle where the center was an object and the radius was the height of that object. Like I said, some took, some didn't.

 

One that took off was the puzzle cache were one could create an adventure like a treasure hunt. There are many stories about hunting treasures. Folks like such stories. It's such a hit that just about every year a major motion picture is released that has elements of assembling and interpreting clue in order to complete a task.

 

With a puzzle cache you are the hero of the story.

 

Elitist is my word.

In the context of the OP I fail to see how you can accurately assign "elitist" to the CO. The CO didn't deny the find because she was short. He denied it because she didn't sign the log. If he had denied the find even if she signed the log because she was short then, yes, he was being elitist. That's not what happened.

[+gof1]

 

If my hobby were solving so called impossible puzzles, (which its not btw) and lets say puzzle caches were disallowed because someone like you has his undies in a bunch because you dont like them. Why should I be discrimiated for your conveniance?

I assure you, my undies are not in a bunch. Just as some would argue that ALR caches serve a purpose, you say others do. I don't set the rules. I have merely said, a few times, I don't see the need for caches with additional tools beyong a GPS and a body. That was how the "game" was born, isn't it?

If the game was to be limited to how it was born we would still be burying five gallon pails on the side of the road.

Likewise a cache in a cliffface. Im not a rockclimber or anything like that and I probably wouldnt go after one. But lets say I know one nearby and after years of looking at it and going "Grumble grumble stupid elitest cacher owner" I actually go out and learn to rockclimb. I think the cache acommplished something that 1/1's will never do. Inspire someone to go out and learn/accomplish something.

At the same time the cliff face cache could serve as a reminder to those who are unable to go rock climbing due to age or other physical restraints, just what they can't do and never will. Two sides to every argumentThis is called real life. Lots of things I can't do. Many do to my physical limitations. I don't begrudge those who can.

 

Niche caches are just that, minorities in the sea of common caches. Are they catering to a certain crowd? Yes. Elitist? Probably not.

Elitist is my word. I am sure the word has a completely different meaning to you.

See #2 and 3 on this page

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elitistI still say it is diversity that your are labeling as elitist.

Are you being selfish because something doesnt cater to you? Yes.

I never asked for ANY cache to cater to me.Yet you seem to feel that it is wrong to place caches that can't be accessed by everyone. An impossibility even if we wanted to.

Edit: Actually someone taking the time to cater to a minority is probably more generious then you give them credit for.

Some could see things that way. Of course catering to a minority wouldn't be exclusionary.

You idea of exclusionary seems to mean that hiding caches for every type of cacher instead of hiding every cache for every cacher is a bad thing. I'd rather see a cache for every taste than everyone being told to find the same things. When you go to a restaurant do you order off the menu or do you eat what they put in front of you?

 

Edit to say - I have got to learn how to split up a post to reply to each individual point. Sorry.

 

Edit2 - Someone PM me and explain what I am doing wrong please.

Edited June 5, 2009 by gof1

[+mrbort]

When you go to a restaurant do you order off the menu or do you eat what they put in front of you?

 

In Guatemala, you eat what they put in front of you

[+bittsen]

In the context of the OP I fail to see how you can accurately assign "elitist" to the CO. The CO didn't deny the find because she was short. He denied it because she didn't sign the log. If he had denied the find even if she signed the log because she was short then, yes, he was being elitist. That's not what happened.

 

You are correct but there was one individual who questioned what I did call the CO. ~LOL~

[+gof1]

When you go to a restaurant do you order off the menu or do you eat what they put in front of you?

 

In Guatemala, you eat what they put in front of you

 

But you get to pick what place to eat. I actually have done this in places here in Buffalo. Once you can get the wait staff to take you seriously it can make for an interesting meal. The cooks that take it as a challenge to be creative are the best. But even those who just pick something off the menu tend to try to ramp it up a bit. Try it some time. This was how I first tried squid steak. YumYum!

[+The Blorenges]

I wish I were tall.

 

Me too... sometimes...

 

But there are advantages to being small/fairly lightweight for some caches.

 

e.g. There was no way that MrB was going to try getting this one down...

 

 

and it was easier for me to do a series of caches in caves - I have great respect for the several "larger geocachers" who found them. It would have been very snug for those over 13 stone... It's often a "swings and roundabouts" situation... MrsB

 

[+mrbort]

When you go to a restaurant do you order off the menu or do you eat what they put in front of you?

 

In Guatemala, you eat what they put in front of you

 

But you get to pick what place to eat. I actually have done this in places here in Buffalo. Once you can get the wait staff to take you seriously it can make for an interesting meal. The cooks that take it as a challenge to be creative are the best. But even those who just pick something off the menu tend to try to ramp it up a bit. Try it some time. This was how I first tried squid steak. YumYum!

 

Sounds fun Sometimes I felt I was better off not asking what I was eating. And usually it's only one "restaurant" in the towns I stay in Your point was a good one though about picking and choosing.

 

Less off topic:

 

For me, it's time to stop posting in this topic since 1) the OP's point has been addressed several pages ago and 1) apparently since I identified myself as someone who enjoys solving and creating puzzles, apparently a "~LOL~" is what my posts get me from the poster with whom I thought I was debating a tangential matter.

 

Final thought on topic:

 

I'm glad that the OP went back and signed the log since it was clear that to the CO, that was his or her standard. Everyone in the original situation is happy. To bittsen, I apologize for offending you with any pretension of elitism or snobbery. I hope that you continue to enjoy caching and that we can all respect the fact that everyone has different ways of playing and different interests in the game.

 

Happy caching in whatever way makes you happy.

 

edit: ditching an extra word that made no sense

Edited June 5, 2009 by mrbort

[+the pooks]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

OK - haven't read the whole thread, but this is getting interesting, so I will jump in with my opinion.

 

In principle I am of the school of "signed log = smiley" but I am very relaxed about it. If someone did what they felt was necessary to warrant the "found it" i would just let it be - to me it is more about the experience than the detail.

 

Especially in the OP's case. If I were the OP I would have written a "found it log" stating: "I am vertically challenged, but I managed to touch the cache, and now I am logging it". As a CO (cache owner) I would be cool with that - the finder was being upfront and was not trying to take short cuts - and got close enough. In this case I would let the special circumstances of the finder rule. This is different to a cache 20' up a tree where part of the challenge is to climb the tree.

[+gof1]

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

OK - haven't read the whole thread, but this is getting interesting, so I will jump in with my opinion.

 

In principle I am of the school of "signed log = smiley" but I am very relaxed about it. If someone did what they felt was necessary to warrant the "found it" i would just let it be - to me it is more about the experience than the detail.

 

Especially in the OP's case. If I were the OP I would have written a "found it log" stating: "I am vertically challenged, but I managed to touch the cache, and now I am logging it". As a CO (cache owner) I would be cool with that - the finder was being upfront and was not trying to take short cuts - and got close enough. In this case I would let the special circumstances of the finder rule. This is different to a cache 20' up a tree where part of the challenge is to climb the tree.

This has been, as far as I can tell, the general consensus.

[+bittsen]

To bittsen, I apologize for offending you with any pretension of elitism or snobbery. I hope that you continue to enjoy caching and that we can all respect the fact that everyone has different ways of playing and different interests in the game.

 

Happy caching in whatever way makes you happy.

 

edit: ditching an extra word that made no sense

 

Don't pet the sweaty things.

It would take more than allowed in this forum to offend me. Its very difficult to do.

 

Enjoy your puzzle caches.

[+sbell111]

Honestly, I can't even believe this is being discussed.

Honestly, I can't believe that people take this so seriously. ...

I can't believe people are 1) surprised by the discussion or 2) surprised by the direction of the discussion, since this subject has been discussed in the forums many, many times previously.

I wish I were tall.

Me too, sometimes.

Edit2 - Someone PM me and explain what I am doing wrong please.

You have more closed quotey things than open quotey things. Also, you are approaching the maximum of ten quotey pairs. Edited June 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Chrysalides]

For me, it's time to stop posting in this topic since 1) the OP's point has been addressed several pages ago and 1) apparently since I identified myself as someone who enjoys solving and creating puzzles, apparently a "~LOL~" is what my posts get me from the poster with whom I thought I was debating a tangential matter.

I thought I was debating with that poster too, but despite numerous attempts at trying to steer it back, I kept getting new, unrelated things thrown up. I guess bittsen is content in his / her original statement:

 

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

 

Note who started the use of the word "elitist" in this thread. Note also this has nothing to do with the OP's issue, and has nothing to do with urban vs rural caches, both of which bittsen attempted to bring up when I tried to discuss this one short simple statement.

 

bittsen thinks that caches he / she does not care for should not be part of geocaching, that people who place them are selfish and elitist. And this is not a selfish attitude?

 

I also find the statements about "compassion" to be darkly funny in view of what bittsen thinks of the Special Olympics.

 

But whatever. I'm trying to defend the right for even caches I can't do / don't care for to exist, but bittsen would not discuss the issue. I surrender too to the ~LOL~.

[+herrozerro]

 

Note who started the use of the word "elitist" in this thread. Note also this has nothing to do with the OP's issue, and has nothing to do with urban vs rural caches, both of which bittsen attempted to bring up when I tried to discuss this one short simple statement.

 

bittsen thinks that caches he / she does not care for should not be part of geocaching, that people who place them are selfish and elitist. And this is not a selfish attitude?

 

I also find the statements about "compassion" to be darkly funny in view of what bittsen thinks of the Special Olympics.

 

But whatever. I'm trying to defend the right for even caches I can't do / don't care for to exist, but bittsen would not discuss the issue. I surrender too to the ~LOL~.

 

I dont understand how presenting a challenge is excluding the greater geocaching community. I mean at least most CO's dont use the Preimium users only caching option. (That statement is probably gonig to bite me)

[+sbell111]

At least we can all agree that puzzle caches are bad for the game.

[+herrozerro]

At least we can all agree that puzzle caches are bad for the game.

 

Im not quite sure if you are serious or not. But if you are.. I dont agree.

[+gof1]

At least we can all agree that puzzle caches are bad for the game.

 

This group can't even seem to agree on what color the sky is.

[+bittsen]

For me, it's time to stop posting in this topic since 1) the OP's point has been addressed several pages ago and 1) apparently since I identified myself as someone who enjoys solving and creating puzzles, apparently a "~LOL~" is what my posts get me from the poster with whom I thought I was debating a tangential matter.

I thought I was debating with that poster too, but despite numerous attempts at trying to steer it back, I kept getting new, unrelated things thrown up. I guess bittsen is content in his / her original statement:

 

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

 

Note who started the use of the word "elitist" in this thread. Note also this has nothing to do with the OP's issue, and has nothing to do with urban vs rural caches, both of which bittsen attempted to bring up when I tried to discuss this one short simple statement.

 

bittsen thinks that caches he / she does not care for should not be part of geocaching, that people who place them are selfish and elitist. And this is not a selfish attitude?

 

I also find the statements about "compassion" to be darkly funny in view of what bittsen thinks of the Special Olympics.

 

But whatever. I'm trying to defend the right for even caches I can't do / don't care for to exist, but bittsen would not discuss the issue. I surrender too to the ~LOL~.

 

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

[+Knight2000]

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

At first I was kind of irritated at your nonsensical remarks. The more I read the more I thought that this person has few finds. My guess was less than 100. Now I understand that you may not log them online, but your find count shows that as true.

 

From your ideas it sounds as if no one should hide caches because someone who is paralyzed from the neck down couldn't find log them and that's not fair. Anything else would be "elitist".

 

It doesn't sound like you cache. It sounds like you go around and visit geocache logging stations. Many of us don't necessarily enjoy writing our names in the log. We enjoy the journey, the hunt, and the challenge. I don't get upset if it takes 20 minutes to find a cache. I appreciate the good hide! By your terms though, this would be an "elitist" cache because not everyone could find it.

 

How dare them?

[+herrozerro]

 

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

 

I dont think there was any attempting going on. You have presented a viewpoint that seems to be very counter intuitive. Presenting a front that Caches should not be be 5's Requiring special equipment or skills....

[+Chrysalides]

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

If I am, I'd hardly be looking for someone who said he wouldn't post any more on this thread... yes, interesting indeed.

[+bittsen]

 

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

 

I dont think there was any attempting going on. You have presented a viewpoint that seems to be very counter intuitive. Presenting a front that Caches should not be be 5's Requiring special equipment or skills....

 

To be precise, I said I see no need for them but also said I couldn't care less if they existed.

I see some as ridiculous. Much as I see arguing with people on the internet.

[+bittsen]

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

If I am, I'd hardly be looking for someone who said he wouldn't post any more on this thread... yes, interesting indeed.

 

Show me where I said that.

[+herrozerro]

 

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

 

I dont think there was any attempting going on. You have presented a viewpoint that seems to be very counter intuitive. Presenting a front that Caches should not be be 5's Requiring special equipment or skills....

 

To be precise, I said I see no need for them but also said I couldn't care less if they existed.

I see some as ridiculous. Much as I see arguing with people on the internet.

 

It hassnt seemed to stop you.

 

I dont see much use for 1/1's sometimes. I mean whats the challenge? In fact somtimes the thought of "Why the Heck am iI standing in the middle of the woods looking for a tupperware container???" drifts through my mind.

 

For a sport/hobby of looking for objects that really have no use, you seem to think that your brand is more useful then others.

 

You also seem to care that they exist with as much effort you have been putting into defending your position.

Edited June 5, 2009 by herrozerro

[+bittsen]

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

At first I was kind of irritated at your nonsensical remarks. The more I read the more I thought that this person has few finds. My guess was less than 100. Now I understand that you may not log them online, but your find count shows that as true.

 

From your ideas it sounds as if no one should hide caches because someone who is paralyzed from the neck down couldn't find log them and that's not fair. Anything else would be "elitist".

 

It doesn't sound like you cache. It sounds like you go around and visit geocache logging stations. Many of us don't necessarily enjoy writing our names in the log. We enjoy the journey, the hunt, and the challenge. I don't get upset if it takes 20 minutes to find a cache. I appreciate the good hide! By your terms though, this would be an "elitist" cache because not everyone could find it.

 

How dare them?

 

You are aware, of course, of how ridiculous you have become?

I don't cache like you do so I'm not a real cacher, right? How elitist is that?

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

 

Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could.

The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people.

 

I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form.

 

As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there.

 

If I knew how to scuba dive, I could get those types of caches. If I knew how to fly a helicoptor, I'd get some of the extreme caches out there. If I owned a boat.....

 

See where this is going? Just because a cache is there doesn't mean EVERYONE has a right to find it. If you can't solve your shortcomings (no pun intended), you shouldn't be entitled to the find even if you think you are!

[+bittsen]

 

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

 

I dont think there was any attempting going on. You have presented a viewpoint that seems to be very counter intuitive. Presenting a front that Caches should not be be 5's Requiring special equipment or skills....

 

To be precise, I said I see no need for them but also said I couldn't care less if they existed.

I see some as ridiculous. Much as I see arguing with people on the internet.

 

It hassnt seemed to stop you.

 

I dont see much use for 1/1's sometimes. I mean whats the challenge? In fact somtimes the thought of "Why the Heck am iI standing in the middle of the woods looking for a tupperware container???" drifts through my mind.

 

For a sport/hobby of looking for objects that really have no use, you seem to think that your brand is more useful then others.

 

You also seem to care that they exist with as much effort you have been putting into defending your position.

 

You seem to think you know what I think. What am I thinking now? (I'll give you a hint, it's not Tacos)

 

Why, exactly, do I have to defend my position? I didn't see that in the rules anywhere.

 

This thread has gotten ugly and there are a few who are now on a witch hunt. Should we have a witch hunt cache?

[+Knight2000]

It's interesting how the OP got their answer and went out and signed the log and seemed very happy about it.

 

I wish I were tall.

So does my wife but I don't want to be married to a tall woman because it's the short women who are sexy! Maybe I am an elitist... She is 5' tall and sometimes can't reach caches. I have never seen her upset about this. Like me, she enjoys the challenge.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

Just by writing a lot doesn't mean that you have answered anything. It just means you wrote a lot.

Classic.

 

At the same time the cliff face cache could serve as a reminder to those who are unable to go rock climbing due to age or other physical restraints, just what they can't do and never will.

I can't park in a cripple spot. Every time I drive by one I am reminded of it.

[+herrozerro]

You are aware, of course, of how ridiculous you have become?

I don't cache like you do so I'm not a real cacher, right? How elitist is that?

 

Well, im pretty sure it started when you said that someone who would put a cache with some difficulty (up a tree was the example) was selfish and Elitist. It was quote:

 

I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community.

 

that was a very broad and generalizing statement. You did ot take into account the D/T of a cache like that or even if the cache would in the description say something abut the difficulty. You came across as "Anyone who makes a cache too hard is an Elitist!"

[+Knight2000]

You are aware, of course, of how ridiculous you have become?

I don't cache like you do so I'm not a real cacher, right? How elitist is that?

That's the point that you have proven.

 

With the exception of yourself, we are all elitists!

[+herrozerro]

 

You seem to think you know what I think. What am I thinking now? (I'll give you a hint, it's not Tacos)

 

 

And you are quickly falling back into a victimized position to make my look like the bad guy.

[+baloo&bd]

I like strawberries.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

If my hobby were solving so called impossible puzzles, (which its not btw) and lets say puzzle caches were disallowed because someone like you has his undies in a bunch because you dont like them. Why should I be discrimiated for your conveniance?

I assure you, my undies are not in a bunch. Just as some would argue that ALR caches serve a purpose, you say others do. I don't set the rules. I have merely said, a few times, I don't see the need for caches with additional tools beyong a GPS and a body. That was how the "game" was born, isn't it?

Likewise a cache in a cliffface. Im not a rockclimber or anything like that and I probably wouldnt go after one. But lets say I know one nearby and after years of looking at it and going "Grumble grumble stupid elitest cacher owner" I actually go out and learn to rockclimb. I think the cache acommplished something that 1/1's will never do. Inspire someone to go out and learn/accomplish something.

At the same time the cliff face cache could serve as a reminder to those who are unable to go rock climbing due to age or other physical restraints, just what they can't do and never will. Two sides to every argument

 

Niche caches are just that, minorities in the sea of common caches. Are they catering to a certain crowd? Yes. Elitist? Probably not.

Elitist is my word. I am sure the word has a completely different meaning to you.

See #2 and 3 on this page

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elitist

Are you being selfish because something doesnt cater to you? Yes.

I never asked for ANY cache to cater to me.

Edit: Actually someone taking the time to cater to a minority is probably more generious then you give them credit for.

Some could see things that way. Of course catering to a minority wouldn't be exclusionary.

 

When you can accept the fact that not every cache is meant to be found by every cacher, you'll have a better understanding of how things work. Just as in real life....not every activity is for all!

[+herrozerro]

When you can accept the fact that not every cache is meant to be found by every cacher, you'll have a better understanding of how things work. Just as in real life....not every activity is for all!

 

Amen

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's interesting how the OP got their answer and went out and signed the log and seemed very happy about it.

 

I wish I were tall.

So does my wife but I don't want to be married to a tall woman because it's the short women who are sexy! Maybe I am an elitist... She is 5' tall and sometimes can't reach caches. I have never seen her upset about this. Like me, she enjoys the challenge.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

Just by writing a lot doesn't mean that you have answered anything. It just means you wrote a lot.

Classic.

 

At the same time the cliff face cache could serve as a reminder to those who are unable to go rock climbing due to age or other physical restraints, just what they can't do and never will.

I can't park in a cripple spot. Every time I drive by one I am reminded of it.

 

I believe the word you're looking for is HANDICAPPED.

[+Chrysalides]

Attempting to get people to gang with you against me? Interesting.

If I am, I'd hardly be looking for someone who said he wouldn't post any more on this thread... yes, interesting indeed.

 

Show me where I said that.

 

*sigh* I wasn't talking about you.

 

For me, it's time to stop posting in this topic since...

 

Let me rephrase :

 

If I am attempting to get people to gang up with me against you, I'd hardly be looking to gang up with someone who said he wouldn't post any more on this thread... yes, interesting indeed.

 

There, all better now?

[+The Blorenges]

If this thread deteriorates any further, I may have to give one of my freakily high-pitched screams and, let me warn you, you won't like it!

 

Can we just drag this back to the simple, polite question asked by the OP?

 

I am vertically challenged and sometimes I am unable to retrieve the cache. I will have touched it however.

I did this today and logged that I had touched it but couldn't retrieve it. I got an email from the owner saying I couldn't count it unless I signed. Is this correct?

 

Hi, carolehu

 

I hope that somewhere in this thread you were satisfied by the various answers and opinions that were given.

 

Well done on going back there and signing the actual log - I hope you got the warm, fuzzy feeling

 

Happy Caching

 

MrsB

[+mrbort]

For me, it's time to stop posting in this topic since...

 

Let me rephrase :

 

If I am attempting to get people to gang up with me against you, I'd hardly be looking to gang up with someone who said he wouldn't post any more on this thread... yes, interesting indeed.

 

There, all better now?

 

No... Forumz Thugz 4 Life.... oops I posted but it was just to be funny. Sometimes I ignore bedtime too

[+herrozerro]

 

Can we just drag this back to the simple, polite question asked by the OP?

 

My vote would be for yes, but the OP's issue was resolved on page one.

[+Knight2000]

I can't park in a cripple spot. Every time I drive by one I am reminded of it.

 

I believe the word you're looking for is HANDICAPPED.

I thought about that when I was posting but isn't it the same thing? There is nothing wrong with being crippled.