Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

OK, I'll bite. How could Nomex, or anyone other than SF really, truely know that the cache did not exist?

If I knew that I could blow this scandal wide open. I'd probably even get my own show. Just like Nancy Grace.

All I claimed is that it is possible.

But... it is NOT possible. Even if Superfly admitted to Nomex that he never really put a cache in place... even that could have been a lie. Nomex and TPTB at the very best were speculating, right? Not a very likely scenario, I'll admit, but at the same time... well, not a very likely scenario.

Oh, I can think of lots of other scenarios ...

 

But it's all speculation, isn't it?

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

Once again, you're only looking at the numbers, and not at the content when you say that. This post does not count toward an opinion on this issue, but only as an opinion on your statistic gathering.
Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Remember, appearances can be decieving.

It is only true if importance is directly proportional to actually posting to the thread.

Link to comment

"Did SF really hide the cache? Could Nomex really have irrefutable evidence of it not being there? Will GS confirm this evidence? Stay tuned for the next episode of 'As the Cache Burns'"

 

I find it ironic that this started with an out-of-state reviewer archiving a local cache and this discussion is mainly out-of-state cachers discussing this situation. It's become like a dog chasing it's own tail; funny to watch, but what happens if he catches it? Nothing much...

 

As someone who lives less than 20 miles from the location, and has spent a few hours looking for the cache in question, I definitely feel a sense of loss in the situation.

Regardless of the what's, why's and who's involved, SF has now stated the cache is gone.

None of us will get the chance at the FTF on this one again. That part is over and done.

 

I have to agree that only SF can know with 100% certainty whether the cache really was there or not.

Someone else could have really strong evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt; but still not 100%.

Again, this is chasing the dog's tail ... it's just semantics.

 

SF has some other caches out there that are really hard to find and/or really hard to solve.

I've solved and found a few, but there are many more that I haven't solved or been able to find yet.

I am still searching for one of his less than a mile from my home, and plan on continuing to search for it, even though my eyes tell me nothing is there. I feel frustrated that GS has left an open accusation of SF being deceptive about one cache hide, and will not share any of their line of reasoning. If I believe GS in this case (without parameters and proof) I can quickly fall into the trap of doubting other SF's caches.

 

I choose to believe SF actually placed and checked containers for his active caches, and will leave this weird and unique situation as an anomaly in an otherwise orderly caching world.

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Please do not discount those of us that are long time members that usually refrain from posting...

Link to comment

"Did SF really hide the cache? Could Nomex really have irrefutable evidence of it not being there? Will GS confirm this evidence? Stay tuned for the next episode of 'As the Cache Burns'"

 

I find it ironic that this started with an out-of-state reviewer archiving a local cache and this discussion is mainly out-of-state cachers discussing this situation. It's become like a dog chasing it's own tail; funny to watch, but what happens if he catches it? Nothing much...

 

As someone who lives less than 20 miles from the location, and has spent a few hours looking for the cache in question, I definitely feel a sense of loss in the situation.

Regardless of the what's, why's and who's involved, SF has now stated the cache is gone.

None of us will get the chance at the FTF on this one again. That part is over and done.

 

I have to agree that only SF can know with 100% certainty whether the cache really was there or not.

Someone else could have really strong evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt; but still not 100%.

Again, this is chasing the dog's tail ... it's just semantics.

 

SF has some other caches out there that are really hard to find and/or really hard to solve.

I've solved and found a few, but there are many more that I haven't solved or been able to find yet.

I am still searching for one of his less than a mile from my home, and plan on continuing to search for it, even though my eyes tell me nothing is there. I feel frustrated that GS has left an open accusation of SF being deceptive about one cache hide, and will not share any of their line of reasoning. If I believe GS in this case (without parameters and proof) I can quickly fall into the trap of doubting other SF's caches.

 

I choose to believe SF actually placed and checked containers for his active caches, and will leave this weird and unique situation as an anomaly in an otherwise orderly caching world.

 

Let us think of a scenario that hasn't been played out.

 

SF actually placed the cache as he stated. The cache WAS as hard as it appears to be by the number of DNFs, but not impossible to find.

After all of those DNFs, someone finally finds it.

OOPs, now they can't because a reviewer archived it, thus depriving a cacher of the satisfaction of finding the unfindable cache.

 

So, if the cache DID exist, the reviewer deprived at least one cacher the experience of a lifetime (so to speak).

 

Just a scenario, of course since the reviewer still has not verified that they had special knowledge that guarantees their actions were correct.

Link to comment

Let us think of a scenario that hasn't been played out.

 

SF actually placed the cache as he stated. The cache WAS as hard as it appears to be by the number of DNFs, but not impossible to find.

After all of those DNFs, someone finally finds it.

OOPs, now they can't because a reviewer archived it, thus depriving a cacher of the satisfaction of finding the unfindable cache.

 

So, if the cache DID exist, the reviewer deprived at least one cacher the experience of a lifetime (so to speak).

 

Just a scenario, of course since the reviewer still has not verified that they had special knowledge that guarantees their actions were correct.

:lol:

 

You can still log a find on an archived cache. I seem to be missing your point, even though I may be agreeing with you.

Link to comment

"Did SF really hide the cache? Could Nomex really have irrefutable evidence of it not being there? Will GS confirm this evidence? Stay tuned for the next episode of 'As the Cache Burns'"

 

I find it ironic that this started with an out-of-state reviewer archiving a local cache and this discussion is mainly out-of-state cachers discussing this situation. It's become like a dog chasing it's own tail; funny to watch, but what happens if he catches it? Nothing much...

 

As someone who lives less than 20 miles from the location, and has spent a few hours looking for the cache in question, I definitely feel a sense of loss in the situation.

Regardless of the what's, why's and who's involved, SF has now stated the cache is gone.

None of us will get the chance at the FTF on this one again. That part is over and done.

 

I have to agree that only SF can know with 100% certainty whether the cache really was there or not.

Someone else could have really strong evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt; but still not 100%.

Again, this is chasing the dog's tail ... it's just semantics.

 

SF has some other caches out there that are really hard to find and/or really hard to solve.

I've solved and found a few, but there are many more that I haven't solved or been able to find yet.

I am still searching for one of his less than a mile from my home, and plan on continuing to search for it, even though my eyes tell me nothing is there. I feel frustrated that GS has left an open accusation of SF being deceptive about one cache hide, and will not share any of their line of reasoning. If I believe GS in this case (without parameters and proof) I can quickly fall into the trap of doubting other SF's caches.

 

I choose to believe SF actually placed and checked containers for his active caches, and will leave this weird and unique situation as an anomaly in an otherwise orderly caching world.

 

Thank you ascacher that is local to the area for responding.

 

Your comment is a valid response to why some/many are interested in this cache and the outcome of the archiving.

 

Why search for a hard to find/not found cache by this hider if he has been found guilty of faking a hide?

 

If I make a difficult to find cache could I be accused of faking it and have my cache archived and thus any other caches I hide be suspect also unless they are found easily?

 

This makes me want to not hide caches that are hard to find or quit hiding altogether.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what is causing the biggest concern here.

  1. That a reviewer implied that cache owner was lying about checking on his cache
  2. That a difficult cache that did exist and would eventually get found was archived
  3. That Groundspeak's process for archiving caches isn't 100% transparent

1) A reviewer looked at all the evidence and concluded that a cache probably never existed. He may have been wrong but he reached the conclusion based on all the evidence he had. He disabled the cache and told the owner that a maintenance visit was required and that the owner should contact him with any questions. The owner did not contact the reviewer (perhaps he had no questions?) and posted that he checked and the cache was there. The reviewer, based on all the evidence he had decided that the cache was still not there and archived it. Had the owner contacted the reviewer he may found out what evidence he could provide to show there was a cache to find. When Groundspeak decided to stand behind the reviewer, the cache owner removed the cache and destroyed any evidence he might have had to prove there was a cache. Maybe there was a cache and maybe there wasn't and now we can only speculate who called who a liar.

 

2) If there was a cache there, the archiving of the cache along with the cache owner's actions of removing the cache and destroying the cammo that he worked so long to perfect, certainly has taken away that option from those in the area who were still trying to find the cache or to those around the world who search for unfound caches as a challenge and might have even be planning a trip to Grand Rapids. The archiving of this one cache however doesn't mean that you can't have a difficult cache or even that a string of DNFs means there is no cache. A string of DNFs is one part of the evidence that a reviewer might use to see if a cache needs to be maintained. Depending on the cache owners reputation, just posting that you checked on the cache and it is there, may not be enough to counter the evidence that it isn't there. A clarification of the guidelines or at least a better note than the canned one that Nomex used, might have given the cache owner enough information that the cache could have been saved. If anyone has a difficult cache that goes unfound for two, three, or more years; they should not have to worry that their cache is going to be archived solely based on DNFs. They may however need to be prepared to prove the existence of the cache to the reviewer and demonstrate that it can be found.

 

3) I understand the need for review discussions and the appeal process to be kept confidential. Occasionally sensitive matters are discussed. Had the appeal found that the cache should not be archived, would there be an outcry for the evidence the cache owner provided in confidence to the reviewer or Grounspeak to prove the cache was there? It would be nice if review and appeals were transparent, but by keeping most of what goes on confidential Groundspeak hopes that leads to honest communication by those involved.

 

Caches are meant to be found.

I would like to edit this to read "Caches are meant to be found by those who are capable of finding them".

In another thread, someone mentioned a cache that is hidden way up on a mountain peak. I'm not physically able to make that ascent, so that cache is not meant to be found by me. The same is true for caches that require the use of scuba equipment, as I am not certified in the use of such equipment. The same is true for caches that require extensive hikes, as both of my knees are blown out. Puzzle caches which exceed my limited brain power are also not meant to be found by me. All caches are not meant to be found by all seekers. In this case, the cache was only meant to be found by someone with sufficient skill and determination. By the D/T rating alone, I would see that this one was not meant to be found by the P&G crowd. I'm betting it is that same entitlement based P&G crowd who made the initial claims that the cache "must not exist", starting the chain of events.

I didn't say that every cache is meant to be found by everybody. I didn't even say that you can't make a cache that is extremely difficult to find. My point is that when you hide a cache you expect that someone will eventually find it. If it goes unfound a long time and people are posting DNFs at some time you have to rethink how you've put together your hide. Should you add a hint? Should you modify the cammo slightly so the cache is still hard to find but no longer impossible? Or do you declare victory that you fooled everyone and reveal the secret of your hide? I don't think there should be a specific guideline of how many DNFs you get or how long the cache goes unfound, but I to think that cache owners who hide super difficult hides ought to think about how they are going to respond when people begin to doubt the cache ever existed.
Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Remember, appearances can be decieving.

It is only true if importance is directly proportional to actually posting to the thread.

Ok 9.

 

I think it obvious that the vast conspiratorial theories raging about in this thread are only held by a few.

 

I think all the answers that matter are found on page 1.

Link to comment

Am I the only only one not understanding the time line here?

 

This shows a time stamp of 5:24am of SF sending an appeal to GS.

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

 

But here, he says he pulled it 3.5 hours before he sent the appeal.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

 

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Briansnat, you can't even begin to guess how many people are merely watching, how many truy care and don't post or even visit the forums. It's been said plenty of times in the forums that the forums only represent a very small percentage of cachers.

 

Best to stick to the facts...

Link to comment

Am I the only only one not understanding the time line here?

 

This shows a time stamp of 5:24am of SF sending an appeal to GS.

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

 

But here, he says he pulled it 3.5 hours before he sent the appeal.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

 

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

 

I don't know, maybe you should start another inquisition... :lol::)

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Briansnat, you can't even begin to guess how many people are merely watching, how many truy care and don't post or even visit the forums. It's been said plenty of times in the forums that the forums only represent a very small percentage of cachers.

 

Best to stick to the facts...

 

And for every one of them there are probably 20 who don't care, or simply don't believe it is any of their business.

Link to comment

Am I the only only one not understanding the time line here?

 

This shows a time stamp of 5:24am of SF sending an appeal to GS.

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

 

But here, he says he pulled it 3.5 hours before he sent the appeal.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

 

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

 

I don't know, maybe you should start another inquisition... :lol::)

 

Just another inconsistency in the CO's story. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Briansnat, you can't even begin to guess how many people are merely watching, how many truy care and don't post or even visit the forums. It's been said plenty of times in the forums that the forums only represent a very small percentage of cachers.

 

Best to stick to the facts...

 

And for every one of them there are probably 20 who don't care, or simply don't believe it is any of their business.

 

So, your best idea of an approach would be to dismiss the concern of potentially thousands of customers? Is this a good business practice?

Link to comment

Am I the only only one not understanding the time line here?

 

This shows a time stamp of 5:24am of SF sending an appeal to GS.

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

 

But here, he says he pulled it 3.5 hours before he sent the appeal.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

 

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

 

I don't know, maybe you should start another inquisition... :lol::)

 

Just another inconsistency in the CO's story. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

 

Could have had the date wrong, could have been the next day or whatever. Since we won't know, what difference does it make? Don't get caught up in what might be nothing.

Link to comment
There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

It actually appears to be important to about 8 people

 

Please do not discount those of us that are long time members that usually refrain from posting...

Or the locals who seemed to be enjoying it and also don't post in these forums.

 

It is interesting that while several locals have expressed their disappointment, not one has come here to say "Good riddance".

Link to comment

Am I the only only one not understanding the time line here?

 

This shows a time stamp of 5:24am of SF sending an appeal to GS.

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

 

But here, he says he pulled it 3.5 hours before he sent the appeal.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

 

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

 

I don't know, maybe you should start another inquisition...

 

Just another inconsistency in the CO's story. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

 

Could have had the date wrong, could have been the next day or whatever. Since we won't know, what difference does it make? Don't get caught up in what might be nothing.

That's right, take facts stated by the cache owner and dismiss them since they don't line up with the side you have been defending this whole thread.

 

I'm glad police "don't get caught up in what might be nothing" when investigating. When details don't match up, they just let that stuff go.

Link to comment

That's right, take facts stated by the cache owner and dismiss them since they don't line up with the side you have been defending this whole thread.

 

I'm glad police "don't get caught up in what might be nothing" when investigating. When details don't match up, they just let that stuff go.

 

You've been posting like a rabid prosecutor and you want to preach to me how I should look at the facts? Who's facts are they? The CO could have easily made a typo, let's keep that in mind before we line up the firing squad...OK? I'm not defending the CO, nor do I pretend to know the facts in this case.

 

Truly, whether or not the CO had a cache there or not is of little concern to me at this point. We already know this is never going to be addressed by the PTB, so whether or not the CO is lying really isn't at issue at this point. What IS at issue is how the situation was handled and how will future situations be handled.

Link to comment

That's right, take facts stated by the cache owner and dismiss them since they don't line up with the side you have been defending this whole thread.

 

I'm glad police "don't get caught up in what might be nothing" when investigating. When details don't match up, they just let that stuff go.

 

You've been posting like a rabid prosecutor and you want to preach to me how I should look at the facts? Who's facts are they? The CO could have easily made a typo, let's keep that in mind before we line up the firing squad...OK? I'm not defending the CO, nor do I pretend to know the facts in this case.

 

Truly, whether or not the CO had a cache there or not is of little concern to me at this point. We already know this is never going to be addressed by the PTB, so whether or not the CO is lying really isn't at issue at this point. What IS at issue is how the situation was handled and how will future situations be handled.

I want this next line to come across like I would say it, as slowly as possible, not sure how to type that in but I'll try.

 

Every, single, one, of, your, posts, defends, the, cache, owner.

 

Read this thread again and you will notice my stand shift from, "What's the big deal?" Take a picture send it to GS or re-list it, completely supporting the CO. To learning new facts, reading the CO posts in his other caches. That's the difference. I learn new things process the information, come to a new conclusion. You stand by your first position without regard to new information. Sounds like blind faith to me, you worshiping SF or TDE or who ever he wants to be today?

Link to comment

That's right, take facts stated by the cache owner and dismiss them since they don't line up with the side you have been defending this whole thread.

 

I'm glad police "don't get caught up in what might be nothing" when investigating. When details don't match up, they just let that stuff go.

 

You've been posting like a rabid prosecutor and you want to preach to me how I should look at the facts? Who's facts are they? The CO could have easily made a typo, let's keep that in mind before we line up the firing squad...OK? I'm not defending the CO, nor do I pretend to know the facts in this case.

 

Truly, whether or not the CO had a cache there or not is of little concern to me at this point. We already know this is never going to be addressed by the PTB, so whether or not the CO is lying really isn't at issue at this point. What IS at issue is how the situation was handled and how will future situations be handled.

I want this next line to come across like I would say it, as slowly as possible, not sure how to type that in but I'll try.

 

Every, single, one, of, your, posts, defends, the, cache, owner.

 

Read this thread again and you will notice my stand shift from, "What's the big deal?" Take a picture send it to GS or re-list it, completely supporting the CO. To learning new facts, reading the CO posts in his other caches. That's the difference. I learn new things process the information, come to a new conclusion. You stand by your first position without regard to new information. Sounds like blind faith to me, you worshiping SF or TDE or who ever he wants to be today?

 

You are soooo wrong...slow enough? I have stood by what the FACTS say, regardless if this is supporting the CO or not has no bearing. If GS put out proof otherwise, I would STILL be defending the prinicple of the matter (what I am standing against), which is how they handled the situation.

 

I quit defending the CO a long time back, but some of you can't see the difference because you're too busy stringing up the ropes. Maybe you should read this thread again and just maybe you'd understand the difference?

 

btw...your continued snide remarks, your belittling posts, your attitude...these take away from ANY credibility you may wish to have...just saying.

 

You snoop around like a gumshoe detective, pretend you can use that info to form a reasonable conclusion which, btw, is merely a new way to string up the CO...all while most of us have moved on to being where we stand now. When you get over the attempts to rail the CO, you may be able to actually see the direction this thread has taken.

Link to comment
So, your best idea of an approach would be to dismiss the concern of potentially thousands of customers? Is this a good business practice?

But since they're not posting here we don't know for sure how they feel. The only facts about how people think are known about the few that have actually been posting to this thread. So lets stick to the facts, shall we?

 

Since we won't know how the "potential thousands" of customers feel, what difference does it make? Don't get caught up in what might be nothing.

Link to comment

 

I'm not defending the CO, nor do I pretend to know the facts in this case.

 

 

Really? Could have fooled me on both accounts.

 

Why don't we all just go out caching?

 

Go caching, have a good time. Since I have practically no gas, no money and am on unemployment at the time, I think I'll spend my time saving what little I have! Wish I could go caching, but if it's OK with you, I'll sit here.

 

btw...what are YOU doing in front of YOUR computer? If you truly feel as you say, shouldn't you be in the fields right now? :lol:

Link to comment

 

You snoop around like a gumshoe detective, pretend you can use that info to form a reasonable conclusion which, btw, is merely a new way to string up the CO...all while most of us have moved on to being where we stand now. When you get over the attempts to rail the CO, you may be able to actually see the direction this thread has taken.

 

The same can be said for your continued attacks at TPTB. You keep wanting to think that there is some massive conspiracy and that you have the total right to know exactly what happened, which there isn't and you don't. Paying customers or not, GS is a private entity and can do what they want without explaining their actions. They aren't the police or a governmental agency that might have to do the same thing.

 

If this is such a big problem for you, and you feel that GS has done such a huge wrong to the community, then I suggest you try another service. It is clear to me at least, the GS cannot fulfill your needs.

Link to comment
btw...your continued snide remarks, your belittling posts, your attitude...these take away from ANY credibility you may wish to have...just saying.

Like these snide remarks, belittling posts, and attitude for example?

 

You are soooo wrong...slow enough?
some of you can't see the difference because you're too busy stringing up the ropes.
You snoop around like a gumshoe detective....

 

... just sayin'.

Link to comment

 

I'm not defending the CO, nor do I pretend to know the facts in this case.

 

 

Really? Could have fooled me on both accounts.

 

Why don't we all just go out caching?

 

Go caching, have a good time. Since I have practically no gas, no money and am on unemployment at the time, I think I'll spend my time saving what little I have! Wish I could go caching, but if it's OK with you, I'll sit here.

 

btw...what are YOU doing in front of YOUR computer? If you truly feel as you say, shouldn't you be in the fields right now? :lol:

 

Have to be at work very shortly, researching stuff for work. Priorities, priorities...

Link to comment
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying:

 

(1) Normally I would agree with you KBI, because what goes on between a cache hider and TPTB is none of my business – except that ...

(2) ... in this case, a reviewer publicly implied something bad about the cache hider.

 

Is that right?

You've got the gist of it.

Groundspeak's primary stated reason for not revealing that Oz's wizard is just an old man behind a curtain is their claim of privacy concerns. Without even touching on the fact that they've ignored those concerns in the past, when it suited them, there are still two factors which would warrant at least some clarification from TPTB:

 

1 ) Their agent decided to make it public. (at least the negative aspect)

 

2 ) Super Fly waived his "right" to privacy.

 

If that still doesn't make sense, then all I can do is apologise for my inability to aptly communicate.

 

If you’re going to "stick to what’s known," then, you might want to reconsider item number five on your list.

I think you are right. A more accurate # 5 would say "Super Fly claimed he complied with that request".

This could certainly all be a huge fraud, perpetuated by SF, as I have stated many times. I don't think anyone in here has argued against that possibility. My arguments have little to do with whether or not the cache was ever in place. In this, I gotta agree with Chad's pal. The only person who truly knows the truth is Super Fly himself. Everything else, (from Nomex's belief, to Groundspeak's, to ours), must be speculation. My arguments are directed more at the actions of Nomex. He disabled a cache, citing a nonexistent guideline violation. That was strike one in my book. Then he archived the cache after the owner claimed to do precisely what he asked him to do. That's strike two. In making the second strike, Nomex called Super Fly a liar. That's strike three. Each of these acts, taken individually, should be enough to cause Groundspeak some manner of concern, since he was committing them in their name, under their authority. Taken together, they far exceed any possible definition of professional behavior, and at a minimum, should warrant some sort of castigation from Groundspeak. Instead, Groundspeak fully supports the acts of this reviewer. :lol:

 

Had the owner contacted the reviewer he may found out what evidence he could provide to show there was a cache to find.

True. Had the reviewer even so much as hinted that he needed some measure of proof, (which is a request I've never seen in all the time I've been reading logs), this might very well have had a different outcome. Since Nomex refuses to explain his actions, we can only speculate on why, if he wanted proof, he didn't ask for proof. Rather than asking for proof, (which may have required some editing of his copy/paste reviewer notes... which we've seen he doesn't mind doing), Nomex asked SF to check his cache, disabling it, while citing a nonexistent guideline. While I agree that a reviewer needs to be able to exercise their discretion, acting on what information they have on hand, without TPTB constantly looking over their shoulder, should that freedom extend to making false guidelines claims and intentionally insulting customers? From a public relations perspective, those actions seem like abuse. Yet Groundspeak chooses to support the abuse... :)

 

Nomex's behavior appears inexplicable. When a reviewer goes off the reservation, so to speak, and is then supported by his bosses, everyone who chooses to hide challenging caches should be worried.

Link to comment
Why don't we all just go out caching?

Good plan! Since this thread started, I've found 9 geocaches, 1 terracache and had one DNF.

It was fun! That's why I like this game. :lol:

Incidentally, the caches I've found did not detract from my concern over this incident.

So, while proclaiming "Let's Go Caching" is always a welcome suggestion, it might not serve as a solution.

Link to comment

I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag! :lol:

Link to comment
If you’re going to "stick to what’s known," then, you might want to reconsider item number five on your list.

I think you are right. A more accurate # 5 would say "Super Fly claimed he complied with that request".

Fair enough. Just trying to help keep this thing logical.

 

And I also welcome you to return the favor and correct me anytime you find me presenting unjustifiable assumptions as 'known' facts. :lol:

Link to comment
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying:

 

(1) Normally I would agree with you KBI, because what goes on between a cache hider and TPTB is none of my business – except that ...

(2) ... in this case, a reviewer publicly implied something bad about the cache hider.

 

Is that right?

You've got the gist of it.

Groundspeak's primary stated reason for not revealing that Oz's wizard is just an old man behind a curtain is their claim of privacy concerns. Without even touching on the fact that they've ignored those concerns in the past, when it suited them, there are still two factors which would warrant at least some clarification from TPTB:

 

1 ) Their agent decided to make it public. (at least the negative aspect)

So? Don’t reviewers always post an explanation when they archive a cache under their reviewer authority? How would it have not been public? Nomex presumably posted as much info as he thought was appropriate, as reviewers are known to do. I see nothing ominous here.

 

2 ) Super Fly waived his "right" to privacy.

Did he? In a meaningfully legal sense, I mean? Would SuperFly’s "waiver," as it appears in this forum, be enough to protect Groundspeak in a court of law?

 

You work a lot closer to legal stuff than I do so maybe you know something I don’t, but if I were one of TPTB I would be very uncomfortable with the thought of holding that so-called waiver up as a shield between me and a bunch of hungry lawyers. Easier just to stick to the company’s stated privacy policy.

 

If that still doesn't make sense, then all I can do is apologise for my inability to aptly communicate.

It makes perfect sense – but you still didn’t answer my question:

 

So what if the owner of the listing was publicly accused of something bad? How does that entitle you – or me, or anyone else – to any more information than we have now? How does that make it your business? Or mine?

 

... I just don’t see how that fact entitles you to private information.

Link to comment
Since Nomex refuses to explain his actions, we can only speculate on why, if he wanted proof, he didn't ask for proof. Rather than asking for proof, (which may have required some editing of his copy/paste reviewer notes... which we've seen he doesn't mind doing), Nomex asked SF to check his cache, disabling it, while citing a nonexistent guideline. While I agree that a reviewer needs to be able to exercise their discretion, acting on what information they have on hand, without TPTB constantly looking over their shoulder, should that freedom extend to making false guidelines claims and intentionally insulting customers? From a public relations perspective, those actions seem like abuse. Yet Groundspeak chooses to support the abuse... :lol:

 

Nomex's behavior appears inexplicable. When a reviewer goes off the reservation, so to speak, and is then supported by his bosses, everyone who chooses to hide challenging caches should be worried.

You make a compelling case for questioning Nomex's actions.

 

Maybe he used poor judgment, maybe he didn’t. But without the rest of the facts – and it is clear to all of us that there is MUCH more about this story that is hidden – we have only two choices: (1) toss around wild and worthless speculations which do nothing but fuel gossip and rumor, or (2) ignore it as being none of our business.

 

As to whether "everyone who chooses to hide challenging caches should be worried," I need more than one data point to counter the consistently fair and reasonable reputation I've observed from Groundspeak before I pick up a protest sign.

 

If this kind of mystery archival starts happening on a weekly basis I’ll grab my pitchfork and riot right along with you. Until then I’m not concerned.

Link to comment

Let me sum up my objection to your argument a little more succinctly, CR. (I'm working on improving my brevity. Really, I am.)

 

When you say this ...

 

I don't think that this issue is strictly between TPTB and Super Fly. Nomex decided to involve the rest of us when he opted to post a decidedly negative post on the cache page. A post which he deliberately edited to enhance the negative impact. ...

 

... Nomex decided to involve the rest of us with that post. By standing behind Nomex's slanderous post, Groundspeak also decided to involve the rest of us. Claiming they can't discuss it further because of privacy concerns, (which Super Fly already waived), is nothing more than wagon circling.

 

... it sounds, to me anyway, like you’re saying this ...

 

"Nomex made what appears to be an unjustified and uncomplimentary accusation against SuperFly, therefore I, Clan Riffster, am rightfully entitled to ALL the dirty details."

 

... and that is a premise-conclusion association which I have not yet been convinced to accept.

Link to comment

We could cite possibilities all day.

 

I'd rather stick to what's known.

 

1 ) A cache was published with the presumption that it was in place.

 

2 ) It was listed as a high difficulty hide.

 

3 ) The owner posted several notes indicating that he had checked the cache.

 

4 ) Nomex disabled the cache, asking the CO to check it.

 

5 ) The CO complied, checking on the cache.

 

6 ) Nomex archived it, stating that the cache had not been in place for months/years.

 

7 ) Another cacher posted this to these forums.

 

8 ) The CO waived his privacy concerns, asking for an explanation.

 

9 ) Groundspeak has refused to offer a detailed explanation.

 

 

Anyone have the cache listing on their watchlist while the correspondence was taking place. It would be interesting to see the time stamp between Nomex's 10/4 disabled log and Super Fly's 10/4 enable log.

 

This might shed some light on how factual item #5 might be.

Link to comment

I maintain that one of two things needs to happen:

 

1) TPTB need to clarify the (apparently unwritten) policy that Nomex was acting under.

 

OR

 

2) Nomex should be disciplined/let go/chastised, whatever...

 

While I don't think that option 2 needs to take place in public, SF should receive an apology that was at least as public as the infraction.

 

If TPTB are standing by Nomex because of information that is not available to the general public, that's certainly within their rights. However, a policy clarifcation about the determination of non-existent caches should still be made.

Link to comment
... it sounds, to me anyway, like you’re saying this ...

 

"Nomex made what appears to be an unjustified and uncomplimentary accusation against SuperFly, therefore I, Clan Riffster, am rightfully entitled to ALL the dirty details."

Almost. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. What I feel I'm saying is that the primary reason cited by Groundspeak for the wagon circling lacks merit. If you don't want to tell me something, simply say so. Don't hide behind claims of privacy. I don't feel that my desire for information equals entitlement. If you feel differently, we'll have to respectfully disagree on that point. I feel I have presented reasonable arguments for why TPTB should desist in their silence, however I recognise that none of these reasons rises to the level of compulsion. I acknowledge that there is nothing I can do that can force Groundspeak to reveal the truth behind this incident. However, I do not believe that knowing this means I can't ask. I would like to know what has happened. The CO has given permission for TPTB to tell me what happened. I'm not seeing this as a legal issue. Honestly, I don't think Groundspeak sees it that way either, despite their claims. Groundspeak owns these forums, and has the authority to disclose quite a bit, without worrying about someone filing suit. If they were to post something to the effect of, "Clan Riffster's real identity is John Smith. He lives at 123 Main St. Orlando Fl. 32820. His phone number is 407-123-4567. His e-mail is OleFatCrippledGuy @smellyhat .com" I could see where they would be putting themselves in jeopardy. But those of us who are asking, aren't asking for that degree of revelation. We'd be happy with something to the effect of, "Prior to disabling your cache, Nomex sent you an e-mail asking that you show proof of your hide. You refused to do this. In MissJenn's reply, she mentioned your refusal, yet you edited that out of what you posted". Something along those lines violates no privacy laws.

 

Like parishioners in a church, whose Friar is accused of being caught with his bejeweled hand in the cookie jar, the responses from the onlookers will be varied. Some will gnash their teeth, shouting at the heavens, proclaiming that these are the end days, and will hide under the shrubbery in anticipation of a quad of sword bearing equestrians. Others will staunchly defend the Friar, espousing that, as a man of God, he should be assumed to be virtuous, boldly declaring that anyone who has the temerity to question the Friar has sinned. Others will quietly ask, "Hey guys, what's going on?", and will be concerned when the Church refuses to offer any explanation for the cookie crumbs under the Friar's finger nails.

 

(There will be many other groups, and subgroups, which this example does not cover)

 

While this may be a conceit, I see myself in the third group.

 

What you call entitlement, I call curiosity, mixed with concern.

Link to comment
I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag! :lol:

Interesting that you're pointing out "abusive and irrational," but not saying that SF lists caches that aren't there. I was just about to reply to another local above when I read this post. Two locals. Two different experiences.

Link to comment
SF has some other caches out there that are really hard to find and/or really hard to solve.

I've solved and found a few, but there are many more that I haven't solved or been able to find yet.

I am still searching for one of his less than a mile from my home, and plan on continuing to search for it, even though my eyes tell me nothing is there. I feel frustrated that GS has left an open accusation of SF being deceptive about one cache hide, and will not share any of their line of reasoning. If I believe GS in this case (without parameters and proof) I can quickly fall into the trap of doubting other SF's caches.

 

I choose to believe SF actually placed and checked containers for his active caches, and will leave this weird and unique situation as an anomaly in an otherwise orderly caching world.

A pretty sound and reasoned response from someone who is neither Groundspeak or the cache owner, yet is directly affected by what has gone on. I really like the point whether you say that now Groundspeak is placing doubt in your mind that SF's other yet-to-be-found caches actually exist.

Link to comment
What you call entitlement, I call curiosity, mixed with concern.

Fair enough. Good clarification. Thanks.

 

... But those of us who are asking, aren't asking for that degree of revelation. We'd be happy with something to the effect of, "Prior to disabling your cache, Nomex sent you an e-mail asking that you show proof of your hide. You refused to do this. In MissJenn's reply, she mentioned your refusal, yet you edited that out of what you posted". Something along those lines violates no privacy laws.

They have already done exactly what you are asking – but maybe you missed it among the 15 pages of noise.

 

They have already explained that it is a "sensitive situation." Indirectly, at least. Wooden Cyclist asked a reviewer via email. The reviewer answered Wooden Cyclist via email. Wooden Cyclist made the answer public, and the post has been allowed to stand:

 

One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him ....

 

".... In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page."

There are obviously privacy concerns, and they are being dealt with appropriately ... and they are also none of our business. There is your explanation. What else do you need, CR?

 

It’s not a trend; it’s just a curious one-off oddity. I see no reason to get upset with your Bejeweled Friar at this point – this is a Friar who we all know to be a good guy, even if he is fallible at times like the rest of us.

 

So why are you so suspicious? Do you know something else about Groundspeak, or about Nomex, that you’re not telling us?

Link to comment
I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag! :lol:

Interesting that you're pointing out "abusive and irrational," but not saying that SF lists caches that aren't there.

You, CoyoteRed, make a regular habit of disparaging a person’s general character in place of discussing specific statements and/or actions. I know; I’ve been at the brunt of your 'debate' tactic dozens of times.

 

So if it is a valid argument when you do it, how is it an INvalid argument when WHO-DEY does it? :)

Link to comment

At some point I decided to take a break from this thread -- how much more can be said about it? -- but it seems that I have not missed anything.

 

I continue to think that the whole thing could be settled very easy. All that Groundspeak has to do is to clarify that their policy is to contact the cache owner with their specific questions or concerns before a cache is archived or as part of their investigation in response to an appeal. That seems like a sensible course of action for any company to take. It seems fair. It seems reasonable. But if the correspondence that SF/TDE provided is as complete as he has stated, communication broke down along the way and the cache was archived and the decision was investigated without making him aware of the specific complaint.

 

I am sure Miss Jenn is a dedicated staff member. I have nothing but the highest respect for Nomex as a reviewer -- he has always been very conscientious and helpful. In one case in particular he helped resolve a problem with Groundspeak that was raised concerning one cache in our community, a beautifully done cache that was in danger of being permanently archived. I don't know SF/TDE, but there is nothing to indicate that his version of the communication he had with Groundspeak is not correct. However, at this point it does not have to be an either/or situation or something personal that could never be resolved on these forums in any event.

 

Groundspeak will either clarify their policy or procedures or not (which can be done without revealing private information, something that SF/TDE has waived in any event). Given that we are almost 750 posts into this thread, it appears not. It does not seem to be a matter that comes up that often so perhaps they have nothing to gain by stepping into this thread.

 

All my interactions with reviewers, including Nomex, have resulted in better caches and communication has never been a problem. Reviewers have asked me to clarify one or two things about some of my caches before they have been published and I have spoken with one on the phone to resolve at least one question. In other ways, they have taken a more hands off approach -- I could not get one (not Nomex) interested in checking on a cache that was placed a significant distance behind barbed wire on property that was posted with "no trespassing" signs. But with the number of caches approaching a million, the system is generally working well. Some things might fall through the cracks. This appears to have been one of them. If Groundspeak does not want to clarify their procedure, then I am not sure what can be debated.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

 

Groundspeak will either clarify their policy or procedures or not (which can be done without revealing private information, something that SF/TDE has waived in any event). Given that we are almost 750 posts into this thread, it appears not. It does not seem to be a matter that comes up that often so perhaps they have nothing to gain by stepping into this thread.

 

Why clarify the policies or procedures any more than they already are? They seem pretty black/white to me.

 

GS has no reason to step into this thread. What is going on should be between SF and GS and the Reviewer. Wooden Cyclist brought this into the public by posting this here. Perhaps he is one of SF's cronies? Perhaps not. But what is sure is that this is simply an anomaly. I know of several caches in my home area that have yet to be found, one of which is going on three years this way. Simply put, it's time for the villagers to put the torches and pitchforks away for a more worthwhile cause.

 

Like micros in the middle of the woods, perhaps?

Link to comment

It seems there are several points that bother posters, and not all points bother all equally. Thus the thread will go on and on, with a lot of apples and oranges arguments.

 

I will say, for me, I'm not real concerned with this setting a new trend on hard to find caches. It will take more than one incident for that.

 

I really don't know, nor do I care, whether Superfly or the reviewer where lying or telling the truth. I'm not too concerned myself if the cache was there or not.

 

Everyone is seeing this different. However; the part that does bother me, and really bothers me, is the reviewer changing the standard form response to add the word years. Thereby knowingly indicating the CO is a liar in a format he cannot defend himself from.

 

I have always had the greatest respect for Groundspeak and the reviewers, this has make me wonder if that respect is due. It does not matter if a person is a liar or not, that is a reflection on them. However, to indicate someone is such, in public, then not allow the person to defend themselves is rude and inconsiderate.

 

I don't care how you cut it, the reviewer was wrong to do this. IMHO :lol::)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...