Geocacher attitude

[+Frank Broughton]

I think it's the safety of anonymity. Sadly, it brings out humans' true colors. I've noticed it with Facebook too. People who are sweet in person are kind of snarky on FB. Perhaps they're forgetting they are going to each other in person eventually. The internet does odd things to people.

 

No animinity on Facebook, you use your real name. None for me here either. That is not the issue. We are a grand dissection of all walks of life. We are humans and all have mind filters - we see things through "our" eyes. The only problem I see here is that some of us talk too much. Snarly, sarcastic oneupmanship- so what. Put it in proper perspective - we are ALL different. Do not take anything personal and one will fit in just fine here. Snoogans nailed it!

[knowschad]

I personally like it when people disagree with me. I never learned much from anyone that always agreed with me.

I agree 100%! Er... Uh... Wait. No I don't!

 

I agree 110%. So there!

[+ventura_kids]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides. There is some entertainment value to the micro-world of the forums....and sometimes....albeit rarely...I learn something of value.

 

 

In order to NOT get anyone a time out for personal attacks,... please replace the word "I" with the phrase " a geocacher I know". Thanks.

[+Frank Broughton]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

[knowschad]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

You both freely admit to trolling here, huh? Ummm... OK.

[+Team Pixos]

A geochacher I know (lol) was caching in an area away from home base. One co with hundreds of hides had on each cache page in BOLD letters either sign log or online find would be deleted. The geocacher I know (lol) thought he must have a pretty lame life to be able to sit there and reconcile all the manual logs to online logs. Shrug to each their own.

[+Frank Broughton]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

You both freely admit to trolling here, huh? Ummm... OK.

 

Ain't no fish here - just dogs.... I like eating fish not dogs! Yellow pike are awesome to eat!

[+TheBearPack]

No animinity on Facebook, you use your real name. None for me here either.

 

ETA: NM. Didn't know you were just trolling. Carry on.

Edited September 14, 2011 by TheBearPack

[+Frank Broughton]

I do not just state stuff to stir.... just deflect.... just trying to stick to my motto!

Edited September 14, 2011 by Frank Broughton

[+germanybert]

There are all kinds of people geocaching. Some are people I like to be around others are not. What I have found are most are friendly but there are a few that IMHO beleive they are superior for one reason or the other. People like this I just try to ignore....though sometimes it may be difficult.

 

I agree with the OP though. Some people on here do have quite an attitude and appear to love being in control. I tend to ignore these people also.

[+S&SLaird]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

 

With that being said I really don't care if you sign it or not as long as you put it back in the same condition and location that you found it. And please don't throw your expired coupons and other garbage in as swag. I don't get into the swag thing much but my grandkids do and I hate seeing the disappointment of their faces when all they find are scraps of paper and no little toys to trade.

 

But if you don't want to sign the log thats on you but beware of the Geo-cops and their devotion to enforcing all the rules.

[+Frank Broughton]

I agree with the OP though. Some people on here do have quite an attitude and appear to love being in control. I tend to ignore these people also.

 

May I ask, how do you see it that people here are in "control" or need to be - how is that displayed?

[+Q10]

Okay, we've been caching for around six years, we've cached in the western states, Canada and a little in Mexico, we've met lots of geocachers in the field and at events and have almost always found them to be really nice. So why is there so much attitude on the forums? I freely admit, that maybe it's my perspective, but it just seems that there are a lot of folks who worry too much about how others play the game. Okay, so you sign every single log, and don't count a find unless you can physically sign the log, what does it matter if someone else sees the cache, has their hand on the cache, but doesn't feel the need to sign the log? I don't ever trade swag, so what difference does it make if I open the container or not? We cache because we enjoy it, it's not work, we equally enjoy urban caching as well as nice hikes in the woods, some days we do 2, some days we do 30. But I've read so many posts on the forums, where people seem to be judging others for caching "for the numbers", or just doing urban micros, again, who cares? Is a day spent caching in a big city hunting wicked nanos somehow less than a day spent hiking 15 miles to pick up a cache or two?

 

I'm just venting, we love the sport, and now that we're retired we cache most days, and since we live in our motor home, we cache somewhere new constantly. We so appreciate all the people who take the time and effort to place caches, good and bad, because what I think is a "stupid" cache, some one else might call a favorite. Let's enjoy caching and not try to dictate how others cache. Just my two cents.

 

You just made my day. Thanks a lot - so wisely written.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

No they don't. The closest you can get is that the guidelines tell cache owners to delete bogus logs. Cache owners may chose to use whether or not a the physical log is signed to help determine if the online log is bogus. I don't believe this should be the only thing the cache owner should use to determine whether the log is bogus, but some owners chose to ignore other evidence and rely only on the physical log.

 

But if you don't want to sign the log thats on you but beware of the Geo-cops and their devotion to enforcing all the rules.

Not Geo-cops enforcing rules since there is no rule saying that you have to sign the physical log in order to log a find online. I use a different name for cache owners who chose to delete online find log solely based on this one piece of evidence.

[+GeoBain]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

 

No they don't. The closest you can get is that the guidelines tell cache owners to delete bogus logs. Cache owners may chose to use whether or not a the physical log is signed to help determine if the online log is bogus. I don't believe this should be the only thing the cache owner should use to determine whether the log is bogus, but some owners chose to ignore other evidence and rely only on the physical log.

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Once TPTB chose that wording to rule out ALRs, they solidified the belief that you MUST sign the physical logbook.

 

It doesn't matter that is doesn't really say that. You are stuck explaining it every time the "rules" get quoted or just let it go.

 

I know which you will choose.

[+S&SLaird]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

No they don't. The closest you can get is that the guidelines tell cache owners to delete bogus logs. Cache owners may chose to use whether or not a the physical log is signed to help determine if the online log is bogus. I don't believe this should be the only thing the cache owner should use to determine whether the log is bogus, but some owners chose to ignore other evidence and rely only on the physical log.

 

But if you don't want to sign the log thats on you but beware of the Geo-cops and their devotion to enforcing all the rules.

Not Geo-cops enforcing rules since there is no rule saying that you have to sign the physical log in order to log a find online. I use a different name for cache owners who chose to delete online find log solely based on this one piece of evidence.

 

cut and pasted from GC.com

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

Edit the text of your geocache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.

 

Maybe I am totally wrong but it seems to say "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

Not sure what evidence you are talking about or even what you are reading and quoting but this is the information from the website. Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

[+SmallsKC]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

LOL!! I don't normally participate in the drama but love to watch the train wreck unfold. I get a kick out of it.

Edited September 14, 2011 by SmallsKC

[+M 5]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

 

No they don't. The closest you can get is that the guidelines tell cache owners to delete bogus logs. Cache owners may chose to use whether or not a the physical log is signed to help determine if the online log is bogus. I don't believe this should be the only thing the cache owner should use to determine whether the log is bogus, but some owners chose to ignore other evidence and rely only on the physical log.

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Once TPTB chose that wording to rule out ALRs, they solidified the belief that you MUST sign the physical logbook.

 

It doesn't matter that is doesn't really say that. You are stuck explaining it every time the "rules" get quoted or just let it go.

 

I know which you will choose.

 

The ALR wording always the excuse. The guidelines were just changed/updated again recently and that part was left in with additional ALR wording seperate from the part Toz always claims is only aimed at ALR's.

[+hzoi]

I freely admit, that maybe it's my perspective, but it just seems that there are a lot of folks who worry too much about how others play the game. Okay, so you sign every single log, and don't count a find unless you can physically sign the log, what does it matter if someone else sees the cache, has their hand on the cache, but doesn't feel the need to sign the log? I don't ever trade swag, so what difference does it make if I open the container or not? Is a day spent caching in a big city hunting wicked nanos somehow less than a day spent hiking 15 miles to pick up a cache or two?

 

I have to disagree with you on a couple points. (Respectfully, of course.)

 

We started caching in Germany, and the approach to logging in the field is (or at least used to be) much more than just signing a name and the date. Many cachers have designer stickers and custom stamps. (Our stamp looks just like our coin, it's a German license plate with our team name.) And unless it's a micro or a nano, most cachers over there take the time to leave a narrative in the physical log book as well as in the online log. But I guess I can understand perhaps why signing logs might just seem like surplusage -- we moved back to the US in 2009, and for the past couple of years, nearly every time I look at a cache log, it's just a list of names and dates. So if that's all it is in your neck of the woods, I can see where you're coming from. And I also agree that nano logs are a pain. (In fact, I've seen nano log rolling as a competition at more than one caching event.)

 

But even though I can understand why you may not want to bother with signing a log, I disagree with leaving that step out.

 

First, I can think of several caches off the top of my head where the challenge starts at finding the cache container. Whether it's sorting through hundreds of film cans to find the one with the log in it, or whether it's a puzzle box that you have to figure out how to open it to get to the log, finding the box in the woods or wherever is not even half the battle.

 

I recognize that such caches are the exception and not the norm. So, let's look to the listing guidelines. If it's a physical cache, it has to have a log book in it in order to be listed as a geocache on the site. Then, there's the logging guidelines. "Physical geocaches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

I fully recognize that these are "guidelines," not rules or bylaws, and the logging guideline itself has some loophooles -- it doesn't carry the same weight as it would if it said "can only be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." (I'd argue that the ambiguity is in there to cover folks who forgot a pen or whose pen broke, but that's my reading into it.)

 

But the question remains, why must every physical cache contain a log book if there is no need to sign it? According to your profile, you've hidden 15 caches, all physical caches. How many of them lacked a logbook? I'll guess that none did.

[+GeoBain]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

[+S&SLaird]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

 

He probably will but it doesn't change what it says....it says that anything more then signing the log is an ALR and is optional it doesn't say that signing the log is optional.

 

And as I stated before....I could really care less if you sign it or not....aproach Geocaching in your own way.....I was just pointing out that the guidelines currently state in plain english you have to sign physical log and then you can log it online.

 

I don't know what the Lackey that wrote it was thinking but I know what he wrote....if he needs to try to explain it then he needs to rewrite it but until then it is what it is reguardless of how Toz feels about it.

[+tozainamboku]

And as I stated before....I could really care less if you sign it or not....aproach Geocaching in your own way.....

Which pretty much means the issue is moot. The fact is that except for a tiny number of cache owners, most cache owners don't care if you sign the physical log or not, or if they do they will except some alternate proof you found the cache. It doesn't matter what the "rules" say or what anyone's interpretation of the guideline is, the de facto case is that most of the time you don't have to sign the log. Only if you happen to log the cache of some cache owner who insists that if the logbook wasn't signed he must delete your log might your log be deleted. At that time you know this cache owner is a puritan and can chose to ignore their caches in furture (or go back and sign the log).

 

I was just pointing out that the guidelines currently state in plain english you have to sign physical log and then you can log it online.

 

I don't know what the Lackey that wrote it was thinking but I know what he wrote....if he needs to try to explain it then he needs to rewrite it but until then it is what it is reguardless of how Toz feels about it.

That said I will take a short time to explain the meaning of "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

This section of the guidelines did not exist prior to April 3, 2009. It was added as part of the descision by Groundspeak to do away with additional logging requirments (with the exeception of geocaching related challenge caches). The problem was that many caches were listed that had addtional requirements to log an online find - such as "To log a find you must post a picture of yourself at the cache site standing on your head". Groundspeak wanted both finders and and cache owners to know that these requirements were no longer enforceable. The statement simply indicated that once you sign the cache log you can go ahead an log your find online regardless of what it says on the cache page.

 

Now I agree with M5 that the statement could have been worded better. Does it mean that if you don't sign the log the cache owner can stil make you do some silly ALR? Does it mean that if you do sign the log the cache owner must accept your online log regardless of any other issues (spoilers, off-topic, inappropriate, counterfeit signature)? Does it mean that a cache owner can make it a requirement to sign the log (with or without stating this explicitly) in order to log a find? It could mean any or all of these, but in my opinion these weren't the intent. The intent was simply to invalidate any ALRs that were on the cache page.

 

What is clearer is what is doesn't say. It doesn't say you have to sign the log in order to log a find online and it doesn't say that a cache owner must delete online logs if the physical log was not signed.

Edited September 14, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

frankly, your only way to tell if you really found it.

A picture of me at the cache doesn't prove I was there? Nor does an exact description of said cache?

You can find the cache, take it from its hiding place, initial the container with a sharpie pen and rehide it, and many on here will still claim that you didn't find it...trust me on that one!

[+S&SLaird]

I must admit I do enjoy arguing about things that don't really matter but personally I don't really see what the big deal is.

 

I like the numbers and I like really finding the cache and I do sign the log....with the exception of a micro that someone jammed the log into and it was wet so I didn't feel the need to destroy it getting it out.

 

Maybe for someone else Geocaching means getting out of the house and having somewhere to go they may get to GZ and that is it and call it a find so they can keep track of the places they have been. Another my go out and find the cache and come home and post a long log about the simplest of finds while another likes moving trackables and isn't interested in anything that doesn't have one.

 

I think the only valid complaint any of us really should have is the cache that is damaged or missing for months and the CO does nothing about it.....at least archive it so we don't go looking for something that isn't there....or all the unlogged trackables that are out there....if you are going to take it then log it, if not leave it there for some one that will. And as for SWAG I could really care less for myself but my grandkids enjoy all the "treasure" so quit taking it and dropping worthless scraps of paper (like coupons) leave the SWAG for the kids to enjoy. I tend to add SWAG and not take any. My wife enjoys the trackables and I love the statistics.

 

Everyone gets something different out of it....SO LET THEM!!!

[Clan Riffster]

That said I will take a short time to explain the meaning my interpretation of the statement, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." In my rigidly inflexible way, I will insist that my interpretation is the ONE TRUTH, and all other interpretations are from blasphemers. I will then insult those blasphemers by calling them Puritans, in the hopes that the geocaching society will shun them.

Fixed it for ya!

[+GeoBain]

frankly, your only way to tell if you really found it.

A picture of me at the cache doesn't prove I was there? Nor does an exact description of said cache?

You can find the cache, take it from its hiding place, initial the container with a sharpie pen and rehide it, and many on here will still claim that you didn't find it...trust me on that one!

Funny that you mention that. I remember when not only did your team catch hell for that, but you also lost reviewer status over that.

 

Fast forward 5 years or so and the garbage that is allowed on power trails makes that whole incident silly in comparison.

 

But that was back when people cared about caching.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited September 15, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, we've been caching for around six years, we've cached in the western states, Canada and a little in Mexico, we've met lots of geocachers in the field and at events and have almost always found them to be really nice. So why is there so much attitude on the forums? I freely admit, that maybe it's my perspective, but it just seems that there are a lot of folks who worry too much about how others play the game. Okay, so you sign every single log, and don't count a find unless you can physically sign the log, what does it matter if someone else sees the cache, has their hand on the cache, but doesn't feel the need to sign the log? I don't ever trade swag, so what difference does it make if I open the container or not? We cache because we enjoy it, it's not work, we equally enjoy urban caching as well as nice hikes in the woods, some days we do 2, some days we do 30. But I've read so many posts on the forums, where people seem to be judging others for caching "for the numbers", or just doing urban micros, again, who cares? Is a day spent caching in a big city hunting wicked nanos somehow less than a day spent hiking 15 miles to pick up a cache or two?

 

I'm just venting, we love the sport, and now that we're retired we cache most days, and since we live in our motor home, we cache somewhere new constantly. We so appreciate all the people who take the time and effort to place caches, good and bad, because what I think is a "stupid" cache, some one else might call a favorite. Let's enjoy caching and not try to dictate how others cache. Just my two cents.

 

I've read a lot of posts and I'd have to say this is one pile of self-serving duty. "Why do people have an opinion and this is what I think." pppttthhhhh.

 

 

edit: missing the letter s on a word.

edit 2. It needed a raspberry.

Edited September 15, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+OldLog]

Well to be honest there isn't much required by the person that took the time to place the cache and maintain the cache other than you sign the log. Why is that so difficult. If it doesn't matter enough for you to sign the log then why bother to take the time to log the find. Pretty clear rules the cache owner can void the find if the log is not sign. They are not asking anyone to contribute swag etc just be curtious enough to sign the log or don't log the find.

[+Gan Dalf]

 

I've read a lot of posts and I'd have to say this is one pile of self-serving duty. "Why do people have an opinion and this is what I think." pppttthhhhh.

 

 

+1

[knowschad]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

You both freely admit to trolling here, huh? Ummm... OK.

 

Ain't no fish here - just dogs.... I like eating fish not dogs! Yellow pike are awesome to eat!

 

You both just admitted to trolling, Frank. Admit it.

[knowschad]

That said I will take a short time to explain the meaning my interpretation of the statement, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." In my rigidly inflexible way, I will insist that my interpretation is the ONE TRUTH, and all other interpretations are from blasphemers. I will then insult those blasphemers by calling them Puritans, in the hopes that the geocaching society will shun them.

Fixed it for ya!

 

Thank you for that.

[knowschad]

...

 

Ditto.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

 

Ditto.

 

You don't say.

[+Don_J]

The guidelines clearly state that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim the find online.

 

No they don't. The closest you can get is that the guidelines tell cache owners to delete bogus logs. Cache owners may chose to use whether or not a the physical log is signed to help determine if the online log is bogus. I don't believe this should be the only thing the cache owner should use to determine whether the log is bogus, but some owners chose to ignore other evidence and rely only on the physical log.

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Once TPTB chose that wording to rule out ALRs, they solidified the belief that you MUST sign the physical logbook.

 

It doesn't matter that is doesn't really say that. You are stuck explaining it every time the "rules" get quoted or just let it go.

 

I know which you will choose.

 

He is NOT fighting a losing battle. In fact, I have watched a few of the "p" people eventual accept Mr. T's argument.

 

To me, it's pretty simple. There is a cache 25' up a tree in a city park that is east of me. I have walked up to the tree, and I can see the cache. I know for a fact that I will never climb that tree. Cold hard fact is that I don't get to log the cache.

 

Meanwhile, I was driving down the street today and noticed a cache ahead. It turned out to be a center drilled bolt, in a post, with a rolled up wad of mush in it. I didn't sign it but I didn't hesitate to post an online found it log.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

LOL!! I don't normally participate in the drama but love to watch the train wreck unfold. I get a kick out of it.

 

We're not satisfied with simple train wrecks. We back the darn things up and wreck 'em again.

[+Don_J]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

 

Toz and I met tonight to refine his special book of rules. Updates will NOT be forthcoming.

 

Really now, I've been reading, writing and speaking the English language for almost 48 years. "May" means something quite different than "May not".

[+GeoBain]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

 

Toz and I met tonight to refine his special book of rules. Updates will NOT be forthcoming.

 

Really now, I've been reading, writing and speaking the English language for almost 48 years. "May" means something quite different than "May not".

Did you see me disagree with Toz?

[knowschad]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

 

Toz and I met tonight to refine his special book of rules. Updates will NOT be forthcoming.

 

Really now, I've been reading, writing and speaking the English language for almost 48 years. "May" means something quite different than "May not".

Did you see me disagree with Toz?

 

I didn't. Completely missed it. Would you mind doing it again?

[+Frank Broughton]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

You both freely admit to trolling here, huh? Ummm... OK.

 

Ain't no fish here - just dogs.... I like eating fish not dogs! Yellow pike are awesome to eat!

 

You both just admitted to trolling, Frank. Admit it.

 

Okay admit it to the letter of the word but not what some erroneously think it means and have it grown the meaning to mean even. Nothing wrong with deflecting heat in a thread with change of pace thoughts - that is my use many times.

[+Frank Broughton]

...

 

Ditto.

 

You don't say.

 

Riiiiggghhhhhttt!

[+Frank Broughton]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

LOL!! I don't normally participate in the drama but love to watch the train wreck unfold. I get a kick out of it.

 

We're not satisfied with simple train wrecks. We back the darn things up and wreck 'em again.

 

haha - you really did make me laugh out loud with this one!

[+GeoBain]

Do you have in your possession a "special book of rules" can you share it with us. I only have the quidelines as laid out on GC.com, is there another source I can go to and learn more about the guidelines.

 

I predict the next page or so will consist of Toz pointing you to the forum post where the lackey that wrote that "rule" explains how it was meant only to convey that ALR would no longer be allowed.

 

We will then see you and/or others argue ad nauseum about what the lackey really meant.

 

In the end it is clear to some of us that all the rules says is the if your sig is in the logbook, the co can't delete your find. It will be clear to others that it is a hard and fast rule that states a sig MUST be in the logbook.

 

The only people that can really clear it up are Groundspeak lackeys and after what, 3 years now, they have no intention of clarifying that "rule"

 

But it does make for great entertainment.

 

Toz and I met tonight to refine his special book of rules. Updates will NOT be forthcoming.

 

Really now, I've been reading, writing and speaking the English language for almost 48 years. "May" means something quite different than "May not".

Did you see me disagree with Toz?

 

I didn't. Completely missed it. Would you mind doing it again?

Only do it once. Keeps 'em coming back for more.

[+SmallsKC]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides.

 

You are not alone in using that method of entertainment. I have noticed a few other (raises hand too) that do the same thing.....

 

LOL!! I don't normally participate in the drama but love to watch the train wreck unfold. I get a kick out of it.

We're not satisfied with simple train wrecks. We back the darn things up and wreck 'em again.

 

Love It!!! Even better!!!

[+WarNinjas]

I didn't sign one log book as a favor to the CO! There was a guy in a car talking on the phone. He seemed really interested in what I was doing and was in a car facing right at the cache. I looked around until I seen the purple bison tube in the crack of the tree. This guy didn't look like he was going anywhere any time soon. I could have taken it out and back to my car and signed it and then went back and replaced it but I got the feeling that that guy in the car might go check out what I was doing. I would only hope someone finding my cache would do the same and go ahead and log the find with the reason rather then getting it muggled and me having to go back and replace it because the finder felt the need to sign the log for the find. If the CO felt that way I would understand but would think he/she would rather not have it go missing and not have a chance to see if I signed the log or not rather then have me sign it and get it muggled. If I had not seen the bison tube because of the guy there I would not have logged the find of course but I did see it and felt better not giving up the location to a muggler.

-WarNinjas

[+Gan Dalf]

I did see it and felt better not giving up the location to a muggler.

It's muggle. Muggle MUGGLE MUGGLE!!!! Not Muggler.

 

Sorry, that just really bothers me...

[+germanybert]

I did see it and felt better not giving up the location to a muggler.

It's muggle. Muggle MUGGLE MUGGLE!!!! Not Muggler.

 

Sorry, that just really bothers me...

 

Can I call them Mufflers?

[+wildchld97]

I did see it and felt better not giving up the location to a muggler.

It's muggle. Muggle MUGGLE MUGGLE!!!! Not Muggler.

 

Sorry, that just really bothers me...

 

So tell me what's REALLY bothering you? Maybe you should step into my office so we can discuss these issues that you're having with mufflers.

[+Q10]

I'm actually not interested in other peoples opinions.

 

When I enter the forums I'm interested in banter, discussion, and clever debate. I'll normally count the number of cachers on each side of the discussion and side with the underdogs. If it seems they are winning the debate/discussion, I will switch sides. There is some entertainment value to the micro-world of the forums....and sometimes....albeit rarely...I learn something of value.

 

 

In order to NOT get anyone a time out for personal attacks,... please replace the word "I" with the phrase " a geocacher I know". Thanks.

 

Oh, I love this

[Trinity's Crew]

Never mind.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Trinity's Crew