Jump to content

The Oldest Active is back

jellis

By jellis
in General geocaching topics

Followers 8

Recommended Posts

Glenn

+Glenn

Posted
Posted

New container, new spot, obviously placed by somebody that isn't the original owner.

 

Call it Mingo if you like.

It sounds like someone is trying their hardest to keep the listing on Geocaching.com alive instead of keeping the area active. So sad.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

I'm such a detective. The new logbook is made by a surveying supply company, Sokkia. Does this mean anything? Who knows? The person who posted the pictures with their find log claims Mingo as their first and only find. They created the account in 2010, but had no finds on it prior to Mingo. Sock Puppet? Did they put the new cache there?

 

Oh, and IBTL. :ph34r:

Link to comment
jellis

+jellis

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

New container, new spot, obviously placed by somebody that isn't the original owner.

 

Call it Mingo if you like.

Looks like the same spot but dug out removed the mortar. And we still don't know who did it.

 

I think that is what you really meant, isn't it? :)

Yes I did mean remove it, thanks. So it is like it was before the mortar so what is the big deal if someone fixed it back even if not the CO. They didn't dig a new hole. If you see photo it looks like the exact same spot to me.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment
Glenn

+Glenn

Posted
Posted

Looks like a very tidy job. I thought it a bit of a waste of time replacing a cache in such a dull location, but upon seeing the result I've changed my mind.

A bit of a waste of time replacing a cache unless it is what the cache owner wants.

Link to comment
EXMAN

+EXMAN

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm such a detective. The new logbook is made by a surveying supply company, Sokkia. Does this mean anything? Who knows? The person who posted the pictures with their find log claims Mingo as their first and only find. They created the account in 2010, but had no finds on it prior to Mingo. Sock Puppet? Did they put the new cache there?

 

Oh, and IBTL. :ph34r:

Edited by EXMAN
Link to comment
jellis

+jellis

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
A bit of a waste of time replacing a cache unless it is what the cache owner wants.

I doubt KS will retaliate.

I agree,

from his note:

Write note Write note

01/05/2012

 

I will try to get out to Mingo and repair the cache in the next week or so.

 

On a personal note, I think a lot of people are taking geocaching way too serious. This started out as a "hey do you think we could hid something and have someone find it with only a GPS" idea on the news groups. It turned out to be fun and spread. Now we have too many rules and arguments about the size and types of caches, is it the "original" container or not. In my opinion, if you find the location, you can log it on the website (and don't start the virtual cache argument with me). Since this one is getting vandalized so often, you have to make exceptions.

 

Enough of my rant, Mingo will return.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment
cheech gang

+cheech gang

Posted
Posted

I'm such a detective. The new logbook is made by a surveying supply company, Sokkia. Does this mean anything? Who knows? The person who posted the pictures with their find log claims Mingo as their first and only find. They created the account in 2010, but had no finds on it prior to Mingo. Sock Puppet? Did they put the new cache there?

 

Oh, and IBTL. :ph34r:

 

Also the photos entered by the by the guy with one find and the other guy just prior. My CSI friends claim that the shadow on the ground indicates the two photos were taken minutes appart. I don't really know.

Link to comment
jellis

+jellis

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm such a detective. The new logbook is made by a surveying supply company, Sokkia. Does this mean anything? Who knows? The person who posted the pictures with their find log claims Mingo as their first and only find. They created the account in 2010, but had no finds on it prior to Mingo. Sock Puppet? Did they put the new cache there?

 

Oh, and IBTL. :ph34r:

 

Also the photos entered by the by the guy with one find and the other guy just prior. My CSI friends claim that the shadow on the ground indicates the two photos were taken minutes appart. I don't really know.

Probably together and may have started with a friend. Someone had to take the picture.

Link to comment
4wheelin_fool

4wheelin_fool

Posted
Posted

I'm such a detective. The new logbook is made by a surveying supply company, Sokkia. Does this mean anything? Who knows? The person who posted the pictures with their find log claims Mingo as their first and only find. They created the account in 2010, but had no finds on it prior to Mingo. Sock Puppet? Did they put the new cache there?

 

 

Perhaps it's a sock belonging to the person that muggled it and they had a change of heart.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why do I hear Lorne Greene signing in the background?

 

Buried down in the desert sand

It was dug up and stolen by a muggle's hand

Filled with concrete, they left it for dead

But a bison tube was dropped instead

Until somebody came and in Kansas Stasher's name

Saved the life of Mingo

 

(Mingo.... Mingo...)

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

Why do I hear Lorne Greene signing in the background?

 

Buried down in the desert sand

It was dug up and stolen by a muggle's hand

Filled with concrete, they left it for dead

But a bison tube was dropped instead

Until somebody came and in Kansas Stasher's name

Saved the life of Mingo

 

(Mingo.... Mingo...)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

Man, that is going to take lots of whiskey to clear the head tonight!

Link to comment
a-body

+a-body

Posted
Posted

FWIW, I was there this afternoon. From Norvana's birthday party to Mingo with a stop at Go Big Red in Nebraska on the way. The cache is in good shape, and almost too full of swag to get the cover on. I hope this gets enabled soon before a reviewer archives it

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would make sense to me that the replacement being put out without a reactivation indicates that it wasn't replaced by the CO. Let it go.

Yeah think? If I was the CO I would about this time have walked away to let the gods do what ever they please. I would not want to drop the shoe, let Hemlock or Nomex do the deed. Then all I get is a bit of splash when the community gets the pitches the bombs. Moving on to GC12.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment
Glenn

+Glenn

Posted
Posted

It would make sense to me that the replacement being put out without a reactivation indicates that it wasn't replaced by the CO. Let it go.

Yeah think? If I was the CO I would about this time have walked away to let the gods do what ever they please. I would not want to drop the shoe, let Hemlock or Nomex do the deed. Then all I get is a bit of splash when the community gets the pitches the bombs. Moving on to GC12.

I agree. It is one thing if the CO asks someone to maintain his cache for him or even if he transfer ownership to someone else but it is presumptuous to "fix" someone else cache for them without permission. The "preserving history" argument hold no water because the history of a cache has already happened. That's why it is called history.

Link to comment
Andromeda321

+Andromeda321

Posted
Posted

Good.

 

As the CO said in his January note, I don't see what the big deal is and why so many are insistent that this gets archived. If a bunch of people want to go to an isolated spot in Kansas to sign a log because they think it's the oldest listing out there and get joy out of it, who cares? Are they personally hurting you in some way by doing so?

 

Some cachers have way too much time on their hands if you ask me.

Link to comment
Chokecherry

+Chokecherry

Posted
Posted

FWIW, I was there this afternoon. From Norvana's birthday party to Mingo with a stop at Go Big Red in Nebraska on the way. The cache is in good shape, and almost too full of swag to get the cover on. I hope this gets enabled soon before a reviewer archives it

 

You should talk to the cache owner about enabling it. It is on his shoulders and no one else's and from the looks of it he doesn't particularly care.

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

FWIW, I was there this afternoon. From Norvana's birthday party to Mingo with a stop at Go Big Red in Nebraska on the way. The cache is in good shape, and almost too full of swag to get the cover on. I hope this gets enabled soon before a reviewer archives it

 

You should talk to the cache owner about enabling it. It is on his shoulders and no one else's and from the looks of it he doesn't particularly care.

 

If he doesn't particularly care about it, why doesn't he just offer it up for adoption? It sounds to me like a container similar to the original was put in place, at the same location and all it really needs is for someone that *does* care enough about it to keep it maintained and all the drama about Mingo can be put to rest. Yes, it's possible that it'll be muggled again, but, if it is, that's something the new owner can/will deal with.

Link to comment
Chokecherry

+Chokecherry

Posted
Posted

FWIW, I was there this afternoon. From Norvana's birthday party to Mingo with a stop at Go Big Red in Nebraska on the way. The cache is in good shape, and almost too full of swag to get the cover on. I hope this gets enabled soon before a reviewer archives it

 

You should talk to the cache owner about enabling it. It is on his shoulders and no one else's and from the looks of it he doesn't particularly care.

 

If he doesn't particularly care about it, why doesn't he just offer it up for adoption? It sounds to me like a container similar to the original was put in place, at the same location and all it really needs is for someone that *does* care enough about it to keep it maintained and all the drama about Mingo can be put to rest. Yes, it's possible that it'll be muggled again, but, if it is, that's something the new owner can/will deal with.

 

If the cache owner cared about his cache and the "history" behind it I would assume the owner would adopt it instead of just letting it fall into this state of both cache page and cache neglect. From my outside perspective and not particularly caring about his cache (because there will always be an oldest cache)this looks like someone who can't or isn't willing to deal with and the community is putting infinitely more importance on his cache than he does.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

It would make sense to me that the replacement being put out without a reactivation indicates that it wasn't replaced by the CO. Let it go.

 

It was the 1 find sock puppet account, I tell you. They're not fooling me by posting all the pictures and thanking "whoever replaced it". :lol:

 

The video was awesome. I love corny text to youtube videos. Sent to Twitter. Are you going to personally own up to making it, Knowschad? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted

It would make sense to me that the replacement being put out without a reactivation indicates that it wasn't replaced by the CO. Let it go.

 

Call me crazy, but it would make sense to me that the person that replaced the container and said that they replaced the container in their found it log indicates that the CO didn't replace it.

 

Also, sounds like the mortar was chipped out with, I'm assuming, a pointy object.

Link to comment
Totem Clan

+Totem Clan

Posted
Posted

Good.

 

As the CO said in his January note, I don't see what the big deal is and why so many are insistent that this gets archived. If a bunch of people want to go to an isolated spot in Kansas to sign a log because they think it's the oldest listing out there and get joy out of it, who cares? Are they personally hurting you in some way by doing so?

 

Some cachers have way too much time on their hands if you ask me.

That's how I see both sides of this issue. <_<

Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted

Good.

 

As the CO said in his January note, I don't see what the big deal is and why so many are insistent that this gets archived. If a bunch of people want to go to an isolated spot in Kansas to sign a log because they think it's the oldest listing out there and get joy out of it, who cares? Are they personally hurting you in some way by doing so?

 

Some cachers have way too much time on their hands if you ask me.

 

I think more people are insistant that the CO maintain his cache and his cache page than they are that the cache be archived. If the CO has abandoned the cache then the guidelines should be followed. The onus is on the CO.

Link to comment
Totem Clan

+Totem Clan

Posted
Posted

Good.

 

As the CO said in his January note, I don't see what the big deal is and why so many are insistent that this gets archived. If a bunch of people want to go to an isolated spot in Kansas to sign a log because they think it's the oldest listing out there and get joy out of it, who cares? Are they personally hurting you in some way by doing so?

 

Some cachers have way too much time on their hands if you ask me.

 

I think more people are insistant that the CO maintain his cache and his cache page than they are that the cache be archived. If the CO has abandoned the cache then the guidelines should be followed. The onus is on the CO.

Wihtout exceptions!!!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 8
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...