The Oldest Active is back

[+J the Goat]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

[+Castle Mischief]

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 insistent 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!!!

 

The exception is being made right now. There's no need to make further exceptions to satisfy the memory of an ownerless cache and the cool date in some folks' find stats.

 

I'm sure that after a reasonable amount of time in an inactive state, the reviewer (any reviewer) will archive the listing. That's how I'd expect my caches to be treated and that's I'd hope any other would be treated.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

[+Totem Clan]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

Does Kansas have the '3 stikes rule?'

[4wheelin_fool]

It's rather nice to see people in the geocaching community helping out a fellow cacher by fixing their cache.

[knowschad]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

With all these throwdown containers, the place is starting to sound like the Buddy Holly Shrine virtual!

[+J the Goat]

It's rather nice to see people in the geocaching community helping out a fellow cacher by fixing their cache.

 

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here.

[+Glenn]

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.

 

Let me help you a little bit with your quote. Unless you were referring to another January note that I don't see this is his exact text from the cache note.

 

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.

 

I don't see where Kansas Stasher asked anything like "why so many are insistent that this gets archived" or where he talks about it being the "oldest listing out there".

 

He is lamenting the fact that there are more rules now than there were in the beginning and that people seem to spend more time arguing about the rules that enjoying finding geocaching.

 

He does say that "Mingo will return" but he also states "if you find the location, you can log it". If one is going to read anything in to what he has wrote I'd suggest that they also take his current actions or inaction (assuming that he isn't incapacitated in some way) in to consideration. From his statements it seem to me that he feels that it is the location that makes the cache and not the cache listing. He didn't state that the cache listing will return. He said "Mingo will return".

[+Castle Mischief]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

What, really? There was a new container since the decon container? I just figured people were calling the decon the "fixed-up" cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's rather nice to see people in the geocaching community helping out a fellow cacher by fixing their cache.

 

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here.

 

He doesn't want help?

 

Where do you get that from?

 

 

Someone has repeatedly vandalized the cache. Until last summer it has sat peacefully for 11 years without any problems. As geocachers, do we work together to help each other out? Or do we quibble about petty things and try to punish the owner for not maintaining it?

 

Archiving it would make the muggle very happy. They have traveled to the spot 4 times in an obsessive quest to eliminate it. However, everyone is chastising Kansas Stasher for not cleaning up after him. I do see a problem here, and it's not with the cache owner.

[Clan Riffster]

The "preserving history" argument hold no water because the history of a cache has already happened.

Without debating your other points, I did want to touch on this one. Those who would wish to see Mingo continue are not arguing that the history be preserved, specifically. Unless the Groundspeak servers go "Ka-Blooey", Mingo's webpage will still be buried there, somewhere. Rather, they are hopeful that some day they can personally interact with that history. Become a part of it, if you will. Sort of the difference between crawling around a pyramid and looking up pyramids on the Internet. Both will give you data, but one is significantly more appealing to a select group.

 

...and why so many are insistent that this gets archived.

It's a bandwagon. Some folks can't help but hop on every one they see.

 

It's rather nice to see people in the geocaching community helping out a fellow cacher by fixing their cache.

 

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here.

 

He doesn't want help?

 

Where do you get that from?

That did strike me as curious, as it has oft been implied by those who wish for Mingo's demise.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[knowschad]

why so many are insistent that this gets archived.

Please name one posted who is insistent that Mingo gets archived. I don't know of anybody that wants to see it get archived. Not one. There is no "archive Mingo" bandwagon.

[GOF and Bacall]

It is not a bandwagon. At least not for me. I've long said that caches don't need to live forever. And Mingo isn't any different. Unless it can be shown that the hole wasn't filled in because of permission issues I think the cache should be archived and locked. I say locked to prevent it from becoming a zombie cache. Someone has gone to a lot of effort to prevent the replacement of the cache. If it was the land manager or a representative there of it is arrogant and possibly illegal for the cache to be replaced. It is possible that it is not the land manager, but still it should be on the COs shoulders to show it isn't.

[+J the Goat]

It's rather nice to see people in the geocaching community helping out a fellow cacher by fixing their cache.

 

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here.

 

He doesn't want help?

 

Where do you get that from?

 

 

Someone has repeatedly vandalized the cache. Until last summer it has sat peacefully for 11 years without any problems. As geocachers, do we work together to help each other out? Or do we quibble about petty things and try to punish the owner for not maintaining it?

 

Archiving it would make the muggle very happy. They have traveled to the spot 4 times in an obsessive quest to eliminate it. However, everyone is chastising Kansas Stasher for not cleaning up after him. I do see a problem here, and it's not with the cache owner.

 

Maybe my phrasing wasn't correct. KS may or may not want help, but I can't see anywhere he's asked for it. He's also chosen to let the cache go. Really, it's no longer his cache. Somebody else has been putting out throwdowns after the spot was "closed" (I use that term for the lack of a better one I can think of at the moment), somebody else replaced the container for him, and it's still not active.

 

There's no chastising coming from me, I don't see anything the CO has done wrong here. He's chosen to stop maintaining the cache, there were permission issues, and the container disappeared. Over and over again.

 

It doesn't appear that KS wants help, as plenty has been volunteered yet the cache page remains inactive.

 

Special exceptions bother me. It's a cache. An old cache, but it's still a cache. Throwdowns and extended disabled status would have most other caches archived. This one should be no exception. If KS wants to reactivate, then I'm all good with it. Up to this point, that's not the case.

[+Team LegoMINI]

This horse is already putrid with maggots.... But, it is entertaining to read all of the comments. We should all be so lucky to have one of our caches get so much attention ten years later.

[+Ecylram]

It is not a bandwagon. At least not for me. I've long said that caches don't need to live forever. And Mingo isn't any different. Unless it can be shown that the hole wasn't filled in because of permission issues I think the cache should be archived and locked. I say locked to prevent it from becoming a zombie cache. Someone has gone to a lot of effort to prevent the replacement of the cache. If it was the land manager or a representative there of it is arrogant and possibly illegal for the cache to be replaced. It is possible that it is not the land manager, but still it should be on the COs shoulders to show it isn't.

 

Hole was NOT filled in because of permission issues. Kansas DOT, the property owner, looked at the site and said they didn't have any problems with the cache being there.

 

The hole was filled in by a vandal and someone repaired the damage done by the vandal. The cache is now in it's original location with a similar container and log book to the original - even down to the markings on the container. Any finder looking for the cache will find a cache and a log book that match the description on the caches web page. There is no reason to archive the cache as it is in good order.

[+Castle Mischief]

It is not a bandwagon. At least not for me. I've long said that caches don't need to live forever. And Mingo isn't any different. Unless it can be shown that the hole wasn't filled in because of permission issues I think the cache should be archived and locked. I say locked to prevent it from becoming a zombie cache. Someone has gone to a lot of effort to prevent the replacement of the cache. If it was the land manager or a representative there of it is arrogant and possibly illegal for the cache to be replaced. It is possible that it is not the land manager, but still it should be on the COs shoulders to show it isn't.

 

Hole was NOT filled in because of permission issues. Kansas DOT, the property owner, looked at the site and said they didn't have any problems with the cache being there.

 

The hole was filled in by a vandal and someone repaired the damage done by the vandal. The cache is now in it's original location with a similar container and log book to the original - even down to the markings on the container. Any finder looking for the cache will find a cache and a log book that match the description on the caches web page. There is no reason to archive the cache as it is in good order.

 

Well then I guess it's time for the CO to change the status of the cache on the webpage. You know, unless he's abandoned it.

[+Castle Mischief]

Archiving it would make the muggle very happy. They have traveled to the spot 4 times in an obsessive quest to eliminate it. However, everyone is chastising Kansas Stasher for not cleaning up after him. I do see a problem here, and it's not with the cache owner.

 

Seems to me that muggling the cache is making the muggle happy.

 

The cache owner hasn't bothered to clear the needs maintenance flag, set the cache status to active or remove the trackables in the inventory. He's also not responding to dialog from a reviewer and hasn't logged on since... when?

 

There might be a cache owner, but he's owning up to the listing responsibilities of caches on this website and the reviewers should have no problems addressing that in the same manner as they would most other caches.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[+NYPaddleCacher]

why so many are insistent that this gets archived.

Please name one posted who is insistent that Mingo gets archived. I don't know of anybody that wants to see it get archived. Not one. There is no "archive Mingo" bandwagon.

 

Perhaps there isn't a "archive Mingo" bandwagon, but there have been quite a few "let it die" posts and I suspect that there are more than a few people from a certain part of the country would *prefer* that it was archived so that another cache can take it's place as "worlds oldest active cache".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

I think that is stretching the definition of a throwdown. Replacing a cache listed as a "regular" size with a bison (at least a film container was not used) would be considered a throwdown. Replacing it with a Decon container would also meet the definition. However, the container that is there now is essentially identical to the original. I would not consider that a throwdown cache, but rather a viable replacement for the original container.

[+Castle Mischief]

why so many are insistent that this gets archived.

Please name one posted who is insistent that Mingo gets archived. I don't know of anybody that wants to see it get archived. Not one. There is no "archive Mingo" bandwagon.

 

Perhaps there isn't a "archive Mingo" bandwagon, but there have been quite a few "let it die" posts and I suspect that there are more than a few people from a certain part of the country would *prefer* that it was archived so that another cache can take it's place as "worlds oldest active cache".

 

I consider myself to be in the "take it off life support" bandwagon. I'm pretty sure there's also a "keep it going at all cost" bandwagon and a "any container is acceptable" bandwagon and maybe not a bandwagon but something like a quartet-golf cart of "Mingo ate my baby"

 

I could be wrong about the last part.

[+Castle Mischief]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

I think that is stretching the definition of a throwdown. Replacing a cache listed as a "regular" size with a bison (at least a film container was not used) would be considered a throwdown. Replacing it with a Decon container would also meet the definition. However, the container that is there now is essentially identical to the original. I would not consider that a throwdown cache, but rather a viable replacement for the original container.

 

"Proxy-down"? Maybe because it's not a down-grade perhaps a "throw-up"?

[knowschad]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

I think that is stretching the definition of a throwdown. Replacing a cache listed as a "regular" size with a bison (at least a film container was not used) would be considered a throwdown. Replacing it with a Decon container would also meet the definition. However, the container that is there now is essentially identical to the original. I would not consider that a throwdown cache, but rather a viable replacement for the original container.

 

"Proxy-down"? Maybe because it's not a down-grade perhaps a "throw-up"?

 

Throw down, throw up? I guess its a toss-up.

[+Snoogans]

I think I know who replaced the container and removed the concrete, but out of respect for the private conversation I had with that person, I won't say.

 

Suffice it to say that there may be a surprise in store if what this person told me is true, but it is their story. I am emailing a link for this thread to them. Maybe they will share what they told me.

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.

 

Well you need to put this thing on your watchlist. How do you not want Mingo on your watchlist? NO ONE has admitted to digging out the mortar, and replacing Mingo with a Mingo like bucket. A week old log from Tuesday, March 13th mentions replacing the bison tube with a Military Decon container. Actually, leaving the bison also. So Decon is throw-down #2, and Bucket is throw-down #3, for those keeping track at home.

 

I think that is stretching the definition of a throwdown. Replacing a cache listed as a "regular" size with a bison (at least a film container was not used) would be considered a throwdown. Replacing it with a Decon container would also meet the definition. However, the container that is there now is essentially identical to the original. I would not consider that a throwdown cache, but rather a viable replacement for the original container.

 

I was never aware you had to go one size down or more to be a "throw-down". I mean throwing down a container, it could be a 5 gallon bucket; you're still throwing it down. Out of the last 2 throw downs I've witnessed personally, one replaced a missing small with a small, and one "replaced" (the original is actually still there) a micro with a micro. Both throwdowns to me.

[+Totem Clan]

[+J the Goat]

:laughing: :laughing:

[+the4dirtydogs]

:laughing: :laughing:

+1

[+Castle Mischief]

I think I know who replaced the container and removed the concrete, but out of respect for the private conversation I had with that person, I won't say.

 

Suffice it to say that there may be a surprise in store if what this person told me is true, but it is their story. I am emailing a link for this thread to them. Maybe they will share what they told me.

 

Thanks, that was enlightening. It all makes sense now.

 

[+SwineFlew]

I think I know who replaced the container and removed the concrete, but out of respect for the private conversation I had with that person, I won't say.

 

Suffice it to say that there may be a surprise in store if what this person told me is true, but it is their story. I am emailing a link for this thread to them. Maybe they will share what they told me.

Prove it that you didnt made up that story. Hey, this is the internet.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think I know who replaced the container and removed the concrete, but out of respect for the private conversation I had with that person, I won't say.

 

Suffice it to say that there may be a surprise in store if what this person told me is true, but it is their story. I am emailing a link for this thread to them. Maybe they will share what they told me.

That may have sufficed it for you, but for the rest of us ... what are you talking about?

[knowschad]

Its OK, Snoogans. You have my permission to tell the story of how I did it. I do appreciate you waiting until I gave the go-ahead, though.

[+Ambrosia]

Its OK, Snoogans. You have my permission to tell the story of how I did it. I do appreciate you waiting until I gave the go-ahead, though.

 

Yay! We we got it straight from the horse's...er...dog's mouth!

 

Feel free to share, Snoogans.

[+W7WT]

Its OK, Snoogans. You have my permission to tell the story of how I did it. I do appreciate you waiting until I gave the go-ahead, though.

 

Yay! We we got it straight from the horse's...er...dog's mouth!

 

Feel free to share, Snoogans.

How do you like my Avatar Ambrosia?

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

[+Snoogans]

Its OK, Snoogans. You have my permission to tell the story of how I did it. I do appreciate you waiting until I gave the go-ahead, though.

 

Yay! We we got it straight from the horse's...er...dog's mouth!

 

Feel free to share, Snoogans.

 

Well, that person got back with me and is not claiming to have restored the cache. Even though a great deal of what he/she/they told me has happened.

 

Perhaps they feel they had a bad experience in this forum and they don't want to address their detractors head on. I let them know that the forum is not the place to be if you expect everyone to agree with you.

 

I hope they reconsider their decision not to comment on the current situation here in this thread, because they claim to know what's going on. I feel it's a mistake not to inform the community and take the bad with the good. I really like the fact that Mingo has been restored and the person that did it deserves thanks.

 

But I also don't want to see Mingo become the Prometheus of caches either. Next time the eagle comes to eat its liver should be the last unless Kansas Stasher firmly takes the reins or adopts it over to someone who can. There has been too much drama in that spot.

[+J the Goat]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

 

Oh good lord

 

I imagine I'm probably on that list you're talking about, at least in the minds of some. I'm glad it's back up. I'd have been glad if it were archived. I'm of the mindset that SOMETHING needed to happen, and it needed to be done by somebody who actually had something to do with the cache. That means the CO or a reviewer. I still maintain that Mingo isn't special because of it's age, and shouldn't be treated any differently than any other cache. I get the impression that the rest of us "crestfallen" forum users probably are on the same boat.

[+Ecylram]

Thanks to Kansas Stasher for reenabling the cache and a very special thanks to the anonymous individuals who helped with getting it back up and running. I'd shake your hand, if I could.

[+Castle Mischief]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

 

Yay, something was done (by other people) and then the CO clicked some buttons (eventually)! Now the cache is back up for other people to find!

 

GEOCACHING IS SAVED!

 

[knowschad]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

 

Oh good lord

 

I imagine I'm probably on that list you're talking about, at least in the minds of some. I'm glad it's back up. I'd have been glad if it were archived. I'm of the mindset that SOMETHING needed to happen, and it needed to be done by somebody who actually had something to do with the cache. That means the CO or a reviewer. I still maintain that Mingo isn't special because of it's age, and shouldn't be treated any differently than any other cache. I get the impression that the rest of us "crestfallen" forum users probably are on the same boat.

My sentiments, precisely. If a cache is old simply because it has received special treatment, then it is artificially the oldest cache, and that would not interest me in the least.

[+Mitragorz]

My sentiments, precisely. If a cache is old simply because it has received special treatment, then it is artificially the oldest cache, and that would not interest me in the least.

 

Say that the oldest man in the world had life-saving bypass surgery in his mid-40s... Would he be the oldest man in the world, but with an asterisk next to his name? Would you consider the next-oldest man who never had surgery of any kind to be the real "oldest man?"

[+Glenn]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

I don't know why anyone would be crestfallen on the news that a cache owner is maintaining his cache. What a cache owner decides to do with his cache, within the guidelines, is inconsequential. Making changes to a cache without a cache owners permission is wrong no matter how historic the cache is.

[+Team LegoMINI]

Man, I wish I had some popcorn.

[MisterEFQ]

Man, I wish I knew what crestfallen means.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Man, I wish I knew what crestfallen means.

 

I think it has something to do with dropping your toothpaste.

[MisterEFQ]

BAZINGA!

[+StarBrand]

The cache owner just enabled Mingo with a thank you for the help in fixing it.

 

I can guess that the muggle and several forum users may be crestfallen to hear the news, but it is back.

I don't know why anyone would be crestfallen on the news that a cache owner is maintaining his cache. What a cache owner decides to do with his cache, within the guidelines, is inconsequential. Making changes to a cache without a cache owners permission is wrong no matter how historic the cache is.

Thats all I was trying to communicate.

[knowschad]

My sentiments, precisely. If a cache is old simply because it has received special treatment, then it is artificially the oldest cache, and that would not interest me in the least.

 

Say that the oldest man in the world had life-saving bypass surgery in his mid-40s... Would he be the oldest man in the world, but with an asterisk next to his name? Would you consider the next-oldest man who never had surgery of any kind to be the real "oldest man?"

If they only performed bybass surgery on the oldest people in the world, then yeah... I stick with my statement. But that is not the case. Anybody that needs it can get it. It is available to all, therefore it is not special treatment.

[+Mitragorz]

If they only performed bybass surgery on the oldest people in the world, then yeah... I stick with my statement. But that is not the case. Anybody that needs it can get it. It is available to all, therefore it is not special treatment.

 

I dunno, there's a lot of people out there that can't get that kind of treatment...

[knowschad]

If they only performed bybass surgery on the oldest people in the world, then yeah... I stick with my statement. But that is not the case. Anybody that needs it can get it. It is available to all, therefore it is not special treatment.

 

I dunno, there's a lot of people out there that can't get that kind of treatment...

 

But the reason is not because they aren't old enough.