The Oldest Active is back

2.7k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

8.4k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

I can really follow how this relates to a cache in a hole in Kansas. Really I can. :laughing:

19k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

I can really follow how this relates to a cache in a hole in Kansas. Really I can.

Yeah, I think we're overanalyzing my statement just a bit.

Anybody know what blood type Mingo has?

3.4k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

I can really follow how this relates to a cache in a hole in Kansas. Really I can.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

19k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

That is the exact opposite of what I was saying. They were refused because they were too old.

2.3k · March 22, 2012

Glad to see it's been enabled.

From what I've seen the only thing different that's happened in regards to this cache and its age is the interest in these forums and the rather heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock. Our local reviewers are very good at keeping on top of long disabled caches and/or ones tagged with a 'Needs Archived' log. 4 months is probably about right for the process to take from start to finish, but 6-9 months or longer are not unheard of. I don't remember any case where the owner approved of someone replacing a container with a different sized one and the reviewer saying it was not OK. That should be strictly up to the cache owner IMO. If the owner was not involved in the decision or was totally absent, that would be another matter entirely. The owner in this case said the replacement was fine and once it was fixed to his satisfaction enabled the cache within a week. While not the fastest response time, I think it was well within reason.

2.7k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

That is the exact opposite of what I was saying. They were refused because they were too old.

Sorry, I was confused by your use of a double negative.

2.7k · March 22, 2012

Glad to see it's been enabled.

From what I've seen the only thing different that's happened in regards to this cache and its age is the interest in these forums and the rather heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock. Our local reviewers are very good at keeping on top of long disabled caches and/or ones tagged with a 'Needs Archived' log. 4 months is probably about right for the process to take from start to finish, but 6-9 months or longer are not unheard of. I don't remember any case where the owner approved of someone replacing a container with a different sized one and the reviewer saying it was not OK. That should be strictly up to the cache owner IMO. If the owner was not involved in the decision or was totally absent, that would be another matter entirely. The owner in this case said the replacement was fine and once it was fixed to his satisfaction enabled the cache within a week. While not the fastest response time, I think it was well within reason.

I'm glad to see it enabled too.

I'd also add the whole community care thing. It's one thing if the owner asks for help maintain a cache. It's completely different if people, without the blessings of the owner, keep a cache on life support.

4.2k · March 22, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

3.6k · March 22, 2012

To me, I'm happy it's back but if it were archive I could live with it.

I'm just glad this is over for now. Until whoever did it does it again. From what the CO said, he is thankful someone fixed it.

So it's settled OK?

Edited March 22, 2012 by jellis

1.4k · March 22, 2012

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.

That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you.

I can really follow how this relates to a cache in a hole in Kansas. Really I can.

Yeah, I think we're overanalyzing my statement just a bit.

Anybody know what blood type Mingo has?

Depends on which container we're talking about

3.4k · March 22, 2012

It's been re-enabled! :blink:

I guess I'll have to find it now. :lol:

Seriously, hope this discussion wraps up.

4.2k · March 22, 2012

I'm crestfallen that, in light of the new update, this thread hasn't been archived closed.

3.4k · March 22, 2012

All in favor say 'Aye'

6.1k · March 22, 2012

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!

That seems to be sardonic hyperbole to mask your crestfallen demeanor.

Whose side are you on? Team Mingo or Team Muggle?

Your eternal geosoul is in jeopardy here. :rolleyes:

2.3k · March 23, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

1.4k · March 23, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( :blink: )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

2.3k · March 23, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

3.6k · March 23, 2012

Oh this thread needs alot of love. :blink:

10.2k · March 23, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

I'll bet you I could duplicate the feat of having a cache with a throw-down disabled just because a throw-down was thrown down. Most notably by posting an SBA to a long missing, never disabled cache with an absentee owner, that suddenly shows up again by someone claiming a find and throwing one down. I will not do this however, because it would only make me a talking head. :lol:

19k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

March 23, 2012

_snip

Edited March 23, 2012 by imyz1

10.2k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

I've long since resigned myself to tftc smartphone logs being posted on anything and everything Geocaching has to offer. Why not the world's oldest active cache? Does the South Pole Virtual have any tftc logs yet?

2.7k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

At least they found the actual cache. I don't know what people were finding while the cache was disabled but those people were logging something that they found something. For years I had thought that Waymarking wasn't geocaching, I guess I was wrong.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Glenn

1.4k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

At least they found the actual cache. I don't know what people were finding while the cache was disabled but those people were logging something that they found something. For years I had thought that Waymarking wasn't geocaching, I guess I was wrong.

:laughing: :laughing:

March 23, 2012

Walmart

March 23, 2012

Uh-oh, who called the cow of closure?

1.2k · March 23, 2012

Uh-oh, who called the cow of closure?

89449579.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D09D8422A0D640104DED7D4C32758F0EFE78584D47C21B4E51

19k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

At least they found the actual cache. I don't know what people were finding while the cache was disabled but those people were logging something that they found something. For years I had thought that Waymarking wasn't geocaching, I guess I was wrong.

If I were to post a 4 letter log for Mingo at this point, I would have said, "WHEW!"

19k · March 23, 2012

Uh-oh, who called the cow of closure?

I think that is bull. This is cow:

3.6k · March 23, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

I have to laugh so hard when I first read that yesterday! :laughing:

March 24, 2012

Well - our long national nightmare is over :-)

7.3k · March 24, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

The cache was disabled to allow the owner to do maintenance. The throwdown, and the owner not changing the cache size, showed that the owner wasn't maintaining their listing.

10.2k · March 24, 2012

First log posted since all the drama: tftc.

I have to laugh so hard when I first read that yesterday!

If one were to log Mingo with a 4 letter acronym, I feel IBTL would be more appropriate.

1.7k · March 25, 2012

2006 was a great geocaching year for me. I found Mingo and got to hug Ambrosia. I am glad it is active again. We drove from Bremerton, Wa via Southern Illinois to visit relatives and then to Mingo. Lucked out, it was our actual 1300th find. I may be wrong on the year I got to hug Ambrosia but it was at the Spring Fling in Washington State. You can verify my find of Mingo by clicking on my Avatar.

3.8k · March 25, 2012

2006 was a great geocaching year for me. I found Mingo and got to hug Ambrosia. I am glad it is active again. We drove from Bremerton, Wa via Southern Illinois to visit relatives and then to Mingo. Lucked out, it was our actual 1300th find. I may be wrong on the year I got to hug Ambrosia but it was at the Spring Fling in Washington State. You can verify my find of Mingo by clicking on my Avatar.

Yup. it was 2006. That's the first year I got to hug Ambrosia.

2.3k · March 25, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

The cache was disabled to allow the owner to do maintenance. The throwdown, and the owner not changing the cache size, showed that the owner wasn't maintaining their listing.

So the reviewers are now going to start disabling and possibly archiving caches because people replace containers for owners and/or the listed size is not what's in place for people to find? :blink:

7.3k · March 25, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

The cache was disabled to allow the owner to do maintenance. The throwdown, and the owner not changing the cache size, showed that the owner wasn't maintaining their listing.

So the reviewers are now going to start disabling and possibly archiving caches because people replace containers for owners and/or the listed size is not what's in place for people to find?

If it comes to the attention of a reviewer that a cache owner is not maintaining their listing in a reasonable period of time, then yes, they will disable it with a warning. This has been happening for many years, if not from the beginning.

3.6k · March 25, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

The cache was disabled to allow the owner to do maintenance. The throwdown, and the owner not changing the cache size, showed that the owner wasn't maintaining their listing.

So the reviewers are now going to start disabling and possibly archiving caches because people replace containers for owners and/or the listed size is not what's in place for people to find?

What!!!!, u think old cache needs "special" treatment? You are dead wrong. I know a old cache was archive here because the CO failed to log on and update the coordinate. The guideline said the CO is to maintenance the cache page and the cache itself, if they dont, the cache it at risk of getting archive. Thats square and fair.

2.3k · March 25, 2012

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'.

This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( )

And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

Yes, the micro was a throwdown. I've never seen that, in and of itself, the reason for a cache being disabled.

I agree that this thread has run its course. Time for the talking heads to move onto another topic...

The cache was disabled to allow the owner to do maintenance. The throwdown, and the owner not changing the cache size, showed that the owner wasn't maintaining their listing.

So the reviewers are now going to start disabling and possibly archiving caches because people replace containers for owners and/or the listed size is not what's in place for people to find?

If it comes to the attention of a reviewer that a cache owner is not maintaining their listing in a reasonable period of time, then yes, they will disable it with a warning. This has been happening for many years, if not from the beginning.

I'm not a new cacher and am somewhat aware of process that reviewers use to disable/archive caches. <_<

I've not seen either of those two things be the reasons for a cache to be disabled/archived. Those are, or should be, an owners prerogative, not maintenance issues.

April 2, 2012

Then there was his taunting posting on the cache page (he has since removed) that said "tic-tock, tic-tock, tic-tock", or words to that affect. He also was responsible for the achiving of one of the oldest urban caches here in the Portland area recently.

heavy handed comments and actions by Hemlock.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache?

3.6k · April 3, 2012

Then there was his taunting posting on the cache page (he has since removed) that said "tic-tock, tic-tock, tic-tock", or words to that affect. He also was responsible for the achiving of one of the oldest urban caches here in the Portland area recently.

Talking about this one? http://coord.info/GC89B

That one is against the guideline. It become a virtual. Big no-no.

Edited April 3, 2012 by SwineFlew

2k · April 3, 2012

too bad its gone, whether virtual or multi, I would have done that one. May 2001 and not in an area I could not do on some trip.

8.4k · April 3, 2012

Then there was his taunting posting on the cache page (he has since removed) that said "tic-tock, tic-tock, tic-tock", or words to that affect. He also was responsible for the achiving of one of the oldest urban caches here in the Portland area recently.

Talking about this one? http://coord.info/GC89B

That one is against the guideline. It become a virtual. Big no-no.

Umm. Back in 2003 it was not a no-no.

3.6k · April 3, 2012

The cache is back in action. Time to close the thread since it's veering from the original topic.

The Oldest Active is back

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment