Stop putting spoilers in cache logs!

3k · April 7, 2003

It really bugs me when people put spoiler information in their cache logs ... what on earth are they (not) thinking?

Stop it! Stop it now!! And YES, I mean YOU!!!

6.4k · April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
Stop it! Stop it now!! And _YES_, I mean _YOU_!!!

Moi?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

April 7, 2003

I agree. Stop It! Stop It!

Most times I am hesitant of reading other cachers' online entries because they often contain information that would only be found in the 'HINT'. If I need a hint, I can choose to decrypt it MYself!! Or they give you all the details that almost tell you EXACTLY where the cache can be found, thus spoiling your own enjoyment of discovering the cleverly hidden cache.

Most of us actually ENJOY the HUNT more than the goodies in the cache. So... P L E A S E... don't give spoiler info in your 'Found it' logs. P L E A S E!!!!!!

Yes, I AM begging.

The harder you work,the harder it is to give up.

Vince Lombarde

April 7, 2003

I guess the statement above the logs isn't a good enough warning?

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

38.2k · April 7, 2003

Iffn' ya don'ts want's to see spoilers, the dont's reads the logs.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

3k · April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mxyzptlk:
I guess the statement above the logs isn't a good enough warning?

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Iffn' ya don'ts want's to see spoilers, the dont's reads the logs.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm the first visitor to one of your caches, gentlemen. Personally, if I had created a cache that contained a significant challenge or twist, I would just delete any log that contained "spoilers."

I can understand how the greenest newbie, in the passion of their enthusiasm, might be careless enough in writing a log to ruin the experience or surprise for any subsequent visitor who happened to have read the logs ... but I see this happening time and time again by people with even a hundred or more finds.

Of course, I realize that without such spoilers a few of you would never be able to find anything.

April 7, 2003

quote:
Of course, I realize that without such spoilers a few of you would never be able to find anything.

You're right of course - the last cache I found probably wouldn't have been located if I didn't glean some helpful info from your log entry.

If you think someone could use some constructive feedback, I'd recommend dropping a quick email. Doesn't matter whether you have 2 or 2000 finds, anyone can benefit from some helpful insight from another player. Of course, some people may not take kindly to the feedback, but it's better than posting a "you know who you are" - since they probably don't know unless they're posting the spoiler maliciously.

Foster's Law: 'The only people who find what they are looking for in life are the fault finders.'

[This message was edited by HartClimbs on April 07, 2003 at 04:26 PM.]

April 7, 2003

hmmm..maybe its me..

I tend to be rather wordy with my log entries and I whole heartly enjoy reading log entires that have something to them.

I dont intentionaly mean to give away any direct secrets but maybe im talking to much.... I'll be more careful with what I writ e in the logs.

"Problems are merely opportunities for interesting solutions which can be implemented by those with the courage to be different."

3k · April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by HartClimbs:
If you think someone could use some constructive feedback, I'd recommend dropping a quick email.

Experience has taught me that such e-mails, no matter how politely worded, are rarely well received. My hope was this thread might serve as a reminder to all, as well as a wake-up call to those inclined whether by intention or accident to give away more information than the cache owner provided in the regular cache description.

It's my opinion such spoilers are no different than leaving the cache partially uncovered for the next visitor ... both compromise the cache. Allow the 10th (or 100th) visitor to a cache to have the same experience as the first.

April 7, 2003

quote:
It's my opinion such spoilers are no different than leaving the cache partially uncovered for the next visitor

Only if upon approaching the cache you see a sign stating: WARNING: Partially uncovered cache near-by

I would have to agree with HartClimbs that a email to the person who offends you would be more appropriate. Is this person or person(s) really going to know that you are referring to them? I enjoy reading detailed log entries and I'm aware that they may contain spoilers. If I don't want to take a chance of reading a spoiler I simply don't read the log entries before trying to find a cache.

April 7, 2003

Mia Culpa,

I know of one log where I was so eager to boast of beating you to a first find that I did give it all away. I have belatedly edited that spoiler out and promise to be more careful in the future.

April 7, 2003

I generally don't like it much either when a cache log gives too much information, but it seems to happen often enough, and I've come to accept that. So I try not to read them in advance. Most of the time I just try to catch the date of the last log and whether it was a find or no find.

That said, I did try the email route once with a poster to one of my caches. A section of the email, worded as follows:

'By the way, if you don't mind could you edit your log entry slightly so that the hiding spot isn't mentioned? Despite the fact that the site warns people that spoilers may be in the log entries, many cache seekers don't like seeing anything that gives it away there, especially when encrypted hints are available (in this case, the hint is supposed to be a dead giveaway). Cache owners have the ability to delete log entries they don't like, but hey, I don't like being too hard on people, especially those who are new to all of this!'

I didn't threaten to delete him, just asked if he'd mind changing it. If he didn't want to I wasn't going to make a big deal about it. He happily complied with the request. Unfortunately though, I don't think he has any more finds and that was six months ago. Hmmm....

April 8, 2003

I know occasionally I have been guilty of this but there is that warning about spoilers. And now if I feel I am going to say spoiler type info then I encrypt the log. I would hope if I spoiled to much the cache owner would encrypt my log if they felt I went to far. If you unencrpt a log then you want to read the spoiler stuff.

April 8, 2003

To me, it's as simple as following the rules, if it says that the logs may contain spoilers, don't read them if you don't want them. If it doesn't say that it can contain spoilers, then there should not be any posted. I've had some nice pictures that I didn't post on a couple of finds because I felt they were spoilers, and the cache didn't say I could post them.

'Why can't we all just.... Get along' - Joker

3k · April 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:
To me, it's as simple as following the rules, if it says that the logs may contain spoilers, don't read them if you don't want them.

Somewhat amusingly, I have at least 100 more first finds than anyone else who has posted to this thread to date has finds, so I don't think I will find that well-intended suggestion to be of practical use ... chances are I will have already visited a cache before any spoilers appear. Reading spoilers in new logs posted to caches I found a week, 6 months, or a year ago bothers me no less than spoilers that may have been posted to caches I have not yet visited.

Is it that hard writing logs without making specific references to roads, trails, or other identifying features that other cachers should be allowed to discover for themselves? Apparently it must be.

I also find it interesting that a few of you apparently not bothered by spoilers in logs appear not to have placed any caches. I wonder if your opinion will change after you have?

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 08, 2003 at 01:32 PM.]

3k · April 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by orange:
... now if I feel I am going to say spoiler type info then I encrypt the log. I would hope if I spoiled to much the cache owner would encrypt my log if they felt I went to far. If you unencrpt a log then you want to read the spoiler stuff.

This differs from what has been discussed 'til now because in order to read encrypted spoilers, one must act with deliberate intent.

But since orange brought it up, I think the encrypt feature should be reserved for the use of cache owners as a method for them to permanently disguise/hide/obliterate portions of logs they don't want others to read ... the encrypted information would be visible to the cache owner and the person who posted the log, but remain undecipherable to anyone else.

38.2k · April 8, 2003

As a cache owner, spoilers generally don't bother me, as long as they aren't too specific.

If someone writes things like, "I took the yellow trail and it brought me to within 80 feet of the cache", or "I parked at nn.nnn.nnn,ww.www.www", or "I searched along the cliff", I don't have a problem with it. I've also seen finders take photos of the hiding spot, but as long as they are labeled "spoiler", it's OK with me too.

Now if their log describes the hiding place in detail, I'd have a problem with that, but I don't recall that ever happening.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

4.5k · April 8, 2003

Since I can't stand ticks, any clue that decreases the time I have to spend poking around the bushes is OK to me.

ALan

April 8, 2003

BassoonPilot - I feel your pain, I have asked 1 or 2 people to edit thier logs a little after flat out saying where the cache is hidden.

I like BP has issues with people putting too much info in the logs. There is no reason to flat out say " Its under the white rock" in a log. Part of the fun is looking. I also like to read a few logs to see how hard of a hide it really is not to find out exactly where the cache is hidden.

I have emailed a few people asking them to edit there logs in another cachers hide. All have been very nice about it.

-Robert

April 9, 2003

I’m with BassoonPilot on this one. I enjoy reading logs that have some substance to them, but I am disappointed if I read something that is a dead giveaway. There is nothing worse then getting to a cache location and knowing exactly where the cache is from 100’ away. I know about the warnings about spoilers in the logs and I think that warning has been there since the inception of Geocaching (at least since I have been a member). Gecocaching has evolved somewhat and I think its easy enough to describe the adventure without giving too much away. Having said all that what is the point of giving away information that will make the find easier for the next person?

Another thing that bugs me is when a previous cache finder feels they have to “help” the next finder by putting some sort of marker right by the cache.

April 9, 2003

quote:
Reading spoilers in new logs posted to caches I found a week, 6 months, or a year ago bothers me no less than spoilers that may have been posted to caches I have not yet visited.

How can it be a spoiler for you if you already found the cache?

Everyone knows there may be spoilers in the logs: why are you reading them if they're going to ruin the game for you? And if they don't affect you directly, maybe you should let someone else fight this battle.

X is for X, and X marks the spot, On the rug in the parlor, The sand in the lot, Where once you were standing, And now you are not.

April 9, 2003

I see the log as a place where you can write about the journey to (and from) the cache. There are plenty of ways to write about the trip without giving anything away. In one of my cache descriptions , I made a specific request to leave specific details out of entries, unless I approve it. This may be one way to politely tell others that spoilers are not welcome.

April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:
To me, it's as simple as following the rules, if it says that the logs may contain spoilers, don't read them if you don't want them.

Somewhat amusingly, I have at least 100 more first finds than anyone else who has posted to this thread to date has finds, so I don't think I will find that well-intended suggestion to be of practical use ... chances are I will have already visited a cache before any spoilers appear. Reading spoilers in new logs posted to caches I found a week, 6 months, or a year ago bothers me no less than spoilers that may have been posted to caches I have not yet visited.

Is it that hard writing logs without making specific references to roads, trails, or other identifying features that other cachers should be allowed to discover for themselves? Apparently it must be.

I also find it interesting that a few of you apparently not bothered by spoilers in logs appear not to have placed any caches. I wonder if your opinion will change after you have?

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 08, 2003 at 01:32 PM.]

Well I guess because you are the end all be all "god" of geocaching. You must be right. Get a life! Just because you have a lot of finds, doesn't mean you are always right, or you know what you are doing! If you don't like what 'someone' has posted in a log, be a man and email them, or put their name in the post so they know who you are talking about. Don't stand behind your bassoon and quiver!

And I have 3 caches in the making. And I'll specify whether spoilers can be included. And I'll be man enough to ask anyone posting to edit their entry if deemed unappropriate. I would gladly change any of mine, if asked.

[This message was edited by EMTJeepers on April 09, 2003 at 10:00 AM.]

April 9, 2003

I am not too concerned about it too much. Like Brian, if its just generic information and not too specific, its ok.

But sure! Major spoilers are a killer when explicit.

1.3k · April 9, 2003

I think spoilers are only really bad for tricky hides. I understand that some cachers are enthusiastic over figuring those out so they may let out too many details. Most caches hidden in a standard manner should be findable pretty quickly, spoiler or no, so I'm not too bothered by those.

April 9, 2003

quote:
Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

No one noticed this above all logs

9.1k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I also find it interesting that a few of you apparently not bothered by spoilers in logs appear not to have placed any caches. I wonder if your opinion will change after you have?

YES! I've been much more sensitive to spoilers since I started hiding caches, many of which have a "twist" to them. My first hide involved a trail choice at the beginning of the hike. The more logical initial choice actually led to level-3 terrain (big hill), and the trail that looked more intimidating at the beginning was actually the easier 1.5 terrain overall. Users are cautioned that the trails are confusing. So, the first log comes in and they say "we took the right-hand trail and it was pretty easy." I wrote to the cachers and they edited their log. When you take the time to design a cache with a twist in it, it hurts a bit for someone to give away the secret. It also means that you'll never write another spoiler yourself. Instead, I like to make subtle references in my find logs that only make sense when you go back and read them AFTER finding the cache.

Recently, I had an interesting log on one of my other caches, from a newbie. The log was simply a hyperlink: "Read here for the complete story." The link takes you to a very professional blog site, containing a step-by-step narrative of the cache hunt, complete with hyperlinks and digital photos. That didn't bother me a bit, because you had to affirmatively click on the link to get to this information, AND because the guy clearly had fun on the cache hunt.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

April 9, 2003

Posting a spoiler.

Anyone looking for caches in northern Jersey - here's an unsolicited clue:

The cache is right in the middle of the most swampy, mucky, wet, slushy, icy spot (or it's at the top of the hill). Either way, it's right next to the throng of deer ticks.

Sorry if I ruined anyone's caching experience.

There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool. Sir Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

[This message was edited by HartClimbs on April 09, 2003 at 09:42 AM.]

April 9, 2003

Unsolicited BassoonPilot cache spoiler

This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.

1.4k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mogolloyd:

quote:
Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

No one noticed this above all logs

The word spoiler above all cache logs is a link.

It links to the Geocaching Glossary in that glossary the word spoiler is followed by this.

spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the hunt.

I don't think that the warning about spoilers being in logs is stating that it's OK to add spoilers. It's letting people know that someone may have placed a spoiler.

Placing a spoiler in a log is Not ok. If you make a mistake that's just a mistake. If it's not a mistake it's wrong.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:

Placing a spoiler in a log is _Not_ ok. If you make a mistake that's just a mistake. If it's not a mistake it's wrong.

Wrong? Says who? Did ya ever consider that the person who actually OWNS the cache and controls the logs on THEIR cache does not mind if the spoilers are there? BTW, the last time I checked, leaving spoilers was not against any rules or guidelines.

Some people like THEIR caches to be found, so they leave spoilers. I think this game has enough room for that. What I get tired of hearing is that if one cacher dosn't do things quite the way another does, they are somehow "wrong"

There has been enough suggestions in this thread on how to deal with it if a few spoilers cause you heartburn. Lighten up already, and please join me in wishing that threads like these soon go away.

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

1.4k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
<<SNIP>> BTW, the last time I checked, leaving spoilers was not against any rules or guidelines.

<<SNIP>>

I guess you missed the quote from the Glossary

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

April 9, 2003

Yep

Don't like them, don't read 'em!

Where you all at?

3k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:

Well I guess because you are the end all be all "god" of geocaching. You must be right. Get a life! Just because you have a lot of finds, doesn't mean you are always right, or you know what you are doing! If you don't like what 'someone' has posted in a log, be a man and email them, or put their name in the post so they know who you are talking about.

Feel better now?

When you're done being "manly," you might consider reading for comprehension. You would have recalled that in this thread I stated that:

1. I have, in fact, e-mailed people who put spoilers in logs.

2. I believe the practice of including spoilers in logs had become prevalent enough that a "wake-up call" to the entire community was warranted.

3. The point of mentioning that I have a lot of first finds was not to assert "superiority" over anyone, but merely to make the point that there are no spoilers in logs for the first finder of a cache. I went on to suggest that cachers should make a conscious effort to preserve any challenge or surprises for subsequent visitors.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 09, 2003 at 02:12 PM.]

April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Lighten up already, and please join me in wishing that threads like these soon go away.

Salvelinus

I'm with you.

April 9, 2003

If you want the thread to go away, why are you posting to it? I thought I read someones post that if you don't like them, don't read them.

I hope it stops raining soon, and my truck gets fixed, then I can start cache hunting. I think we are all starting to get cabin fever.

3k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Lighten up already, and please join me in wishing that threads like these soon go away.

Salvelinus

quote:
Originally posted by etoast66:
I'm with you.

Wishing doesn't work, guys. You have to make a concerted effort not to push that "Post Now" button.

April 9, 2003

I'm on the side of not putting spoilers in logs...because it can ruin the fun for future seekers.

For those of you in favor of putting spoilers in logs - fill in the blank.

I think it's a good idea to put spoilers in logs because ________________________.

I know that may be a little harsh but I just don't get the point.

April 9, 2003

There are a lot of good points made above and, in particular, I agree with BrianSnat.

I guess it all depends on what information one considers to be a "spoiler." If a log gives away the hiding place or the "twist" or challenge to the cache then that's bad form and the cache owner should encrypt it or contact the finder and have them amend their log. After all, isn't that what the clue's for?

If a finder provides coordinates for parking or the trailhead in their log, I don't consider it a spoiler. If it cuts down on my time driving around and increases my time hiking around, I appreciate the help (I need it ). I understand many believe that finding the appropriate parking is part of the adventure of geocaching and that's fine. Whatever floats your boat. In that case, you have the option to just print the cache page without the logs.

April 9, 2003

I don't think anyone is saying its a good idea to put spoilers in the logs. I think the main point is how can you complain about spoilers when there is a warning about spoilers potentially being in the logs. It makes sense to me if you want to seek out a cache without any 'spoilers' then don't read the log entries!!!

Plus the definition of a spoiler is relative to the person seeking the cache. Some people consistently state in their logs, "I saw a likely location for the cache when I was 1.12 miles away.", while other people have a difficult time seeking the same cache if they are 3 feet away. This makes a spoiler hard to define. If I put in the log what exit I got off of Rt. 80 to get to the cache, is this a spoiler? Or "I took the white trail to the cache". Could this be a spoiler as well?

If there are future blatant spoilers (I don't think have read one yet) I hope the person who has a problem with it would email person who entered the log instead of using the public forums to communicate their displeasure.

9.1k · April 9, 2003

quote:
If there are future blatant spoilers (I don't think have read one yet) I hope the person who has a problem with it would email person who entered the log instead of using the public forums to communicate their displeasure.

I think that BP's point is that, at least to him, the problem of spoilers is widespread enough that he was compelled to mention it generally, rather than writing to lots of individual cachers. In that sense, this is no different than the other issues that we debate ad nauseum. How many threads complain about degradation of trade items? Should you instead write an e-mail to anyone who says they left a McToy in a cache? Do you write a nastygram to anyone who places a vacation cache on the Jersey shore? Issues of general interest are precisely what the forums are good for discussing.

On the other hand, I am VERY tired of seeing the forums used to air private complaints between cachers, or between a cacher and an approver, or a cacher and TPTB. Note that BP has assiduously avoided naming any names.

Finally, newbies learn the etiquette of our game by reading forum threads like this one. Perhaps this thread will curb the normal newbie exuberance, to describe each step of that first find. Look at the recent thread about double-counting repeat finds of the same cache. An honest cacher 'fessed up that he wasn't aware of the etiquette until reading about it in the forums.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

6.4k · April 9, 2003

dadgum!

Leave it to Lep to be the voice of reason just when things were getting good!

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Lighten up already, and please join me in wishing that threads like these soon go away.

Salvelinus

quote:
Originally posted by etoast66:
I'm with you.

Wishing doesn't work, guys. You have to make a concerted effort not to push that "Post Now" button.

Just to clarify...My wish was that you had made a concerted effort not to push the "Post Now" button in the first place.

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

2.4k · April 9, 2003

Personally I don't have a problem with spoilers in cache logs. The warning is there, so generally I don't read cache logs before I attempt a cache. Although many here think they're perfect, none are. Sometimes what a hider thinks is a clue, is misleading and actually takes you away from the cache. Sometimes coordinates aren't close to the same on the hiders GPSr as the seekers....there are all kinds of reasons why someone might want the extra help that a spoiler might provide. Perhaps it's a newbie, and the hider's info didn't lead him to the cache, maybe it's an experienced cacher who just thinks in a different manner than the hider.

Like others have said, if you don't want to see spoilers, heed the warning, and don't read the cache logs before you hunt out a cache.

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Perfect Tommy:
If a finder provides coordinates for parking or the trailhead in their log, I don't consider it a spoiler. If it cuts down on my time driving around and increases my time hiking around, I appreciate the help.

I might be contradicting my previous posts, but I agree with Tommy on this - I like to have the suggested parking area. I respect the other view - but I get no joy or satisifaction of finding the best parking. There is nothing worse then driving around looking for a place to park with a bunch of kids in the car itching to go hikeing.

4.1k · April 9, 2003

I wonder about the percentage of folks who tend to put spoilers in their logs out of "not knowing better" and what percent of them know enough to read these forums ...

-----

You must be present to win.

April 9, 2003

Not to beat a dead horse but this whole disagreement (if ya ask me) is based on one’s individual definition of Geocaching. This is a great game because it is enjoyed by so many different people, in so many different ways. Some just need coords and they’ll do the rest; others get no joy from rummaging around in the woods (ticks now being a legitimate concern) and want to go directly to the cache.

What’s fun for you isn’t necessarily fun for me--and visa versa. I think there is enough “longitude and latitude” (pun intended) in this game for everyone to be happy without forcing your personal ideology on another.

Which reminds me, how ‘bout an ultimate geocaching bare-knuckled fighting challenge in one of the parks or out in the woods to settle any future disputes. That may keep the forums from scrolling.

6.4k · April 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:
Not to beat a dead horse but this whole disagreement (if ya ask me) is based on one’s individual definition of _Geocaching_. This is a great game because it is enjoyed by so many different people, in so many different ways. Some just need coords and they’ll do the rest; others get no joy from rummaging around in the woods (ticks now being a legitimate concern) and want to go directly to the cache.

What’s fun for you isn’t necessarily fun for me--and visa versa. I think there is enough “longitude and latitude” (pun intended) in this game for everyone to be happy without forcing your personal ideology on another.

I dunno. If I had a multicache out there, I dont think I would want someone posting the location of the final cache, just so everyone else can avoid the ticks. Likewise, if it was a really clever puzzle cache (and why DON'T we have any of these like the left coasters?) that I put lots of work into, I sure wouldnt want the FTF posting the solution so the next person can go directly to the cache. If the cache owner wanted to say "the cache is under the white rock next to the triple trunk tree" he would have included it in the hints. It seems pretty selfish to possibly deprive the cache owner (without whom you would have no cache to hunt for) of HIS enjoyment just so it's easy for the next guy. Not all caches are meant to be easy, and not all caches are meant to be found in 5 minutes. Not all caches are meant to be walked directly up to. Why not just make a big arrow out of rocks pointing to the cache? Oh wait, someone in South Jersey already does that to caches they find.

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:
Which reminds me, how ‘bout an ultimate geocaching bare-knuckled fighting challenge in one of the parks or out in the woods to settle any future disputes. That may keep the forums from scrolling.

Might I suggest we get Team Epitome to hide a new cache, and the first finder wins?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

April 10, 2003

Mopar wrote:

quote:
Why not just make a big arrow out of rocks pointing to the cache? Oh wait, someone in South Jersey already does that to caches they find.

It's bad enough that the tromped on plants surrounding a cache act like a neon sign without additional clues being laid out.

What next? Trained squirrels that form a line and point whenever a handheld GPS is spotted?

On second thought that squirrel trick might be worth a hike to see. I'll grab a few bags of peanuts and get started on my new master plan in the morning.

3k · April 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:

Just to clarify...My wish was that you had made a concerted effort not to push the "Post Now" button in the first place.

Clarification No. Rewrite Yes.

It makes no difference, really; until would-be thread non-participants like yourself have been granted the ability to close threads they don't like, you'll just have to "buck up" and live with it. I do sincerely apologize for having in any way coerced, obligated, or forced you into reading and responding to this thread against your better judgment.

And in the same breath, I wish also to sincerely thank you for all you brought to the thread, Salvelinus. Without valuable input from contributors like yourself, these forums just wouldn't be what they are.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 10, 2003 at 03:15 AM.]

Stop putting spoilers in cache logs!

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment