I was deleted

January 20, 2003

I'm dying to know what the answers were... can you divulge??

Thanx!

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is

January 20, 2003

Heck, I've had to do that sometimes.

Once I was in a cemetary and had to find the grave of a movie star. The GPS couldn't narrow it to a specific grave, and all the graves nearby had otherwise famous or common names...I had no idea which one was the movie star.

Had to mark down several potential names and then research them on the internet to find the answers.

Didn't bother me a bit, and I learned something in the process.

George

January 20, 2003

..to identify those trees. Just a little research.

George

January 20, 2003

I dont think I have ever seen more whining over a viritual than this thread

I'm a man and I can change if I have to,I guess.

4.5k · January 20, 2003

I havnt read every post on this thread but i just dont understand why some of you think this is an unfair cache. Why cant the cache owner make this one vague if he/she wants? Thats his perogative. Its easy to see that it is vague when you read the description and you have every right to pass this one up if you want. I think that makes the cache even more challenging and fun. As far as making it a virtual, its stated in the description that these are on private commercial property. Not a good idea to hide a physical cache here i dont think!

I dont think either of the ""found"" logs should be counted. The requirement is to email the common names of the ""favorite"" things, which neither finder did.

Personally, im not a fan of vituals but this one looks to be one i would enjoy finding. The extra legwork involved would make it more fun!

January 20, 2003

FWIW, I see that he was finally able to log the find.

geospotter

January 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel Nut:
I'm dying to know what the answers were... can you divulge??

Thanx!

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is

Sorry, youll have to do the cache JKHRD

January 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I havnt read every post on this thread but i just dont understand why some of you think this is an unfair cache. Why cant the cache owner make this one vague if he/she wants? Thats his perogative. Its easy to see that it is vague when you read the description and you have every right to pass this one up if you want. I think that makes the cache even more challenging and fun. As far as making it a virtual, its stated in the description that these are on private commercial property. Not a good idea to hide a physical cache here i dont think!

I dont think either of the ""found"" logs should be counted. The requirement is to email the common names of the ""favorite"" things, which neither finder did.

Personally, im not a fan of vituals but this one looks to be one i would enjoy finding. The extra legwork involved would make it more fun!

You see how one can fall into what ever one wants to believe---You havent read all the posts but still have a opion about unfair. You also thought I didnt e-mail the common names which I did after more hrs work then I put in at the office, which I'm not proud of. I now go on with my simple life. JKHRD

4.5k · January 20, 2003

quote:
You see how one can fall into what ever one wants to believe---You havent read all the posts but still have a opion about unfair. You also thought I didnt e-mail the common names which I did after more hrs work then I put in at the office, which I'm not proud of. I now go on with my simple life. JKHRD

Reading the rest of the posts makes no difference. It was a hard cache and you didnt like it. No problemo! Sounds like you need to go for the 1/1 caches from now on and leave the harder ones for those that want to tackle them. Dont say that it was impossible and you were treated unfairly though!

BTW, if you did send the correct names to the cache hider then yes, it should be a find. When i posted this earlier, you were only showing as a no find on the cache page. Still not sure why the the other cacher's log was kept as a find .

January 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
You see how one can fall into what ever one wants to believe---You havent read all the posts but still have a opion about unfair. You also thought I didnt e-mail the common names which I did after more hrs work then I put in at the office, which I'm not proud of. I now go on with my simple life. JKHRD

Reading the rest of the posts makes no difference. It was a hard cache and you didnt like it. No problemo! Sounds like you need to go for the 1/1 caches from now on and leave the harder ones for those that want to tackle them. Dont say that it was impossible and you were treated unfairly though!

BTW, if you did send the correct names to the cache hider then yes, it should be a find. When i posted this earlier, you were only showing as a no find on the cache page. Still not sure why the the other cacher's log was kept as a find .

impossible---treated unfairly-----not my words----read the orignal question b/4 you pass you judgment

January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Shoebox:
On the other hand, if a cache is under water in the middle of a lake and requires a boat and I don't have a boat, can I claim a find by driving all the way to the lake and standing on the shore?

Shoebox.

Some folks apparently think so. Read the logs for Croise's Treasure.

What part of 5/5 and "requires SCUBA training and gear to access" is so difficult to understand?

Ron/yumitori

4.5k · January 21, 2003

quote:
impossible---treated unfairly-----not my words----read the orignal question b/4 you pass you judgment

From your previous post:

George, Not to beat a dead horse but why waste a cachers time with a cache almost imposible to solve

I asume you have seen another cacher has done the cache with the same results, except it looks as though he was credited for the find

I do stand corrected, you did say ""almost impossible"". Being treated unfairly wasnt your words either but with the ""except it looks as though he was credited for the find"" statement, you seem to be implying that you were treated unfairly...

Anyways, as you have stated, lets go on and leave this behind. Everyone, back to Caching!!!

5k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
Read the logs for... What part of 5/5 and "requires SCUBA training and gear to access" is so difficult to understand?

Wow! Folks sure take liberties don't they.

"This is an easy one to do with kids." Huh?

"We'll save the 5 stars for later." ...but log a find now.

"I feel guilty logging this in without the actual find...being a 5 and all!!" ...except I'm gonna anyway.

Geesh, I sure wish I was the owner of that one. The delete button would be worn out.

Jamie

January 21, 2003

People are probably logging it as a find because it isn't designated as a multi-cache, which is what it really is.

George

January 21, 2003

I read all the posts because I love virtual caches. I solved three today at lunch time. I haven't heard from the cache creator yet but I think I aced all the questions.

If the cache creator expects certain answers then I guess they should be provided.

What got me about the three I did today is they were placed by a guy from Texas... The caches are in New Orleans.

Stilgar - We have thousands of such caches.

January 21, 2003

Hey, this is the cache owner replying to some of the questions. First of all, I had no idea this cache would spark such a controversy..I just did it because these particular trees really are some of my favorite things. I thought that even in an urban setting they would be of interest. They add beauty and joy to my normal everyday commuting and shopping.

Anyway, the cache is archived now until I have time and the DSL line to modify it as suggested by helpful geocachers, including the original poster. Although no one as yet has e-mailed me the common names of the trees as requested as far as I know, before modifying the cache to make it easier and clearer, I will give credit to anyone who tried to solve it, including the original poster. I have been really out of touch as we are in a part of New Mexico that has only dial-up, so my time on-line is limited and verrry slloww.

I learned a lot from the discussions, and hope the new modified cache will provide entertainment to whomever is interested in this type of multi-virtual cache. For this reason, I won't reveal the common names of the trees in question as this would truly give away the cache's point. Thanks to all for their input, support and constructive criticism. Team Safari.

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by team safari:
Hey, this is the cache owner replying to some of the questions. First of all, I had no idea this cache would spark such a controversy..I just did it because these particular trees really are some of my favorite things. I thought that even in an urban setting they would be of interest. They add beauty and joy to my normal everyday commuting and shopping.

Anyway, the cache is archived now until I have time and the DSL line to modify it as suggested by helpful geocachers, including the original poster. Although no one as yet has e-mailed me the common names of the trees as requested as far as I know, before modifying the cache to make it easier and clearer, I will give credit to anyone who tried to solve it, including the original poster. I have been really out of touch as we are in a part of New Mexico that has only dial-up, so my time on-line is limited and verrry slloww.

I learned a lot from the discussions, and hope the new modified cache will provide entertainment to whomever is interested in this type of multi-virtual cache. For this reason, I won't reveal the common names of the trees in question as this would truly give away the cache's point. Thanks to all for their input, support and constructive criticism. Team Safari.

As a last post I would like to say Team Safari and I have been in contact through e-mail since this question was first posted. We both were surprised with the attention it has recived but happy with the comments. Some of the name calling was not called for but understood. We have reached a understanding and I was given credit for the find. JKHRD

2.6k · January 24, 2003

I wouldn't have caved. There was nothing wrong and there is still nothing wrong with the orginal cache.

Jkhrd, do you still think you deserve credit for the find?

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

1.4k · January 24, 2003

There's a new cache near me I have looked forThree times. If I post a thread and whine about it do you think the cache owner will let me log it as a find???

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

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

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

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
I wouldn't have caved. There was nothing wrong and there is still nothing wrong with the orginal cache.

Jkhrd, do you still think you deserve credit for the find?

george

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

George, I guess you missed the part where I did the research and named the trees and e-mailed the owner

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:
There's a new cache near me I have looked for_Three_ times. If I post a thread and whine about it do you think the cache owner will let me log it as a find???

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

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

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

Sounds like your pretty good at whineing, I'd give it a try---Read my answer to George

1.4k · January 24, 2003

I've been deleted before for failure to meet the requirements. Yes, I was annoyed, but I got over it. When I re-read the requirements, I realized I had not met them. Instead of complaining, I just went back out and met the requirements.

I see no problem with this cache, without going to the area and seeing it. I also have no problem with having been deleted for not meeting the requirements. Been there, done that, both as the hider and the seeker.

This cache has the most vague description for a virtual of any I've ever seen. It took me 3 50-mile round trips to finally get it correct. I changed my "found it" logs to "didn't find" both times I was informed I was incorrect. When I finally got it right, I had a lot more satisfaction than I do for most virtuals.

2.6k · January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jkhrd:

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
I wouldn't have caved. There was nothing wrong and there is still nothing wrong with the orginal cache.

Jkhrd, do you still think you deserve credit for the find?

george

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

George, I guess you missed the part where I did the research and named the trees and e-mailed the owner

Were did you end up finding the answers? I'd be curious to know. Since I was under the assumption that this cache was 'almost impossilbe' to do.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

4.5k · January 24, 2003

Originally posted by Web-ling:

quote:
This cache has the most vague description for a virtual of any I've ever seen. It took me 3 50-mile round trips to finally get it correct. I changed my "found it" logs to "didn't find" both times I was informed I was incorrect. When I finally got it right, I had a lot more satisfaction than I do for most virtuals.

Now that one does sound challenging. Very vague description and i can imagine there could be several things at the coordinates that could possibly be considered the virtual cache. Sounds like i need to make a trip north. Of course i would sure hope to get it right fairly quickly since we're only about 300 miles away!

I was deleted

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

Join the conversation