Extremely rude e-mail

March 24, 2002

I have a virtual cache listed with the following requirement: ''Send us an e-mail telling what the bar is most known for by the locals. (It's something about what's on their T-shirts). Any logs made without my okay will be deleted.''

A cacher logged a find without getting pre-approval. I deleted his entry and sent the following message to him: ''I deleted your find because you didn’t give the answer or get the required pre-approval.''

I just received the following e-mail from that person: ''Thank you for your interesting email chiding me for not getting your "required" permission before daring to post a "found it" log for your virtual cache. I'm fairly new at this and had not yet encountered a cacher so self-important as to exercise editorial control over my use of the internet, and, in any event, I had no idea how to obtain your permission had I wanted to. I would consider it a favor if you would inform me of the procedure for acquiring pre-approval from censors such as you.''

I have no problem helping a new cacher, but right now, the only answer I feel like sending him is @#(%#(*($$(@#^@@!!! Any suggestions on how to deal with this?

March 24, 2002

Tell him where to go, how quickly, and to actually read the cache descriptions first next time. If he can't handle it, we don't need him.

1.1k · March 24, 2002

I don't know whether you did this or not, but one thing I'd recommend when deleting someone's post is to first copy and paste their text into the e-mail notification you send them, so it's easy for them to repost the entry again once they've met the approval requirements.

I definitely agree that person should have been less rude with their reply. If it were me, I'd send a short response telling them that an e-mail would be sufficient for notifying you, and avoid allowing yourself to react to the rude tone.

3k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by belleterre:
I have a virtual cache listed with the following requirement: ''Send us an e-mail telling what the bar is most known for by the locals. (It's something about what's on their T-shirts). Any logs made without my okay will be deleted.''

Until a feature has been instituted where a cache owner must provide a person claiming a find with a unique code permitting that individual to post a log, I don't see why anyone should ask for or await "approval" to post a legitimate find . . . after that individual has sent the cache owner the required information. In my opinion, your demand comes across as arrogant and unreasonable. I see no need to manipulate people in such a way.

Certainly, when an individual claiming a find fails to submit the required information, or supplies incorrect information, I support your right to notify the claimant and delete the log.

March 24, 2002

I have seen the requirement for 'approval to post a find' in several virtuals and it can save a lot of hassle later. If someone either doesn't send an e-mail or gives the wrong answer, how many e-mails do I send and how long do I wait before deleting the log? Judging by other topics, I'd get answers anywhere from sending 1 to several e-mails and waiting from a few days to a few months. It works out a lot better to get things squared away before the find is ever logged.

March 24, 2002

If I'm logging a virtual with a required-answer, it depends how sure I am of the answer. If I KNOW I have the answer, I send the email and immediately log it. If I'm not sure, I send the email and wait for verification to post it. Just use common sense.

For the guy who whined about you deleting his post, I would send a very polite email explaining that this is simply how it works. Say that any other similar cache will have similar requirements. You might direct him to this thread. And if you delete his log, I agree you should put a copy of it in the email.

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

March 24, 2002

If I'm logging a virtual with a required-answer, it depends how sure I am of the answer. If I KNOW I have the answer, I send the email and immediately log it. If I'm not sure, I send the email and wait for verification to post it. Just use common sense.

For the guy who whined about you deleting his post, I would send a very polite email explaining that this is simply how it works. Say that any other similar cache will have similar requirements. You might direct him to this thread. And if you delete his log, I agree you should put a copy of it in the email.

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

March 24, 2002

Not sure how long you waited before you deleted his find. I think that if it is stated up front, a finder should respect your wishes. I would prob wait a few days and see if I heard from them, if not I would prob delete it too. I agree that the persons email was a bit of a rant...nobody should be taking this so seriously, its just a game. It seems lately that virtuals are causing more grief than they are worth...at least to people sensitive about how they are "found".

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

In my opinion, your demand comes across as arrogant and unreasonable. I see no need to manipulate people in such a way.

Unreasonable? Manipulative? Not really.

A little arrogant? Maybe.

Strict? Yes.

While I would not take this approach myself, the cache owner clearly indicated what they expected. They wanted an answer first before logging a find. So be it.

Personally, I think it's fine if someone logs their find right away and can have a day or two to get their response in. If they don't send it in by then, just send a polite email asking if they fulfilled the requirement. No big deal.

To answer the original thread question, just send an email to the finder pointing out the requirement for the cache and politely explain about the misunderstanding. Unless, of course, your intent is to be "so self-important as to exercise editorial control over my use of the internet"...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

In my opinion, your demand comes across as arrogant and unreasonable. I see no need to manipulate people in such a way.

Unreasonable? Manipulative? Not really.

A little arrogant? Maybe.

Strict? Yes.

While I would not take this approach myself, the cache owner clearly indicated what they expected. They wanted an answer first before logging a find. So be it.

Personally, I think it's fine if someone logs their find right away and can have a day or two to get their response in. If they don't send it in by then, just send a polite email asking if they fulfilled the requirement. No big deal.

To answer the original thread question, just send an email to the finder pointing out the requirement for the cache and politely explain about the misunderstanding. Unless, of course, your intent is to be "so self-important as to exercise editorial control over my use of the internet"...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 24, 2002

Be nice to the newbie. We DO need him and every other interested party. He made a mistake and then took offense at your message and deletion. I think you should just kindly let him know that this is how you chose to run your particular cache.

Not that it is important but, if I ran across a cache like this in my area I would just skip it for lack of interest. There are plenty of different caches out there to please us all. I hope that newbie finds more to his liking.

24.7k · March 24, 2002

He who makes the cache makes the rules. If they ask for an email, you send an email. If they want a picture of you in a chicken suit, you send the picture. Or you exercise your free will and don't do the cache. It's not complex. As for your rude emailer you simply say. "You email me the answer the same way you just did to chew me out. After an apology for being rude I will be happy to approve your find."

Maybe people will think that's arrogant, but then you own the cache. For the record if I make a cahce and ask for an email I would also delete logs that didn't follow the rules.

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
He who makes the cache makes the rules.

Is there really anything more to be said?

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
In my opinion, your demand comes across as arrogant and unreasonable. I see no need to manipulate people in such a way.

Um, hello? Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

Virtuals are usually by their very nature dependant on information obtained at the cache site. If there isn't some control over what is posted on virtuals, you may as well tell a cache owner that they have no control whatsoever over what information is posted to a cache log. I don't think the email to the geocacher who's log was deleted OR the requirements set forth in the description of the geocache was rude. It is no different than asking visitors to a cache to be mindful of the environment or to please not disturb the neighbors.

Cache owner + cache responsibility = cache CONTROL.

quote:
Certainly, when an individual claiming a find fails to submit the required information, or supplies incorrect information, I support your right to notify the claimant and delete the log.

Again, um! In the initial post, the geocache owner notes in the email sent to the finder that the requirements were not met to log this as a find. So, the person who attempted the geocache, though rude, was intelligent enough to go out and look, intelligent enough to write such a well-worded response and yet foolish enough not to read the entire requirements for the geocache to begin with.

He is foolish and compounds his stupidity by being rude and arrogant. That type of person is the same type of geocacher who goes out to find the cache but didn't notice it was a virtual until they get home after looking for two hours. A waste of skin, IMHO... which I'm sure, B.P., is the same as your post.

Whatever...

Red Would Red *** Hey, that's not right!

RedwoodRed

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
In my opinion, your demand comes across as arrogant and unreasonable. I see no need to manipulate people in such a way.

Um, hello? Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

Virtuals are usually by their very nature dependant on information obtained at the cache site. If there isn't some control over what is posted on virtuals, you may as well tell a cache owner that they have no control whatsoever over what information is posted to a cache log. I don't think the email to the geocacher who's log was deleted OR the requirements set forth in the description of the geocache was rude. It is no different than asking visitors to a cache to be mindful of the environment or to please not disturb the neighbors.

Cache owner + cache responsibility = cache CONTROL.

quote:
Certainly, when an individual claiming a find fails to submit the required information, or supplies incorrect information, I support your right to notify the claimant and delete the log.

Again, um! In the initial post, the geocache owner notes in the email sent to the finder that the requirements were not met to log this as a find. So, the person who attempted the geocache, though rude, was intelligent enough to go out and look, intelligent enough to write such a well-worded response and yet foolish enough not to read the entire requirements for the geocache to begin with.

He is foolish and compounds his stupidity by being rude and arrogant. That type of person is the same type of geocacher who goes out to find the cache but didn't notice it was a virtual until they get home after looking for two hours. A waste of skin, IMHO... which I'm sure, B.P., is the same as your post.

Whatever...

Red Would Red *** Hey, that's not right!

RedwoodRed

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by belleterre:
I have seen the requirement for 'approval to post a find' in several virtuals and it can save a lot of hassle later.

Actually, it just creates more hassle for everybody. By your method, the cache owner is required to send at least one (and in the majority of cases unnecessary) e-mail to each finder, and the individual claiming the find is forced to wait however long it takes the cache owner to respond and then to make an additional, and unnecessary, visit to the cache page in order to post their legitimate find.

Rather than having to go through so much effort on EVERY "find" claimed, wouldn't it be more efficient to reserve one's "control" for those rare finders who fail to provide the required information or whose finds appear to be "questionable?"

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 25, 2002 at 03:35 AM.]

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by exConn:
Unreasonable? Manipulative? Not really.

A little arrogant? Maybe.

Strict? Yes.

While I would not take this approach myself, the cache owner clearly indicated what they expected. They wanted an answer first before logging a find. So be it.

And since preventing anyone from posting a log to a page is at present beyond the control of a cache owner, to make such a demand is indeed, in my opinion, unreasonable, manipulative and arrogant.

The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by exConn:
Unreasonable? Manipulative? Not really.

A little arrogant? Maybe.

Strict? Yes.

While I would not take this approach myself, the cache owner clearly indicated what they expected. They wanted an answer first before logging a find. So be it.

And since preventing anyone from posting a log to a page is at present beyond the control of a cache owner, to make such a demand is indeed, in my opinion, unreasonable, manipulative and arrogant.

The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

I still don't see the problem even with this cynical example.

If a cache was created with the text that you just used, then the finder is seeking it on that premise. It is up to them to decide to go after it or not. Obviously most ( ) wouldn't go after your example, but if that's how the owner created it...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

I still don't see the problem even with this cynical example.

If a cache was created with the text that you just used, then the finder is seeking it on that premise. It is up to them to decide to go after it or not. Obviously most ( ) wouldn't go after your example, but if that's how the owner created it...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

Um, hello? Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

Virtuals are usually by their very nature dependant on information obtained at the cache site. If there isn't some control over what is posted on virtuals, you may as well tell a cache owner that they have no control whatsoever over what information is posted to a cache log.

If you are responding to something I wrote, you missed the point entirely, but thanks.

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

Why not? Isn't this the entire theory behind "Members Only" Geocaches? I mean really... What if I, a "Member", print out my cache log and head out, and oh, the folks that are going with me aren't "Members". Does that mean that they cannot log the find?

Point is, we are already dealing with restrictions. Telling people where to park so as not to disturb a wilderness area or the neighbors is a good form of control for a geocache. Asking people to send an email to verify the find of a virtual cache is not as difficult, time consuming or a hogging of the bandwidth as you seem to make it out to be. It is her cache, she can make rules if she likes. Again, if you chose not to go to that cache for whatever reason, DON'T GO! But please stop complaining/arguing about a cachers rights during placement.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
The next thing we'll see is a cache placed where the owner says the cache can only be sought by people wearing chicken hats and one red and one blue sneaker at midnight on the second Tuesday of a month when it's raining . . . it's precisely the same idea. Oh yeah, after receiving permission to log your legitimate find, you've got to include in your post time-stamped photos and a report from the Weather Channel, or else it will be deleted. So be it.

Why not? Isn't this the entire theory behind "Members Only" Geocaches? I mean really... What if I, a "Member", print out my cache log and head out, and oh, the folks that are going with me aren't "Members". Does that mean that they cannot log the find?

Point is, we are already dealing with restrictions. Telling people where to park so as not to disturb a wilderness area or the neighbors is a good form of control for a geocache. Asking people to send an email to verify the find of a virtual cache is not as difficult, time consuming or a hogging of the bandwidth as you seem to make it out to be. It is her cache, she can make rules if she likes. Again, if you chose not to go to that cache for whatever reason, DON'T GO! But please stop complaining/arguing about a cachers rights during placement.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

Why not? Isn't this the entire theory behind "Members Only" Geocaches? I mean really... What if I, a "Member", print out my cache log and head out, and oh, the folks that are going with me aren't "Members". Does that mean that they cannot log the find?

I have no idea; I wasn't aware we were discussing "MOCs."

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

Point is, we are already dealing with restrictions. Telling people where to park so as not to disturb a wilderness area or the neighbors is a good form of control for a geocache.

That is neither a restriction nor a requirement. It is merely a "suggestion," because it is completely beyond the control of the cache owner. . . . but perhaps you are suggesting that cache owners should be required to accept liability for their caches?

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:
Asking people to send an email to verify the find of a virtual cache is not as difficult, time consuming or a hogging of the bandwidth as you seem to make it out to be.

Again, you missed the point, and you do not appear to be responding to anything I wrote. I have no problem with information being required to verify the find of a virtual cache.

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:
It is her cache, she can make rules if she likes.

... But please stop complaining/arguing about a cachers rights during placement.

Note that the "rights" you mention aren't really "rights" at all; they are merely practices that have not been deemed "unacceptable" by the site owner.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 25, 2002 at 03:39 AM.]

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Then by your own argument, you must be out of line attempting to control my participation in this thread. Note that the "rights" you mention aren't really "rights" at all; they are merely practices that have not been deemed "unacceptable" by the site owner.

I don't see my "request" (I said PLEASE, after all.) as an attempt at controlling your participation.

You are right, there is no written guideline that Jeremy expects each cache to adhere to or not be posted to the site. He assumes, right or wrong, that most of us are adults, intelligent and responsible for our actions. It is also assumed, by the frequent posts to that affect, that common sense should take precident whenever a cache is placed and when one choses to hunt them. Common sense would dictate that if there isn't a rule against cache placers making rules about their caches, then they CAN, and will. Each of us can and should use common sense when making the descision of whether or not to seek these caches, and that entails being prepared which would include reading all of the directions before attempting a find. Those who don't read the rules/warnings/cautions/suggestions and then are disappointed or injured do so at their own risk.

Evidently you didn't understand, or chose not to acknowledge MY thinly-veiled point: You calling the cache placer arrogant and manipulative in this instance is in and of itself arrogant and manipulative - not to mention condescending and aggressive - by your own use of phrasing and your unending posts in what seems to be an attempt to gain the "last word", as you seemingly attempt to do in all of the subjects on this forum in which you participate.

Am I attacking you personally? If I am it is in the same manner in which you called the cache placer who originally posted this thread manipulative and arrogant.

You know, but I could be wrong. Maybe you typed that comment with a smile on your face. The printed word, though accurate in conveying an idea or thought does not easily convey the emotion of the author. So, if I understood your original comments to be an attack, personal or not, on the author of this thread, I hope you will understand that my above comments are completely sincere.

If, on the other hand, you were making light of the situation that angered and unnerved the author of this thread by your comments, and you meant them in a boisterous and joking manner, please except my apology for my misreading of your intent.

As Dennis Miller says, "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

The 400-lb. gorilla has spoken.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

1k · March 25, 2002

This is another string that is going down that destructive road we experienced a couple of weeks ago ... it would really be helpful if everyone would back off a little and cool off. Maybe let this string die.

Just a suggestion.

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

... He assumes, right or wrong, that most of us are adults, intelligent and responsible for our actions. ... Common sense would dictate that if there isn't a rule against cache placers making rules about their caches, then they CAN, and will. ...

I'm only going to respond to things that relate directly to what I wrote. Common sense may say it; but do some of the rules people dream up necessarily make sense: Are the rules reasonable, are they enforceable, and are they enforced with reason? Re-read what I wrote about this subject in a couple of posts.

Frankly, the "rule" under discussion, and the owner's original response to the claimant, indicates to me the cache owner was inviting, and expecting the type of response received. I have no problem with the cache owner informing the claimant that he was deleting the find because the answers required were not provided. It's that "pre-approval" nonsense, as I stated previously.

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

Evidently you didn't understand, or chose not to acknowledge MY thinly-veiled point: You calling the cache placer arrogant and manipulative in this instance is in and of itself arrogant and manipulative ...

"Kettle, meet pot. Pot, meet kettle ..." Actually, I didn't respond to your point because it is invalid: The cache owner was attempting to control the behavior of cache finders. My statement was an opinion, and was labeled as such.

quote:
Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:
You know, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, you could.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 25, 2002 at 04:34 AM.]

March 25, 2002

I personally find this bickering to be trivial. Most, if not all, of us here are mature enough (or so I thought) to acknolowdege the fact that a cache owner has every right to make rules for approval opr whatever for their caches. I'm personally thinking of a virtual cache at the war graves in my town where there's a teenage couple buerried. My req. would be that the seeker has to e-mail me with the last names and date of death of the pair. Any posts made without my approval would be deleted, but only ater I e-mail the cacher and then wait for a period no less than 76 hours, or 3 days for the cacher to e-mail me the info.

I do agree that it was the right of this cache owner to delete the log, but she should have waited at least 3 days after sending an e-mail asking for the info.

TJWilson

Gander NF

3k · March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TJWilson1:
Most, if not all, of us here are mature enough (or so I thought) to acknolowdege the fact that a cache owner has every right to make rules for approval opr whatever for their caches.

???

quote:
Originally posted by TJWilson1:

... My req. would be that the seeker has to e-mail me with the last names and date of death of the pair. Any posts made without my approval would be deleted, but only ater I e-mail the cacher and then wait for a period no less than 76 hours, or 3 days for the cacher to e-mail me the info. ...

The method you are suggesting appears to follow the standard for virtual caches . . . if the finder has a three day window to e-mail you the information after posting the find log, then your "approval" to place a log was never required; only verification of the find was required.

We were discussing the need to secure the approval from a cache owner prior to posting a find log, not subsequent to posting.

March 25, 2002

I am finding it hard to see where the argument is here. With physical caches nobody would argue that you cannot log a "found" message until you had actually been to the cache.

With virtual caches, it's a bit more complex, but the person who sets the cache says what the criteria for "finding" it are. If the cache setter says that to "find" the cache you must e-mail me some information and it's written on the cache page, I regard logging a "found" message before fulfilling all the requirements of the cache setter as equivalent to logging a "found" message on a physical cache without actually going there.

If I logged a *physical* cache as found when I hadn't been there nobody would have any arguments against deleting my log. Why should it be different for virtual caches? OK you can say that the conditions for finding the cache might be unreasonable, but that is a different kettle of worms (or can of fish).

The other thing is that there is nothing to stop the cacher in this case from logging a note to say "visited the cache site, got the answer, awaiting verification from the owner." and then changing it to a "found it" log after verification.

To my mind, the person that logged the cache as found without fulfilling the requirement to verify the cache with the owner (when the owner had published that requirement) is lying.

If you want the right to free speech, you must accept the reponsibility not to lie. That's my 2 cents (well pence - I'm English )

-------

jeremyp

We're going to need a bigger boat!

March 25, 2002

I am finding it hard to see where the argument is here. With physical caches nobody would argue that you cannot log a "found" message until you had actually been to the cache.

With virtual caches, it's a bit more complex, but the person who sets the cache says what the criteria for "finding" it are. If the cache setter says that to "find" the cache you must e-mail me some information and it's written on the cache page, I regard logging a "found" message before fulfilling all the requirements of the cache setter as equivalent to logging a "found" message on a physical cache without actually going there.

If I logged a *physical* cache as found when I hadn't been there nobody would have any arguments against deleting my log. Why should it be different for virtual caches? OK you can say that the conditions for finding the cache might be unreasonable, but that is a different kettle of worms (or can of fish).

The other thing is that there is nothing to stop the cacher in this case from logging a note to say "visited the cache site, got the answer, awaiting verification from the owner." and then changing it to a "found it" log after verification.

To my mind, the person that logged the cache as found without fulfilling the requirement to verify the cache with the owner (when the owner had published that requirement) is lying.

If you want the right to free speech, you must accept the reponsibility not to lie. That's my 2 cents (well pence - I'm English )

-------

jeremyp

We're going to need a bigger boat!

March 25, 2002

Thanks to everyone who left helpful suggestions on this thread. I’ve decided how to respond to him, so there isn’t a need for more posts. I’d like to close the thread so it will go away. BUT, if I do, I suspect I’ll be accused of chiding, making requirements, self-importance, exercising editorial control over the internet, censoring, demanding, arrogant, unreasonable, manipulative, inefficient, controlling, inviting/expecting rudeness, nonsensical. So, I will only “suggest” that no more posts are made. BTW, I like the chicken hat and red and blue tennies idea. Maybe I could name that cache after the person who suggested it.

3k · March 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by belleterre:
BTW, I like the chicken hat and red and blue tennies idea. Maybe I could name that cache after the person who suggested it.

Do you intend on personally verifying each and every "find?"

3k · March 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by belleterre:
BTW, I like the chicken hat and red and blue tennies idea. Maybe I could name that cache after the person who suggested it.

Do you intend on personally verifying each and every "find?"

1.1k · March 26, 2002

Unless the stated prerequisite of sending an e-mail was added to the cache description in a post-approval edit, it looks to me like the powers that be had no problem with it.

As for my own opinion, I'm in agreement with those who've pointed out that the requirement was clearly stated...and if someone didn't want to comply with it, they could choose not to participate in the cache.

3k · March 26, 2002

Well, as the cache page for this simple 1/1 virtual cache displays logs from precisely two visitors in the 4 months of its existence, and none since the cache was 1 month old, I guess that's what people are doing . . . or all of their legitimate logs have been deleted.

Personally, I like to encourage people to visit my caches. I wouldn't be in such a rush to chase potential finders away.

That is, of course, only my opinion.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 26, 2002 at 02:03 PM.]

3k · March 26, 2002

Well, as the cache page for this simple 1/1 virtual cache displays logs from precisely two visitors in the 4 months of its existence, and none since the cache was 1 month old, I guess that's what people are doing . . . or all of their legitimate logs have been deleted.

Personally, I like to encourage people to visit my caches. I wouldn't be in such a rush to chase potential finders away.

That is, of course, only my opinion.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 26, 2002 at 02:03 PM.]

March 26, 2002

I'm sure there was an 'anti-bump' button here just a second ago.

Lurkers of the World, Unite!

March 27, 2002

You're right. He's Wrong. She is right. They got a point BUT...

Who Gives a HooT!!!

Good gravey. Why in all that is good are you aruging over something that has no bearing. This is a non-competive outdoor activity. Who cares if someone is padding his find count or posting virtual finds without "approval" or posting finds on caches on seperate ends of the conrty in the same day. If thats what makes them happy, so be it.

Is geocaching such a MAJOR part of your life that you feel the need to argue over every piddly little thing. If it is I think maybe your problems lie a little deeper then a rude e-mail or who has control of a cache.

Please, PLEASE Let's just grab our GPS, a compass, some coords, a map and a friend, and head out to have a nice RELAXING walk in the woods.

Sorry but I could only take so much of the squabbling.

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

3k · March 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:

Please, PLEASE Let's just grab our GPS, a compass, some coords, a map and a friend, and head out to have a nice RELAXING walk in the woods.

Sorry but I could only take so much of the squabbling.

Well, at least that's off your chest. There's nothing like "positive action," I always say.

Actually, I got in a 4.5/4.5 and a 1/1 cache yesterday before lunchtime, hours before I had to go to work, and two easy 1/1's on my walk this morning. How'd you do on your walk?

3k · March 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:

Please, PLEASE Let's just grab our GPS, a compass, some coords, a map and a friend, and head out to have a nice RELAXING walk in the woods.

Sorry but I could only take so much of the squabbling.

Well, at least that's off your chest. There's nothing like "positive action," I always say.

Actually, I got in a 4.5/4.5 and a 1/1 cache yesterday before lunchtime, hours before I had to go to work, and two easy 1/1's on my walk this morning. How'd you do on your walk?

March 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:
You're right. He's Wrong. She is right. They got a point BUT...

Who Gives a HooT!!!

Indeed!

It's starting to become a a chore just to sort through some of the many 'hold-my-hand' posts that inundate this forum daily.

MajBach

You can't have everything.

where would you put it?

Extremely rude e-mail

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

Join the conversation