Jump to content

Making Vacation Caches acceptable


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Not that it matters, but your messages have not shown that you consistently agree with me in part. As a matter of fact you have taken pleasure in persecuing me, my ideas, and along with another have taken what Jeremy would call "cheap shots". Not to include emailing and then filtering me out as a cheap shot. I hope you feel better using your choice words in hopes to make you sound intelligent. Once again, another shot at me for the words in which I have used. Research on the topic in which I've posted? What research is there to be done? Show me where it says that a person has to place a cache within a certain amount of distance from their residence? You can't. Embarassed? Not at all. Am I the one that should be embarassed at taking shots at people personally?

 

I don't care if you don't like my views, ideas, or how many times I say it, how many different ways I say it, or what I say. It's a forum open for discussion. That's what I intend to do.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Posting someone's email in a public forum is also what most would call a cheap shot.

 

Research means reading the guidelines. Research means using the SEARCH feature in the furums, instead of posting the same topic as someone else "because you wanted your own topic". Last I saw there were no medals given for who starts the most topics, or has the most posts.

 

Until you, none of the other hundreds of thousands of geocachers needed a defined distance for how far to place a cache. The guidelines tell you you need to be able to maintain a cache you hide. If the cache approvers feel you can't, it won't be posted. If you can convince them that you can, they will post it. That's pretty simple, and almost every other user before you has understood it.

 

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

Link to comment

Yes it was a cheap shot Mopar. As far as reading the guidelines, yes I have read them and nothing states the distance a cache needs to be. You're right there are no medals for the most posts as there are no medals for the most caches found or placed. Nor do the numbers of either give you credibility of any form.

 

Whether no one has asked the question about distance or not, I do not know. If no one has asked it, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't need to asked or defined. If things are defined without any question and logic, then I have no problem. Just as it says no vacation caches. There's no definition displayued, but many people have different ideas. I agree and have stated that I believe caches should not be dropped with no intentions of not being maintained. If one can maintain a cache whether the distance as hoys has stated, then it shouldn't make a difference. No one can tell another that they can keep it maintained. Only time will tell. If there were definitions put into it, then there would be no question. But until there are, then there should be not be a cache not approved on those circumstances, unless the cache owner is a known violator.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
As far as reading the guidelines, yes I have read them and nothing states the distance a cache needs to be.

 

The reson is there is no distance stated, is because it can't be distilled down to a disntance, no matter how hard, or how many times you post. I pointed out my own situation way back in this thread as an example. FOR ME, placing a cache 35+ miles to my east should be banned under the guidelines. Why, look at my finds (and the 20 or so I havent got around to logging yet) and you wont see much or any activity out there. If I dropped a cache on long Island, as close as it may appear to be, I would never maintain it. Yet I have a cache 75 miles to my south. No problems getting it approved, because as you can see by mapping out my finds, I have plenty of finds in the area, spread out over many months. Even if you didn't know that I pass by the park that cache is in several times a week, you can tell by my cache finds. So for me, 50 miles would be WAY out of bounds for me in one direction, and far short of what I can maintain in another. You can't lock someone into a set distance. Heck there are some cachers like Logscaler who are quite capable of maintaining a cache hundreds of miles from home, while I know of one that is whithin walking distance of it's owner, and still isn't maintained. The guidelines state you can't hide a cache you can't reasonably maintain. I don't think you can define it any better then that

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I've stated that there should be no reason that there is no rule that says that a cache has to be within a certain amount of distance from where you reside. They state that they should be maintained. They say that to maintain them that they should be checked periodically along with the other rules. There is no definition as to "periodically".


Guess what... there is such a guideline. Accept it, live with it and focus on something else. Use some common sense on these matters. I've never seen anyone waste this much time on something so mundane. You could probably be a good cacher if you were to focus on caching within the guidelines instead of trying to make up your own.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

The rules say no vacation caches. No problem, my definition is one that you randomll drop without any research, in an area that you do not frequent or have no way, means or care to bother to maintain. That was my definition which I have to derive, since there really wasn't one for a short sentence of "No vacation caches". After all, why would you place a physical cache that can't be maintained?


Duh, you gotta' be kidding me and duh. Do everyone a favor and don't make up your own enterpretations. The way the site feels has been explained ad nauseum. Search the forums some and read.

 

Great post Team Hoys, GREAT POST! As hoys says, "I agree that a "vacation/visitor cache" is not necessarily a bad thing IF it is planned ahead of time and done correctly."

 

Like I say, my main concern is that you have stated that you are going to place a cache in GA. If you insist, then do it absolutely right. We have worked hard to gain permission to place caches in areas in GA (you read that right Alan2) and do have to deal with illegal placements. Please don't add to the problem.

 

Time to log my caches that I found after work today.

Link to comment

Mopar, I go along with what you said as well for the most. But I don't think that your previous cache finds in an area should make a difference. At least that's my viewpoint.

 

Mtn-Man, I didn't say I was going to place a cache in Georgia and didn't mean for it to be interpreted as such. I used that as an example in response to coast cachers message. When he posted it, it brought up a good point and question. Many were saying that you need to be a local. I did not read anything in the guidelines as such and still have not. If and whenever I place a cache, you believe it will be within the guidelines and properly maintained. My feelings are that if you don't do it that way, then you've wasted a lot of time and work and gained a lot of frustration. As far as my own interpretations go, well that's what happens when things are left open. People interpret differently. Nothing you can do about that. Your first sentence said there is a guideline. What is that guideline and what does it state. I might of mistyped what I was referring to on that , what I was referring to was that there is no rule stated that says a cache must be placed within a certain distance of where you reside. My error on that is miscontrued. Did that clear that part up Mtn-man? Or is there a guideline that states there is a distance? If so where?

 

To say that something is mundane is not a fair statement. Or let me rephrase that. It's your viewpoint and that is fine, but it's not my viewpoint.

 

People should only take my opinions and thoughts as that. Perhaps some see insight in them. Perhaps some don't see eye to eye, and not everyone will. Just as I will not agree with everyone elses opinion. But I can freely express my feelings on my opinions and disagree with others usually in an adult like manner, until personally attacked. If people, whether new or old, don't bring up topics on here or make discussion, then the message board will not be used except for "The person below me" type of messages. Do I complain about them? No, if I feel I can post an answer, I will. If I don't want to and the topic doesn't appeal to me, then I don't post there.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Maybe I'm not familiar with forum etiquette, but someone said that it's inappropriate to post a private email on the forum.

 

I would agree if all the communications were private between the two parties - posting any publically would be bad form.

 

But when someone decides to go off the forum page and email his rant to someone privately, then in my opinion all bets are off.

 

The ranter should have the courage of his opinions and post them all publically like his previous forum posts. Anything less is just a cheap email shot he deserves to have his email posted by the receiver.

 

Alan

Link to comment

Thanks Alan2, I normally wouldn't of posted an email on the forum, but if you are going to block me from responding to you privately, then it will end up on the forum. There was no reason to even send me the email. It could of been kept on the forum, but if you are going to go off of the forum and try to "suckerpunch" me, then be prepared for it to be displayed back on the forum where it should of been.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

And yet I still receive more email from him....go figure....respond here Bassoonpilot.

 

Now I get accused of not using the search option....hmmm yep I could of used it, but I didn't, get over it. Bassoon I will accept the fact that you agree about out of area caches, as you just stated it. If you stated it before, then fine we agree on something. But don't attack me personally, my business, or take cheapshots and sucker punches. If you don't like the fact that I have posted something that was already talked about, then don't read it, don't particiapte in it and move one. If you feel obligated to respond, then respond with your opinion on the topic and not attack something personally that has nothing to do with the topic or discussion of the thread.

 

As far as your #2 and the time limits, that is another thread and was a question for others opinions. It was nothing to do research on. It was to get others viewpoints. AS stated before, don't read it. The topic is self explanatory.

 

All i'm interested in is posting as often as possible? Are you me, do you know what i'm interested in? I'm interested in discussion, which takes posting messages. Unlike you and others, I have not stated a thing about numbers and do not hold the lack of or over abundance of #'s against anyone.

 

And sorry, not I do not feel embarassed, what is there to be embarassed about? I'm not embarassed about sending an email to someone and telling them not to respond because their email was beign filtered. I'm not embarassed because I sent a second email and not posted a reply to the topic.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Why?

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors


Sure, why would I not want to go around telling everyone that Im crediable even though I don't bother to read the background on anything, and that I'm not lazy I just wanted my own because it was easier for ME that way. icon_frown.gif

That I didn't do the common courtesy thing, because I didn't want to, so deal with it.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

Most of us do know how to search the forums and give others the common courtesy of doing so. Since you won't:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

In other words, I'm going home to Augusta, Georgia in a few weeks for vacation, hopefully. I live over 1000 miles away and it would be absurd for me to own a cache so far away even though I can't maintain it. What if there was a place, where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take this cache that I want to place there?


That's what I'm talking about. You do tend to say one thing and then another. Since the GGA will have to clean up your mess if you make one I am just covering the bases.

 

There is no clear-cut X-mile rule, no. That is for a good reason. Mopar explained that extremely well. Read his post again because I'm not saying it again. Approvers do use their judgement. We are not perfect. I do feel we get it right most of the time. We do make mistakes though.

 

For now it is what it is. Jeremy has stated:

quote:
I have a solution, and I'll be happy to amend the vacation cache issue.

 

If you place a cache and the land owner has agreed to maintain it, you are welcome to place one on vacation. To do this you need to put the land manager's contact information (phone number or email will do) on the cache page so if it needs maintaining the geocacher can contact them.

 

Otherwise don't place caches on vacation. It's irresponsible behavior to hide something you have no intention of maintaining.

 

Never try to justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. If it is obvious that many people don't maintain their caches, why add to the problem? Maybe when you come upon one of these poorly maintained caches you replace the container, fix the logbook, etc, instead of placing your own problem on the landscape?

 

We already ask people to help repair and maintain caches they find, and leave them better than they left it. Perhaps we should start there before creating more problems.

 

If you want to do something on vacation, create travel bugs and put them in existing caches.


Live with it. No one in this forum can change the guidelines but Jeremy. He has spoken.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Mopar, I go along with what you said as well for the most. But I don't think that your previous cache finds in an area should make a difference. At least that's my viewpoint.


 

Sure it should. It's a pretty valid indicator of how familiar you are with an area, it's laws and customs, and how likely you are to return and maintain the cache.

 

Sure, you might have grown up in another state, and generally know it better then where you live know, but if you have never bothered to take the time to even find a cache there, chances are:

 

A: You don't know whats legal and what isn't, geocaching-wise

 

B: You don't really know just how close you are to another cache. You might be placing it right on top of the final stage of a multi that started 5 miles away.

 

C: If do make frequent trips to an area, yet have never found enough free time to seek a local cache, how are you suddenly going to have enough free time to hide or maintain a quality cache?

 

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

Link to comment

Welch, it has nothing to do with searching or researching. It has to do with discussion. There may be many people like me who have come aboard lately or even those who have been around a while that miss such things and never thought about it and it does spark an interest. As stated before, if everyone did "research" and used the search feature, then there would be no discussion on geocaching here, with the exception of "why did my cache get archived?" or "how many have you found?".

 

Mtn-man, see you've read that wrong. I stated "what if"? That topic you quoted was on the point of finding a person to maintain a cache that was not in registered before doing any such thing. That had to do with finding someone to ensure that the cache is maintained and more or less helping someone out who don't know where to place a cache in that area, perhaps a local as so many people were insisting at the time that needed to own the cache. It was a question and hypothetical at that. You are correct Mopar did state that and I acknowledged that, but I received responses from others that dictated otherwise and have taken pride in attacking one personally. While it does not affect me personal, I will not accept it. As far as approvers go, I did and do give credit. I know that you do the best of what you can do with what you are given. People do make mistakes, just as Coast Cachers did and they acknowledged that. Yes I have read what Jeremey stated and have used it several times in this topic.

 

Mopar:

A: That is why one should know and research the facts ahead of time before placing any cache.

B: That is why you check ahead of time with the website and can use things like topozone to plot out other caches in the system. If by chance you do overlook something, then that is for the approvers to overlook.

C: I can see your point on this, but there may be instances that there are no caches within an area or there may be a few caches in an area, but that may not appeal to someone (i.e. virtual, multis, puzzles, etc.).

 

All in all, it appears that the last few people that have posted do agree that:

1) Care should be given when searching and researching to place a cache.

2) There are no limits on the distance of where a cache can be placed.

3) Caches placed should be properly maintained.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Rules, laws, guidelines, whatever you want to call them, all have this in common. They were created to cover MOST situations. It seems like there has been a lot of arguing over one of the few situations that might arise wherein a guideline (if followed) would inhibit activity which (if done correctly) might be perfectly ok.

The best thing to do is accept the guidelines, even if your unique situation enables you to do things MOST people can't.

And for those of you that speak in analogies, there are very few race car drivers compared to the entire population, but as a society, we still don't allow them to speed. Even though they have the skills to weave in and out of traffic safely. They accept that fact, and follow the law, or they are ticketed like anyone else.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

In reference to rules, laws and guidelines you are correct Bloencustoms. They do cover most of the situations. But, they are appended time to time to cover situations as they happen. When the thread first started, there was controversy over placing a cache "out of area" (I like that term) and being able to maintain it. There is nothing to defined or written that gives specifics about it. I think it has been covered, to the dismay of those who disagree, that out of area caches can be placed as long as they are placed correctly and maintained. And as Jeremy stated in his post here, it is now ok to place a cache on vacation as long as the "land owner has agreed to maintain it". So with that being said, should the new guidleline say that vacation caches are ok? Or should the line that says no vacation caches be removed? Or should there be an ammendment made on it or have it updated that defines what Jeremy stated?

 

I can imagine many people don't bother to come on to the forums at all. As they don't care to. But when they want to place a cache they go to those guidelines and faqs to get their answers and not the forums.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Ok, you have Jeremy's permission to place a distance cache and have it maintained by the landowner. I don't necessarily agree with distance caches, but that's not up to me. So, perhaps you ought to take the opportunity to place one of these caches that you fight so hard to defend. I don't agree with them, but I accept Jeremy's decision. Think of all the effort that could be put into ensuring your distance cache isn't lame, rather than trying to change people's minds. Nothing can be said to make me believe that vacation caches are good. It is absolutely futile to try to make me see otherwise. But, since I'm not the one making the rules, it shouldn't matter what I think, right? If you can place one (within the guidelines) go ahead. I realise it's just as futile to help you see my point of view. I would like to say, thank goodness you aren't caching in my neighborhood, but I suppose you could, couldn't you. Well, come on down. We have a ton of statues.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

LOL Bloen, you are tight it is your viewpoint and whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees makes no difference. Jeremy made reference to Vacation caches and not out of area caches. I have no immediate plans to place a vacation or out of area cache or one locally for that matter. The point I started this all with was that there is nothing to say you can't. I have no problem if they said all caches have to be within 10 miles of your residence. Put it there in the guidelines. The guidelines said no vacation caches, which is a broad statement that can confuse and interfere with someone who wants to place a cache somewhere as a vacation cache was not defined. Jeremy fixed that on this thread, but until it gets changed on the guidelines then many people will not be aware of it. Rules are easy to follow. But when you leave an area open for question, people will question it. It's better to question it up front.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

We can partly agree, I disagree that one should have to use the forums. As many people don't care for them. If the forums were a specific set of ammendments and just that, then it would be better. But if someone was searching the subject "vacation cache", then they will see 4 pages of opinions, disagreements, cheap shots and personal attacks with very little information. Now if there was a section of the forum that Jeremy made as "read only", and he posted ammendments to the guidelines, then I would have no problem with that. There should just be a statement on the guidelines page that states to check that forum for more up to date guidelines. But like any other guidelines, rules, or regulations, once you make a major change to something, then ammendments need to be done away with on that subject and that subject needs to be re-written. But that is my opinion.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Welch, it has nothing to do with searching or researching.


Oh yes it does. You want to know why?

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Mtn-man, see you've read that wrong. I stated "what if"? That topic you quoted was on the point of finding a person to maintain a cache that was not in registered before doing any such thing.


Dude, the passage I quoted was from THIS TOPIC ON PAGE 1! icon_rolleyes.gificon_mad.gifLet me refresh you memory. You don't even remember what you have said anymore. Let me help you out once again.

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

And as Jeremy stated in his post here, it is now ok to place a cache on vacation as long as the "land owner has agreed to maintain it". So with that being said, should the new guidleline say that vacation caches are ok?


Why don't you put the full explaination down.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

If you place a cache and the land owner has agreed to maintain it, you are welcome to place one on vacation. To do this you need to put the land manager's contact information (phone number or email will do) on the cache page so if it needs maintaining the geocacher can contact them.


It sounds a lot different when the full guideline is quoted (and read). Jeremy didn't say, 'you can it is now ok to place a cache on vacation as long as the "land owner has agreed to maintain it"'. That was an "if" statement and was followed by the conditions to allow them.

 

As far as my quote from you in the July 06, 2003 01:27 AM post of mine above, as I said, "You do tend to say one thing and then another. Since the GGA will have to clean up your mess if you make one I am just covering the bases." Did you skip over that by chance? I'm glad you will not be placing a cache down here.

Link to comment

By the way, those of us who have been around for a while have seen examples of why caches placed while traveling are not a good idea and have lead to the restructuring of the guidelines. Here are two such examples:

 

Florida cache

The cache was never found, and based on the shear number of people that looked for it I can imagine the damage done to the area. The owner never could go and find out what happened and then copped an attitude about it to boot.

 

I can see where I used to live from Here!

The cache owner begged me to approve it saying they would have no problem maintaining it. I asked for a logbook and after a week they said they put one in there and I approved it. They lied. I never could get them to get back over to put a logbook in the cache. I wrote one more time about it and the archive note on the cache appeared.

Link to comment

Mtn man, let me show you what you quoted earlier at the top of page 4 of what I had earleir said:

 

"In other words, I'm going home to Augusta, Georgia in a few weeks for vacation, hopefully. I live over 1000 miles away and it would be absurd for me to own a cache so far away even though I can't maintain it. What if there was a place, where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take this cache that I want to place there?

 

I see a "what if". My whole thing as part of the Augusta Georgia part was hypothetical. I've stated that to you numerous times, whether or not you read it and understood it that way the first time. For at least the 3rd time if not more, IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL.

 

quote:

Why don't you put the full explaination down.


There was no need for a repost of the full extent of his post. You posted it up above and Jeremy posted it in the same thread, if people will read hte whole thread, then they know what the full extent of his message said. You know what it said. The IF word that he used was in context that IF a person places a cache on vacation, not that it was an IF IT WAS ALLOWED. If it is posted that no vacations caches will be allowed along with FULL length of his message then that would be great.

 

It doesn't matter where the person is from, or how far away they live. That has been proven. You still are going to get bad caches, and people not doing what they are supposed to do. Not everyone is going to follow the rules and you can expect that those situations are going to happen. As a maintainer you will have to deal with those as they come and happen. I'm not saying it's a good thing, it's just a part of what happened and will happen, even though it's a waste of your time. Even if you say in set stone that it has to be a certain way, people are going to do it another or sneak something past you. As far as you are covering the bases that is great. I don't blame you, but don't try to interpret what one says as something differently.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

You said:

"What if there was a place, where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take this cache that I want to place there?"

 

To me, the "if" part refers to a place where you can post a message. The "to take this cache that I want to place there" part is a direct statement and doesn't relate to the question in the sentence which is asking if there is a place where you can post a message, again to me that is. The statements says you want to place a cache in Augusta and you wonder if there is a place to post a message regarding it.

 

Let me help you a bit with the English language then. Based on your explaination of what you meant to say I guess you should have worded it as:

What if there was a place where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take a cache if I want to place one there?"

 

Its just semantics, but you seem to really be into that.

 

There was a definate need to repost the full extent of Jeremy's post. It may have been posted several times in the topic, but your post took it out of context by only posting part of it. You gave it a different meaning. I'll give you an example. You said "they can't maintain a cache that far away", so I would use that statement to say that you agree that all of these vacation cache or caches placed while traveling should be banned, based on what you said.

 

That is, unless I took that out of context... icon_biggrin.gif

Link to comment

Yep you took the whole thing out of context. You have to read the whole gist of the thread. Me saying "What if there was a place, where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take this cache that I want to place there?" was only part of the message. If people read the thread in it's entirety should be able to follow suit. Of course if someone goes directly to the last page or skims across the other threads without reading the whole thing will not understand. More of that message stated: "In other words, I'm going home to Augusta, Georgia in a few weeks for vacation, hopefully. I live over 1000 miles away and it would be absurd for me to own a cache so far away even though I can't maintain it. What if there was a place, where I could post a message looking for members in the Augusta, Georgia area to take this cache that I want to place there? I also stated in that message that the idea was to place a cache (not registered) and turn it over to a user in that area to register it and maintain it as their own. As far as an approver (you) is concerned, I had nothing to do with it. All which brought around the question of out of area caches, which we have agreed that are allowed and there are no rules on other than the normal rules that apply to all caches.

 

I don't feel there was a need to repost the whole context of Jeremy's posting on my part. You had already done it. This thread is not a guideline, if Jeremy stated that it was ok with the conditions he noted (better?, then it needs to be placed on the guidelines page. Should it read that vacation caches are ok? My opinion is that it should say something to the effect of "Vacation caches are not allowed unless...(insert Jeremy's conditions).

 

You're remrk of the exerpt you used against me "they can't maintain a cache that far away" is not referring to anything is it? Does it mean a cache, a B average, a steady job? You have to read the whole context and understand where it is going. Do you understand my viewpoint, or do I need to resum it up all into one post?

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

OK, I get it now. We need to read every part of your post and you can take parts of other people's post but it is up to us to look them up to understand the full context of your statements. I get it.

quote:
You're remrk of the exerpt you used against me "they can't maintain a cache that far away" is not referring to anything is it? Does it mean a cache, a B average, a steady job?
Dude, it was referring to a cache. It says, "maintain a cache" doesn't it? You said it; do you not understand what you said? Obviously even you don't remember it. I'm proving a point. I quoted that you said that people couldn’t maintain a cache that far away. It's up to you to figure out where that came from -- and anyone else who reads this. It is just a way of illustrating that it is best to quote all of what someone says and not just part of a sentence. It is absolutely out of context but it is up to you to find the original context of your statement. (I don't think anyone else really cares.)

 

As I have said, if you were to focus your energy in a positive direction you could be a tremendous benefit in the forums. One thing is for sure... you’re the only one posting a negative opinion of the guideline at this point.

Link to comment

You are correct I mistyped there...I meant for it to say virtual, traditional, etc...That Is my error and I accept responsibility for that.

 

You may consider my posting as negative on the guidline. I was making a suggestion. If one disagrees with it, or it doesn't make a difference to them on it, like it the way it is, then it is negative. I don't look at it as negative. I look at it as feedback. Some can tkae it as positive, some take it as negative.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

One additional thing. Thanks for the comment of being a tremendous help in the forums. That is not sarcastic and truly take it to heart. My opinions do not bare any negativity of anyone or anthing to do with the sport. I do believe I do have some great ideas. I'm sure others do as well. But a lot of people will not post or stop posting (as email I have received) due to that they feel they are being harassed, will be harassed or frwon upon by "old timers" that believe in numbers and time as being able to make you informative and credible. Not necessarily you, but in general. Unfortunately for them, I am not one who bows down are backs up. If I believe something I will stand for it. If I don't agree I will let you know. If i'm wrong or least feel i'm wrong or made an error then I will.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

One additional thing. Thanks for the comment of being a tremendous help in the forums. That is not sarcastic and truly take it to heart. My opinions do not bare any negativity of anyone or anthing to do with the sport. I do believe I do have some great ideas. I'm sure others do as well. But a lot of people will not post or stop posting (as email I have received) due to that they feel they are being harassed, will be harassed or frwon upon by "old timers" that believe in numbers and time as being able to make you informative and credible. Not necessarily you, but in general. Unfortunately for them, I am not one who bows down are backs up. If I believe something I will stand for it. If I don't agree I will let you know. If i'm wrong or least feel i'm wrong or made an error then I will.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

That's all fine and dandy. Right now I'm writing up the logs for the 20 or so caches I've found while you've been beating this topic to death.

 

Last I checked, this game was still about finding geocaches, not forum posts. Maybe, to coin a phrase, if you put your gps where your mouth is, and expend some of this energy into finding caches, you'll actually see how much fun it is (and how well the current system works, if everyone would just follow it).

 

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

Link to comment

ENOUGH ALREADY JEREMY,

ITS TIME TO LOCK THIS THREAD.

 

Woodster, its real simple if you can't maintain a cache you shouldn't place one. Especially if it is someplace that you are visiting on vacation and can only get back to on occasion. Unlike a local cache which you can get to easily.

 

I think everyone has made their point quite clearly and Woodster is simply not going to get it. PLEASE stopping posting this thread and let it die.

 

Get over it, the rules are there for a reason. This is not the first time this thread has come up. However most people know when to recognize that some things are not going to change, this is one of them.

Link to comment

Everyonme please note that it was agreed along time ago that it is ok to place an out of area cache and that it is ok to place a cache on vacation with the restrictions imposed on the first page of this thread. While many feel that a dead horse has been beaten, please take notice that over half of this thread was due in respect of people not thinking that I understand what can and can't be done. I've posed a question at the beginning, it was answered, not only by Jeremy by other Admin people (apporvers). But since my achknowledgements of the answers people have continuously wanted to bang me for previous questions. They continued to turn what the topic around and make a punching bag out of me for other things. That's fine, I can handle it. All I ask is give me some respect and you will get soem back. When one makes remarks at a person as why don't you do this and such, then you are going to get defensive answers in which you may not like. Take it like you give it and keep it on the topic. I apologize to those who felt they were "violated" with questions that turned to somewhat debate and more. I do not apologize to those who took liberty as to try and downgrade me. To each their own. I will continue to ask questions and give my opinion as I feel fit. If you don't like my question or opinions, then please don't respond. Let it move it's way down the screen and out of site.

 

Simple courtesy towards another is all that is asked.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

To each their own. I will continue to ask questions and give my opinion as I feel fit. If you don't like my question or opinions, then please don't respond.


 

I'm not an "apporver" and don't presume to speak for "everyonme" else, but that post has served to validate my opinion that you are a blathering idiot who has worked very hard to earn the disrespect and outright contempt of others.

 

If you don't like my opinion, follow your own advice and don't respond. Should you respond, it will serve as further proof of the validity and accuracy of my opinion.

Link to comment

Wow. The one thread that looked boring by its title... quite the heated discussion.

 

quote:
Ce'Nedra wrote:

Is this DEAD yet?


I thought this topic had already been beaten to death long ago.

 

Someone should have provided a bullet about two pages back.

 

*****

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors: I've posed a question at the beginning, it was answered, not only by Jeremy by other Admin people (apporvers).

 

Let it move it's way down the screen and out of site.

 

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

 

Well, some things make a whole lot of sense taken out of context. icon_biggrin.gif

 

eyes.GIF

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...