Missing for a year -Pretty Strange

38.2k · July 17, 2002

Here's a strange situation. This cache has been missing for nearly a year, but it's since been logged as found by 16 people. It was originally a jar with its lid screwed to a board. At first people were logging the find of a lid. In the end they were just logging the screw holes!

One guy didn't even find those and posted it as a find anyway. Some of these people are veteran cachers who should know better. Kind of dishonest I think. It was thankfully archived this week or who knows how many would have counted it as a find. Hey, maybe I should add to my find list. I've seen screw holes before. Maybe not these particuar ones, but they're pretty much all alike.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4364

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

July 17, 2002

It's been said many times before ... some people geocache for trinkets, some geocache for the "getting there." One could argue about what makes a find ... If the log book has been taken, is it "plundered"? If the conmtainer is gone but the log book is on the ground, can it be "counted"? I once logged a cache as "Couldn't Find It" untiul a few days later, and exchanged emails I learned that the milk crate that I sat on rubbing my temples after 45 minutes of searching was the camoflage that once hid the container. I changed my log to "Found It" because to me, I achieved the correct coordinates with certainty. The cache owner agreed.

Not every cache has screw holes or milk crates but as long as a cache is posted as active and part of the cache remains, I will log it as a find. It has very little to do with honesty.

38.2k · July 17, 2002

It is a matter of honesty. Either you find the cache or you don't. I guess if some people are just out to pad their find numbers, that's their business. Note however, some of the people who logged this (a handful) refused to log it as a find.

Hey, maybe I'd give them the lids, but screw holes, c'mon now, give me a break.

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 17, 2002 at 05:20 AM.]

July 17, 2002

Seems to me like we're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Do the numbers really matter? Aren't we involved in GeoCaching for the experience and fun, not to see who can find the most caches or have the bigger number. Give me a break.

1.8k · July 17, 2002

I was one of the last people to log it as a find. I too, wondered why the cache was still listed and not archived.

I debated whether to count it as a find or not. Since I made the effort to get to the correct coordinates, and I found the screws (not holes, the screws that held the container in place were still there) where the container was, which did take a bit or crawling out on the rocks, I decided to count it as a find.

I didn't read through the old logs that carefully, so I didn't know what I would (or in this case, wouldn't) be looking for. Since the cache was not archived, I had no reason to believe that there was nothing to be found.

Personally, I just enjoy making the trips out to find caches. I'm not that interested in padding my find totals, although by wanting to find lots of caches, that total will naturally go up as a result.

At any rate, I thought that this was all supposed to be non-competitlve and that find totals didn't really matter. If it would make people feel better, I will go back and change my find to a note to adjust my total properly.

1.8k · July 17, 2002

If I am not successful in actully signing the log book, then I post a DNF. I'm wondering how you can post a find without actually finding the cache and signing the log book. I would feel weird postinga find when I did not find, can't do it, won't do it, haven't done it. I will how ever post a note or email the owner to see if I can get a hint.

Pepper

Horizontals where it's at!

July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by dteec:
Seems to me like we're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Do the numbers really matter? Aren't we involved in GeoCaching for the experience and fun, not to see who can find the most caches or have the bigger number. Give me a break.

I agree, the numbers shouldn't matter. We hold a minority view on this though - I did a poll on this awhile back suggesting we get rid of publicly displaying individual find counts and it was clear that the numbers REALLY DO MATTER to the majority.

The name of this game is to find caches (of course, the experience and fun is why we do it). We hide caches, and we FIND caches and we report our results. It simply is not accurate to report that you found a cache, when all you found were some screw holes in a piece of wood. The only rationale for one to do this is: THE NUMBERS DO MATTER!

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

July 17, 2002

I do as Pepper does: if I can't find the cache, I log it as a "didn't find it". If I really think I was in the right spot, I'll drop the owner a note to see if I really was in the right spot, or if she/he thinks it has been plundered. I assume that the cache owner is going to compare the written logs with the website, so if I can't sign the log, I would log it as something other than "found it".

That said, I don't care really what others' numbers are, except maybe to pause in awe and admiration.

I do care whether or not the person really found the cache before logging a find. On 1/1 caches, maybe not so much, but for harder caches, I really do not want to go to the trouble of seeking a cache and then finding out that it had gone missing before the last "found it" entries. I do geocaching to find the caches, not be misled by false log entries.

There was another thread elsewhere on the forums about "silly hints" and it became really clear from reading the responses that I'm not the only person who reads the logs to figure out whether or not this is a reasonable cache for my family to hunt. False logs are false information.

Shannah

who wonders why it took so long to be archived

[This message was edited by Team StitchesOnQuilts on July 17, 2002 at 08:05 AM.]

July 17, 2002

I do as Pepper does: if I can't find the cache, I log it as a "didn't find it". If I really think I was in the right spot, I'll drop the owner a note to see if I really was in the right spot, or if she/he thinks it has been plundered. I assume that the cache owner is going to compare the written logs with the website, so if I can't sign the log, I would log it as something other than "found it".

That said, I don't care really what others' numbers are, except maybe to pause in awe and admiration.

I do care whether or not the person really found the cache before logging a find. On 1/1 caches, maybe not so much, but for harder caches, I really do not want to go to the trouble of seeking a cache and then finding out that it had gone missing before the last "found it" entries. I do geocaching to find the caches, not be misled by false log entries.

There was another thread elsewhere on the forums about "silly hints" and it became really clear from reading the responses that I'm not the only person who reads the logs to figure out whether or not this is a reasonable cache for my family to hunt. False logs are false information.

Shannah

who wonders why it took so long to be archived

[This message was edited by Team StitchesOnQuilts on July 17, 2002 at 08:05 AM.]

July 17, 2002

I doesn't bother me how other people count "finds". My rule is

I don't log a find for a traditional cache, unless I get my hands on the cache and open it and sign the logbook if it is there. It doesn't matter if it is my fault, the hider's fault or someone elses fault. Just finding the location of cache is just finding the location. On virtuals (the few I have done), I don't log it as find unless I both go to the location, and meet the hider's requirements.

I came with this rule on my 5th cache hunt(a 1 1/2 mile hike to the spot) where I didn't find the cache. I was sure I was in the right spot and took a picture of it. I then contacted the hider and he verified that I had found the right spot. The next week he checked on it and archived it because the cache was gone. I logged it as a no find, because I didn't find it.

That being said I don't care what other hunters count as finds. Whatever is comfortable to them, is fine with me. But I do reserve the right to snicker at someone when they log a find saying they found the spot but the cache was gone, especially if the next hunter finds the actual cache.

July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:
I was one of the last people to log it as a find ...

Well said, Dave. There is clearly a category of cachers who are very focused on the log book ... and more importantly, how others choose to play this game. The whole concept of "finds" is specific to this website, not geocaching. Thankfully, Jeremy hasn't made a site-rule that a log book be signed ... so that each person can decide what he found or didn't find. Apart from the database of cache descriptions, I like geocaching.com to help me track which caches I've found. To me, the screws that once held a plundered but still active cache means I found it. I'm not trying to get to 1,000 finds by Christmas. I will state clearly that I found screws so as not to mislead future cachers. I'll even email the owner and recommend some maintenance. But what I won't do is tell people how to track their finds.

Numbers don't count. It's silly to say otherwise. It won't reduce your taxes ... there's no grand prize ... God won't let that last blunder slide ... you're spouse won't suddenly be nicer to you ... it won't pay for your kid's college or your dog's neutering. If you want to play more competetively, try using the alternate web-site where an attempt was made to make this an "honest" game where you need a code to mail to the owner to prove you "found" the box. Give me a break.

By the way, to respond to AllenLacy, therre's a difference between being in the area and having a picture of some trees where a cache might have been and finding pieces of a plundered or poorly maintained cache.

1.8k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

you're spouse won't suddenly be nicer to you ...

She'd probably be nicer to me if my total didn't get too high...

1.8k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

you're spouse won't suddenly be nicer to you ...

She'd probably be nicer to me if my total didn't get too high...

5k · July 17, 2002

This cache, by the same owner, had the same issue.

Jar was reported missing on August 16, and was then fixed up by by Bitbrain on May 31. Eleven folks logged it as a find in the meantime...

Anyway, this particular hider has hidden several caches that he's since abandoned. Several of those are in my area. I've appealed to Jeremy to transfew ownership to responsible cachers, but I haven't heard anything back.

Jamie

1.8k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3672&logs=y&decrypt= cache, by the same owner, had the same issue.

So that's what it was supposed to look like. Unfortunately due to the location of LPS007, it seemed like just a matter of time before a non-cacher found it, as it was in a pretty public place.

July 17, 2002

I get very frustrated when I plan a 4 or 6 cache marathon for the weekend and think about how much glory I will have coming home with my triumphs. (In my own head of course, my wife thinks I am silly) Then when I get to the third one, and it is missing. Is it gone? Did I just not find it? Should I log it as a find anyway, because after all, I did walk all this way, and I really planned on coming home with it as a find, and that should count as something. But, then I think about running for geocaching president when I grow up and the congressional hearings going over each of my find logs. "Well, Mr. Morgan, it appears here on the 8th day of March, 2004, you logged as a find a cache in the Sands hotel in Vegas. Now, that hotel had been demolished over 6 years earlier. How can you explain this?"

When I get reviewed, I want my record and my conscience to be clear. I do want numbers. For me, that is part of the game. But, I want them honestly. As much as it hurts to not get that 'find' that you really should get cause you are a nice guy anyway, the right thing to do is log a 'not found'.

There is a consensus that the signing of the logbook is the black/white objective measure of whether it is a find or not. As for any grey areas, some common sense should prevail. At least that's the way I see it.

Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills

One man gathers what another man spills - St. Stephen (on caching)

-Dru Morgan www.theheavenlyhost.com/dru

1.5k · July 17, 2002

...but others numbers don't.

Personally, I take a photo of every single cache that I visit. I have a page with thumbnails of all the caches. It looks cool, and gives me a sense of accomplishment, but it also serves anouther purpose. Like so many others, I do care what others think of me. So, some day when I have 300+ caches logged, anyone who questions it can take a look at my photo page.

Excuse me, its time to go sort my M&Ms into seperate jars now.

1.5k · July 17, 2002

...but others numbers don't.

Personally, I take a photo of every single cache that I visit. I have a page with thumbnails of all the caches. It looks cool, and gives me a sense of accomplishment, but it also serves anouther purpose. Like so many others, I do care what others think of me. So, some day when I have 300+ caches logged, anyone who questions it can take a look at my photo page.

Excuse me, its time to go sort my M&Ms into seperate jars now.

July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The Heavenly Host:

The numbers do matter...

Do you mean [your] numbers do matter [to you]? or do you mean [my] numbers do matter [to you]?

quote:
... But, then I think about running for geocaching president when I grow up and the congressional hearings going over each of my find logs. "Well, Mr. Morgan, it appears here on the 8th day of March, 2004, you logged as a find a cache in the Sands hotel in Vegas. Now, that hotel had been demolished over 6 years earlier. How can you explain this?"

We're in this game for such different reasons that I can't put it in words ... which explains to me why this debate continues. I guess there are politics everywhere you go ... school, church, work, geocaching. I'm not aspiring to hold any office. If, one day, I am up for office of President of the United States of Geocaching, I will allow an impartial panel to review my "numbers" (after all, I'm "honest" in my log about what exactly I find). But in the mean time, it's between me and the cache owners.

quote:
... I want [my numbers] honestly ... the right thing to do is log a 'not found'.

Do you really see this as a moral issue?

July 17, 2002

Umm. How about adding a third category:

Found the Site but not the Cache.

That way the searcher can feel that the search was not entirely fruitless.

RobertLG

July 17, 2002

Umm. How about adding a third category:

Found the Site but not the Cache.

That way the searcher can feel that the search was not entirely fruitless.

RobertLG

1.8k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by RobertLG:
Umm. How about adding a third category:

_Found the Site but not the Cache._

That way the searcher can feel that the search was not entirely fruitless.

RobertLG

Ugh. Nobody would ever log a "Couldn't Find It!" because everyone will be convinced that they are in the right location, and the cache must just be missing.

1.8k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by RobertLG:
Umm. How about adding a third category:

_Found the Site but not the Cache._

That way the searcher can feel that the search was not entirely fruitless.

RobertLG

Ugh. Nobody would ever log a "Couldn't Find It!" because everyone will be convinced that they are in the right location, and the cache must just be missing.

July 17, 2002

I think if you find signifigant evidence of the cache's location i.e. screws, but no cache, no container, no plundered remenants, it would qualify as an "Post a Note"

Find the logbook OR container OR at least two items of plundered remains and I think you can log a find. Just don't start counting someones used kleenex as an item unless the cache is named "Bernie Botts Bountiful Booger Box"

38.2k · July 17, 2002

Someone else here mentioned a great reason for not logging false finds. When many of us check a cache page, we don't read each entry, but we do look for the yellow faces. To most of us, that means the cache is there, so we'll often choose to spend the time and effort (and gas money) to look for it. It is misleading if people log false finds, which in turn could cause a fellow Geocacher to waste their time in a fruitless search.

I know I'd be pretty disappointed if I couldn't find a cache, only to discover upon further inspection, that the cache was long gone and the previous, so-called, finders didn't actually find the cache, but logged finds anyway.

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 18, 2002 at 04:01 AM.]

38.2k · July 17, 2002

Someone else here mentioned a great reason for not logging false finds. When many of us check a cache page, we don't read each entry, but we do look for the yellow faces. To most of us, that means the cache is there, so we'll often choose to spend the time and effort (and gas money) to look for it. It is misleading if people log false finds, which in turn could cause a fellow Geocacher to waste their time in a fruitless search.

I know I'd be pretty disappointed if I couldn't find a cache, only to discover upon further inspection, that the cache was long gone and the previous, so-called, finders didn't actually find the cache, but logged finds anyway.

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 18, 2002 at 04:01 AM.]

1.1k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:

I was one of the last people to log it as a find. I too, wondered why the cache was still listed and not archived.

I debated whether to count it as a find or not. Since I made the effort to get to the correct coordinates, and I found the screws (not holes, the screws that held the container in place were still there) where the container was, which did take a bit or crawling out on the rocks, I decided to count it as a find.

I didn't read through the old logs that carefully, so I didn't know what I would (or in this case, wouldn't) be looking for. Since the cache was not archived, I had no reason to believe that there was nothing to be found.

By adding your smiley face to the list, you've just increased the chances that someone else will not read through the old logs carefully, and end up making a disappointing visit to the site.

If the others before you had posted frowny faces, chances are you would have looked at the logs more closely to figure out what kind of trouble the previous visitors were having.

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

1.1k · July 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:

I was one of the last people to log it as a find. I too, wondered why the cache was still listed and not archived.

I debated whether to count it as a find or not. Since I made the effort to get to the correct coordinates, and I found the screws (not holes, the screws that held the container in place were still there) where the container was, which did take a bit or crawling out on the rocks, I decided to count it as a find.

I didn't read through the old logs that carefully, so I didn't know what I would (or in this case, wouldn't) be looking for. Since the cache was not archived, I had no reason to believe that there was nothing to be found.

By adding your smiley face to the list, you've just increased the chances that someone else will not read through the old logs carefully, and end up making a disappointing visit to the site.

If the others before you had posted frowny faces, chances are you would have looked at the logs more closely to figure out what kind of trouble the previous visitors were having.

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

July 18, 2002

Its a matter of personal pride to me, and in reality they matter only to me, however since this is a Gentlemans game, I choose to play by Gentlemans rules myself. Here is an example of a cache that I spent days planning, drove over 3 hours to find, and bushwacked thru woods, water, and ungodly briers only to find that the cache was lost to a flood. Wiskey Chitto Cache

At the time it was the oldest unfound cache in Louisiana, and it turns out that ClayJar and I had both gone for this one on the same day. Me by land, and He buy sea.. Turned out he beat me there by 50 minutes, yet he didnt find any sign of the cache, and I however found the tie down and the actual strap which held the long gone and cache, buried in the sands put down by a previous flood.

We didnt even know each other had been there the same day till later on that we read each others logs.

While we had a bit of fun and friendly competition going as to who was ACTUALLY there first, Notice that we BOTH logged NO FINDS on this cache.

In my opinion, thats a shining example of how the game should be played...

Of course, there is always exceptions, and then again, there are always a few screw holes lurking in the woodpile..

Buck8Poin

Buck8Point

-------------------------

If I can't Fix it, It's Definately Broke.

July 18, 2002

Its a matter of personal pride to me, and in reality they matter only to me, however since this is a Gentlemans game, I choose to play by Gentlemans rules myself. Here is an example of a cache that I spent days planning, drove over 3 hours to find, and bushwacked thru woods, water, and ungodly briers only to find that the cache was lost to a flood. Wiskey Chitto Cache

At the time it was the oldest unfound cache in Louisiana, and it turns out that ClayJar and I had both gone for this one on the same day. Me by land, and He buy sea.. Turned out he beat me there by 50 minutes, yet he didnt find any sign of the cache, and I however found the tie down and the actual strap which held the long gone and cache, buried in the sands put down by a previous flood.

We didnt even know each other had been there the same day till later on that we read each others logs.

While we had a bit of fun and friendly competition going as to who was ACTUALLY there first, Notice that we BOTH logged NO FINDS on this cache.

In my opinion, thats a shining example of how the game should be played...

Of course, there is always exceptions, and then again, there are always a few screw holes lurking in the woodpile..

Buck8Poin

Buck8Point

-------------------------

If I can't Fix it, It's Definately Broke.

July 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Gliderguy:

Find the logbook OR container OR at least two items of plundered remains and I think you can log a find.

This kind of rule reminds me of the Old Testament of the Bible. What is magic about two items of plundered remains? This illustrates my point that everyone's "numbers" has their own personal meaning. ... which is why this is not really a game or competition. If it was, there'd be more than "gentleman's" rules and you wouldn't use finds at all, you'd use points based on difficulty. SO why is everyone so hung up about it?

I understand the problem of people looking at smiley faces but not reading the logs. ... but I have little sympathy. You should not plan your day around yellow and purple faces (and that goes for everyone, not just geocachers).

I think the root of this problem is poorly maintained caches. If I so much received a report that someone couldn't find an element of my caches, I'd verify the caches condition within 24 hours. Who has a cache posted for a year when there is no cache?

July 18, 2002

The Above comments prove decisively that Geocaching is what it is, to each and every one of us. It has a broad range of appeal to a wide swath of personalities, as well as age groups of people.

This is probably why Geocaching is as popular an activity as it is. Its lure appeals to all walks of life, and lifestyles..

Why dont we all just agree to disagree on what it means to each of us, be happy with the fact that it means this to me, and that to you, and that inspite of our differences of opinion on things, we can all get out in the great outdoors, and enjoy a wholesome, challenging, and somewhat competative, activity.

Honestly there isnt that many things a person can do that can make those claims.

Enjoy Geocaching, and what it means to YOU..

Thats what it is all about anyways..

Buck8Point

-------------------------

If I can't Fix it, It's Definately Broke.

5k · July 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:
Who has a cache posted for a year when there is no cache?

I'm gonna sling some mud.

This guy has caches posted that have been noted missing.

He has four in the Memphis area that have become trash. A couple of his caches have been fixed up by local cachers. I've emailed the owner several times, asking if he plans to maintain them, or maybe he'd like to let someone adopt them. After I emailed him, he added a line to some of his cache descriptions asking folks to maintain the cache for him since he moved away.

I contacted three local cachers about adopting his caches. After discussion, it was decided that three of his local caches should be adopted by three of us, and his fourth cache should be archived. I emailed Jeremy with my request, but haven't yet heard back.

I don't know if my lack of response from Jeremy means that my request won't be done... or if I should just be more patient. I mean, I know the guy probably gets dozens of crazy requests every day. suggestions?

Jamie

1.5k · July 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
I don't know if my lack of response from Jeremy means that my request won't be done... or if I should just be more patient. I mean, I know the guy probably gets dozens of crazy requests every day. suggestions?

I inquired about adopting a cache in my area (the owner has moved, and removed his cache since he would no longer be able to maintain it). The reply I received from Jeremy indicated that, because of past issues with cache adoption, it would be better to place a new cache in the same spot and reference the old one in the description.

Sounds like the mailbag is pretty full right now, might take a few days for a reply to your inquiry

1.5k · July 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
I don't know if my lack of response from Jeremy means that my request won't be done... or if I should just be more patient. I mean, I know the guy probably gets dozens of crazy requests every day. suggestions?

I inquired about adopting a cache in my area (the owner has moved, and removed his cache since he would no longer be able to maintain it). The reply I received from Jeremy indicated that, because of past issues with cache adoption, it would be better to place a new cache in the same spot and reference the old one in the description.

Sounds like the mailbag is pretty full right now, might take a few days for a reply to your inquiry

July 18, 2002

I really can't see any harm in adopting a cache where the previous owner has moved on -and has publicly let it be known that he has moved.

At that point, the cache is unmanaged and isn't maintained unless by the tireless efforts of the community of the area cachers.

It may be a matter of pride for the original cache placer that "the cache was the first cache placed in the state of >". I strongly feel that if he has moved on, he should have appealed to the locals to see if they would do the honor of adopting it, instead of abandoning it -prior to moving on.

Due to the impact on the economy, and the nonstop process of companies merging, I myself might find myself in the very same predicament. That being the case, I will at that time ask my fellows if they will do me the honor and adopt them.

The remaining caches not adopted would be archived to preserve the counts of everyone who had visited them.

I'd also send an broad email for each cache to all of it's visitors to each cache to let them know that the unadopted caches was going to be archived, and to thank them for their visit, time, and efforts (which also might bring forward a volunteer to adopt it).

A couple of days prior to picking the cache up, I would archive the cache page, and post a note that it was being removed due to moving, and post a note on the cache log a copy of the emailed note to each cacher thanking them again for their visit. (In case their email didn't get through).

It's what cache ownership and management is all about.

July 18, 2002

I really can't see any harm in adopting a cache where the previous owner has moved on -and has publicly let it be known that he has moved.

At that point, the cache is unmanaged and isn't maintained unless by the tireless efforts of the community of the area cachers.

It may be a matter of pride for the original cache placer that "the cache was the first cache placed in the state of >". I strongly feel that if he has moved on, he should have appealed to the locals to see if they would do the honor of adopting it, instead of abandoning it -prior to moving on.

Due to the impact on the economy, and the nonstop process of companies merging, I myself might find myself in the very same predicament. That being the case, I will at that time ask my fellows if they will do me the honor and adopt them.

The remaining caches not adopted would be archived to preserve the counts of everyone who had visited them.

I'd also send an broad email for each cache to all of it's visitors to each cache to let them know that the unadopted caches was going to be archived, and to thank them for their visit, time, and efforts (which also might bring forward a volunteer to adopt it).

A couple of days prior to picking the cache up, I would archive the cache page, and post a note that it was being removed due to moving, and post a note on the cache log a copy of the emailed note to each cacher thanking them again for their visit. (In case their email didn't get through).

It's what cache ownership and management is all about.

July 18, 2002

I meant also to include that if I did find someone to adopt the cache, I would then send a note to the geocaching.com sysadmins, cc'ing the adopting party on the email of what we were doing, and request that the 'ownership' and count of the cache be transferred.

Yeah, that would reduce my 'Cache placed' count, but then, that's what happens if it's my choice to let someone adopt it.

Counts are important to a LOT of people, but responsibility and ownership needs to come first.

I had read recently of a cache where it container had disappeared, but a copy of a dirty magazine had been found in the cache location. I'd be mortified if that had happened to a family on my cache site, but I wasn't able to do anything about it due to being 1,000 miles away.

July 18, 2002

My post was mostly tongue in cheek. Of course there is no elected office here.

To be clear. MY numbers matter to ME. I am not going to waste my time investigating YOUR numbers nor anyone elses. I am not the cache police. I use the numbers to give me a goal and encourage me to persue my hobby more.

And as far as a moral issue. Sure, I consider it a moral issue. A sin that will cause you to lose your salvation? Not quite, but still a moral decision. In a sense, every decision we make is a moral one. Clearly some others, many others, think so as well. This thread was started by someone pointing out that people might be posting a 'found' for a cache that does not exist.

Summary...

1. My first post was meant in a joking tone

2. The numbers I am watching are my own.

3. Moral issue to be honest? Yes.

4. Do I care if others are honest here? No.

Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills

One man gathers what another man spills - St. Stephen (on caching)

-Dru Morgan www.theheavenlyhost.com/dru

Missing for a year -Pretty Strange

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

Join the conversation