You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

[ju66l3r]

This game is about finding things with a GPS. Miller Peak and the fire tower are marked on the USGS topo map. Seen here. Both objects can be found without the aid of coordinates or GPS.

Please please please, do not perpetuate this cruel myth any longer. This game is about finding things at coordinates. It started from GPS-SA being turned off. It proliferates because the number of people who can use a GPSr to play the game is far greater than those who do not. But there is *nothing* about this game that requires a GPSr. There are even more than a few geocaches that don't require the coordinates either.

 

The most prolific finder in New England does not use a GPSr (I'm not even sure if he owns one). I just did a reverse lookup (like a locationless or reverse virtual) of a street sign in the AS thread without the use of a GPSr (or having ever been anywhere close to the sign).

 

GPSr is a simpler method for searching for something at a specific set of coordinates..but anyone with a good set of maps, a compass, and a good sense of direction can play this game. This does not automatically negate every geocache in the world. GPS technology is not required or what this game is about. It is about latitude, longitude, and the surprise at the end of the rainbow.

 

Do not invalidate a cache, virtual or otherwise, because its location is marked on a map.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Do not invalidate a cache, virtual or otherwise, because its location is marked on a map.

Mark this day in history: I actually agree with one of Ju66l3r's statements

[CoyoteRed]

Do not invalidate a cache, virtual or otherwise, because its location is marked on a map.

Actually, this is what was quoted to me that was the reason to deny one of my caches. If it wasn't for coordinates, it would be letterboxing.

 

If I'm going perpetuate any cruel myth it will be what an approver told me after much consultation with his peers. Does it then make it a cruel myth if letterboxes are denied approval because there aren't any coordinates attached to it?

 

Spare me your arguing for argument's sake routine, pal. This is where we part company.

[ju66l3r]

I will predict this. If you were to split virtual caches out into their own section and remove the smiley for finding them then I would bet that people will not log them since there will be no smiley for them. That is why www.waypoint.org is not successful.

 

I now hope the site will split them off just like benchmarks. You could then submit any mountain top you want. I will be curious how many people will seek them if they don't get a smiley for them.

To follow-up on this and some of what Pan has said, I also disagree with this, mtn-man.

 

waypoint.org is first off difficult to define in its success. People do use it to post waypoints, but in the sense of growth and size, waypoint.org is not as successful as here, because you can not do 2 things: log at all/keep a checklist on the site AND find what you are looking for quickly and easily. It's not the smilie, it's the record-keeping, period. If virtuals had their own site here, were recorded like benchmarks on my stats page, and eased up on the rigidity of the requirements, I would definitely hunt them. People also need convenience and single site access is part of that. Requiring users to go to geocaching for this and waypoint for that means one or the other won't be as successful.

 

I've hunted a few benchmarks, found even less. I liked doing it when I found (or knew for certain that I'd find them). I get frustrated when I'm chasing down something that hasn't been seen for 45 years and when you arrive, it's behind 3 "no trespassing" signs and it looks like the "easement" has been torn down to make way for a hotel...or you have to dig under a foot of dirt next to a fire station while people are watching. Benchmarking is a different game and it's not as popular a variant.

 

I agree that giving virtuals their own section is a step in a better direction. I don't agree that they will then drop off to being given only as much attention as benchmarks (probably somewhere in the middle).

[ju66l3r]

Actually, this is what was quoted to me that was the reason to deny one of my caches. If it wasn't for coordinates, it would be letterboxing.

 

If I'm going perpetuate any cruel myth it will be what an approver told me after much consultation with his peers. Does it then make it a cruel myth if letterboxes are denied approval because there aren't any coordinates attached to it?

I know it was, I remember the thread where it first came up and I argued against it then too. During that discussion, it wasn't defensible then either and other points for denial of your cache were argued by the approver(s).

 

That's why I say not to bring it up again, because it's a horrible reason to deny a cache. If you want to list a letterbox here, you're more than welcome to as long as you put the coordinates (even cryptically) at the top of the page.

 

There is a cache less than a block from my office door whose coordinates are listed only as being within the same hand-drawn box on a street map. The webcam cache is very "letterbox-ish" requiring you to first determine the webcam page and then determine the view to locate the street to stand on. You don't need a GPSr to find it at all and in fact, you'll find your GPSr to be quite useless in hunting that one.

[CoyoteRed]

I think their main point is if the spot you're marking is easily identifiable on a map then a GPS is not needed. I mean, hell, "Take a picture of the cairne at Miller Peak in Arizona and a picture of the fire tower ruins nearby." No need for a GPS or coordinates. The only need for a GPS is to be in the picture.

 

I don't know how many of the approvers will back me up on this position seeings how one unnamed approver has a virt of a very famous landmark. But, hey, it was grandfathered, I'm sure.

 

There are plenty of other caches that were grandfathered in or slipped through. I know of one where the cache is identifiable from miles away--no need for a GPS in the least. Did it get approved, of course. Does it follow the spirit of the game? Not in my opinion.

[+mtn-man]

I also disagree with this, mtn-man.

The shock! The amazement!!! Imagine that!!!!

 

Juggler, on a clear day the sky is blue. I'm sure you can debate that too.

[+Nurse Dave]

 

waypoint.org is first off difficult to define in its success. People do use it to post waypoints, but in the sense of growth and size, waypoint.org is not as successful as here, because you can not do 2 things: log at all/keep a checklist on the site AND find what you are looking for quickly and easily. It's not the smilie, it's the record-keeping, period. If virtuals had their own site here, were recorded like benchmarks on my stats page, and eased up on the rigidity of the requirements, I would definitely hunt them. People also need convenience and single site access is part of that. Requiring users to go to geocaching for this and waypoint for that means one or the other won't be as successful.

 

Ummm, there is a website where you can list things that aren't approved here but it's not as good so this site needs to change so people can list what they want? I'd like an easier way to keep track of my keys. Jeremy?

[+mtn-man]

I don't know how many of the approvers will back me up on this position seeings how one unnamed approver has a virt of a very famous landmark. But, hey, it was grandfathered, I'm sure.

I would assume the unnamed approver is me. Actually, if you did a better search, you would see that I have two and have adopted yet another. The one you are thinking of was the 7th virtual cache in Washington DC. I would venture to say it was created pretty early on.

 

As I said, I *was* one reviewer that wanted virts to stay as a regular cache type that you could log for a smiley. I *was* in your court. As of today that has changed. I want them split off as soon as possible.

[CoyoteRed]

Hey! I wasn't pointing fingers. I was just making allusions.

 

I'm not sure what the difference would be if this site spun virts off into their own section. We can already get virt-less PQs. Unless they are called something different, then I don't see the "land owner opinion angle" changing. I just don't get it.

 

ADDED: The only way that I think there can be any real change is if they are pushed to a different site, under a different umbrella, a different name, and different scope.

Edited July 23, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+mtn-man]

I also disagree with this, mtn-man.

The shock! The amazement!!! Imagine that!!!!

 

Juggler, on a clear day the sky is blue. I'm sure you can debate that too.

Just got a PM from Juggler:

 

The sky is actually violet (violet is the shortest visible wavelength).

 

The shorter the wavelength of light, the more it is disrupted by the molecules that make up our sky.  The disruption is what we see.  Our eyes are much more sensitive to blue than violet though, so the sky looks blue to us...but on a clear day, the sky is actually far more violet...

 

 

I rest my case.

[CoyoteRed]

Now I need some paper towels to clean my monitor.

[+9Key]

Hi!

 

A couple of issues:

 

* why was the correpondence between myself and Wily be posted here?

* why was my real name in the post?

* the cache was turned down twice, by two different people - hint, hint

 

I feel that I offered both explainations and alternatives. I went out of my way to communicate with the cacher and to explain my action.

Is this not what I should be doing?

 

Its this kinda of junk that burns out reviewers. Frankly, you can have this job if you want it ~ I don't enjoy this kind of crap at all.

[+Nurse Dave]

Hehe, you said Wily.

[Keystone]

Hi!

 

A couple of issues:

 

[snip]

* why was my real name in the post?

Shoot, 9Key, I am sorry for not catching that. I did edit the original post to remove your e-mail address. I am going back through the thread now to remove your name.

 

It is poor form to post personal information in the forums without the person's consent. I can only apologize for not fixing it sooner.

[AZcachemeister]

There still has been no coherent explaination of why Mica Mountain is more deserving of a virtual cache than any other peak in Arizona/The USA/The World.

 

On May 22 I attempted to create a virtual cache on Pine Mountain, in the Pine Mountain Wilderness Area (GCJGVG). Finders were required to sign the summit register and upload a photo, just as GCJX6T, and I even requested some additional information from a nearby survey disk from another agency. I modeled the requirements on another, similar cache, but the rules had changed and COadmin denied the listing as just another mountaintop view.

 

OK, fine.

 

I asked, and was told it would be satisfactory to put a micro inside the hiker's log ammo can, and returned to do so (a 10 mile hike I enjoyed just as much the second time around!). Now there is a physical cache, with it's own logsheet there and everyone is happy.

 

Imagine my disbelief when I notice a newly approved mountaintop virtual (GCJX6T) with the same logging requirements that weren't quite good enough for my cache.

 

So? What is my point?

 

It seems to me the 'rules' are not being applied equally, and if GCK0QC (Miller Peak) can't be approved, then GCJX6T (Mica Mountain) should be archived, unless a Geocacher's log is provided there.

 

Don't try to tell me the mountaintop views are that much more impressive if it's in a National Park.

[+mtn-man]

I'm not sure what the difference would be if this site spun virts off into their own section. We can already get virt-less PQs. Unless they are called something different, then I don't see the "land owner opinion angle" changing. I just don't get it.

 

ADDED: The only way that I think there can be any real change is if they are pushed to a different site, under a different umbrella, a different name, and different scope.

Putting them under a different set of guidelines would happen I would imagine. I'm sure they would be relaxed a lot. Post your mountain top virtual (don't think I would call them caches any more). People could have at it. No 528 foot rule. Make a virt for every sign on every pullout on a scenic highway (yes, that has been submitted in that fashion).

 

Visit them if you want. Now you don't get a smiley. I don't want to burn out either. To me, as of today, this is the preferred solution. It ends a lot of grief in the forums and we can debate if the sky is blue above the cache by the fallen tree.

[ju66l3r]

Just got a PM from Juggler:

It was sent by PM instead of posted here to:

 

a ) keep the topic clear of OT followups...well, so much for that, Mr. Forum Moderator...

 

b ) because it was said tongue-in-cheek, person-to-person, and not as a serious followup. I couldn't care less what color the sky is in your world on a clear day. I let your comment fly by, but wanted to send you a joke about it.

 

EDIT: Your follow-up PM (which I won't post here) was completely uncalled for. Reactivate your sense of humor and call me in the morning.

Edited July 23, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+Robespierre]

Johnson wood, near Orville, Ohio is the largest stand of the oldest trees in the State, and it's pretty impressive compared to what most of us see. It has denied a regular cache clearly, and can, since it is a protected State Nature Preserve. The Ranger in charge invited a virtual - I really don't care to do virtuals, but I hope someone else in the area does.

Now, in Ohio we don't have a "Wilderness Area" that I know of...but we do have NPS land....are both an automatic "denial" for regular cache? Is it a possibility to put a regular cache up there?? Let me guess...maintainence would be a bear!

[+El Diablo]

<sigh>

 

El Diablo

[+9Key]

To qoute my good friend WJ ~  9key's response was unacceptable. My stance is that I deserve a resonable response to the question as to why my cache will not be approved.

* How was my response not acceptable? I stated my reasons and you chose not to accept them.

 

I do not appreciate a link to the rules and regulations. I know them.

* You submitted the same cache twice. It was *not* readily apparent that you were aware of the guidelines.

 

... I expect a thorough review and resonable responses to questions about a rejected application.

* See above.

Edited July 23, 2004 by 9Key

[+LaPaglia]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

[+Mule Ears]

If Wily's virt on Miller Peak were approved, I'd strap on my boots and go.

[+PandyBat]

This game is about finding things with a GPS.  Miller Peak and the fire tower are marked on the USGS topo map. Seen here.  Both objects can be found without the aid of coordinates or GPS.

Please please please, do not perpetuate this cruel myth any longer. This game is about finding things at coordinates. It started from GPS-SA being turned off. It proliferates because the number of people who can use a GPSr to play the game is far greater than those who do not. But there is *nothing* about this game that requires a GPSr. There are even more than a few geocaches that don't require the coordinates either.

 

GPSr is a simpler method for searching for something at a specific set of coordinates..but anyone with a good set of maps, a compass, and a good sense of direction can play this game. This does not automatically negate every geocache in the world. GPS technology is not required or what this game is about. It is about latitude, longitude, and the surprise at the end of the rainbow.

I have to disagree. It is much easier to use a GPSr to get the coordinates to a location in order to post them for others to use to find those coordinates. And of course, this was done before SA was turned off but not with great accuracy. Not very many people hunted for coordinates using a map and a compass before SA was turned off and probably no one had ever hidden a cache at those coordinates either before GPS technology came into the picture. Only after it was turned off was the use of GPSr more feasible for hunting for caches, thus geocaching was born. Take away the use of a GPSr to find caches and the geocaching concept would barely exist.

 

It started from GPS-SA being turned off.

 

And using a GPS unit came into the picture at that point. Turning off SA gave a GPS unit greater accuracy than they were previously allowed to have. And geocaching is still touted as a high tech treasure hunt, not finding "treaures" using a map and a compass. So with that, I firmly believe that GPS technology is what this game is all about.

[+Swifteroo]

But, if you look at all of my virtual finds (in particular most the 4 most recent finds) and virtual hides, the majority are are exactly the same as the Miller Peak Virtual. Difficult to reach locations with a very satisfing view as a reward, nothing else Hmmmm, Wonder how they all got approved? Miller Peak is as good as the ones I've found and the ones that I've placed. Furthermore, it has the added benifit of a historic lookout tower on top.

 

Ok, I didn't wanna jump into this blender of geocaching love, but I had to ask.. if the majority of the virtuals you have found are like the Miller Peak cache, why do we need to keep making more?

[+mtn-man]

Just got a PM from Juggler:

It was sent by PM instead of posted here to:

 

a ) keep the topic clear of OT followups...well, so much for that, Mr. Forum Moderator...

 

b ) because it was said tongue-in-cheek, person-to-person, and not as a serious followup. I couldn't care less what color the sky is in your world on a clear day. I let your comment fly by, but wanted to send you a joke about it.

 

EDIT: Your follow-up PM (which I won't post here) was completely uncalled for. Reactivate your sense of humor and call me in the morning.

Well, Mr. Forum Poster, my post was on topic and I will be happy to explain why.

 

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community. As perfectly illustrated with my "sky is blue" comment, I would hope their separation would take one divisionary issue away from people who will argue about anything and from the community so the community can focus more on the fun aspects of geocaching. Some people will argue about anything though. Let's remove one of those hot-button issues and everyone will be just a little happier.

 

I replied to you:

Too chicken to post it in the forums. Don't want to show that I'm right.

 

Understandable.

Again, some people just like to argue about anything. I didn't find your private message funny. It did show that I was right though. You just couldn't resist posting some message about whether the sky is blue. I knew you couldn't resist. It illustrates to me why virtual caches need to be removed from the site. No matter how clear the guidelines are someone will argue about them. I said the sky was blue. You said no, it was violet and gave a dissertation. It always seems to be that way here in the forums. I think we should remove one of the catalyst for this type of no-win discussion.

 

For virtual caches there is some middle ground, but for the most part you either like them or you don't. I'm on the like them side. There approval or rejection is a wound on the community at this time though. It is starting to become an intolerable issue for me as a reviewer. I wonder when I deny a virtual if it will be the next "beating a dead horse" topic in the forums.

 

The more I have dwelled on this today the more I think I am starting to lean toward a moratorium as well. Let's just take the choice away so we have one less thing to argue about period. That is totally Jeremy's decision though. He can do what he wants and I will live with it.

 

What is really sad is that a new topic regarding a denied virtual cache will undoubtably be opened in the next 7 days. I will probably Markwell this when it happens.

 

Pan, stick a fork in me as well.

[+Cow Spots]

I've been watching this all day, and I guess I want to give a bit of local perspective.

 

Like Wily, I live in the Tucson area. I've been caching since October 2003.

 

First off, while I've only met him very briefly at an event cache in December, I have come to respect and admire the quality and breadth of the caches he has placed in the area. They encompass the full spectrum of caches - peak bagging virtuals, urban micros, brutal puzzle caches, and multi-hour hikes. I confidently say that for many local geocachers, knocking off one of Wily's caches is generally a badge of honor.

 

That being said, the rhetoric in this situation has gotten a bit out of control from both sides. We should step back for a second and take a deep breath.

 

I feel that Wily's point about comparing the approval/non-approval of his cache with the recently approved Mica Mountain cache IS valid, due to the fact it was approved less than three weeks ago. It's not exactly like Mica Mountain was grandfathered in. If the land management issues denying traditional caches being placed in the two locations are identical, he raises a fair question in why one was approved and the other was not. If there are substantive differences in land management issues between the two sites, I haven't really seen that addressed in depth in this thread.

 

In comparing the description of Mica Mountain with Wily's proposed cache on Miller Peak, I feel they have the same relative value of the enigmatic "WOW value." Whether the "WOW value" is enough or not, the two caches seem to have the same amount.

 

In short, if I were to compare them with an unbiased eye, they either should both have been approved or neither. And I think that's the crux of what Wily Javelina's getting at.

 

I definitely agree he could have done it a little nicer though.

 

--Dave, Team Cow Spots

[+Swifteroo]

The more I have dwelled on this today the more I think I am starting to lean toward a moratorium as well. Let's just take the choice away so we have one less thing to argue about period.

<rant>

I too like virtual caches, but you are right. All the forum arguments about "My cache was denied - I disagree" gets a little much. I am new to the forums specifically, but already have seen my share of posts from people trying to "Rally" the troops to their side.

 

The nature of argumentative forum posters however would still show through in the event of a moratorium on virts, only then, the argument would be about a moratorium on virts.

</rant>

[+Renegade Knight]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

[+El Diablo]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I decided at the beginning of this thread that I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion.

 

However, if I were to post in this thread I would point out that CO Admin's reputation is still outstanding.

 

Also I would point out the the approvers didn't make the guidelines, they just interpret them and enforce them to the best of their ability.

 

I would've also of pointed out that ju66l3r has taken every opportunity in every thread possible, and has even started some, to try and lead a revolt against this site. I would also have told everyone that if I were the Admin of this site I would kick him off of it so fast and so far that everytime he typed www. he would get an error message. I would of course leave out my personal dislike for him.

 

Since I'm not going to post in this thread, it really dosen't matter.

 

El Diablo

[+Sportracker]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

9Key has reviewed/approved a number of my submissions. His questions have always been fair and reasonable, and his communications have all been businesslike. He is a 1'st rate approver!

[Radman Forever]

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community.

If we eliminate virtuals from our count list, why not exclude all caches and let people make their own numbers?? I have 273 finds and 30 (or so) of them are virts. Should I have to celebrate another 250th cache find, since people have changed the rules and virts no longer count as a cache find.

 

You know what? ....

 

I don't care what happens anymore, because it's all the same thing. Rules are changed and people don't like it, an approver makes a mistake and people don't like it, the guidlines are tightened and people don't like it, something is always going to happen and people don't like it! Every sport/game/hobby/business/whatever has that in some sort of fashion.

 

It's never going to change people! Some things will go for the majority and some for the minority. I don't like how some things have changed and I have fought with mods, but not anymore. IT'S A GAME! A nice hobby! I understand for people fighting to have rules changed or kept but this is ridiculous! Geocaching is about going outside and enjoying a game that embraces technology and nature! People who sit inside all day and arguing about useless crap is stupid! Same goes for those who sit inside and defend the rules against these other people. We need people to help enforce and make the rules, and we need people to lobby to change the rules, but this is going nowhere.

 

Y'all need to relax and take a chill pill, Radman out!

[+Nurse Dave]

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community.

If we eliminate virtuals from our count list, why not exclude all caches and let people make their own numbers?? I have 273 finds and 30 (or so) of them are virts. Should I have to celebrate another 250th cache find, since people have changed the rules and virts no longer count as a cache find.

 

You know what? ....

 

I don't care what happens anymore, because it's all the same thing. Rules are changed and people don't like it, an approver makes a mistake and people don't like it, the guidlines are tightened and people don't like it, something is always going to happen and people don't like it! Every sport/game/hobby/business/whatever has that in some sort of fashion.

 

It's never going to change people! Some things will go for the majority and some for the minority. I don't like how some things have changed and I have fought with mods, but not anymore. IT'S A GAME! A nice hobby! I understand for people fighting to have rules changed or kept but this is ridiculous! Geocaching is about going outside and enjoying a game that embraces technology and nature! People who sit inside all day and arguing about useless crap is stupid! Same goes for those who sit inside and defend the rules against these other people. We need people to help enforce and make the rules, and we need people to lobby to change the rules, but this is going nowhere.

 

Y'all need to relax and take a chill pill, Radman out!

Come in kettle, come in kettle. This is the pot. You are black. Over.

[Radman Forever]

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community.

If we eliminate virtuals from our count list, why not exclude all caches and let people make their own numbers?? I have 273 finds and 30 (or so) of them are virts. Should I have to celebrate another 250th cache find, since people have changed the rules and virts no longer count as a cache find.

 

You know what? ....

 

I don't care what happens anymore, because it's all the same thing. Rules are changed and people don't like it, an approver makes a mistake and people don't like it, the guidlines are tightened and people don't like it, something is always going to happen and people don't like it! Every sport/game/hobby/business/whatever has that in some sort of fashion.

 

It's never going to change people! Some things will go for the majority and some for the minority. I don't like how some things have changed and I have fought with mods, but not anymore. IT'S A GAME! A nice hobby! I understand for people fighting to have rules changed or kept but this is ridiculous! Geocaching is about going outside and enjoying a game that embraces technology and nature! People who sit inside all day and arguing about useless crap is stupid! Same goes for those who sit inside and defend the rules against these other people. We need people to help enforce and make the rules, and we need people to lobby to change the rules, but this is going nowhere.

 

Y'all need to relax and take a chill pill, Radman out!

Come in kettle, come in kettle. This is the pot. You are black. Over.

I know... I know....

 

I've been hitting the sugar again.

[+LaPaglia]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

[Radman Forever]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

This topic has DErailed...

[+El Diablo]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

This topic has DErailed...

It was derailed several pages ago for people to carry out their own agenda. You didn't complain about it then. So what's your problem now?

 

El Diablo

[Radman Forever]

What's MY problem? Nothing... Just relaxin', Not complainin', Just Chillin', how bout you?

[+El Diablo]

What's MY problem? Nothing... Just relaxin', Not complainin', Just Chillin', how bout you?

Sounded a lot like complaining to me. Or did you have another purpose pointing out that the topic was derailed?

 

El Diablo

[+Nurse Dave]

It was derailed several pages ago for people to carry out their own agenda. You didn't complain about it then. So what's your problem now?

 

El Diablo

Huh? People discussing the issues surround approval of virtual caches is off topic?

[+El Diablo]

It was derailed several pages ago for people to carry out their own agenda. You didn't complain about it then. So what's your problem now?

 

El Diablo

Huh? People discussing the issues surround approval of virtual caches is off topic?

It went from discussing the approval of virtual caches, to bashing the Approvers a long time ago.

 

El Diablo

[Radman Forever]

What's MY problem? Nothing... Just relaxin', Not complainin', Just Chillin', how bout you?

Sounded a lot like complaining to me. Or did you have another purpose pointing out that the topic was derailed?

 

El Diablo

If I was complaining, I'm sorry. My actions and words have offended people and I apologize! I will never complain again! Never will bad words come out of this guys mouth!

 

 

edit: See the laughing frogs? That means I'm just playing! I'm joshing you! Relax man!

Edited July 24, 2004 by Radman Version 3.0

[+mtn-man]

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community.

If we eliminate virtuals from our count list, why not exclude all caches and let people make their own numbers?? I have 273 finds and 30 (or so) of them are virts. Should I have to celebrate another 250th cache find, since people have changed the rules and virts no longer count as a cache find.

Radman, I don't want existing virts to go away. Just as locationless caches, they stay just as they are. The new ones get sorted out into their own section.

Edited July 24, 2004 by mtn-man

[+Nurse Dave]

It was derailed several pages ago for people to carry out their own agenda. You didn't complain about it then. So what's your problem now?

 

El Diablo

Huh? People discussing the issues surround approval of virtual caches is off topic?

It went from discussing the approval of virtual caches, to bashing the Approvers a long time ago.

 

El Diablo

[Radman Forever]

I want virtual caches to be separated out soon because it is one less thing to create a division in the forums and in the community.

If we eliminate virtuals from our count list, why not exclude all caches and let people make their own numbers?? I have 273 finds and 30 (or so) of them are virts. Should I have to celebrate another 250th cache find, since people have changed the rules and virts no longer count as a cache find.

Radman, I don't want existing virts to go away. Just as locationless caches, they stay just as they are. The new ones get sorted out into their own section.

That's all I wanted to hear, just don't my number of finds getting screwed up!

[+mtn-man]

Just remember, I am not any sort of final authority. What I have said today may or may not happen. Only Jeremy can make any of these decisions. To me they were approved as caches so they should stay available if they were approved, just as locationless caches have.

[+Renegade Knight]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

What I said in so many words is:

 

I have heard people discuss 9key who do not live in his approval area. They have said in varying ways he's a stand up guy. If that repuatation spreads beyond his turf, it's got to be true. For a reputation to spread like that is a rare occurance.

 

People tend to see what they are looking for I guess. However just in case.

 

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU DAMMIT!!!!! Now you can spike my warn meter.

[+El Diablo]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

What I said in so many words is:

 

I have heard people discuss 9key who do not live in his approval area. They have said in varying ways he's a stand up guy. If that repuatation spreads beyond his turf, it's got to be true. For a reputation to spread like that is a rare occurance.

 

People tend to see what they are looking for I guess. However just in case.

 

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU DAMMIT!!!!! Now you can spike my warn meter.

I resent the fact that you and I agree on something!

 

Well said.

 

El Diablo

[+mtn-man]

RK, I have to admit that I didn't know what you meant either. I think we are feeling a little beat up right now. I'm still pretty soar about having someone tell me that I don't follow the guidelines. It is what it is. Thanks for your... clarification.

[+LaPaglia]

If someone needs to complain about the reviewer not approving that cache. Leave 9key alone and yell at me. I was the one that turned it down in the first place.

 

9Key does a great job. He sometimes covers for me when I'm otherwise busy and has ALWAYS down an excellent job.

 

Thank you 9key.

 

CO Admin

When an approvers reputation spills over into an area that he doesn't ever cover (that I know of) and people think he's a stand up guy there must be something to it. That doesn't happen every day.

I don't know if you were trying to insult 9key or me. If it was 9key that was lame and a low blow. If it was me then its water off my back cus I'm used to it from you. 9key helps in AZ when I need him too. this week I was helping with OR and NE. We all help where and when we can. So since I don't know who the shot was at I'm confused as to what you meant. But Im betting it was snide no matter who it was at.

What I said in so many words is:

 

I have heard people discuss 9key who do not live in his approval area. They have said in varying ways he's a stand up guy. If that repuatation spreads beyond his turf, it's got to be true. For a reputation to spread like that is a rare occurance.

 

People tend to see what they are looking for I guess. However just in case.

 

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU DAMMIT!!!!! Now you can spike my warn meter.

Sorry, I really couldnt figure it out. so Ill trade you my snide comment that was unwarrented for your red letters and lets call it even?