+clearpath Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 As in everything humans touch, the truth lies somewhere in between ... Link to comment
Flutterbutter Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 As in everything humans touch, the truth lies somewhere in between ... very true, something to be reminded of Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...We want to know what the facts are. Just the facts, ma’am. :smile: Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Septic tank....you are stirring the pot. You bumped this topic that was over a year old. For what reason other than to stir the pot? Even so, let's go back and revisit your original question, "History is rewritten." The answer is no. In Groundspeak's explanation they say "Someone hid a cache" That is a true statement, is it not? Where was history rewritten? Dave is a someone...correct? Even by your own admission Groundspeak recognizes Dave as being the first to hide a cache. So I have to come to no other conclusion that you are stirring the pot. You seem to strive on conterversial topics and posts. They were amusing at first, now they are just old and pitiful. El Diablo Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...let's go back and revisit your original question, "History is rewritten." The answer is no. In Groundspeak's explanation they say "Someone hid a cache" That is a true statement, is it not? Where was history rewritten? Here. Dave is a someone...correct? Yes Dave is a someone as in Dave is a human who has a name. They could have just struck this whole paragraph: On May 3rd, a container of goodies was hidden by a someone outside of Portland, Oregon - in celebration of the removing of Selective Availability. By May 6th the cache was visited twice, and logged in the logbook once. And continued: Mike Teague was the first to find the container, and built his personal web page to document these containers and their locations that were posted to the sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup. Even by your own admission Groundspeak recognizes Dave as being the first to hide a cache. So I have to come to no other conclusion that you are stirring the pot. You seem to strive on conterversial topics and posts. They were amusing at first, now they are just old and pitiful. El Diablo You are a someone too, and so am I and so is everybody who is reading this, but in our society we refer to each other as names, El Diablo. Maybe when history is written five years from now, they will refer to you as the someone who started the very first magazine about geocaching. But I bet the name of the publication and the dates will be accurate. Respectfully, Jerry, I think the only pot I’m stirring here is yours. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Septic tank....you are stirring the pot. You bumped this topic that was over a year old. For what reason other than to stir the pot? Even so, let's go back and revisit your original question, "History is rewritten." The answer is no. In Groundspeak's explanation they say "Someone hid a cache" That is a true statement, is it not? Where was history rewritten? Dave is a someone...correct? Even by your own admission Groundspeak recognizes Dave as being the first to hide a cache. So I have to come to no other conclusion that you are stirring the pot. You seem to strive on conterversial topics and posts. They were amusing at first, now they are just old and pitiful. El Diablo Someone started Todays Cacher. The result is to diminish “someone’s” part in the history of the game. Or in your case your efforts on todays cacher. Trivializing someone is a common tactic to undermined their credibility. Case in point your tactics in this thread to undermine Septic Tanks credibility. However the entire exchange seems odd like the two of you have a bet. Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'm curious about something tank... I see your signature line says: "...................... From: Indianapolis, In. Today's Cacher........" I know that you have not worked for Today's Cacher for quite a long time. I am curious as to why you continue to have your signature line insinuate that you have something to do with the publication, as if it comes from you? I mean, all you would need to do is change two words after all. It seems like you could have done that over a year ago. Is it possible that you are trying to rewrite history? Is it possible that there might be more to the story that meets the eye? Is it possible that you might have had other things to do? None of these should be an excuse for not promptly changing your tag line, using your own logic here. So, are you the pot or the kettle in this case? Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'm curious about something tank... I see your signature line says: "...................... From: Indianapolis, In. Today's Cacher........" I know that you have not worked for Today's Cacher for quite a long time. I am curious as to why you continue to have your signature line insinuate that you have something to do with the publication, as if it comes from you? I mean, all you would need to do is change two words after all. It seems like you could have done that over a year ago. Is it possible that you are trying to rewrite history? Is it possible that there might be more to the story that meets the eye? Is it possible that you might have had other things to do? None of these should be an excuse for not promptly changing your tag line, using your own logic here. So, are you the pot or the kettle in this case? There are lots of people in this forum who have links in their signature. I think most of them are links to other hobbies and interests. Carleenp, who also worked as an early editor for the magazine, also still has a link in her signature. As you may have guessed from my interest in this topic and others that I have opened, I am a retired journalist with a sincere interest in media and history. Yes, I was the founding editor of Today’s Cacher, and I resigned in April, 2005. I resigned for personal reasons. Since that time I have been nothing but supportive of that magazine. I think Jerry will agree, we are friends (sort of) and communicate occasionally. As far as the link in my signature, I intend to keep it because I sincerely support that effort. Basically (and respectfully), mtn-man, my signature has nothing to do with the subject of this topic. And just in case anyone is interested, if I ever write a history of geocaching, I will include Dave Ulmer and Jeremy…oh, and you too Jerry. And there’s no way I could not mention the pioneer of moving caches by name, mtn-man. Link to comment
+clearpath Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I know that you have not worked for Today's Cacher for quite a long time. I am curious as to why you continue to have your signature line insinuate that you have something to do with the publication, as if it comes from you? Just for the record ... I to am no longer working for the magazine. Only because I don't have the time right now to invest. However, someday I hope to be re-hired. Also, I consider Jerry my friend and because of that I would love to see the publication succeed. So, as long as I can show the geocaching world something I believe in (Today's Cacher) I'll leave it in my signature line. Also, I know for a fact that Jerry and the rest of the staff work hard to produce the publication. In defense of Richard, I do not think the Today's Cacher analogy is fair. Link to comment
+budd-rdc Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Wasn't this question already answered--as far as this site is concerned--in this thread? I found this post on my first try with the search feature. Did that not satisfy us or is it just time for all magic bullets and lone gunmen to be rehashed again? Bret By the way, thanks for posting your link. I'm not a speed reader, so I just finished reading through it. More interesting stuff. As for the tangent about Today's Cacher... I saw my first paper copy while I was in Japan. Good stuff, great job. Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 As far as the link in my signature, I intend to keep it because I sincerely support that effort. Basically (and respectfully), mtn-man, my signature has nothing to do with the subject of this topic. And just in case anyone is interested, if I ever write a history of geocaching, I will include Dave Ulmer and Jeremy…oh, and you too Jerry. And there’s no way I could not mention the pioneer of moving caches by name, mtn-man. But it is relevent actually. My point is an illustration. You have your reasons for leaving it there. It is what it is. It isn't exactly fact, but it is your choice to leave it there or to change it. Maybe Jeremy has his reasons for leaving that part of his web site the way it is. It is what it is. I respect your decision to leave your forum signature the way it is. I would see no need to make a big stink about it and go on for days about it. It seems as though you have made your point here and should just let Jeremy change it if he wants to. You have even said that everyone knows that Dave hid the first cache (which I don't think is actually the case). And for the sake of history, while I may or may not be the person to send out the first traveling cache, I did not actually think of the idea from what I recall. I think Markwell and I discussed it first in the forums, but I don't remember who thought of the idea first. Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...just let Jeremy change it if he wants to... I believe that's a given. And for the sake of history, while I may or may not be the person to send out the first traveling cache, I did not actually think of the idea from what I recall. I think Markwell and I discussed it first in the forums, but I don't remember who thought of the idea first. Thanks, I'll make a note of that. Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...just let Jeremy change it if he wants to... I believe that's a given. So, is it time to close this topic? Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...So, is it time to close this topic? Has there been a final answer from TPTB? Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 ...just let Jeremy change it if he wants to... I believe that's a given. So, is it time to close this topic? No. But I'll refrain from stirring the pot. Link to comment
+Ed & Julie Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It's interesting that I had saw the exact omission in the "official" history a while ago (but never this topic) and had always wondered "what's up with that?". I think it's obvious that Jeremy will not (nor is he required to) chime in and give a definative answer. The OP may as well be beating his head against a wall. The answer is out there for those who want to find it, and the OP (or even Dave Ulmer himself) is welcome to make a webpage detailing how "a someone" got geocaching.com started. Link to comment
+blackjack65 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 To quote a book currently in court for plagerism: "As Napoleon once said. 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?' " He smiled. "By its very nature, history is always a one-sided account." -Lord Teabing. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 You know, given the history, I would be pretty unlikely to make the change unless I had absolutely nothing else going on and couldn't think of a way to waste time. Of course, Jeremy is probably a bigger man than I am willing to be. BTW, why is it GC.com's responsibility to give the official history? Must they also credit the other geocaching sites to make everyone happy? If Ulmer wants credit, he can write a wiki. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Sept1c- I noticed that you've already published the history in your wiki. Since the history has been documented, it won't be lost. Therefore, there is no reason for any changes to be made by GC.com. After all, it is not as if GC.com's history is incorrect, it is just not as complete as you would like. Why don't you inclde Ulmer's video in your wiki? That will make it even more complete. (bucket, check. beans, check. electrogarbage, check.) Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 It's not that I think Dave dosen't deserve the credit or the mention. My problem is that Richard didn't bump this topic to accomplish either of those goals. I've known Richard a while now and have worked closely with him, and I do consider him a friend, however given his antics in the forums I know what he is trying to do. Just because he's a friend dosen't mean I have to agree with him. History wasn't rewritten, it just didn't name names. We don't need anyone trying to cause discontent with our sport/hobby/game. It does nothing positive, just negative. There is a lot of history that goes way beyond this paticular topic. You may not like the way Groundspeak recounts the history by leaving out Dave's name, but it was portrayed accurately. Just for the record, I think his name should be mentioned. El Diablo Link to comment
Flutterbutter Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I love a good debate! Especially when there is enough information to be confident in choosing a side. If I did something cool enough to be mentioned in a history publication, I would definately want my name mentioned! By the way, Is geocaching a sport, hobby, or game!??? When someone official decides what to call it, it better be written down correctly. Just to be politically correct. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I love a good debate! Especially when there is enough information to be confident in choosing a side. If I did something cool enough to be mentioned in a history publication, I would definately want my name mentioned! By the way, Is geocaching a sport, hobby, or game!??? When someone official decides what to call it, it better be written down correctly. Just to be politically correct. Interesting...according to your profile you have 2 finds. The first was done with Sept1c_tank. So I would assume the information you got came from Richard. Or could it be that you are Richard's sock account? El Diablo Link to comment
Captain Clorox Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) Another sock tossed into the Purple Dryer of Doom! You are condemned for all eternity to writhe in agony on an endless spin cycle. The Purple Dryer of Doom has NO "delicate" cycle. Muwahaha! ph3aR Captain Clorox and the Purple Dryer of Doom! Edited March 6, 2006 by Captain Clorox Link to comment
Recommended Posts