Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Dick & Song Bug

Virtuals Approved By World Wide Consensus

Recommended Posts

 

Any suggestions or hints on why it takes a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache?

 

edited to maintain sanity

Edited by sawdust92

Share this post


Link to post

An e-mail I received from UTAHADMIN:

 

Subj: [GEO] From UtahAdmin: Glad I don't read the forums.

Date: 11/23/2004 3:24:36 PM Mountain Standard Time

From: utahadmin@[domain removed]

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

--This message was sent through the Geocaching.com web site--

 

I would respond but anything I said would add fuel to the fire and give you more material to splash all over the forums.

 

User's Profile:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=ea...c8-72144a2565ec

 

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

 

Edited by moderator to remove e-mail address. Not a good idea to expose an e-mail to spammers by posting it in the forums.

Edited by Keystone Approver

Share this post


Link to post

Prozak? Zoloft? perhaps I should research what they are. Until then, I'll just go visit my cacheing partners Captain Morgan and Jack Daniels.

Share this post


Link to post
I have been educated here is the last few hours, the "WOW" part, and it appears that the degree I recieved is worthless.

Many degrees are worthless. Do we still know what this cache listing is all about? Copy & Paste it here so we can tell you why it wasn't approved.

It has been a while since your last post, I have cut and pasted the web page as you suggested. Have you read it yet? I await your answer on why the cache was not approved.

Share this post


Link to post

I had been under the impression, and perhaps Jeremy was too, that your only remaining question was about the meaning of "global consensus." In any event, Jeremy rarely gets involved in individual cache reviews, so I will take the liberty of responding so that he can devote his time to other matters.

 

Your cache was not listed because there was insufficient information on the submission page to demonstrate that it met the requirements for a virtual cache. While additional arguments in support of your submission have been adduced here in the forum thread, none of the new information was made available to the volunteer cache reviewer prior to your origination of this forum topic.

 

It is useful to use the "Note to Reviewer" field to justify a virtual cache submission. I see from your page that you are familiar with that feature. But your initial note focused on the "nice view" and challenging hike to get to this cave. There was very little information provided about the ruins inside the cave, which perhaps are a suitable target for a virtual cache (given that this is NPS property). On the basis of the original submission and its accompanying note, I can pretty much guarantee you that the "consensus" would be to deny the submission. Had you included some information about the uniqueness of the archaelogical aspects of this spot, and perhaps links to pictures of the target, it is possible that the review process may have gone down a different path. Instead, you posted additional argumentative notes, followed by a contentious forum thread.

 

Our recommendation, as stated in the cache listing guidelines, is to contact the reviewer with any useful additional information about your cache if you believe it's been misjudged. The option of bringing the matter to the forums is also mentioned. It is generally understood that this ought to be a two-step process. Come to the forums *after* the dialogue with the reviewer reaches an impasse.

 

I hope that this information is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
It has been a while since your last post, I have cut and pasted the web page as you suggested. Have you read it yet? I await your answer on why the cache was not approved.

Thanks Keystone Approver. I noted "we" and not my own personal response to your cache listing. Honestly you don't want my response due to the way you handled the initial response to your cache entry. I am far less diplomatic than Keystone Approver can be.

Share this post


Link to post
I had been under the impression, and perhaps Jeremy was too, that your only remaining question was about the meaning of "global consensus." In any event, Jeremy rarely gets involved in individual cache reviews, so I will take the liberty of responding so that he can devote his time to other matters.

 

Your cache was not listed because there was insufficient information on the submission page to demonstrate that it met the requirements for a virtual cache. While additional arguments in support of your submission have been adduced here in the forum thread, none of the new information was made available to the volunteer cache reviewer prior to your origination of this forum topic.

 

It is useful to use the "Note to Reviewer" field to justify a virtual cache submission. I see from your page that you are familiar with that feature. But your initial note focused on the "nice view" and challenging hike to get to this cave. There was very little information provided about the ruins inside the cave, which perhaps are a suitable target for a virtual cache (given that this is NPS property). On the basis of the original submission and its accompanying note, I can pretty much guarantee you that the "consensus" would be to deny the submission. Had you included some information about the uniqueness of the archaelogical aspects of this spot, and perhaps links to pictures of the target, it is possible that the review process may have gone down a different path. Instead, you posted additional argumentative notes, followed by a contentious forum thread.

 

Our recommendation, as stated in the cache listing guidelines, is to contact the reviewer with any useful additional information about your cache if you believe it's been misjudged. The option of bringing the matter to the forums is also mentioned. It is generally understood that this ought to be a two-step process. Come to the forums *after* the dialogue with the reviewer reaches an impasse.

 

I hope that this information is helpful.

At last the answer. I think too many people "get the impression" that a question is answered when they stop trying to answer. In this case why didn't UTAHADMIN say as much in his denial note? I also like the part about "it is generaly understood", well I did not understand. In these forums anything should be able to be discussed. If you had stated first off what you said in your last post, the answer to my question, I would not have been a top 10 poster. Everybody should have a job and they should perform that job well.

Share this post


Link to post
It has been a while since your last post, I have cut and pasted the web page as you suggested.  Have you read it yet?  I await your answer on why the cache was not approved.

Thanks Keystone Approver. I noted "we" and not my own personal response to your cache listing. Honestly you don't want my response due to the way you handled the initial response to your cache entry. I am far less diplomatic than Keystone Approver can be.

I guese I am not diplomatic either, so where does that put the both of us. Why are so many replies clouded with platitudes?

Share this post


Link to post
I was part of another group of geocachers but decided to go out on my own. - Dates of membership could be wrong.

I think I know the group that you are referring to, because I have seen their listing of the cache in question. If you have any influence over that group, can you ask them to release the travel bugs that they are holding?

 

As far as the virtual cache is concerned, after looking at the photograph, I would certainly say that this site has the required WOW factor. I love exploring these kinds of places and the next time I go to Canyonlands I might have to check it out, virtual cache or not.

 

BTW: Try to be a little more diplomatic with the admins if you want to get something accomplished.

 

RM

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this is the final answer to my question>

 

Subj: [LOG] Owner: UtahAdmin archived Before Powell (Virtual Cache)

Date: 12/3/2004 9:51:47 AM Mountain Standard Time

From: noreply@geocaching.com

To:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

This is an automated message from Geocaching.com

 

You are receiving this email because you are the owner of this listing.

 

Location: Utah, United States

UtahAdmin archived Before Powell (Virtual Cache) at 12/3/2004

 

Log Date: 12/3/2004

I sincerely apologize for this error. It was originally approved by mistake. After the media circus in the forums about your other virtual cache the other reviewers came to the consensus that this cache should not have been approved and one of them unapproved it.

 

As a cache reviewer I feel like a waiter in a fancy restaruant that features a lot of fine steaks and seafood but the crowning jewel is the Prime Rib. Even though the Prime Rib is listed prominently on the menu we have been instructed by the owners of the restaruant not to serve it but rather steer the customers to one of the other fine dishes. The owner of the restaurant refuses to take Prime Rib off the menu and just wants us waiters to continually waste our time explaining to the customers that they can't have Prime Rib even though it is on the menu. The result is a lot of angry customers and frustrated waiters.

 

My interest in becoming a cache reviewer was to try to prevent any more messy bomb scare incidents by having a knowledgable local person make sure no more caches are approved by an Air Force base or major Freeway bridge. I didn't sign on for the politics of judging the Wow factor of people's virtual cache submissions so for the past 6 months I have not been approving any virtuals.

 

Again, I am very sorry for the hassle. If you really want to list your virtuals then you can get them listed on Navicache.

 

Visit this log entry at the below address:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...40-b75b8b468e17

 

Visit GCM3AK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a9-18e98190f231

 

Profile for UtahAdmin:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=ea...c8-72144a2565ec

Share this post


Link to post

PSSSST: It's pretty tacky posting private emails unless the other person gave you permission.

Share this post


Link to post

Um, so does this mean they are now removing previously approved caches of yours because of this little tizzy on the forum? Or am I missreading this?

 

The ruins in the canyon is a most excellent location. I too would be upset that it was denied. But from what I gather with many things in life, "rules are rules" and some folks chose to blindly and arbitrarily apply them in blanket form whether or not they make sense for the circumstances.

 

However, sometimes things get to a point where you just have to say "to hell with it!"... and this may be one of those times.

 

We now have an upset cache hider and an approver who apparently now does not want to do his job anymore. I think we've accomplished quite enough for one thread here. IT was an interesting read though, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

I am rather more than disappointed with the manner the OP took to try to resolve this situation. Having apparently had other caches listed, he should have known the process of providing complete information to the reviewer. To come here in the manner in which he did is, quite frankly, milk-toast & literally half-"you'know'what".

 

To get to the point when even Grizzly sides with TPTB, well... you gotta KNOW you are in the wrong.

 

 

Kudos to UTAHADMIN.

Share this post


Link to post
To get to the point when even Grizzly sides with TPTB, well... you gotta KNOW you are in the wrong.

LOL!

 

Yes but who would be wrong, TPTB or the OP? My being in agreement with someone generally makes them rethink their own position.

Share this post


Link to post
PSSSST: It's pretty tacky posting private emails unless the other person gave you permission.

It is pretty tacky to approve caches and then disapprove caches them also.

Share this post


Link to post

You can see why he speaks in the third person.

I think Tara McCarthy, the author of Persuasive Writing (Grades 4-8), is actually a woman.

What does this have to do with disapproving a cache after it has been approved? Are you, geocaching.com, going to aprrove Virtuals or not. If not put a moratorium on them and archive all present ones just like YOU archived mine.

 

Do not use bait and switch like a used car salesman. If you offer Virtuals approve them.

Share this post


Link to post
PSSSST: It's pretty tacky posting private emails unless the other person gave you permission.

It is pretty tacky to approve caches and then disapprove caches them also.

I don't understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Um, so does this mean they are now removing previously approved caches of yours because of this little tizzy on the forum? Or am I missreading this?

 

The ruins in the canyon is a most excellent location. I too would be upset that it was denied. But from what I gather with many things in life, "rules are rules" and some folks chose to blindly and arbitrarily apply them in blanket form whether or not they make sense for the circumstances.

 

However, sometimes things get to a point where you just have to say "to hell with it!"... and this may be one of those times.

 

We now have an upset cache hider and an approver who apparently now does not want to do his job anymore. I think we've accomplished quite enough for one thread here. IT was an interesting read though, that's for sure.

I am not upset, I am concerned that geocaching.com offers to list caches such as Virtuals but their volunteers, cache approvers, refuse to approve them.

 

Who really cares if the approvers are doing their job or not if their "employer" does not care how they perform. Look at the replies from Jeremy, he might be considered the "employer".

 

In the end we all find ways to do what we want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
It has been a while since your last post, I have cut and pasted the web page as you suggested.  Have you read it yet?  I await your answer on why the cache was not approved.

Thanks Keystone Approver. I noted "we" and not my own personal response to your cache listing. Honestly you don't want my response due to the way you handled the initial response to your cache entry. I am far less diplomatic than Keystone Approver can be.

It is amazing how some people use the excuse that they do not want to say something because they may not be diplomatic at it. It is also amazing that I can be called undiplomatic and dismissed because of that, yet some, as quoted, can state they are undiplomatic and thus not have to answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post

But the fact remains that you did obtain a polite and detailed series of responses from *someone* in a position of relative authority -- me, a Groundspeak volunteer -- to each of your questions. Not every question in the forums can or will get a personal response from Jeremy. He has helpers for a reason. I am deeply involved in the application of the listing guidelines to cache submissions on a daily basis, and I am comfortable responding to questions about them. We look to Jeremy only for guidance on points which are unclear, new or evolving. We would rather have him devote his time to improving website features and pursuing new projects. It's called specialization. If he does choose to weigh in -- to whatever extent -- on an individual cache issue, well that's fine. I welcome his input and besides, it's his website.

 

I will continue to list any and all virtual caches which meet the current listing guidelines, and to archive any and all that don't. I listed one a few days ago, while archiving another from the same geocacher that did not meet the guidelines. I would hope that each of the other volunteer reviewers will continue to take the time to evaluate each virtual cache submission on its merits rather than listing all of them or rejecting all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
It is pretty tacky to approve caches and then disapprove caches them also.

Since you want this out in the open, let's bring it out in the open.

 

The cache that was approved and then later unapproved wasn't listed under the account your using now, was it? Nope. I'm sure a lot of people with missing travel bugs will be interested to learn that your cache was submitted from the Clean Up Crew account.

It was unapproved when people pointed out that you made substantial changes to the coordinates after it was listed. Since the website would not let you relocate the cache that far without getting reviewed again, you left the cache listed at the old coords and just posted the new ones to the cache page. Since according to you it was a physical cache with coordinates that placed it in a National Park that has banned geocaches, the reviewer archived the cache in the new location.

 

An interesting side story is the only person that ever logged a find on the Clean Up Crew cache that you now say you hid was your current account.

Now, about those travel bugs?

Edited by NJ Admin

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that the reviewer group has far better experience than I do about cache reviewing, and I defer to them. I have a great respect for the folks who do this relatively thankless job. And I personally thank them for it.

 

No man is an island.

Share this post


Link to post
It is pretty tacky to approve caches and then disapprove caches them also.

Since you want this out in the open, let's bring it out in the open.

 

The cache that was approved and then later unapproved wasn't listed under the account your using now, was it? Nope. I'm sure a lot of people with missing travel bugs will be interested to learn that your cache was submitted from the Clean Up Crew account.

It was unapproved when people pointed out that you made substantial changes to the coordinates after it was listed. Since the website would not let you relocate the cache that far without getting reviewed again, you left the cache listed at the old coords and just posted the new ones to the cache page. Since according to you it was a physical cache with coordinates that placed it in a National Park that has banned geocaches, the reviewer archived the cache in the new location.

 

An interesting side story is the only person that ever logged a find on the Clean Up Crew cache that you now say you hid was your current account.

Now, about those travel bugs?

You must get the facts straight. The cache we wanted approved is the same cache that Clean Up Crew had listed. We visited the geocache and sent the required info. Several days after our find at Ruins In A Cave I looked again for the coords searching for caches in the arera. I found the cache to be archived so I submitted a request for a virtual cache. What is with travel bugs and this cache site anyway? I see no problems.

 

So as to why Clean Up Crews site got archived is now evident but I still think that we should have received approval for a virtual at the "same" coords.

Share this post


Link to post
You must get the facts straight. The cache we wanted approved is the same cache that Clean Up Crew had listed. We visited the geocache and sent the required info. Several days after our find at Ruins In A Cave I looked again for the coords searching for caches in the arera. I found the cache to be archived so I submitted a request for a virtual cache. What is with travel bugs and this cache site anyway? I see no problems.

 

So as to why Clean Up Crews site got archived is now evident but I still think that we should have received approval for a virtual at the "same" coords.

In your early posts you claimed it was your cache. You claimed you had been trying to get this cache listed as a virtual since August 2003, remember? You knew the cache had been submiitted as a virtual initially and declined.

 

Now you're saying you have nothing to do with the original cache or the original hider, and the last 2 pages of BS is about someone elses cache?

Share this post


Link to post
It is amazing how some people use the excuse that they do not want to say something because they may not be diplomatic at it. It is also amazing that I can be called undiplomatic and dismissed because of that, yet some, as quoted, can state they are undiplomatic and thus not have to answer the question.

Umm... I didn't write that at all. KA already handled it. I was noting that if I handled it I wouldn't have been as diplomatic about it. I'm hardly known for avoiding controversy. I'm just acknowledging that KA is far more diplomatic - a trait that I envy and admire in him. And you should be thankful that he took the time to write in this topic.

 

Regarding your listing, It is very difficult to separate the person from the listing. Your fit you had in the forums here make it very difficult to look at your listing objectively. Do you want me to decide on your cache? If so, I say don't post it. The original post from UtahAdmin was very polite and I'm sure a friendly email exchange (including details of the ruins at the location) may have changed the tide. However you decided instead to raise a stink here and far from diplomatically.

Share this post


Link to post
It is pretty tacky to approve caches and then disapprove caches them also.

Since you want this out in the open, let's bring it out in the open.

 

The cache that was approved and then later unapproved wasn't listed under the account your using now, was it? Nope. I'm sure a lot of people with missing travel bugs will be interested to learn that your cache was submitted from the Clean Up Crew account.

It was unapproved when people pointed out that you made substantial changes to the coordinates after it was listed. Since the website would not let you relocate the cache that far without getting reviewed again, you left the cache listed at the old coords and just posted the new ones to the cache page. Since according to you it was a physical cache with coordinates that placed it in a National Park that has banned geocaches, the reviewer archived the cache in the new location.

 

An interesting side story is the only person that ever logged a find on the Clean Up Crew cache that you now say you hid was your current account.

Now, about those travel bugs?

It is also an interesting coincidence that the same day that this "discussion" started, Clean Up Crew dumped the 30 some odd travel bugs in their possession into the Travel Bug Grave Yard. They held many of these travel bugs since May. RM

Share this post


Link to post
It is amazing how some people use the excuse that they do not want to say something because they may not be diplomatic at it.  It is also amazing that I can be called undiplomatic and dismissed because of that, yet some, as quoted, can state they are undiplomatic and thus not have to answer the question.

Umm... I didn't write that at all. KA already handled it. I was noting that if I handled it I wouldn't have been as diplomatic about it. I'm hardly known for avoiding controversy. I'm just acknowledging that KA is far more diplomatic - a trait that I envy and admire in him. And you should be thankful that he took the time to write in this topic.

 

Regarding your listing, It is very difficult to separate the person from the listing. Your fit you had in the forums here make it very difficult to look at your listing objectively. Do you want me to decide on your cache? If so, I say don't post it. The original post from UtahAdmin was very polite and I'm sure a friendly email exchange (including details of the ruins at the location) may have changed the tide. However you decided instead to raise a stink here and far from diplomatically.

I would much rather spend my time looking for boxes hidden under rocks but your post begs reply.

 

My undiplomatic tack may be wrong and abrassive to some if not all, so be it, I can't change the past.

 

If I read ypur reply correctly you are saying that the cache could have been approved if I would have not posted in this forum? From your indication about me rasing a stink, I am glad I did, you chastised me or atleast tried to poke fun when I mentioned stirring a hornet's nest-if the forums are open for people like me then I must be put up with.

 

So in the long run I read your reply to say that the UTAHADMIN is holding a grudge and will not approve our Virtual Cache? Quote, "The original post from UtahAdmin was very polite and I'm sure a friendly email exchange (including details of the ruins at the location) may have changed the tide."

 

I believe that ruins and such are now not approved by anybody according to an e-mail I received from TNADMIN, I believe that this was the sender of e-mail-I am not going to look because this is turning into an exercise in futility, TNADMIN says he received an e-mail that indicated that approvers not approve such caches.

 

The statement from UTAHADMIN that he has not approved a Virtual in 6 months and that he did not get into the "business" of deciding WOW factor and that geocaching.com offers Prime Rib but you can't have it indicates a serious problem.

 

That problem is not mine. In the end I can cache without gettimg approval for placed caches, caches that give coordinates for extremly unique and compelling sites. Sites that would appeal to the adventurous spirit that probably resides in a lot of geocachers. I feel that restricting such Virtual caches, that can be found by non-geocachers by asking the rangers at such areas, if you KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK.

 

I am merely fighting, not throwing a fit, for people's right to place and find geocaches accrding to the posted guidelines in effect at time of original request.

 

So go ahead shoot, be critical, make fun and denigrate, I still have a GPS Receiver.

 

Thanks to all who have posted. Reading the posts have brought a sense of reality to the sensless world of cache approval.

Share this post


Link to post

Clean Up Crew,

 

I don't think you have any right to act like a martyr.

 

Next time you wish to log in to alternate accounts, remember that there are internet breadcrumbs that lead to your other accounts.

Share this post


Link to post

Lets see if this is correct up to this point.

 

1) A virtual has been submitted (under a couple different accounts over the span of a 15 months?) with insufficient information to be approved.

 

2) Instead of contacting the approver who denied the cache with more information, the wannabe cache owner launches an attack.

 

3) Now, it seems a whole flock of people are upset on both sides of the fence, the cache is still not approved, something like 30 Travel bugs are sitting on the "shelf" in "retaliation".

 

4) Now we "hear" about another cache you or your group owns was archived due to your tweaking the cache so as it no longer fits into the guidelines at the time of its approval.

 

5) You are wanting a virtual cache approved, and I quote your statement "I am merely fighting, not throwing a fit, for people's right to place and find geocaches accrding to the posted guidelines in effect at time of original request." yet you had no problem "adjusting" one of your other caches outside of those same guidelines.

 

Close enough?

 

The way I read your cache page you pasted, I would not have approved it either if I was in that position.

 

Myself, I would not have even submitted it with that level of insufficient information. My point being, if you supply more then enough information such as your own photo's, a link to the online photo, a link to the NP's webpage about that location. etc, to show the "WOW" factor so that the approver would not have had to guess at it, you would have stood a better chance of getting it through the process. It sounds to me like you are/where trying to "sneak" (again?) a cache through and got caught.

 

And to top it off :

 

"So go ahead shoot, be critical, make fun and denigrate, I still have a GPS Receiver."

 

Kinda sounds like a threat to all the caches in your area.

 

Hope not.

 

Response?

 

Logscaler

Share this post


Link to post

Logscaler,

I'm not going to reproduce it here, but I want to note a nice level-headed responses in your most recent post. Thanks.

 

1. I see no problem with the Admin. reversing a decision, despite untoward behavior of the OP, on a cache listing if the information is now sufficient. You do not have to base that decision on "his" behavior, only on the cache merits.

 

2. I would certainly support any necessary action on any cache which violates the rules. Changing coordinates is only allowed for a few feet. Correct action here is not retaliation. (even if it makes you smile).

 

(I broke radio silence).

 

edit: the "prime rib email" is evidence to me, not just of a personal opinion, but of a congenial attitude toward the cacher. One which I am sure can no longer exist. go figger!

Edited by Robespierre

Share this post


Link to post

Let me state right up front I have not delt with either this cacher nor UtahAdmin in any way shape or form and this is just an outside opnion looking in.

 

Ahh yes, the "Prime Rib Post" affair, as we will call it from now on.

 

After rereading that post, it has a blanket statement that UtahAdmin will not approve any virtuals at all. Kinda heavy handed I think. UtahAdmin also states he has not signed on to judge "wow" factors.

 

UtahAdmin;

Sorry, your wrong there as well.

Yes you have signed on to judge "wow" factors. The "job" duties you have accepted are not a pick and choose type.

 

You may have a personal problem with any cacher, type of cache, location of cache or even color but you have signed on to do this "job" within a set of guidelines.

 

You must set aside any personal bias to person, place, or thing and judge any and all caches submitted to you for review on the merits of the cache. Period. If the cache owner does not submitt enough information to make a judgement on a new cache, then you have to ask for more or post a statement why you have not approved the cache and let the cache owner take it from there. This may sound high handed and elitist, but it is something I have to do every day in my job. Not with nickel and dime items but with Thousands or Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars worth of logs. I accept the fact that you asked several others approvers what they thought of the cache and they agreed with you in not allowing it. That tells me the cache or cache information is flawed.

 

But on the other side of the story, Dick and Song Bug :

 

"IF" a cacher has a history of "problems", then it sends a flag up with each and every cache they submitt and said cache will get a very close going over. Fair or not, that is just the way it is and will be. Rightfully so in my opinion. Personally, I think you have jumped the gun when you posted to this forum slamming UtahAdmin without depleting all your options with UtahAdmin first. Then, when you "misquote" UtahAdmin in a post, that did not help your credibility any. His statement said there "may" be other caches like it in the area. He did not say there "are" caches like it in your area. Also, you seem to have "baggage" your packing with you from another name or group you where or are with. That is something you will have to deal with as well. Also, From my understanding, you or your group where holding 30 travel bugs since May and now those bugs are in the graveyard. That will not help any at all. "Reviving" those bugs and getting them back into the game might help your cause with other cacher's.

 

Long winded but my opinion.

 

Logscaler.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't it about time this thread gets closed before somebody gets hurt?

Share this post


Link to post
Isn't it about time this thread gets closed before somebody gets hurt?

Oh no please do not close it ... the entertainment value is too great.

Share this post


Link to post
Isn't it about time this thread gets closed before somebody gets hurt?

Oh no please do not close it ... the entertainment value is too great.

...and I haven't had a chance to post yet

 

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post

Hey "Dick and Song Bug,"

 

Great to see you guys again! I happened upon this thread and wondered why something was so familiar ... Of course, my ol’ buddies from Phoenix Fed! Boy, your comments really brought back some great cellblock memories.

 

I love the on-line names, what a hoot! If it's "Dick and Song" now then I guess the surgery was a go? If so, glad to hear it, I know it was something you really wanted.

 

Anyway, great to see you guys on the "other side!" Let’s cash … errrr, ‘cache’ together soon!

 

Your friend (and I’ve got the tattoos to prove it!),

CamillusGeo

Share this post


Link to post

Dick and Song Bug, Clean Up Crew - whatever your name may be, or whatever account you are curently logged into:

 

You forget that, in the end, Jeremy wins. This is his website, which through countless hours of work, he provides for us. You may argue that you have paid a membership fee, but one could also see that as a donation to his effort. I am very thankful for Geocaching, it has led me to thousands of places I would have never seen or gotten lost around without it. In my completely honest opinion, it is people like you that ruin Geocaching. You take all the fun out of it. You make everyone upset and fight over pointless details. Yeah, your virtual got denied. Tough. Deal with it. Meet the requirements. You want to complain about the requirements? Do so without attacking anyone. We all follow the same guidelines, and most people manage through their day without dying.

 

That's all from me.

 

~Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...