[GeoStL] Re: Bad Karma GCCB93 & Blue Monkey GCCB92
- From: Sara Gomer <outdoorlady79@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
I have to agree with Nancy on this subject. As far as the one cache being in
need of repairs, had you done your homework you would have known that it had
some maintenance issues and in the spirit of caching may have considered doing
a little cache maintenance for the sake of all cachers not to gain positive
attention for yourself.
I personally know of two caches that are in need of repair and the owners
innactive. I will not mention what caches they are for fear that someone may
decide to go remove the caches rather than do a little friendly cache
maintenance on them. The next time I go to the area they are in I will replace
the containers for the benefit of the game. I want no recognition for doing
this and don't feel anyone who does this type of maintenance needs it. If
anyone would like to know which caches (Glenn knows which ones they are
already) for the sake of doing some friendly cache repair please feel free to
email me off list.
As for removing the caches..........I feel you were very wrong but I'm not
going to take part in that argument. My post was merely to point out that you
had ways of knowing before hand what you were going to find and should have
been prepared for such situation.
OL79
tklnhl & kyd <sydstyr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-
Considering a shortlegged, overweight middle-aged dad and a 7 year old girl
was able to find these caches one week ago, I'm thinking they couldn't have
been THAT difficult....
With that in mind, why did you just not go prepared to replace or repair
the caches?
The friendly thing would have been to go prepared to replace the cache with
any kind of container, new log book and appropriate swag. At that point
you could have discreetly notified the admin, (if unhappy with the local
admin, there are plenty of others you can appeal to and are easy enough to
find by putting in some effort on the gc.com forums etc) and posted a log
saying that you had, in the spirit of the game, taken a new container. You
could also have offered to adopt the cache or look after it until an
"official" decision was made.
Just today I was looking at the pictures my husband and daughter took last
week and regretting I did not go. No point in uploading them to the page
now is there? That was not a place any of us would ever had reason to go
without geocaching.
Whether or not you feel you were justified for your actions; there were
other, much more friendly ways to positively take care of the situation.
And, finally, this IS a family list, read by all age groups from all
backgrounds. . Personally, in this particular list, I find foul language
very offensive -- most especially that involving the use of the "gd" word.
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.A. Terranson"
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Bad Karma GCCB93 & Blue Monkey GCCB92
> -
>
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Dan Henke wrote:
>
>> I did these caches a year or so back and I am not from St. Louis...I
>> really had no idea how to get to Emmenegger Park but I do NOT rely on a
>> GPS with outdated mapping software to get me anywhere....and ALL mapping
>> software out there is outdated. You need to rely on other sources as
>> well such as the latest paper map you can find etc. I had no trouble
>> finding the park in this way and found parking less than .10 mile away
>> from the caches. So if you had trouble getting to the cache location I
>> would say you need to stop relying on the needle and look up other
>> sources before you leave.
>
> Agreed. And while I had inklings of that lesson prior to yesterday's GPS
> extravaganza, we learned from that mistake and bought a map (which saved
> my ass today when the GPS said to turn left, *into oncoming traffic*,
> while on I55 :-)
>
>> Secondly, I sure hope you never do any of my caches and have any trouble
>> or even worse not care for the way they are hidden....the caches you are
>> talking about in your log are very inovatively hidden and while they are
>> border line as to whether they are legal or not ...they WERE approved by
>> the powers that be at geocaching.com....
>
> First off, I did not call for these to be archived in the post you
> referenced below, so why you included it I do not know. Either you
> assumed that my report of a difficult cache recovery equaled a cache
> withdrawal demand, or else you can't keep your references straight.
> Either way, you need to be more careful.
>
> Second, I personally removed them today for a variety of reasons, even
> though I know that Glenn considers them OK. Regardless of Glenn's
> opinion, these two were NOT ok.
>
> (1) They violate both the letter and the
> spirit of the game. Glenn admits this, but does not care.
>
> (2) They violated the explicit rules of the park management - on several
> counts
>
> That alone would have been enough for me to REQUEST their archiving, but
> coupled with a variety of offline emails I received from others who have
> mentioned to either Glenn or to the Geocaching boys directly that this
> cache was (a) Illegal on many counts, and (b) TEARING UP THE HABITAT, led
> me to remove them personally. And they will STAY gone, even if I have to
> go to court to keep them gone. Anyone who thinks I'm bluffing better
> think again - Go check the couthouses around town and see who often I'm
> there to file routine papers.
>
>
>> Ireally do not believe you have
>> any right to call for their removal or that they should be archived....
>
> You are wrong on both accounts. On #1, ANYONE has the "right" to call for
> archiving - THAT is why there is a function built into the web page to do
> it. As for #2, what you think is what you think, I obviously can't change
> it, so I won't try.
>
>> I found them on the first try (though I was a bit lucky) and I found them
>> very interesting
>
> I agree, they were very innovatively placed. And when I [finally]
> found them, I seriously thought about whether removal was the proper
> response. What tipped the scales was that (a) The owner had long since
> abandoned these caches, even though one was completely destroyed and
> unusable (and the owner had been multiply notified MONTHS ago), and (b)
> These caches were HURTING their surrounding habitat. If I find a cache
> that is destroying the area it lives in, I will, repeat WILL remove it, no
> if's, ands, or but's about it. I don't give a good god damn what anyone
> else thinks either - this game is NOT designed to INJURE the areas we go
> into.
>
>> and had thought of placing a cache in a similar manner.
>
> See above - while the placement was technically illegal, the "over the
> edge moment" was not decided by that, it was decided by the damage these
> were doing, and the fact that nobody was maintaining them.
>
>> If you had called for a cache of mine to be removed I would be very
>> angry.
>
> Then you probably shouldn't be playing this game, your ego seems to be
> more important than the game or the consequences of it.
>
>> Finally, there are many many cachers in and out of St. Louis who have
>> done these caches and have found them....as Susan suggested you could
>> have called a caching friend for advice or help....I have used this many
>> times on caches I was having trouble with and have always received
>> helpful information.
>
> And guess what? Thats what I did - I posted here the log and story, and
> got a lot of help in return. And to those, I gave thanks! But it changes
> the underlying facts not at all. I will not allow a cache to remain in an
> area it is damaging, unless the owner/land manager is specifically aware
> of this and approves of it. And I don't give a dman what Glenn, you, or
> anyone else has to say about it either.
>
>
>> Sorry for the tone of this reply
>
> No you're not. You're overgrown ego couldn't stop you.
>
>> but I don't like it when people call
>> for a cache to be archived.
>
> Which means you aren't thinking about WHY someone would do this. Which
> means we can all safely ignore each and everything you have to say.
>
>> I really think that should be between the admin and the cache placer.
>
> No. It's between all of us and the owner/land manager.
>
>> Dan (Thunder)
>
> //Alif (Measl)
>
> --
> Yours,
>
> J.A. Terranson
> sysadmin@xxxxxxx
> 0xBD4A95BF
>
> "What this country needs is a good old fashioned nuclear enema."
>
>
> ****************************************
> Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
> Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
> ****************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list:
> send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
> the Subject field
>
>
>
>
****************************************
Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
****************************************
To unsubscribe from this list:
send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
Subject field
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Other related posts:
