Re: [CentralTexasGeocachers] GCB39D--Riverwalk Virtual
- You're taking it too personally. (We always do when it's our own cache.) Her note was more "mater of fact" than rude. It's just that you're the owner and you're more sensitive. I haven't looked at the cache in question, but perhaps as Semper Questio suggested, there is something that she's misunderstanding about the cache that if she had known, she wouldn't have reacted the same.We certainly don't want to lose a virtual, so you might try to figure out what she thought was objectionable and build your logic for rebuttal just in case Prime takes her archive request seriously.Cheers,Julie
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Cybercat <cybercat@...> wrote:and that gives her a right to be rude?----- Original Message -----From: Julie PerrineSent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:51 PMSubject: Re: [CentralTexasGeocachers] GCB39D--Riverwalk VirtualHey Jana, tread carefully! If you check out her profile, she works for Groundspeak!Cheers,JulieOn Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Cybercat <cybercat@...> wrote:Well, guys, this takes the cake. See the "needs to be archived" note below that was posted on my Riverwalk cache today.Can you believe it?This gal has 500-something finds and has never even cached in Texas!!!I just can't believe someone would be this tacky!!!!!!!!JanaApril 26 by MissJenn (532 found)
Sorry, but a traditional cache that has been plundered should not be turned into a virtual. It should be archived.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1398 - Release Date: 4/25/2008 2:31 PM