Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

Expand Messages
  • Cliff Meyer
    How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife s name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 25 5:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
       
      If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


      From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@...>
      To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

       

      While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

      Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

      --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

      From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
      Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
      To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
      Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

       

      From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

      blucruzfamily wrote:

       

      I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
      Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
      Gary (Blucruz)


    • Mac
      Yes, at a later date, but not FTF.  ... From: Cliff Meyer Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown? To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com Date:
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 25 5:54 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, at a later date, but not FTF. 

        --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Cliff Meyer <cliffmeyer75@...> wrote:

        From: Cliff Meyer <cliffmeyer75@...>
        Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
        To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 5:50 AM

         
        How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
         
        If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


        From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@sbcglobal. net>
        To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
        Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

         
        While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

        Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

        --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

        From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
        Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
        To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
        Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

         
        From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

        blucruzfamily wrote:
         
        I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
        Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
        Gary (Blucruz)


      • Darren Courtney
        How about those that that are doing events where they are supposed to check in at the event? Instead, they are sitting out in the field waiting with their
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 25 6:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          How about those that that are doing events where they are supposed to check in at the event?
          Instead, they are sitting out in the field waiting with their wireless cards in their laptops for the gpx file post on the web. They then knock out the furthest caches and work their way in. They get some FTF's before anyone from the event that can even get to them in time. Some work hard to honestly get the FTF. Only to get there and find that someone one had already logged it. I then meet the person on the trail who was bragging they got it and how they did it. I did not have much to say to this cacher and just moved on. Ticked me off, but what can we do?
          I have dubbed stuff like this as "geocheating". I have seen a few other inconsistencies as well out in the field.
          I try to keep the highest integrity while out on the hunt. I like the phrase "To thine own self be true". And how hard is it to replace a temp log until the cache owner can replace one? As some have said, the cacher(s) doing this are the ones that has to live with the way they hunt. Right or wrong, it is their call. There are people from all walks of life doing this activity anyhow. Can we expect perfection? Then again, I am still kind of new and really do not get too involved in the forums. Though I do learn a lot by reading them. Just my two cents.

          Happy caching and keep your head up high!  :-)

          mtntrek


          To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
          From: cliffmeyer75@...
          Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:46 -0700
          Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

           

          How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
           
          If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


          From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@sbcglobal. net>
          To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
          Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
          Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

           
          While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

          Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

          --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

          From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
          Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
          To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
          Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

           

          From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

          blucruzfamily wrote:

           
          I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
          Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
          Gary (Blucruz)






          Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
        • Escapades
          OK I think I am missing something.  If you find the cache but the log sheet is missing and you replace the log sheet and sign it is that a find or not?  I
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 25 7:02 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            OK I think I am missing something.  If you find the cache but the log sheet is missing and you replace the log sheet and sign it is that a find or not?  I would call it a find.  I'm not going back another time to see if the cache owner put in an official log I'm calling it a find.
            I not racing against anybody anyway in finds.  I just like to see how many caches I have found.
            Mike

            --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Darren Courtney <mtntrek@...> wrote:

            From: Darren Courtney <mtntrek@...>
            Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
            To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 6:32 AM

             
            How about those that that are doing events where they are supposed to check in at the event?
            Instead, they are sitting out in the field waiting with their wireless cards in their laptops for the gpx file post on the web. They then knock out the furthest caches and work their way in. They get some FTF's before anyone from the event that can even get to them in time. Some work hard to honestly get the FTF. Only to get there and find that someone one had already logged it. I then meet the person on the trail who was bragging they got it and how they did it. I did not have much to say to this cacher and just moved on. Ticked me off, but what can we do?
            I have dubbed stuff like this as "geocheating" . I have seen a few other inconsistencies as well out in the field.
            I try to keep the highest integrity while out on the hunt. I like the phrase "To thine own self be true". And how hard is it to replace a temp log until the cache owner can replace one? As some have said, the cacher(s) doing this are the ones that has to live with the way they hunt. Right or wrong, it is their call. There are people from all walks of life doing this activity anyhow. Can we expect perfection? Then again, I am still kind of new and really do not get too involved in the forums. Though I do learn a lot by reading them. Just my two cents.

            Happy caching and keep your head up high!  :-)

            mtntrek


            To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
            From: cliffmeyer75@ yahoo.com
            Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:46 -0700
            Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

             

            How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
             
            If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


            From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@sbcglobal. net>
            To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
            Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

             
            While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

            Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

            --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

            From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
            Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
            To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
            Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

             
            From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

            blucruzfamily wrote:
             
            I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
            Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
            Gary (Blucruz)






            Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
          • Tim Vigus
            Lets see... Geocaching is a game. Every Cacher I have met plays the game a little different.  I just returned from Ground Speak Head Quarters last week, where
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 25 7:17 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Lets see... Geocaching is a game. Every Cacher I have met plays the game a little different.  I just returned from Ground Speak Head Quarters last week, where the developers were talking to us about the uniquiness of this game to each player. 
              So play this game to your highest integrity and don't worry about everyone else.
              So instead of debating something you have no control over, lets go Caching.

              Tim

              --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Escapades <escapades4cache@...> wrote:

              From: Escapades <escapades4cache@...>
              Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
              To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 7:02 PM

               

              OK I think I am missing something.  If you find the cache but the log sheet is missing and you replace the log sheet and sign it is that a find or not?  I would call it a find.  I'm not going back another time to see if the cache owner put in an official log I'm calling it a find.
              I not racing against anybody anyway in finds.  I just like to see how many caches I have found.
              Mike

              --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Darren Courtney <mtntrek@live. com> wrote:

              From: Darren Courtney <mtntrek@live. com>
              Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
              To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
              Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 6:32 AM

               
              How about those that that are doing events where they are supposed to check in at the event?
              Instead, they are sitting out in the field waiting with their wireless cards in their laptops for the gpx file post on the web. They then knock out the furthest caches and work their way in. They get some FTF's before anyone from the event that can even get to them in time. Some work hard to honestly get the FTF. Only to get there and find that someone one had already logged it. I then meet the person on the trail who was bragging they got it and how they did it. I did not have much to say to this cacher and just moved on. Ticked me off, but what can we do?
              I have dubbed stuff like this as "geocheating" . I have seen a few other inconsistencies as well out in the field.
              I try to keep the highest integrity while out on the hunt. I like the phrase "To thine own self be true". And how hard is it to replace a temp log until the cache owner can replace one? As some have said, the cacher(s) doing this are the ones that has to live with the way they hunt. Right or wrong, it is their call. There are people from all walks of life doing this activity anyhow. Can we expect perfection? Then again, I am still kind of new and really do not get too involved in the forums. Though I do learn a lot by reading them. Just my two cents.

              Happy caching and keep your head up high!  :-)

              mtntrek


              To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
              From: cliffmeyer75@ yahoo.com
              Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:46 -0700
              Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

               

              How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
               
              If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


              From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@sbcglobal. net>
              To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
              Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

               
              While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

              Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

              --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

              From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
              Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
              To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
              Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

               
              From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

              blucruzfamily wrote:
               
              I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
              Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
              Gary (Blucruz)






              Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.

            • Tammy Pokorney
              EXACTLY! Thank you. ... From: Tim Vigus To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown? Lets see...
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 25 7:22 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                EXACTLY!  Thank you.
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Tim Vigus
                Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:17 PM
                Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                 

                Lets see... Geocaching is a game. Every Cacher I have met plays the game a little different.  I just returned from Ground Speak Head Quarters last week, where the developers were talking to us about the uniquiness of this game to each player. 
                So play this game to your highest integrity and don't worry about everyone else.
                So instead of debating something you have no control over, lets go Caching.

                Tim

                --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Escapades <escapades4cache@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                From: Escapades <escapades4cache@ yahoo.com>
                Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
                To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
                Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 7:02 PM

                 

                OK I think I am missing something.  If you find the cache but the log sheet is missing and you replace the log sheet and sign it is that a find or not?  I would call it a find.  I'm not going back another time to see if the cache owner put in an official log I'm calling it a find.
                I not racing against anybody anyway in finds.  I just like to see how many caches I have found.
                Mike

                --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Darren Courtney <mtntrek@live. com> wrote:

                From: Darren Courtney <mtntrek@live. com>
                Subject: RE: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
                To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
                Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 6:32 AM

                 
                How about those that that are doing events where they are supposed to check in at the event?
                Instead, they are sitting out in the field waiting with their wireless cards in their laptops for the gpx file post on the web. They then knock out the furthest caches and work their way in. They get some FTF's before anyone from the event that can even get to them in time. Some work hard to honestly get the FTF. Only to get there and find that someone one had already logged it. I then meet the person on the trail who was bragging they got it and how they did it. I did not have much to say to this cacher and just moved on. Ticked me off, but what can we do?
                I have dubbed stuff like this as "geocheating" . I have seen a few other inconsistencies as well out in the field.
                I try to keep the highest integrity while out on the hunt. I like the phrase "To thine own self be true". And how hard is it to replace a temp log until the cache owner can replace one? As some have said, the cacher(s) doing this are the ones that has to live with the way they hunt. Right or wrong, it is their call. There are people from all walks of life doing this activity anyhow. Can we expect perfection? Then again, I am still kind of new and really do not get too involved in the forums. Though I do learn a lot by reading them. Just my two cents.

                Happy caching and keep your head up high!  :-)

                mtntrek


                To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
                From: cliffmeyer75@ yahoo.com
                Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:46 -0700
                Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                 

                How about the cacher than hides caches in his wife's name and then finds them in his? Sure is an easy way to build numbers if you can live with yourself. (and the whole community who knows what you are doing).
                 
                If you are with another cacher when they are putting out hides should you ever claim a find on that cache?


                From: Bill Hoke <bhoke@sbcglobal. net>
                To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
                Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:47:38 AM
                Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                 
                While I agree with the sign the log group, I will admit that I have not always signed the log. Once I forgot a pen and instead of walking back to the car, I pricked my finger and left a fingerprint. And once while doing a series of caches along a trail, one of them had a sodden mess of a log. I had no replacement and past logs stated that the log was soaked. I don't feel like anyone was cheated in these cases.

                Now I have a file that someone sent me with a bunch of puzzles caches on it. All solved, ready to go. Never opened it and never will. That would be cheating two people. Myself and the hider. 

                --- On Mon, 8/24/09, thrak <thrak@pacbell. net> wrote:

                From: thrak <thrak@pacbell. net>
                Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
                To: nuts_@yahoogroups. com
                Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:57 PM

                 
                From one crabby old man to another..... ........ I agree with you completely. I realize most will say it's no big deal but I really dislike "cheating" even if folks are only cheating themselves. If you aren't even honest with yourself I don't expect that you will be honest with others either.

                blucruzfamily wrote:
                 
                I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
                Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
                Gary (Blucruz)






                Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.

              • seanlee_1969
                Hi NUTS! I dunno, I kind of find this topic tangential in the long run. No disrespect to anybody in particular, of course. There are many factors that play
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 25 9:42 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi NUTS!

                  I dunno, I kind of find this topic tangential in the long run. No disrespect to anybody in particular, of course. There are many factors that play into whether or not you log a find physically vs. digitally. For example, I personally hate physically logging nanos...as my Dad pointed out below. But I will still go find them, because to me the specific challenge is in finding the nanocache container, not the log inside (with very few, albeit reasonable exceptions). In fact, inside many nanos I hide I will put a "log it" note inside just so somebody doesn't have to unwind an annoying, falling-apart log that will give away what they are doing to muggles they stand there long enough. I would rather someone find my nano hides and have them put back quickly so that the hides don't get muggled.

                  If we as cache-hiders go the direction of requiring physical logs, and we're willing to check them out and adjust the electronic finds accordingly, that's a different game too. But all acceptable within the rules. If someone asks me in their cache description to physically log the find to receive credit, you can bet your boots I'll do it. But if not, I have the levity to say "hey, I found the cache, I'm logging the find."

                  There's an honor system to finding caches that need maintenance, too, but that's also a judgment call. I personally won't log a find if all that's there is an open/obviously muggled container (not in the intended location, and with no contents, for example). But I wouldn't fault someone for digitally logging a find on one of my caches if they wrote me and told me about the fact that I needed to maintain my cache. I would give them credit for the find...as has happened to me many times when I find caches in need of TLC.

                  Integrity is in the eye of the beholder, but to me the beauty of the geocaching "rules" is that they allow for exceptions, given the right circumstances.

                  Cheers and cache on!

                  Sean (seanlee1969)

                  --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Robert L Dunbar <dwalrus38@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I know of geocachers who don't sign nanocaches only because they don't
                  > want to take the time of unwinding, then winding up that little strip of
                  > paper. The laziness is understandable, but when the GREAT GEOCACHING
                  > GENDARME goes around checking everybody's log-ins, he may not allow
                  > those without signatures. Those people will just have to live with their
                  > consciences for having done an incomplete job. If I have a strip of
                  > paper on me and there is no log, I try to temporize one until the owner
                  > can correct it. I get grumpy once in awhile, too! Nanook56 (Bob)
                  >
                  > blucruzfamily wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find
                  > > is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I
                  > > don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on
                  > > one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log
                  > > sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you
                  > > didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
                  > > Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching
                  > > experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the
                  > > sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
                  > > Gary (Blucruz)
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Tammy Pokorney
                  Well said! Thank you! ... From: seanlee_1969 To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown? Hi NUTS! I
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 26 7:31 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Well said!  Thank you!
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:42 PM
                    Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                     

                    Hi NUTS!

                    I dunno, I kind of find this topic tangential in the long run. No disrespect to anybody in particular, of course. There are many factors that play into whether or not you log a find physically vs. digitally. For example, I personally hate physically logging nanos...as my Dad pointed out below. But I will still go find them, because to me the specific challenge is in finding the nanocache container, not the log inside (with very few, albeit reasonable exceptions). In fact, inside many nanos I hide I will put a "log it" note inside just so somebody doesn't have to unwind an annoying, falling-apart log that will give away what they are doing to muggles they stand there long enough. I would rather someone find my nano hides and have them put back quickly so that the hides don't get muggled.

                    If we as cache-hiders go the direction of requiring physical logs, and we're willing to check them out and adjust the electronic finds accordingly, that's a different game too. But all acceptable within the rules. If someone asks me in their cache description to physically log the find to receive credit, you can bet your boots I'll do it. But if not, I have the levity to say "hey, I found the cache, I'm logging the find."

                    There's an honor system to finding caches that need maintenance, too, but that's also a judgment call. I personally won't log a find if all that's there is an open/obviously muggled container (not in the intended location, and with no contents, for example). But I wouldn't fault someone for digitally logging a find on one of my caches if they wrote me and told me about the fact that I needed to maintain my cache. I would give them credit for the find...as has happened to me many times when I find caches in need of TLC.

                    Integrity is in the eye of the beholder, but to me the beauty of the geocaching "rules" is that they allow for exceptions, given the right circumstances.

                    Cheers and cache on!

                    Sean (seanlee1969)

                    --- In nuts_@yahoogroups. com, Robert L Dunbar <dwalrus38@. ..> wrote:
                    >
                    > I know of geocachers who don't sign nanocaches only because they don't
                    > want to take the time of unwinding, then winding up that little strip of
                    > paper. The laziness is understandable, but when the GREAT GEOCACHING
                    > GENDARME goes around checking everybody's log-ins, he may not allow
                    > those without signatures. Those people will just have to live with their
                    > consciences for having done an incomplete job. If I have a strip of
                    > paper on me and there is no log, I try to temporize one until the owner
                    > can correct it. I get grumpy once in awhile, too! Nanook56 (Bob)
                    >
                    > blucruzfamily wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find
                    > > is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I
                    > > don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on
                    > > one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log
                    > > sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you
                    > > didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
                    > > Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching
                    > > experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the
                    > > sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
                    > > Gary (Blucruz)
                    > >
                    > >
                    >

                  • Cinrafter
                    My gosh! Enough said, my email full of a subjest that in better put too sleep! To each his own, don t ya think! Sent from Cindy s iPhone On Aug 26, 2009, at
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 26 7:42 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My gosh! Enough said, my email full of a subjest that in better put too sleep! To each his own, don't ya think!

                      Sent from Cindy's iPhone

                      On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:31 PM, "Tammy Pokorney" <alanpokorney@...> wrote:

                       

                      Well said!  Thank you!
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:42 PM
                      Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                       

                      Hi NUTS!

                      I dunno, I kind of find this topic tangential in the long run. No disrespect to anybody in particular, of course. There are many factors that play into whether or not you log a find physically vs. digitally. For example, I personally hate physically logging nanos...as my Dad pointed out below. But I will still go find them, because to me the specific challenge is in finding the nanocache container, not the log inside (with very few, albeit reasonable exceptions). In fact, inside many nanos I hide I will put a "log it" note inside just so somebody doesn't have to unwind an annoying, falling-apart log that will give away what they are doing to muggles they stand there long enough. I would rather someone find my nano hides and have them put back quickly so that the hides don't get muggled.

                      If we as cache-hiders go the direction of requiring physical logs, and we're willing to check them out and adjust the electronic finds accordingly, that's a different game too. But all acceptable within the rules. If someone asks me in their cache description to physically log the find to receive credit, you can bet your boots I'll do it. But if not, I have the levity to say "hey, I found the cache, I'm logging the find."

                      There's an honor system to finding caches that need maintenance, too, but that's also a judgment call. I personally won't log a find if all that's there is an open/obviously muggled container (not in the intended location, and with no contents, for example). But I wouldn't fault someone for digitally logging a find on one of my caches if they wrote me and told me about the fact that I needed to maintain my cache. I would give them credit for the find...as has happened to me many times when I find caches in need of TLC.

                      Integrity is in the eye of the beholder, but to me the beauty of the geocaching "rules" is that they allow for exceptions, given the right circumstances.

                      Cheers and cache on!

                      Sean (seanlee1969)

                      --- In nuts_@yahoogroups. com, Robert L Dunbar <dwalrus38@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > I know of geocachers who don't sign nanocaches only because they don't
                      > want to take the time of unwinding, then winding up that little strip of
                      > paper. The laziness is understandable, but when the GREAT GEOCACHING
                      > GENDARME goes around checking everybody's log-ins, he may not allow
                      > those without signatures. Those people will just have to live with their
                      > consciences for having done an incomplete job. If I have a strip of
                      > paper on me and there is no log, I try to temporize one until the owner
                      > can correct it. I get grumpy once in awhile, too! Nanook56 (Bob)
                      >
                      > blucruzfamily wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find
                      > > is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I
                      > > don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on
                      > > one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log
                      > > sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you
                      > > didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
                      > > Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching
                      > > experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the
                      > > sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
                      > > Gary (Blucruz)
                      > >
                      > >
                      >


                    • Tammy Pokorney
                      yup! ... From: Cinrafter To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown? My gosh! Enough said, my email
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 26 7:45 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        yup!
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Cinrafter
                        Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:42 PM
                        Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                         

                        My gosh! Enough said, my email full of a subjest that in better put too sleep! To each his own, don't ya think!

                        Sent from Cindy's iPhone

                        On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:31 PM, "Tammy Pokorney" <alanpokorney@ charter.net> wrote:

                         

                        Well said!  Thank you!
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:42 PM
                        Subject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?

                         

                        Hi NUTS!

                        I dunno, I kind of find this topic tangential in the long run. No disrespect to anybody in particular, of course. There are many factors that play into whether or not you log a find physically vs. digitally. For example, I personally hate physically logging nanos...as my Dad pointed out below. But I will still go find them, because to me the specific challenge is in finding the nanocache container, not the log inside (with very few, albeit reasonable exceptions). In fact, inside many nanos I hide I will put a "log it" note inside just so somebody doesn't have to unwind an annoying, falling-apart log that will give away what they are doing to muggles they stand there long enough. I would rather someone find my nano hides and have them put back quickly so that the hides don't get muggled.

                        If we as cache-hiders go the direction of requiring physical logs, and we're willing to check them out and adjust the electronic finds accordingly, that's a different game too. But all acceptable within the rules. If someone asks me in their cache description to physically log the find to receive credit, you can bet your boots I'll do it. But if not, I have the levity to say "hey, I found the cache, I'm logging the find."

                        There's an honor system to finding caches that need maintenance, too, but that's also a judgment call. I personally won't log a find if all that's there is an open/obviously muggled container (not in the intended location, and with no contents, for example). But I wouldn't fault someone for digitally logging a find on one of my caches if they wrote me and told me about the fact that I needed to maintain my cache. I would give them credit for the find...as has happened to me many times when I find caches in need of TLC.

                        Integrity is in the eye of the beholder, but to me the beauty of the geocaching "rules" is that they allow for exceptions, given the right circumstances.

                        Cheers and cache on!

                        Sean (seanlee1969)

                        --- In nuts_@yahoogroups. com, Robert L Dunbar <dwalrus38@. ..> wrote:
                        >
                        > I know of geocachers who don't sign nanocaches only because they don't
                        > want to take the time of unwinding, then winding up that little strip of
                        > paper. The laziness is understandable, but when the GREAT GEOCACHING
                        > GENDARME goes around checking everybody's log-ins, he may not allow
                        > those without signatures. Those people will just have to live with their
                        > consciences for having done an incomplete job. If I have a strip of
                        > paper on me and there is no log, I try to temporize one until the owner
                        > can correct it. I get grumpy once in awhile, too! Nanook56 (Bob)
                        >
                        > blucruzfamily wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I just don't understand why some people log a find when all they find
                        > > is a container and no log. I have always had the mindset that if I
                        > > don't sign it, I don't log it as a find. I've never deleted a log on
                        > > one of my caches by someone claiming a find without signing the log
                        > > sheet, and I have no intention of doing so, but, in my opinion you
                        > > didn't find the cache if you didn't find and sign the log.
                        > > Rant almost over....Sorry I've had some very upsetting caching
                        > > experiences in the last couple months and have all but given up the
                        > > sport. I guess I'm just getting grumpy about the little things.
                        > > Gary (Blucruz)
                        > >
                        > >
                        >


                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.