Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
- yup!----- Original Message -----From: CinrafterSent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:42 PMSubject: 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 -----From: seanlee_1969Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:42 PMSubject: Re: [NUTS] Smiley or Frown?
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!
--- 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)