[Az-Geocaching] to CHICKS with TRUCKS - and all

Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:35:54 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Chicks with Trucks, and list serv:

I am not criticizing you, C w/ T....I like "easier" caches for medical reasons too. I just want to point out something to those who have been on this list for awhile, as it seems to either be a change in Jeremy (cache-approval dept) or a double standard: (C w/ T: this happened before you were on the list, I think, so please bear with me)

How many remember when Lincoln was "admonished" a few months back, directly by Jeremy in an email (that Lincoln posted to the list) for having "too many caches, too close together"? His caches were, in reality, not that close together due to the often difficult terrain up in the Prescott Nat'l Forest, which is not readily apparent to someone looking at a map program in Oregon or wherever Jeremy lives. Lincoln was specifically asked by Jeremy to remove some of his caches and, if I can speak for you, Ken, it was not a nice feeling.

Just wondered if maybe Jeremy changed his tune and decided to approve any and all??

I apologize in advance if someone else has already posted this in the past couple days, I haven't read all of my inbox.

In general, my opinion is: stick to common sense. It is a game, but if any particular area gets over-saturated, that means alot of foot/vehicle traffic which could lead to being noticed in a bad way, and possibly bans by various governing authorities. I'm not speaking of any Team or any cache in particular. Let's just keep our wits about this issue and think responsibly. (A general comment, not saying anybody is witless or irresponsible)

Peace,
Trisha  "Lightning"
Prescott

On Sun, 22 September 2002, PixceeDust@aol.com wrote:

<br>

<hr size=1>&nbsp;
<HTML>This is going to be our one and only post that you will ever see from us on this site. &nbsp;We are in this for fun, not politics and debates. &nbsp;
 
 There are several points we would like to make:
 
 1. Most importantly, this is a game! 
 2. If our caches meet the requirements set by geocaching.com that is ALL that matters.
 3. &nbsp;We do not do this for stats. &nbsp;We don't now, nor will we ever. &nbsp;
 4. &nbsp;We see this as a game of "hide and seek". &nbsp;We will continue to hide and to seek. &nbsp;If those numbers are a close ratio, we don't care.
 5. &nbsp;We will continue to hide as many caches as we want and where we want so long as geocaching.com continues to approve them.
 6. &nbsp;We maintain ALL our caches and will only place them in locations we are willing to go back to for the purpose of maintainence.
 7. &nbsp;If for ANY reason you don't care for our caches, DON'T GO TO THEM.
 
 For a BRIEF explaination of why we place them where we do (not that it is ANYONES business), none of us are into long hikes for different reasons. &nbsp;Some simply don't like to hike and another has medical restrictions. &nbsp;For those reasons, we prefer easy walks and drive-bys. &nbsp;We appreciate other easy caches and we know there are other people out there with diabilities, limitations, young children, etc who do appreciate us hiding easy ones. &nbsp;We are not offended or upset that we can't or don't want to go to a top of a mountain to find a cache. &nbsp;We simply don't do it and certainly do not critisize anyone for placing them there. &nbsp;We expect the same respect from others. &nbsp;If we want your opinion, we will ask for it. &nbsp;If you find a REAL problem with one of our caches (such as damage, a filled up log book, a missing cache or something similar) then of course, let us know.
 
 We thank everyone who has given us support through this ordeal and look forward to running into you on cache hunt.
 
 -Chicks with Trucks</HTML>

<pre><pre>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Although no one can go back and
make a brand new start,
Anyone can start from now and
make a brand new ending."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
</pre></pre>