<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Bad trend. Some caches should be nefarious. I may not want to go look for them, but others will. Bad trend that caches should be findable. If that's the case, then in what time limit?<br><br>Shari of Shamik<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Mark Fleming <mrkfleming@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> listserv@azgeocaching.com<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sat, November 28, 2009 8:54:42 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Az-Geocaching] New trend in geocaching? Must be easily findable?<br></font><br>
Sometimes it seems to be that people feel it's their 'right' to find a cache. There are some you are likely never to find, for one reason or another. Nothing in the rules guarantee that every cache seeker is able to find every cache.<br>
<br>Just my two cents.<br><br>GoNorthWest<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Gale <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:sonoralovesmommy@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:sonoralovesmommy@yahoo.com">sonoralovesmommy@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" valign="top">
A recent stink on the national forums was about a cache that had not been found in the two years of its existence despite many attempts. Cachers were concerned that it might happen again.<br><br>It did. Here in Az. <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=79ded575-ac65-459b-8ac9-1d3fe9767b09&log=y&decrypt=">GC21D5M</a> Folks were looking for this 2 day old cache and not finding it. Now its been disabled by the reviewer because it had too many DNFs, so the owner can check on it, despite the fact that the owner checked on it twice. Is this a new trend in geocaching? All caches must be easily findable by most people? <br>
<br><div><div><div><div><div>Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking</div><div><font color="#6633cc"></font> </div><div><font color="#6633cc">Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes<br> On one
everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:<br>"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --<br> "Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"</font></div>
<div></div><div><font color="#6633cc"></font> </div><div></div><div><font color="#6633cc">Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898</font></div></div></div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
Az-Geocaching mailing list <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com">listserv@azgeocaching.com</a><br>
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:<br><span>
<a target="_blank" href="http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching">http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching</a></span><br>
<br>
Arizona's Geocaching Resource<br><span>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.azgeocaching.com">http://www.azgeocaching.com</a></span><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark S Fleming<br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.outdoor-resources.com/SW_Trails/">http://www.outdoor-resources.com/SW_Trails/</a></span><br>Twitter : GoNorthWest<br>
</div></div>
<!-- cg15.c2.mail.re1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Sat Nov 28 16:18:11 PST 2009 -->
</div><br>
</body></html>