<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Too bad I'm not in the area, or I'd proudly add my DNF to the list.<div><br></div><div>az_pistolero</div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Gale wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">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 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></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>