Brian,
I appreciate your reply, but you might want to go back and re-read my original message.
First, I said "attitude of some of the Geocachers in this state", not all. I have emailed and met several fellow cachers on the trails, and some of them are great. Others not so much.
Second, please note that I was replying directly to Brian LaFrance, not Mark, the original poster. It was Brian who suggested deceiving Jeremy by changing the cache after posting it, and it pissed me off. I have no problem with Adults Caches, but you, Brian, Mark, and I don't have the right to override their final decision on the matter. I have no problem with Mark's approach, and liked that he posted the cache info in this forum for interested parties. In my original post I even said "if you disagree with Geocaching.com's decision then discuss it, plead your case, etc.," so I don't understand why you felt I said anything to the contrary. My argument was simply that if you don't like Geocaching.com's policy the one thing you should NOT do is deceive them about it.
I stand by my assertation that you should be ashamed of yourself for not being a charter member if you have found more than 20 caches. According to the Geocaching.com site you have found 205 caches and hidden 3, and you have done absolutely nothing to support Geocaching.com for all the entertainment you have had. Who do you think pays for their electricity? Their computers? Internet connections? They need to pay their bills or they will shut down. They are not a charity. This isn't about Member Caches. I am a charter member and don't care for the idea, either. This is about people using their service and not paying for it. So since people like you who frequently use Geocaching.com won't carry your share, they are raising the rates for the people who DO pay. So I get to pay for your entertainment. Thanks a lot.
Jeff.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Casteel
To:
az-geocaching@listserv.azgeocaching.com
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Caches - Different Strokes For Different Folks
Jeff,
[soapbox]
You've struck a chord with me, so therefore, I'll bite. First I'll start by asking you if you've been to any of the geocaching 'event' caches, such as the Potluck Picnic Cache put on by ChicksWithTrucks not too long ago, or the one in Tucson (the name slips my mind) a few months later. To have done so, you would know a great number of the cachers in the metro Phoenix area, and not just the 'elite' at the top of the list. All I have to say about them is that their need to overturn rocks in this state far exceeds mine. :) Say what you will about our 'attitudes', but know this. The purpose of a mailing list such as this is to voice OPINIONS on the sport of geocaching, different caches, or geocachers in general (as long as the tone doesn't change to one that implies a personal attack). I would venture to say I didn't appreciate your attitude in accusing geocachers in Arizona of having 'attitude' (an attitude about what, you failed to specify).
Now, I agree that Jeremy is the Admin of geocaching.com, the originating point of the sport, and that he has the right to allow/deny any caches he sees fit. If by chance we don't agree with his reasons, who are you to say that we shouldn't voice our opinions on the matter in a forum completely independent (and IMO is far more efficient at managing information for quick retrieval) of geocaching.com? As for the 'right' to circumvent the rules, who's to say that creating a cache and linking to it from another place would circumvent anything? Geocaching.com is not the be all end all, and Jeremy has no right to govern caching activities in any location. But, he does have the right to admin his own site and refuse any caches for the reason he sees fit. Granted, if we don't like the reason, hopefully there is room for dialogue to work out an alternative or come to some sort of middle ground.
Charter Memberships....
In some ways I support it, and others I don't. Members Only caches have a snooty elitism about them, in my opinion. For that reason alone, I will not buy a charter membership. Fortunately for us, we have the Snaptek gurus who have put together a very rich pool of information to prepare for caching, which as I said before, is more efficient and user friendly than what I've seen at geocaching.com. My reasons for not getting one at this time are valid and legitimate, and I choose not to share those in this arena. So please do us all a favor and present your ideas a little less abrasively in the future. I'm sure mine will not be the only message in response to your accusatory toned argument.
Finally, who says the cache placers were not being adult in their response to the denial? I see both sides of the situation and support both for different reasons. However, there should be a dialogue between them and Jeremy in order to come to a resolution that satisfies both. In fact, after barking at them about how they acted, it just so happens that they borrowed your recommendation and posted the info somewhere independent of geocaching.com. Now I'm confused. You vented about something another geocacher did, then offered the solution they already implemented.... Ugh
[/soapbox]
Brian
Team A.I.
(text/plain)