[Az-Geocaching] Virtuals and camping out

[Ken Henson]

--Apple-Mail-4-752917766
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed


On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Larry H wrote:
  <snip>

Just another point of view...

 >Seriously, while I don't mind virtuals WITH MERIT, the
 >game is geoCACHING (emphasis mine).

I have three virtuals that would not be approved now, but
when I read the logs it seems that some people think they
have MERIT.  Here are some logs as examples:

September 28  (45 found)
Found this one on our way to Parks for the weekend. Interesting stop 
and a good leg stretch. Thanks.
[view/edit this log on a separate page]

September 14  (185 found)
4:00 am. We had hoped to get enough gas here to make it to Kingman, but 
they were closed. We were still able to learn something about Ash Fork 
by stopping at this virtual. Thanks!
[view/edit this log on a separate page]

September 6 by 4  (36 found)
Found it along with lots of historical info. Great stop for a quick 
lesson for the girls & they don't even realize History class was in 
session. Thanks!

For more logs go here:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=27120

 >The idea is to
 >find a hidden container and sign a logbook proving you
 >found it. Virtuals were designed to allow playing the
 >game at places that could not support a hidden
 >container, such as NPS land.

Yes, looking for the logbook... tearing up landscaping,
pulling down ivy, turning over rocks, tipping over a fountain
and looking at the bottom, just playing the game.   Not pointing 
fingers,
but these things happen.

 > I don't buy that one. I've
 >found a few virtuals and couldn't tell you what I
 >'learned' at any of them. I haven't had the desire to
 >find out more about why the monument or marker was
 >placed there. I imagine most other cachers are about
 >the same.

I choose to disagree with these statement.  Maybe they
hold true for you, but others may have a different view.

Respectfully, submitted for your consideration.

Ken Henson
Prescott, Arizona



--Apple-Mail-4-752917766
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII



On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Larry H wrote:

 <<snip>


Just another point of view...<bold>


</bold>>Seriously, while I don't mind virtuals WITH MERIT, the

>game is geoCACHING (emphasis mine).


I have three virtuals that would not be approved now, but

when I read the logs it seems that some people think they 

have MERIT.  Here are some logs as examples:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param>September 28
</fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param> (45 found)

Found this one on our way to Parks for the weekend. Interesting stop
and a good leg stretch. Thanks.

[view/edit this log on a separate page]

<bold>

September 14 </bold> (185 found)

4:00 am. We had hoped to get enough gas here to make it to Kingman,
but they were closed. We were still able to learn something about Ash
Fork by stopping at this virtual. Thanks!

[view/edit this log on a separate page]

<bold>

September 6 by 4 </bold> (36 found)

Found it along with lots of historical info. Great stop for a quick
lesson for the girls & they don't even realize History class was in
session. Thanks!


For more logs go here:


http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=27120</fontfamily>


>The idea is to

>find a hidden container and sign a logbook proving you

>found it. Virtuals were designed to allow playing the

>game at places that could not support a hidden

>container, such as NPS land. 


Yes, looking for the logbook... tearing up landscaping, 

pulling down ivy, turning over rocks, tipping over a fountain

and looking at the bottom, just playing the game.   Not pointing
fingers,

but these things happen.


> I don't buy that one. I've

>found a few virtuals and couldn't tell you what I

>'learned' at any of them. I haven't had the desire to

>find out more about why the monument or marker was

>placed there. I imagine most other cachers are about

>the same.


I choose to disagree with these statement.  Maybe they

hold true for you, but others may have a different view.


Respectfully, submitted for your consideration.


Ken Henson

Prescott, Arizona




--Apple-Mail-4-752917766--