[Az-Geocaching] Wow continued... what you enjoy about geocaching

[AZcachemeister at getnet.com]

Well, I logged a note on it...

-----Original Message-----
From:  Brian Casteel
Date:  8/23/05 14:18
To:  listserv at azgeocaching.com
Subj:  RE: [Az-Geocaching] Wow continued... what you enjoy about geocaching

Interesting.  Try doing that to GCJNV2 and see if you get the same thing.
I'd do it myself, but as the cache owner, it will probably let me  regardless
of the settings.  I haven't done anything special to it to 'lock' the cache
down from future logs.

Brian
Team A.I.


-----Original Message-----
From: az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf Of Jared
Ross
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:10 PM
To: listserv at azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Wow continued... what you enjoy about
geocaching

Yeah, must be something the cache owner can do once
they've archived it. You can check out the message for
yourself just go to
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=620e577e-970d-46665-9b
06-b52ee6bf44a6

or search for GCPHRH and then attempt to log on it. It
won't let you post any type of log.

jared

--- AZcachemeister <azcachemeister at getnet.com> wrote:

> HMMMM!
> Now there's a new twist that I wonder about.
> You say you were actually PREVENTED from logging a
> find on an archived 
> cache?
> Anyone have that happen before?
> 
> Jared Ross wrote:
> 
> >Haha! Well thanks for asking Brian. We ended up
> with
> >80 official finds. I say "official" because one of
> our
> >earlier finds was on one of the archived Cell Tower
> >Caches (#3 to be exact). Now I know we shouldn't
> have
> >even attempted to find it since it was archived but
> I
> >had noticed that cachers were continuing to find
> some
> >of the others so we decided to see if the container
> >for this one was still there. Well it WAS and right
> as
> >we found it a security guard pulled up. I was
> already
> >thinking about how to explain our situation to him
> but
> >instead it went like this: