[Az-Geocaching] camp out

WOLFB8 listserv@azgeocaching.com
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:48:50 -0700


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_021A_01C23EA7.A73C4280
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

was just looking at the advent caches and  from the calendar it looks =
like the campout has already happened... not sure what is wrong but some =
may want to have a look

Libby
We will be known by the tracks we leave behind
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Scott Nicol=20
  To: listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
  Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 2:06 AM
  Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Destruction of geological site(s?)


  Howdy All,

  First off, I am VERY disturbed by the article in the AZ Republic. I =
always=20
  seemed to be a newspaper dedicated to keeping us Arizonans informed =
with the=20
  latest news, etc. I never thought it would become an editorial =
newpaper. I=20
  felt like I was reading the National Enquirer when I read that =
article. We=20
  have cancelled our subscription to the AZ Republic. We want to read =
about=20
  the news, not one persons views and thoughts (on the front page no =
less).

  I think it is disgusting that the paper would even allow such a report =
be=20
  written up without more evidence. The article is totally one sided and =
only=20
  speaks of a couple of people's views. I don't think I have EVER read =
an=20
  article in a newspaper that literally slammed a certain =
hobby/sport/subject,=20
  etc like that one did without the facts and evidence to back up such =
claims.

  I will not go into expressing my views and thoughts on the subject =
anymore=20
  as it would be very repetitious. I got into and enjoying geocaching =
for many=20
  of the same reasons most others do- to get outdoors more and enjoy =
nature=20
  and visit new places, meet new people, and the hobby also provides a =
great=20
  way for me to 'keep in shape' and provides me plenty of excercise with =
all=20
  the hiking I have been doing these days.

  Mr. Peters beleives that geocaching is responsible for the damage to =
the=20
  archaeological site he watches over. He has come to that conclusion =
because=20
  he has seen an increase in activity around the area since a geocache =
was=20
  placed there. Therefore, he feels that geocaching is the culprit. It =
is very=20
  possible the damage was indeed caused since after the cache was hidden =

  there. I do not in any way beleive that geocachers caused that damage. =

  However...

  A question to ponder: is it possible that a non-geocacher(s) happened =
upon=20
  the Geocaching.com web site (there have been articles on geocaching =
before=20
  in the newspaper and there are plenty of people outside our hobby that =
know=20
  about it) and saw the listing for that cache (and other caches) and=20
  therefore went out and visited the site? There may have been several =
new=20
  visitors to that site by way of the web site. Unfortunately, there are =

  people and will always be people who have nothing better to do than =
spoil=20
  someone else's fun. Someone will see the geocaching.com web site and =
find a=20
  cache listed, go out there and remove it or destroy it... just to make =
it=20
  hard on those trying to find it. Don't think there aren't people out =
there=20
  like that... there are. (I once had a write up on my business in the =
Mesa=20
  Tribune and that day and soon after I had several crank calls from =
kids just=20
  screwing around). I personally fear that this kind of thing will begin =
to=20
  happen since the article was published. How many caches will suddenly=20
  dissapear in the coming weeks? I can understand why Libby has suddenly =
made=20
  several of her caches 'members only' caches. I am kinda bummed to hear =
that=20
  she has done that though, since I am not a dues paying member of=20
  geocaching.com and I cannot go seek out her members only caches. I =
have=20
  always enjoyed Libby's caches. I for one sure do not want to go hiking =
up to=20
  the top of some mountain on a 105 degree afternoon only to not be able =
to=20
  find a cache because someone took it.

  Now, I know there are some who will not agree with me on this: but, =
the=20
  reasons above are just another good reason to make the Geocaching.com  =
web=20
  site access available to members only. Anyone could bring up the site =
and=20
  learn more about geocaching, but, only members would be able to read =
the=20
  pages containing information about caches and the logs. I am not =
saying that=20
  it should be a 'pay to access' site. I myself am not a dues paying =
member of=20
  geocaching.com. What I am saying is that maybe the cache pages should =
be=20
  available ONLY to those who have an 'account'. Much like we already =
have=20
  now. This may not stop everyone, but, it would be a deterant to those =
who=20
  don't want to waste their time setting up an account and for those =
that fear=20
  for putting any personal information on the net. This way, only =
geocachers=20
  (those active in the hobby) would be viewing details, coordinates, etc =
about=20
  each cache. This really would not change a thing to all of us who =
already=20
  log into geocaching.com. However, those looking at the web site for =
the=20
  first time, would only be able to see the home page and pages that =
detail=20
  what the hobby is about and how to get involved, etc. They would need =
an=20
  account to be able to view the cache pages. This isnt THE answer, but, =
it is=20
  a thought and I think a valid one.

  I would be curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

  Scott
  Team Ropingthewind



  _________________________________________________________________
  MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:=20
  http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

  _______________________________________________
  Az-Geocaching mailing list
  listserv@azgeocaching.com
  http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

  Arizona's Geocaching Resource
  http://www.azgeocaching.com

------=_NextPart_000_021A_01C23EA7.A73C4280
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>was just looking at the advent caches =
and&nbsp;=20
from the calendar it looks like the campout has already happened... not =
sure=20
what is wrong but some may want to have a look</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Libby</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>We will be known by the tracks we leave behind</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=3Darizcowboy@hotmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:arizcowboy@hotmail.com">Scott=20
  Nicol</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dlistserv@azgeocaching.com=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com">listserv@azgeocaching.com</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 08, 2002 =
2:06=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Az-Geocaching] =
Destruction=20
  of geological site(s?)</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Howdy All,<BR><BR>First off, I am VERY disturbed by the =
article=20
  in the AZ Republic. I always <BR>seemed to be a newspaper dedicated to =
keeping=20
  us Arizonans informed with the <BR>latest news, etc. I never thought =
it would=20
  become an editorial newpaper. I <BR>felt like I was reading the =
National=20
  Enquirer when I read that article. We <BR>have cancelled our =
subscription to=20
  the AZ Republic. We want to read about <BR>the news, not one persons =
views and=20
  thoughts (on the front page no less).<BR><BR>I think it is disgusting =
that the=20
  paper would even allow such a report be <BR>written up without more =
evidence.=20
  The article is totally one sided and only <BR>speaks of a couple of =
people's=20
  views. I don't think I have EVER read an <BR>article in a newspaper =
that=20
  literally slammed a certain hobby/sport/subject, <BR>etc like that one =
did=20
  without the facts and evidence to back up such claims.<BR><BR>I will =
not go=20
  into expressing my views and thoughts on the subject anymore <BR>as it =
would=20
  be very repetitious. I got into and enjoying geocaching for many =
<BR>of the=20
  same reasons most others do- to get outdoors more and enjoy nature =
<BR>and=20
  visit new places, meet new people, and the hobby also provides a great =
<BR>way=20
  for me to 'keep in shape' and provides me plenty of excercise with all =
<BR>the=20
  hiking I have been doing these days.<BR><BR>Mr. Peters beleives that=20
  geocaching is responsible for the damage to the <BR>archaeological =
site he=20
  watches over. He has come to that conclusion because <BR>he has seen =
an=20
  increase in activity around the area since a geocache was <BR>placed =
there.=20
  Therefore, he feels that geocaching is the culprit. It is very =
<BR>possible=20
  the damage was indeed caused since after the cache was hidden =
<BR>there. I do=20
  not in any way beleive that geocachers caused that damage.=20
  <BR>However...<BR><BR>A question to ponder: is it possible that a=20
  non-geocacher(s) happened upon <BR>the Geocaching.com web site (there =
have=20
  been articles on geocaching before <BR>in the newspaper and there are =
plenty=20
  of people outside our hobby that know <BR>about it) and saw the =
listing for=20
  that cache (and other caches) and <BR>therefore went out and visited =
the site?=20
  There may have been several new <BR>visitors to that site by way of =
the web=20
  site. Unfortunately, there are <BR>people and will always be people =
who have=20
  nothing better to do than spoil <BR>someone else's fun. Someone will =
see the=20
  geocaching.com web site and find a <BR>cache listed, go out there and =
remove=20
  it or destroy it... just to make it <BR>hard on those trying to find =
it. Don't=20
  think there aren't people out there <BR>like that... there are. (I =
once had a=20
  write up on my business in the Mesa <BR>Tribune and that day and soon =
after I=20
  had several crank calls from kids just <BR>screwing around). I =
personally fear=20
  that this kind of thing will begin to <BR>happen since the article was =

  published. How many caches will suddenly <BR>dissapear in the coming =
weeks? I=20
  can understand why Libby has suddenly made <BR>several of her caches =
'members=20
  only' caches. I am kinda bummed to hear that <BR>she has done that =
though,=20
  since I am not a dues paying member of <BR>geocaching.com and I cannot =
go seek=20
  out her members only caches. I have <BR>always enjoyed Libby's caches. =
I for=20
  one sure do not want to go hiking up to <BR>the top of some mountain =
on a 105=20
  degree afternoon only to not be able to <BR>find a cache because =
someone took=20
  it.<BR><BR>Now, I know there are some who will not agree with me on =
this: but,=20
  the <BR>reasons above are just another good reason to make the=20
  Geocaching.com&nbsp; web <BR>site access available to members only. =
Anyone=20
  could bring up the site and <BR>learn more about geocaching, but, only =
members=20
  would be able to read the <BR>pages containing information about =
caches and=20
  the logs. I am not saying that <BR>it should be a 'pay to access' =
site. I=20
  myself am not a dues paying member of <BR>geocaching.com. What I am =
saying is=20
  that maybe the cache pages should be <BR>available ONLY to those who =
have an=20
  'account'. Much like we already have <BR>now. This may not stop =
everyone, but,=20
  it would be a deterant to those who <BR>don't want to waste their time =
setting=20
  up an account and for those that fear <BR>for putting any personal =
information=20
  on the net. This way, only geocachers <BR>(those active in the hobby) =
would be=20
  viewing details, coordinates, etc about <BR>each cache. This really =
would not=20
  change a thing to all of us who already <BR>log into geocaching.com. =
However,=20
  those looking at the web site for the <BR>first time, would only be =
able to=20
  see the home page and pages that detail <BR>what the hobby is about =
and how to=20
  get involved, etc. They would need an <BR>account to be able to view =
the cache=20
  pages. This isnt THE answer, but, it is <BR>a thought and I think a =
valid=20
  one.<BR><BR>I would be curious to hear other's thoughts on=20
  this.<BR><BR>Scott<BR>Team=20
  =
Ropingthewind<BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________=
_____________________<BR>MSN=20
  Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx">http://photos.msn.c=
om/support/worldwide.aspx</A><BR><BR>____________________________________=
___________<BR>Az-Geocaching=20
  mailing list<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com">listserv@azgeocaching.com</A><B=
R><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching">=
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching</A><BR><B=
R>Arizona's=20
  Geocaching Resource<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.azgeocaching.com">http://www.azgeocaching.com</A></BLO=
CKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_021A_01C23EA7.A73C4280--