Matt Stum <>
Sent: 6/17/2001 12:39:10 AM

RE: [gpsstash] Back to Basics!

I have to disagree. If it's about the hobby of geocaching,
however remote, it's on-topic. I understand your
frustrations and I personally am sick of the whining as
well. But it will pass, just as all arguments pass.
Please resist the temptation to become a list-moderator...
it will have far worse consequences I'm afraid.

In the meantime, I hope those who are concerned about
the issues contact the various web sites and urge them
to prominently display and encourage some form of
code of ethics, whether it's my version or something
like it. It will tell everyone what kind of behaviour
we expect from participants. Thus, anyone breaking
the code can easily be distanced from ourselves when/if
the shit hits the fan.

Not to stir the pot, but I'd still like to hear why Dave
found the need to go bushwhacking when he's so
against damaging the environment. Perhaps the answer
will help shed some light on where he's coming from.
Otherwise, I'm very confused by a lot of apparent

And Mike... what's up? You're normally the most
neutral person I know. :) Why the sudden attacks?

Matt Stum

>This message is OFF TOPIC.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gary []
>Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:57 PM
>Subject: RE: [gpsstash] Back to Basics!
>This sounds pretty ON-Topic to me, i.e. the right to place a cache is pretty
>fundamental to the game, isn't it?
>The problem with placing a cache is you don't have the right to litter, so
>technically geocaching is not legal. [Think back to my "is a cache trash"
>thread on the sci-geo-sat-nav usenet.] Some of the caches I've been to are
>pre-trashed, such as Firestone
> which is in an
>abandoned car
>or my own
> which has photos
> (a cache could only
>help this place)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James H. Coburn IV []
>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 8:15 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: RE: [gpsstash] Back to Basics!
>> This message and the question (message) which precipitated it are both OFF
>> Lets keep it on topic please fellows.
>> Some of these arguments may be better covered in private e-mails.