Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 165

Thread: G A G B Guidelines

  1. #51
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
    Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up. Your main point of contention appears to vary from post to post.

    Here's an idea:
    Geocachers: don't damage caves when you go geocaching.
    Cavers: don't damage caves when you go caving.

    That seems quite simple to me.
    It varies because I get sidestepped into defending my position.

    As for Geocachers not damaging caves, one foot print in a sensitive area can spoil a cave, caves are aware from experience, where and where not to step or place a hand.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    What makes geocachers lower on the intelligence scale than cavers? And also people who stumble across the caves while out walking? Are they silly enough to damage the caves too?

    I think what we really need is a locked gate across the mouths of all caves that only cavers have the key to. They are obviously the only people (regardless of how long they have been caving) who can be trusted to enter these areas. Anyone else agree?
    Rich

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 06:58 PM

    They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable, they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.

    ....do you know, I having a sneaking feeling that this is not quite true :huh:, only a guess mind

  4. #54
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 07:22 PM
    What makes geocachers lower on the intelligence scale than cavers? And also people who stumble across the caves while out walking? Are they silly enough to damage the caves too?

    I think what we really need is a locked gate across the mouths of all caves that only cavers have the key to. They are obviously the only people (regardless of how long they have been caving) who can be trusted to enter these areas. Anyone else agree?
    Experience is what makes the caver wiser, yes they start somewhere with none, but they learn from other cavers. How many cachers will seek an experienced caver just to add another number to their stats! How many are actually experienced in underground activities including safety and conservation?

    Yes unfortunately caves in some areas of the UK have been gated, not to stop cavers but to stop passing tourist, this is normally done by the landowners forbidding access because of poor relationships with passing tourist.

    This means local Caving clubs, and Regional Caving Councils, have to enter into long consultation with the landowner to regain access. I personally have been involved in such issues and it usually ends up that access is only granted to people with a valid BCA insurance card and club membership.

    The Geocaching community has no right at all to take another bodies negotiations and accept it covers them.

  5. #55
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Think of it this way, how would the Geocaching Community feel if the good work on negotiation was ruined by another group, because they believed the negotiations gave them the rights and powers to do as they wanted!

  6. #56
    civilised Guest

    Default

    How many caches are in caves ?


    civilised

  7. #57
    civilised Guest

    Default

    moote, do you like caching ?


    civilised

  8. #58
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by civilised@May 25 2006, 09:22 PM
    How many caches are in caves ?

    moote, do you like caching ?


    civilised
    Answer to the first one is too many!

    the second, well what a futile question!

  9. #59
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    right....

    so you claim that what you want is that moderators to take care in approving caches... well that doesn't really state what YOU want as you claim to not like the guidelines/rules so what guidelines and rules do YOU actually want.

    i ask again because after saying you just want the moderators to be sensible you then criticise them for approving a cache in a cave. maybe they thought about it and decided that they thought it was ok.

    so it would appear that you want them to ban all caches in caves but you are unwilling to actually write that down. if that is the case then state it and we can debate the merits of your argument.
    because at the moment you appear to want to get someone else to propose the ban so as to not have to do it yourself.

    and sssi's did you want a total ban on those? or not?

    it's very commendable to try and keep people away for their own safety, but then that appears to be a pick up and drop argument for you as it would appear that your only irritated that caves need to be gated to keep them out. which causes irritation to you as you have to discuss with owners to get access to that cave.

    just how do you propose we stop people doing very stupid things? but that is going off on a tangent and lets you avoid my main question.

    PLEASE TELL US IN A SHORT COUPLE OF SENTENCES WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT EXACTLY WHAT GUIDELINES OR RULES OR LAWS YOU ACTUALLY WANT.

    thanks

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
    Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up.
    Oh ******, I thought it was the other way round.

    Sorry.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle+May 26 2006, 04:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ May 26 2006, 04:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
    Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up.
    Oh ******, I thought it was the other way round.

    Sorry. [/b][/quote]
    ROFL

  12. #62
    civilised Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-civilised@May 25 2006, 09:22 PM
    How many caches are in caves ?

    moote, do you like caching ?


    civilised
    Answer to the first one is too many&#33;

    the second, well what a futile question&#33;[/b][/quote]


    Is there a chance you could be more specific ?

    If you want to persuade anyone to your way of thinking, surely an accurate measure of the problem can only help. If there are 100 caches in caves that would suggest that the problem you see is rife; if there is one then perhaps the problem is overblown.

    The second question is also relevant; for many months now you have seemed to be on a crusade against various aspects of caching - unsafe caches at heights; ammo tins; rubber gloves left in caches etc - and now caches in caves and/or on SSSIs.

    If you seek to persuade others to your point of view then they need to know that you&#39;re here because you actually like caching, and not because you have some hidden agenda.

    Thanks in advance


    civilised

  13. #63
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 07:00 PM
    caves are aware from experience, where and where not to step or place a hand.
    Hmm, I&#39;ve been caving/potholing for 15 years and this has never cropped up before.

    Next you&#39;ll be saying that the trees scream when you cut them down.

    Question - do you think you are making any genuine headway here Moote, or do you think the way you put your arguments across actually pushes people to take an opposing stand?

    Since your technique provokes opposition and there is a feeling you might be reasonably bright can I assume that you are aware of the reaction you cause and you don&#39;t give a monkeys about the caves and actually you get your buzz from having a debate, even at the expense of your credibility?

  14. #64
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable[/b]

    Who exactly told them it was unsuitable? Was it just you? Please remember that one of the UK approvers involved was himself a caver (before he got old and crusty&#33; :P ) and has been down this particular cave (even the difficult bits beyond the cache).

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.
    Which agreement? With who? The geocaching community contacted the farmer to get a separate access agreement to the mouth of the cave. Granted, this took the same form as the existing agreement with the caving community, and I&#39;m sure everyone here is grateful to the cavers for setting the precedent, but I think "hijacking" is a rather inappropriate description&#33; :angry:

    If any of the many landowner agreements GAGB has negotiated were subsequently used by other groups of responsible people as a basis on which to start their own separate negotiations, I think we should be flattered&#33;

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.
    Does the access agreement for Winnats Head Cave require 3rd party insurance? A simple yes/no will suffice. I&#39;m sure other caves exist which have more restrictive access agreemements than Winnats Head, but the cache isn&#39;t in those caves, is it?

    <!--QuoteBegin-moote01
    @May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    [the people at GC.com] care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.[/quote]
    That may or not be true; I can&#39;t say because I&#39;ve not spoken to them. But since you&#39;re talking about the same people who invented CITO, I think the evidence is against you here.

    What I can say is that the UK caching community, and its cache approvers, are generally very environmentally aware and responsible. That&#39;s why the cache has been placed in the "safe" bit of the cave, with appropriate warnings given not to venture into the more unstable portions. That&#39;s why the cache setter negotiated access with the farmer and even went to the trouble of contacting the local cave rescue organisation. That&#39;s why the geocachers who have visited took the time to carry out some cave conservation by removing large amounts of litter from deep within the cave. From the evidence I&#39;ve seen, we should be quite proud&#33;

  15. #65
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel+May 26 2006, 09:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel &#064; May 26 2006, 09:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM

    They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable
    Who exactly told them it was unsuitable? Was it just you? Please remember that one of the UK approvers involved was himself a caver (before he got old and crusty&#33; :P ) and has been down this particular cave (even the difficult bits beyond the cache).

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.
    Which agreement? With who? The geocaching community contacted the farmer to get a separate access agreement to the mouth of the cave. Granted, this took the same form as the existing agreement with the caving community, and I&#39;m sure everyone here is grateful to the cavers for setting the precedent, but I think "hijacking" is a rather inappropriate description&#33; :angry:

    If any of the many landowner agreements GAGB has negotiated were subsequently used by other groups of responsible people as a basis on which to start their own separate negotiations, I think we should be flattered&#33;

    Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.
    Does the access agreement for Winnats Head Cave require 3rd party insurance? A simple yes/no will suffice. I&#39;m sure other caves exist which have more restrictive access agreemements than Winnats Head, but the cache isn&#39;t in those caves, is it?

    <!--QuoteBegin-moote01
    @May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    [the people at GC.com] care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.
    That may or not be true; I can&#39;t say because I&#39;ve not spoken to them. But since you&#39;re talking about the same people who invented CITO, I think the evidence is against you here.

    What I can say is that the UK caching community, and its cache approvers, are generally very environmentally aware and responsible. That&#39;s why the cache has been placed in the "safe" bit of the cave, with appropriate warnings given not to venture into the more unstable portions. That&#39;s why the cache setter negotiated access with the farmer and even went to the trouble of contacting the local cave rescue organisation. That&#39;s why the geocachers who have visited took the time to carry out some cave conservation by removing large amounts of litter from deep within the cave. From the evidence I&#39;ve seen, we should be quite proud&#33; [/b][/quote]
    The farmer does not own the cave, it is owned by a local show cave who require you to have 3rd Party insurance to enter, If you wish to make comments make sure you have the information correct&#33;

    Do you know anything about caving yourself. Having been caving since 13 and been involved in cave conservation I probably am more aware than most geocachers of Caving and Cave issues.

  16. #66

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    In many forums this thread would have been locked long ago. GAGB doesn&#39;t believe in heavy moderation though, and we&#39;ve let this one run so far. There are limits, however, and over the last 24 hours this thread has gone from bad to worse.

    May I ask everyone, please, to stick to the issues themselves and avoid the personal attacks that have been evident in all too many posts in this thread. Thank you.

    ---
    Bill
    Chairman, GAGB
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  17. #67
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@May 26 2006, 09:54 AM
    ...over the last 24 hours this thread has gone from bad to worse...
    The chairman&#39;s right. I&#39;ve just reviewed my posts in this thread, and I&#39;ve been guilty of troll-baiting. I always promised myself I&#39;d never sink to that, however much fun it might be.

    My apologies to the Chairman and to the GAGB

    (Edited to change "forum" to "thread")

  18. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Sorry, Bill , I&#39;ll shut up now.

  19. #69
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    I would be happy to see the thread closed.

    Although the subject matter is important and I think that Moote&#39;s overall points have merit hidden in there somewhere, it is futile to hope that anyone will move towards his side of the argument owing to the manner that it is put forward and the more people don&#39;t &#39;come over&#39; the more extreme Mootes argument becomes.

    It is circular and doesn&#39;t seem to do anyone any good.

  20. #70

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    it is futile to hope that anyone will move towards his side of the argument owing to the manner that it is put forward

    We are prepared to stand up and be counted as NOT being against Moote in the issue conerning cave .
    We like Greens

  21. #71
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    My apologies for joining in too.

  22. #72
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    well i hope that nothing i have said can be misinterpretted as a personal attack but i really realy want an answer or is it never going to come moote?

    this is not a personal attack it a question to clarify exactly what it is you want?

    from that information it is possible to then have a sensible debate on the merits of your position.

    you have said lots but don&#39;t appear to have clarified your position. so people i would ask we all sit back and take a breather and let moote state his position fully.

    over to you moote.....

  23. #73
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    I&#39;m not actually totally sure what Moote&#39;s point is, but...

    If it&#39;s that permission for a particular cache may not have been sought from the right people, then I&#39;m with him, in that the question should be asked and answered. There&#39;s no reason it couldn&#39;t have been asked politely, however, and while I&#39;ve no evidence, I suspect from Moote&#39;s other postings that it wasn&#39;t. There seems to be a suggestion that permission has been obtained from the owner of the land required for access to the cache, but NOT from the cave owners. If that&#39;s what he&#39;s saying, I wish he&#39;d say it a bit more clearly. It might have helped if he&#39;d made that clear in the beginning, rather than making this appear to be a general thread about the guidelines.

    If he&#39;s asking about the value of the UK guidelines in reviewing/approving UK caches (as seems to be the case from the thread title): Well, if a landowner chooses to make the guidelines a condition of giving permission, then they&#39;re relevant, since a cache which breaks the guidelines can be taken to NOT have landowner permission. However, if I as a landowner choose to permit a cache on my land which doesn&#39;t comply with UK guidelines (but does comply with the guidelines of whatever body is listing it), that&#39;s a different matter, although I&#39;d personally still consider the guidelines good practice. Since I don&#39;t own any land on which anyone would be likely to want to cache, it&#39;s a bit irrelevant, but hopefully you see the point I&#39;m trying to make.

    If he&#39;s saying that caches should never be placed in caves, then I don&#39;t agree, since it has to depend on access agreements and permission for the individual cave.

    If he&#39;s saying that caches should never be placed in any location where a hazard to the visitor exists, I definitely don&#39;t agree with that: Hazards af varying degree are everywhere, even walking down the pavement, and if we&#39;re going to set a maximum danger level for any cache to be set then we may as well all give up now.

    Edited to add the bit in italics in paragraph 2

  24. #74
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The farmer does not own the cave, it is owned by a local show cave who require you to have 3rd Party insurance to enter[/b]

    Yes, I know the farmer doesn&#39;t own the cave&#33; My question was whether the owner required 3rd Party insurance. If they do, then that&#39;s the first valid argument I&#39;ve heard against this cache.

    If you can send me all the details you have on the access agreement BCA have with the show cave, I&#39;ll be sure to follow it up.

    I don&#39;t accept that caches shouldn&#39;t be placed near danger; nor do I accept that all places should be off-limits because some places have sensitive features (substiute "place" with "cave", "forest", "coast", "SSSI", "SAM" or whatever you choose). But if the landowner lays down entry requirements and geocachers ignore them, then that&#39;s a danger to geocaching.

    <!--QuoteBegin-moote01
    @May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
    Do you know anything about caving yourself.[/quote]
    I&#39;ve been on around 40 UK caving trips and spent two weeks in Austria pushing and surveying 161 Kaninchenhöhle. Competent at SRT, made my own lamp, knee pads and bra, and have bashed in the odd bolt in my time. One-time winner of the CUCC "Becka&#39;s Leg" award for best near-death experience of the year. So, granted, I&#39;m not exactly an expert, but it would be unfair to claim that I don&#39;t know anything.

  25. #75
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    well so much for being able to have a rational informed debate to try and see what the majority think. if it&#39;s impossible to get the instigator to state their thoughts and make a stand.

    my actual thoughts are that no cache should be banned carte blanche. some sssi&#39;s are impossible to use but others fine.
    some caves would be off limits some not.

    i could continue.
    the safety of cachers is impossible to ensure. people are daft at times and will do stuff that is dangerous. it&#39;s called life.

    as long as the cache is placed with permission and adequate warnings are included in the details then they are fine by me.

    i would expect that any cache placed with permisiion by a responsible owner would be monitored so that if there was an accumulation of wear and tear it could be relocated or removed.

    the approvers do a hard job with very few sanctions or ability to stop bad caches as they can soon be listed on other sites. i think they have to rely on the greater community to give them heads up to potential problems.
    BUT just because they don&#39;t agree or make a judgement that one or two individuals agree with does not make that judgement wrong.

    hope that clarifies my thoughts to all. now i wonder if anyone who disagrees will be willing to state as clearly their opinion?

  26. #76
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    B) B)

  27. #77
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Update on the cave cache

    I have finally been in touch with the Secretary of the DCA who are the recognised negotiating body for caving in Derbyshire. It appears that the introduction of this Geocache is most unwelcome, for all the reason which OI have stated. Unfortunately this is getting Geocaching a bad name and could affect negotiations, and the DCA negotiations. As I have stated we have hijacked a caving agreement.

    We are fools and we need to admit this and correct the error of your ways.


    Hi David,

    Been away and have only just read this. BAD IDEA&#33;&#33;&#33; Will get onto the appropriate people to get a stop put on this a.s.a.p. Thanks for alerting me. Copied this to DCA&#39;s Access Officer and to the Conservation Officer.

    Jenny Potts,
    DCA Hon. Secretary.Treasurer

    David,
    Thanks for drawing this to my attention and apologies for the delayed reply as I&#39;ve been away.

    Someone else in the caving world has already spotted this and commented about it on the BCA website - the general opinion seems to be that this is not a good idea.

    Some have suggested simply removing it&#33; I&#39;m concerned that, having checked out one of the links you suggested in your email, the comments from the people who have found this geocache indicate they think that cavers are responsible for the mess and rubbish. We&#39;re NOT&#33; We spend a good deal of time clearing up the mess and rubbish that the general public and adventurous idiots leave around in caves so it won&#39;t go down well for us to be acused of making the mess in the first place. (I can&#39;t access one ofthe sites referred to since I am not registered to logon.)

    Winnatts Head cave is a singularly stupid place to do this as it&#39;s notoriously unstable and we certainly don&#39;t want to upset the farmer.

    I shall take it up at the next DCA meeting, on July1st., and we will see if members want to take some formal action to prevent this happening again - either in the Peak or anywhere else. It&#39;s one thing for individual cavers to disapprove (which I and many others do) and another to ask DCA to act formally. Is there some central body amongst geocachers we can contact to take action and ask that this not be done again? What is Geocaching.com? Thanks for your help.

    Jenny Potts,
    DCA Hon. Secretary

  28. #78
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
    as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

    but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

    come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

    i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

    so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.

  29. #79
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Who asked you to represent our views with the DCA????????

    Surely a better way would have been to pass the info onto GAGB and let them represent us............after that is their job...............not yours&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    But of course, your objective is to slag off Geocaching, and GAGB wouldn&#39;t have done that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    Please go away and find another hobby to annoy, you&#39;re ******* all of us off now.

    WoodSmoke

  30. #80
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    Sounds like you advised them in a careful and balanced manner designed not to cause undue fuss and concern while at the same time airing a valid concern with a view to ensuring that rational thought and consideration prevails.

  31. #81
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
    so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
    as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

    but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

    come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

    i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

    so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.
    No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

    Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

    If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own

  32. #82
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jun 10 2006, 05:11 AM
    Who asked you to represent our views with the DCA????????

    Surely a better way would have been to pass the info onto GAGB and let them represent us............after that is their job...............not yours&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    But of course, your objective is to slag off Geocaching, and GAGB wouldn&#39;t have done that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    Please go away and find another hobby to annoy, you&#39;re ******* all of us off now.

    WoodSmoke
    So you don&#39;t think I should have a voice. Who are you to stop me speaking. This is a free country I&#39;ii say and talk to who I like&#33;

    Shame you have to resort to threatening behavour.

  33. #83
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 06:37 AM
    Sounds like you advised them in a careful and balanced manner designed not to cause undue fuss and concern while at the same time airing a valid concern with a view to ensuring that rational thought and consideration prevails.
    I placed the same rational case which I used in this and the GC.com forum. It is just these people see the issues as a serious matter. I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.

    Caching has placed the issue clearly on the caving agenda; surely this says a lot about the validity of the cache.

  34. #84

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
    Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items
    Quite right&#33; I am going to campaign to get all cavers banned from this and any other cave since they use them as playgrounds.
    Rich

  35. #85

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:10 AM

    Shame you have to resort to threatening behavour.
    .......be VERY careful who YOU accuse of being threatening Grimshaw h34r: h34r: h34r:..............


    .............does this look a familair phrase?

    "If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


    ................now, THAT&#39;S a threat :angry:

  36. #86
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.
    Hmmmm...

    May I sugest some light reading.

  37. #87
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
    Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items
    If that&#39;s true - and of course, to an extent it is - then the same is true of Dartmoor, Exmoor, Mount Snowdon, etc ad infinitum. That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that we shouldn&#39;t cache there.

  38. #88

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    We only have knowledge of this issue from what has been posted on public postings .
    From those postings we cannot see where from where the conclusion came that Moote is out to harm caching .
    Our conclusin is far from that&#33;

    We feel Moote you are more or less being "asked "to put up and shut up or get out .

    Is that the way things are done?
    We like Greens

  39. #89

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    "If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


    By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .
    We like Greens

  40. #90
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

    As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

    You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

    A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

    The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

    Enjoy away.

  41. #91

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Originally posted by t.a.folk@Jun 10 2006, 09:39 PM
    "If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


    By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .
    Semantics.


    A statement of intent could be beneficial or malevolent.

    In this case I believe it to have been most surely malevolent.

    That is a threat.

    A threat directed at a person who has been most positive in his dealings with both cachers and others.

    It was unworthy. :angry:

  42. #92
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01+Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
    so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
    as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

    but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

    come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

    i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

    so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.
    No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

    Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

    If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own [/b][/quote]
    yes moote i have read your points but at no point have you actually said that your intention is to get all cahes banned from all caves. so is that your aim? a simple yes or no will suffice.....

    i am also assuming that you will immediately cease caving? or is it that cavers are more able to guarentee that all cavers will not sully the pristine cave? surely that is as big an assumption as that cachers aren&#39;t able.

    lets not worry about who accused who as that is irrelevant. or who took what agreement as again not relevant.

    what is relevant is that you have approached a body suggesting that cachers are not to be trusted to venture into the delicate world of the cave because, unlike cavers, we are irresponsible and destructive.

    but again that is an assumption because you like to just use illusions and inference not hard stated facts.

    wonder if you will have the balls to stand up for what you believe and state that you are against all cave/ all sssi/ all nature reserve/ all english nature/ national trust..... caches please delete as you see fit.

    i await being able to know exactly for what you stand.

  43. #93

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    ".......be VERY careful who YOU accuse of being threatening Grimshaw .............."

    That on a public forum reads to us like a threat .
    We would take it as such if it was directed at us.


    edited to add speech marks around the quote .
    We like Greens

  44. #94

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Abuse and personal attacks are not tolerated on this forum. I would ask everyone to consider their postings carefully with this in mind.


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  45. #95

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by t.a.folk@Jun 11 2006, 08:51 AM
    We would take it as such if it was directed at us.
    Well it obviously wasn&#39;t aimed at you (the hint is that a name was mentioned in it) so calm down.
    Rich

  46. #96
    Cave Troll &amp; Joan Guest

    Default

    From what i heard today the cache in question has been removed by persons unknown&#33;&#33;&#33;

  47. #97
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 10 2006, 03:06 PM


    "If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


    ................now, THAT&#39;S a threat :angry:
    Yes I took it to the DCA, it is not my fault the UK approver translated an agreement, made by Cavers, for Cavers was hijacked by their very ill thought out logic.

    And FYI a cacher actually had an accident in this cave this weekend. That is not good, if geocaching starts to gain bad press for caving then I&#39;m afraid, you are ruining other peoples hobbies.

  48. #98
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM
    I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.
    Hmmmm...

    May I sugest some light reading.
    Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side

  49. #99
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG+Jun 10 2006, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul G0TLG @ Jun 10 2006, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
    Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items
    If that&#39;s true - and of course, to an extent it is - then the same is true of Dartmoor, Exmoor, Mount Snowdon, etc ad infinitum. That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that we shouldn&#39;t cache there. [/b][/quote]
    Fortunately caves actually are protected in UK law, there are bodies which over see there upkeep, so they are far different in that respect.

  50. #100
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
    Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

    As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

    You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

    A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

    The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

    Enjoy away.
    Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •