[Az-Geocaching] RE: people "Finding" a cache that wasn't ther e

[Ford, Denny]

Well actually you are signing a log book,
It is electronic, but it could still be considered a long book 

-----Original Message-----
From: az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com [mailto:az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf
Of Scott Wood
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 8:44 AM
To: listserv at azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] RE: people "Finding" a cache that wasn't there

At 10:06 AM 12/7/2004, you wrote:

>It does mention that the Taking and Leaving part of the rules are 
>optional elsewhere in the FAQ, but nowhere does it say that signing the 
>log is optional. Signing the log book is the only reward that the 
>people placing the caches get. If it wasn't for the log book, the cache 
>would just be trash in the desert that people keep looking for.

You bring up a good point, but there is still something wrong with that.  I am sure that most of us have found real
caches, not virtuals, that don't have a log book.  To claim the find, you email some specific information about
something that was in the container.  In this case, you are not signing a log book, and if it is as you claim, the only
hard and fast rule of geocachine, is that cache then not a valid cache? 


____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv at azgeocaching.com To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

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