--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa" wrote:
>>>>snip>>>

>However, I myself have never used the New Age database. The
> only way you could have entered info on boxes I have found is by
> picking up sitreps I have posted here on the LBNA list.

>>>snip>>>

Probably what happened is someone else who has the same name as you
entered the data.

catbead 1

Comments on that website that were attributed to me, were most
definitely not placed by someone else with the same name...I
use "Jiggs"...I'm sure there are no others with that moniker around
this (or many other) neck of the woods/

Pete aka

Jiggs



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "catbead1" wrote:
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa"
wrote:
> >>>>snip>>>
>
> >However, I myself have never used the New Age database. The
> > only way you could have entered info on boxes I have found is by
> > picking up sitreps I have posted here on the LBNA list.
>
> >>>snip>>>
>
> Probably what happened is someone else who has the same name as you
> entered the data.
>
> catbead 1

Perhaps it was people poisoning the database with false information.
Kerri
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete [mailto:jiggs111@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:12 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Attn: New Age Database Owners


Comments on that website that were attributed to me, were most
definitely not placed by someone else with the same name...I
use "Jiggs"...I'm sure there are no others with that moniker around
this (or many other) neck of the woods/

Pete aka

Jiggs




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Without caring how it made the people whose names were used or the box
owners feel!

catbead 1


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Kerri" wrote:
> Perhaps it was people poisoning the database with false information.
> Kerri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete [mailto:jiggs111@e...]
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:12 PM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Attn: New Age Database Owners
>
>
> Comments on that website that were attributed to me, were most
> definitely not placed by someone else with the same name...I
> use "Jiggs"...I'm sure there are no others with that moniker around
> this (or many other) neck of the woods/
>
> Pete aka
>
> Jiggs
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have never, and after conferring with NeverEnuff, nor has she ever
entered information on a box using someone else's name.

Additionally, there are no longer any entries that have a name
attached to them. You might want to have your source get a new copy
of the database.

SecretAgent


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa"
wrote:
> It has come to my attention that there is at least one record in
your
> database which bears my name as the person reporting on the status
of
> a box. However, I myself have never used the New Age database.
The
> only way you could have entered info on boxes I have found is by
> picking up sitreps I have posted here on the LBNA list.
>
> To type my name in the database, thereby suggesting that I myself
> created the entry, is unethical.
>
> Please do not create entries in your database using my name. Thank
> you!
>
> Bonnie

Perhaps there is someone else named Bonnie who uses the database? It is
a first name and not all that uncommon....
Nautilus

monotropa wrote:
> It has come to my attention that there is at least one record in your
> database which bears my name as the person reporting on the status of
> a box. However, I myself have never used the New Age database. The
> only way you could have entered info on boxes I have found is by
> picking up sitreps I have posted here on the LBNA list.
>
> To type my name in the database, thereby suggesting that I myself
> created the entry, is unethical.
>
> Please do not create entries in your database using my name. Thank
> you!
>
> Bonnie
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Thank you for the clarification. I think it's very interesting that
you decided to remove names.

Good luck with your project.
Bonnie

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "secretagent1965"
wrote:
> I have never, and after conferring with NeverEnuff, nor has she
ever
> entered information on a box using someone else's name.
>
> Additionally, there are no longer any entries that have a name
> attached to them. You might want to have your source get a new
copy
> of the database.
>
> SecretAgent
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa"
> wrote:
> > It has come to my attention that there is at least one record in
> your
> > database which bears my name as the person reporting on the
status
> of
> > a box. However, I myself have never used the New Age database.
> The
> > only way you could have entered info on boxes I have found is by
> > picking up sitreps I have posted here on the LBNA list.
> >
> > To type my name in the database, thereby suggesting that I myself
> > created the entry, is unethical.
> >
> > Please do not create entries in your database using my name.
Thank
> > you!
> >
> > Bonnie

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa"
wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. I think it's very interesting
that
> you decided to remove names.


I removed names not only to protect the members of NewAge from
harrassment, but also because it doesn't fit the needs of the
database. I use the database to find out about trail conditions and
if a box is suitable for kids or not. Knowing who found it last is
not my concern.

We are not doing anything wrong over at NewAge. We have every right
to talk about any box. It's just like going to the movies, then
coming home and making a website of movie reviews. All we have is a
database of box reviews, and we really only discuss the trail
conditions. I don't see a problem with that. At least we're not
telling people, "This box sucks! Don't waste your time finding it!".
I would never talk about anyone's boxes like that. And at least we're
not telling anyone where boxes are.

*being sarcastic*
But since I keep being accused of doing unethical things, why not
just grab my GPS and go find some boxes. Then I could come home and
post the coordinates for everyone. Where's my list of mystery boxes??

NeverEnuff

You should still be careful on trail conditions/kid friendly. Some
clue writers intentionally do not include that information, esp. for
mystery boxes to increase difficulty/mysteriousness. Using your
movie review analogy, giving out this information on certain boxes
would be like revealing the surprize ending of a movie, something
any legitimate reviewer wouldn't do.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "NeverEnuff"
wrote:
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "monotropa"
> wrote:
> > Thank you for the clarification. I think it's very interesting
> that
> > you decided to remove names.
>
>
> I removed names not only to protect the members of NewAge from
> harrassment, but also because it doesn't fit the needs of the
> database. I use the database to find out about trail conditions
and
> if a box is suitable for kids or not. Knowing who found it last is
> not my concern.
>
> We are not doing anything wrong over at NewAge. We have every
right
> to talk about any box. It's just like going to the movies, then
> coming home and making a website of movie reviews. All we have is
a
> database of box reviews, and we really only discuss the trail
> conditions. I don't see a problem with that. At least we're not
> telling people, "This box sucks! Don't waste your time finding
it!".
> I would never talk about anyone's boxes like that. And at least
we're
> not telling anyone where boxes are.
>
> *being sarcastic*
> But since I keep being accused of doing unethical things, why not
> just grab my GPS and go find some boxes. Then I could come home
and
> post the coordinates for everyone. Where's my list of mystery
boxes??
>
> NeverEnuff

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "bcostley"
wrote:
< esp. for mystery boxes to increase difficulty/mysteriousness.>>

IMO, intentionally placing a box in a difficult (perhaps even
dangerous) location and not mentioning it in the clues is also
unethical. I do realize there's a degree of mystery and difficulty to
letterboxing, but I think that should be in the clues themselves, not
in the actual hike. However, I know that every hike won't be a walk
in the park. I'd just like to know that before I set out for the box.
**Again, this is MY opinion. I don't expect anyone to share it, but I
still have the right to express it.**



<< certain boxes would be like revealing the surprize ending of a movie,
something any legitimate reviewer wouldn't do.>>>

The point of my movie analogy was not about if someone WOULD do that.
It's that they could if they wanted to. I could have a website in use
right now that lists the exact location of every box I've ever found,
and there's nothing anyone could do about it. (Just for the record, I
don't. I wouldn't want to worry anyone anymore than they already are.
*rolls eyes*)

> IMO, intentionally placing a box in a difficult (perhaps even
> dangerous) location and not mentioning it in the clues is also
> unethical.

I've hidden one mystery box in particular that's at the end of a very
strenuous hike, but I don't write that in my clue. It's my
expectation that anyone that's figured out the clue should do their
homework and research the trail and trail conditions before heading
out. In fact, that's exactly what I do before I find somebody else's
mystery letterbox.

And even if you can't find such information about a specific trail
online, you could always give the park rangers a call and ask about
it. Or drop by a visitor center where they can answer such
questions. In fact, that could be the best way of all of getting
trail conditions since they can change rapidly from day to day or a
sudden landslide might take out a trail. The best place for up-to-
date information is probably from the people that work the area.

It's more work that way and I rarely do that myself. I just like to
go out for a box and if it's not there, it's not there. No big
deal. And if it's located somewhere I feel is unethical or
dangerous, I quit before I do whatever unethical or dangerous thing
it requires of me. Cut my losses while I can. Don't focus so much
on a letterbox that you miss the forest for the trees.

And if you DO find a letterbox that you think is in a bad spot--you
should inform the person who placed the box. Like the bolder field
you hated so much. First, you should have turned back right there if
it was truly a problem. Second, instead of a database everyone
hates, you could have written the person to let them know of the
issue. Perhaps it was something they overlooked because they hadn't
considered people might take kids, but they'd be more than willing to
add that information directly to the clue. Which would be a whole
heck of a lot more effective than putting such information in a
database that most people won't even read and tick off everyone in
the process.

There are better solutions to the issues you're concerned about than
a database.

-- Ryan

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"
wrote:
>First, you should have turned back right there if
> it was truly a problem.

First, don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. You have no right.


>Second, instead of a database everyone
> hates, you could have written the person to let them know of the
> issue.

Second, I didn't start the database because of this one box. In fact,
I didn't even start the original database. I thought it was a good
idea, and after you (and probably others) started messing with it, I
decide to put it someplace where not as many people could poison it.
In fact, none of you even knew about it for a long time, and did it
hurt anyone? NO! Oh, and not everyone hates the database.

This is the last anyone will hear from me on this subject. I've
decided to end all communication about it on this list and in email.
It's gotten so ridiculous that all I can do is laugh at some of the
comments by some people. There are bigger things in life to worry
about than if one of your boxes is in a database.

Some may find this decision immature and childish, but so is arguing
back and worth for days when it's obvious that no one is going to
change their minds.

NeverEnuff

You miss the point. Say I produce a clue quite obsure that once
figured out would lead the hunter to realize that the box is on top
of Mount Letterbox, a 10000 ft peak in the middle of an otherwise
flat area. Once you figure out the clues, you could easily determine
the hike would be difficult without ever leaving your house. It was
not that I was trying to hide trail conditions from you, just the
box location. But if the database says "extremely difficult hike"
then someone trying to figure out the clues would easily know where
the box was.



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "NeverEnuff"
wrote:
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "bcostley"

> wrote:
> < information,
> esp. for mystery boxes to increase difficulty/mysteriousness.>>
>
> IMO, intentionally placing a box in a difficult (perhaps even
> dangerous) location and not mentioning it in the clues is also
> unethical. I do realize there's a degree of mystery and difficulty
to
> letterboxing, but I think that should be in the clues themselves,
not
> in the actual hike. However, I know that every hike won't be a
walk
> in the park. I'd just like to know that before I set out for the
box.
> **Again, this is MY opinion. I don't expect anyone to share it,
but I
> still have the right to express it.**
>
>
>
> << on
> certain boxes would be like revealing the surprize ending of a
movie,
> something any legitimate reviewer wouldn't do.>>>
>
> The point of my movie analogy was not about if someone WOULD do
that.
> It's that they could if they wanted to. I could have a website in
use
> right now that lists the exact location of every box I've ever
found,
> and there's nothing anyone could do about it. (Just for the
record, I
> don't. I wouldn't want to worry anyone anymore than they already
are.
> *rolls eyes*)
>
> From what I've been reading on this list, I'm considered an
> unethical, illegtimate letterboxer. So why is everyone so worried
> about what I'm doing?? Just shun me and move on. I won't
> mind...really.
>
> NeverEnuff

On the other hand, if there is 5 different trails up Mount Letterbox, as
there usually is, of different skill levels. And in one, you have to cross a
raging river filled with man eating trout on slippery 4 inch stones. A
simple comment of "not good for kids" would tip me off that my four yr old
shouldn't come. It wouldn't tell me which trail it was on till I did the
homework on which trail was which. The database wouldn't affect that at all.
I've learned since letterboxing several interesting facts from researching
clues. One of which is a type of Italian Olive. It didn't tell me that we
would have to carry out my aging dog in a neat sheet, while towing my
complaining 4 yr old. All it said in the clues was easy walk. Tell that to
Penny, my poor old pup!
Kerri
-----Original Message-----
From: bcostley [mailto:bobbyeubanks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:07 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Attn: New Age Database Owners


You miss the point. Say I produce a clue quite obsure that once
figured out would lead the hunter to realize that the box is on top
of Mount Letterbox, a 10000 ft peak in the middle of an otherwise
flat area. Once you figure out the clues, you could easily determine
the hike would be difficult without ever leaving your house. It was
not that I was trying to hide trail conditions from you, just the
box location. But if the database says "extremely difficult hike"
then someone trying to figure out the clues would easily know where
the box was.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I, personally, would never inform anyone where they can or cannot place a
letterbox. If asked for my opinion I would give it. But I would never inform
anyone not to place a box where I don't like it. I would just choose not to
go after it.
< should inform the person who placed the box.>>

Having carried kids through much worse things than a boulder field, on
occasion, though it was usually, to extradite them from a situation they had
gotten themselves into. I can assure that most parents wouldn't have
attempted to cross such things as a hobby. Occasionally, the obstacle didn't
look as threatening or dangerous until you get half way as well. Watching
older kids in your group may also lead to problems. I watched my 13 and ten
year old cross a rope bridge across some mucky areas at a certain park, only
to come across the other side with a green stinky sneaker. You can't make
these decisions all the time from a glance. It helps to hear from other
brave, intrepid souls who have come before.
< it was truly a problem. >>

Not everybody hates the database, that is a generalization on your part as
you and your cronies hate the database. I assume your thinking that if you
hate it everybody must. Not true. I like the database so I don't needlessly
have to take my kids (and dog) on a wasted trip due to lack of abilities. My
time with my children is the single most precious thing in the world. I
would like to make happy memories, not have my kids remember the time our
dog nearly died of exhaustion because the trail map was a tad bit off. I
wouldn't have written to the placer to suggest to anyone them they should
change it to suit an ancient dog. I just don't want to bring her if it will
be too difficult.
< hates, you could have written the person to let them know of the
issue.>>

Further more, I use the database, I read it before every excursion out. What
everyone else does is no concern to me. Unlike you obviously. Also, we
haven't ticked off everyone, that's ALSO a generalization, just you and a
select few others. Judging from the archives, ticking you and a couple
others off, isn't all that hard. You all are so very Opinionated, on all
subjects, we hear from you all frequently.
<< Which would be a whole
heck of a lot more effective than putting such information in a
database that most people won't even read and tick off everyone in
the process.>>

Kerri


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for confirming my point. The mere mention of "not good for
kids" reveals information that I consciously decided that the clue
decoders need to solve for themselves, i.e., the box isn't on the
short, paved, flat trail off the parking lot at the top of the
mountain.



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Kerri" wrote:
> On the other hand, if there is 5 different trails up Mount
Letterbox, as
> there usually is, of different skill levels. And in one, you have
to cross a
> raging river filled with man eating trout on slippery 4 inch
stones. A
> simple comment of "not good for kids" would tip me off that my
four yr old
> shouldn't come. It wouldn't tell me which trail it was on till I
did the
> homework on which trail was which. The database wouldn't affect
that at all.
> I've learned since letterboxing several interesting facts from
researching
> clues. One of which is a type of Italian Olive. It didn't tell me
that we
> would have to carry out my aging dog in a neat sheet, while towing
my
> complaining 4 yr old. All it said in the clues was easy walk. Tell
that to
> Penny, my poor old pup!
> Kerri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bcostley [mailto:bobbyeubanks@y...]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:07 PM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Attn: New Age Database Owners
>
>
> You miss the point. Say I produce a clue quite obsure that once
> figured out would lead the hunter to realize that the box is on
top
> of Mount Letterbox, a 10000 ft peak in the middle of an otherwise
> flat area. Once you figure out the clues, you could easily
determine
> the hike would be difficult without ever leaving your house. It
was
> not that I was trying to hide trail conditions from you, just the
> box location. But if the database says "extremely difficult hike"
> then someone trying to figure out the clues would easily know
where
> the box was.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Not everybody hates the database, that is a generalization on your
> part as you and your cronies hate the database. I assume your
> thinking that if you hate it everybody must.

I'm assuming no such thing. I'm more practical than that. I'm
thinking that there are two sides of an issue here. I've listened to
the comments and thoughts of both sides and came to an educated
decision that the database isn't worth the angst it causes. It's of
limited help. I think it's ethically wrong if the owner has no input
about their own boxes. And there are plenty of alternative ways to
accomplish the same thing without the conflict.

A bad idea is still a bad idea even if it has supporters. I wish
there was a way to make everyone happy, but apparently there's not.
I'd rather the database go away completely--that's what I WANT--but
I'm willing to compromise and give it an okay as long as the owner of
a box has input into whether their box is in the database or not. It
seems like a fair decision addressing the concerns of both sides of
the issue. It may not make everyone completely happy, but it doesn't
make anyone a complete loser in this fight either. The database
would still exist for the most part, but the conflict will go away--
or at least lessen in intensity.

Imagine--pulling Funhog's boxes from the database would be like
pulling the rug out from her argument. She'd have nothing left to
stand on and fight for. It's a pretty good coup to pull out the rug
from under Funhog and still get your way. =)

-- Ryan

Despite the requests and outright screaming for a cessation of hostilities
or even a cessation of the constant need to get the last word in, some
poeple continue to beat a dead horse.

When will the insanity quit?

See, this is one of the reasons that I prefer a forum over a mailing list.
But that's just my personal preference.

I've said my peace, others have said their piece and the antagonists have
gotten their words in again. I beseech anyone who feels the need to respond
this thread to remember one thing...

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject


Steve of Rayvenhaus