As long as I own the domain letterboxing.org, it will not likely resolve
to a site that charges fees to view content, or requires membership to view
my faq or clues. The compromise for users of the site wishing to protect
their clues in some way is for them to put them on their own site,
provide whatever security they wish, and post a link to their clues or
site. Or, perhaps one of the sites that competes with letterboxing.org
will add this feature. (OTOH, I may not always own letterboxing.org, or,
it may not always live there).

While some reasoned and intelligent commentary was presented in favor of
doing this, the co-founders felt very strongly about openness, and it would
be a disservice to the memory of those no longer with us to violate
that trust now. That's not to say I can't change my mind on anything and
am bound by ghosts and tradition, but this will be a tough sell. Susan
has also written elegantly on the subject, and I imagine as long as she
is involved, it will be a tough sell for her as well. (The fact is that
I'm very respectful of ghosts and tradition, and lbna has traditionally
been open). As for specific reasons, others have written them already,
and it just feels better this way. (of course, webmasters are supposed
to "vote" on these things, so lobby your favorite one ...)

To respond to a specific comment (to paraphrase) - "how is this different
from requiring membership to the yahoogroup?" -- the answer is that the
status quo is actually the same. To wit -- membership is required in this
yahoogroup to _post_, but not _view_ messages. This was added in an attempt
to control spam only (try it for yourself, log out of yahoo, and go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/letterbox-usa/messages). The lbna site
presently uses the same model. Other letterboxing-related resources, of
course, work differently, tho it is not difficult for the prospective
ne'er-do-well to penetrate their defenses.

As for writing books, I wrote one. You can make me rich by going to
Amazon and buying a copy (try it for yourself at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0762727942/mapsurfercom-20), and
then I'll give Ryan a loan :-) I did this because I thought it was cool.
Had I turned down this commission, someone else would have done it, and
it seemed better that an insider rather than a professional writer do it.
The world hasn't ended. Those who feel it has have adapted or retired.
It will be interesting to see who gets the Wiley commission.

As for the press, the same things were said 4 years ago, and many
bemoaned what would happen. Some people "in the club" generally want
control of "whose in the club next" after they've got in (and as an
owner of a gmail account, I guess I can relate to this (and the brilliant
marketing :-)). My guess is that had a conspiracy of silence been
successful, most of the posters I was reading would not be here. I guess
that is irrelevant, tho, as such a conspiracy is untenable, IMO. Its
better, IMO, to talk to the media and say what _you_ want rather than
trusting the next person they find to do the same. (OTOH, one could
easily counter the last two paragraphs by quoting JC Melloncamp --
"callin' it your job ol' hosse sure don't make it right" -- but I think
it depends what the job is ...)

(The truth is, regarding membership and the press -- for a closed system to
have worked, it would have had to start off that way. It is too late now.
But, unlike Dartmoor, we faced a formidable geography problem, so it would
have never gotten off the ground on a national scale without the internet.
(And a couple of times, well into the game, it looked moribund, and the
press _saved_ it). Thus we have the baggage of openness. And also, even
Dartmoor's more closed culture was compromised, that is how we are _all_
here -- media and openness).

As for commercialism, I'm pretty moderate in that regard. Other well-
respected sites are commercial, and tho there have been some complaints,
the world hasn't ended, and people find these sites valuable. As someone
involved in amateur sports, hustling for sponsorship is a way of life, tho
the issue is divisive there also. It would be nice if everything in the
world were free, and people could do what they want (the proverbial
brotherhood of man), but at the end of the day, you get what you pay for,
and you can't count on altruism to pay the bills forever. Even "public
television" has sponsors, and even the writers of commercial-free open
source software are paid in the currency of prestige, resume bullets,
and consulting commissions.

I will say that I abhor banner ads, but that some sort of funding for lbna
would be a good thing, IMHO, tho the issue will always remain divisive. I
will also say that I understand and respect the anti-commercialism attitude,
but have a "wouldn't that be nice, moderate, response to that". All that
said, the stark reality is that money is (and has been) coming into
this space; it is just a question of where it ends up and how it is spent --
other sites that embrace commercialism may get stronger, and allow their
operators to spend 40 hours a week or more making them even stronger, and
so on ...). OTOH, perhaps at the end of the day, lbna will maintain its
present state of minimal commercialism and commercial sites will wither.
Or, perhaps other sites will grow strong like geocaching.com, and those
using lbna will remain happy with the status quo. IMO, there is no right
or wrong with the above, except for a closed mind (which is why I say
"tough sell" rather than "no chance" at the end of the day on some things).

I'm sure some will prolly dislike me for the above attitude (and some already
do), but at least I'm honest :-)

Well, I haven't written here in a while, so I'm entitled to some verbosity.
I hope people take my comments as thoughtful and just my $0.02, rather
than flames they are not intended to be, and I encourage thoughtful commentary
on these, and other issues.

Cheers
Randy
List Manager
LbNA co-founder