More articles like this and it won't be "obsure" for long.
MissMoon



>The hobbyists feel the obscurity keeps their pastime special and helps to protect the environment, since most letterboxes are placed in forests, parks, and >conservation areas. (To keep searchers from trampling the environment, boxes are usually hidden close to public trails.)


----- Original Message -----
From: Warrior Woman
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/15/2005 4:08:55 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Boston Globe Article is published!


Here's the link:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/15/hikers_youve_got_ma
il/

Warrior Woman

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

I agree. Things may need to change. Until then the
cure all would be to not do anymore PUBLIC SPEAKING on
the issue. I know no one reads the Boston Globe, but
maybe we should think about minimizing the exposure in
MAJOR NEWSPAPERS. Especially the reference to
LETTERBOXING.ORG...Are we inviting the park service to
start a letterbox genocide? Never mind re-hiding
well...It might not be there at all anymore!! And
that would be a nightmare. Do we still believe in
being discreet? Discreet....right?

Seth
--- JuneMcAllister wrote:
> More articles like this and it won't be "obsure" for
> long.
> MissMoon
>
>
>
> >The hobbyists feel the obscurity keeps their
> pastime special and helps to protect the
> environment, since most letterboxes are placed in
> forests, parks, and >conservation areas. (To keep
> searchers from trampling the environment, boxes are
> usually hidden close to public trails.)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Warrior Woman
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 5/15/2005 4:08:55 PM
> Subject: [LbNA] Boston Globe Article is published!
>
>
> Here's the link:
>
>
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/15/hikers_youve_got_ma
> il/
>
> Warrior Woman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I, too, agree with Seth and Miss Moon that we must declare a no interview
policy if we want things to stay as we know them.

Hopefully, as a group, we can accomplish that. We've already seen some
negative factors to growth - why compound it?



To paraphrase what a friend from up north said -



Why tell the world about your private fishing hole, and then complain when
all the fish are gone, the pond is polluted and the wild flowers are
trampled.



Mark





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

I think it was a well written article, didn't find any glaring &
erroneous statements. But I think articles like this have their
place . . . like in Iowa with 33 boxes, North Dakota with 4 boxes, or
even West Virginia with 72 boxes. Encouraging journalists in the
boxious NE just brings too much attention to the area. But then CT
could stand to lose a few . . . just kidding.

Judy B
Fairfax VA
sewsowbizzy

> I know no one reads the Boston Globe, but
> maybe we should think about minimizing the exposure in
> MAJOR NEWSPAPERS. Especially the reference to
> LETTERBOXING.ORG...Are we inviting the park service to
> start a letterbox genocide?

I tried to catch a waterfall, but it didn't work.

Rather than wishing and praying letterboxing doesn't get any press--a
pretty useless endeavor, I think--I'd rather just try to make the best
of it. Educate the newly initiated and encourage responsible letterboxing.

-- Ryan

I wasn't really wishing and praying for no press, I
was just hoping to minimize the exposure. The Boston
Globe seems like maximizing it to me. I don't think
there's any other choice than to make the best of it.
Unless you drop the hobby all together. All I'm
saying is that if I don't want someone to know about
something, I won't shout that something through a
bullhorn. That's all.

Seth
--- rscarpen wrote:

>
> I tried to catch a waterfall, but it didn't work.
>
> Rather than wishing and praying letterboxing doesn't
> get any press--a
> pretty useless endeavor, I think--I'd rather just
> try to make the best
> of it.
>
> -- Ryan
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> I wasn't really wishing and praying for no press, I
> was just hoping to minimize the exposure. The Boston
> Globe seems like maximizing it to me.

Yeah, I know that, but my point was that if a newspaper like the
Boston Globe is going to print an article about letterboxing, I think
it's unlikely there's much that we can do to prevent it. Freedom of
the press and all that. Which, allegedly, is supposed to be a good
thing. =)

But take all those people who read the Boston Globe and suddenly find
themselves addicted to letterboxing. Some of them will likely turn out
to be master letterboxers--the next Legerdemaine, if you will. Some,
well, let's not dwell on that. =)

At this point, though, letterboxing is way out of the bag. Even
without press, people are hearing about through rubber stamp clubs, or
through scrapbooking clubs, or through geocaching, or through friends,
or from a friend of a friend, or just by picking up a book in the
bookstore.

It seems like every time a letterboxing article makes it into a major
publication, the same issues are rehashed over and over again. It gets
old after a while. And after all is said and done, a few boxes end up
missing, many more are planted, and the same people who first learned
about letterboxing through a newspaper pound the table and want it to
stop. Nobody likes change and everyone wants to stop it, but you know,
that's not going to happen. The Boston Globe wasn't the first major
publication to write about letterboxing and it won't be the last. When
it happens again--not if, but when--I'd hope a couple of brave souls
around here step up onto the plate and make sure it's an article we
can accept.

I bet geocachers are wishing they had a bit more say in how geocaching
was covered on Law and Order: Criminal Intent. Burying caches.
*rolling eyes* Phrases like "burying letterboxes" or "digging up
boxes" might start popping up if we don't guide the press which would
be a far bigger disservice to the hobby than saying nothing to them.
It could have been a lot worse, and for the fact that it wasn't, I'm
grateful.

-- Ryan

Did anyone keep a copy of this article? I've tried everything I can think of on the Boston Globe site and can't seem to get to the page for this article.

Letterbug
----- Original Message -----
From: Warrior Woman
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/15/2005 4:08:55 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Boston Globe Article is published!


Here's the link:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/15/hikers_youve_got_ma
il/

Warrior Woman

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

>
> I tried to catch a waterfall, but it didn't work.
>
> Rather than wishing and praying letterboxing doesn't get any press--a
> pretty useless endeavor, I think--I'd rather just try to make the
best
> of it. Educate the newly initiated and encourage responsible
letterboxing.
>
> -- Ryan

While this education certainly might be a way to mitigate the effects
of too much publicity, I believe in the long run the mitigation will
not have much benificial significance. Education of the new and
curious will only take on those that probably don't need the
encouragement to be responsible. The more that publicity occurs,then
the more increase of any negative impact. There is no real method that
can be used to eliminate press, but I for one will not encourage nor
assist in any publicity. Long before we were contacted for the Time
Magazine article we came to the conclusion that the nature of
letterboxing will be continuously changed every day. Look how the game
has changed just in the last year to two years. The game will continue
to evolve and like it or not there is very little that one can do to
direct it's course. At the same time I see no reason to hasten it's
change by cooperating with reporters. The only concern reporters have
is to sell their story and entertain their readers. Writing a story
that will help letterboxing or that will educate their reader is
pretty far down the list. A "No interview" position should be up to
each individual and this decision should be made by each person and
not by any group.
Ryan is right about "catching a waterfall",but I would just like it
to slow a bit.

Don

Amen!
Mumma & Bunny Boy =D



> Yeah, I know that, but my point was that if a newspaper like the
> Boston Globe is going to print an article about letterboxing, I
think
> it's unlikely there's much that we can do to prevent it. Freedom of
> the press and all that. Which, allegedly, is supposed to be a good
> thing. =)
>
> But take all those people who read the Boston Globe and suddenly
find
> themselves addicted to letterboxing. Some of them will likely turn
out
> to be master letterboxers--the next Legerdemaine, if you will.
Some,
> well, let's not dwell on that. =)
>
> At this point, though, letterboxing is way out of the bag. Even
> without press, people are hearing about through rubber stamp clubs,
or
> through scrapbooking clubs, or through geocaching, or through
friends,
> or from a friend of a friend, or just by picking up a book in the
> bookstore.
>
> It seems like every time a letterboxing article makes it into a
major
> publication, the same issues are rehashed over and over again. It
gets
> old after a while. And after all is said and done, a few boxes end
up
> missing, many more are planted, and the same people who first
learned
> about letterboxing through a newspaper pound the table and want it
to
> stop. Nobody likes change and everyone wants to stop it, but you
know,
> that's not going to happen. The Boston Globe wasn't the first major
> publication to write about letterboxing and it won't be the last.
When
> it happens again--not if, but when--I'd hope a couple of brave souls
> around here step up onto the plate and make sure it's an article we
> can accept.
>
> I bet geocachers are wishing they had a bit more say in how
geocaching
> was covered on Law and Order: Criminal Intent. Burying caches.
> *rolling eyes* Phrases like "burying letterboxes" or "digging up
> boxes" might start popping up if we don't guide the press which
would
> be a far bigger disservice to the hobby than saying nothing to them.
> It could have been a lot worse, and for the fact that it wasn't, I'm
> grateful.
>
> -- Ryan

--- rscarpen wrote:

>
> It seems like every time a letterboxing article
> makes it into a major
> publication, the same issues are rehashed over and
> over again. It gets
> old after a while.
>


Tell me about it!! You would think that people would
catch on and eliminate the need for the discussion,
but apparently that isn't working. If it needs to be
rehashed from time to time, then so be it. I could
see it getting old if there was an article about
letterboxing every month, but there isn't. (at least
around New England.)

Hand carved vs. Store bought is getting old. PZ KUT
vs. Pink stuff is getting old. Stamp mounting
discussions are getting old. Telling people how to
re-hide properly is getting old. This issue, however,
I don't think is getting old. I think it may be a
call for change.

You may be annoyed by the frequency of this
discussion, but it's going to happen when an article
like this comes out. I mean after all, it's not
discussed THAT often is it?

If the issue was concerning any of the above worn out
topics, then we would be in agreement. But, I don't
think this one is worn out yet. Maybe after a few
more publications I'll see it your way.

Seth
>
>
>



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

But you've only been on this list since November of
2004. How many articles have you seen about
letterboxing. Moreover, how can it be gettig old to
you? How many publications have there been since
November of 2004 and which ones annoyed YOU the most?

Curious,
Seth
--- Mumma & Bunny Boy
wrote:
> Amen!
> Mumma & Bunny Boy =D
>
>
>
> > Yeah, I know that, but my point was that if a
> newspaper like the
> > Boston Globe is going to print an article about
> letterboxing, I
> think
> > it's unlikely there's much that we can do to
> prevent it. Freedom of
> > the press and all that. Which, allegedly, is
> supposed to be a good
> > thing. =)
> >
> > But take all those people who read the Boston
> Globe and suddenly
> find
> > themselves addicted to letterboxing. Some of them
> will likely turn
> out
> > to be master letterboxers--the next Legerdemaine,
> if you will.
> Some,
> > well, let's not dwell on that. =)
> >
> > At this point, though, letterboxing is way out of
> the bag. Even
> > without press, people are hearing about through
> rubber stamp clubs,
> or
> > through scrapbooking clubs, or through geocaching,
> or through
> friends,
> > or from a friend of a friend, or just by picking
> up a book in the
> > bookstore.
> >
> > It seems like every time a letterboxing article
> makes it into a
> major
> > publication, the same issues are rehashed over and
> over again. It
> gets
> > old after a while. And after all is said and done,
> a few boxes end
> up
> > missing, many more are planted, and the same
> people who first
> learned
> > about letterboxing through a newspaper pound the
> table and want it
> to
> > stop. Nobody likes change and everyone wants to
> stop it, but you
> know,
> > that's not going to happen. The Boston Globe
> wasn't the first major
> > publication to write about letterboxing and it
> won't be the last.
> When
> > it happens again--not if, but when--I'd hope a
> couple of brave souls
> > around here step up onto the plate and make sure
> it's an article we
> > can accept.
> >
> > I bet geocachers are wishing they had a bit more
> say in how
> geocaching
> > was covered on Law and Order: Criminal Intent.
> Burying caches.
> > *rolling eyes* Phrases like "burying letterboxes"
> or "digging up
> > boxes" might start popping up if we don't guide
> the press which
> would
> > be a far bigger disservice to the hobby than
> saying nothing to them.
> > It could have been a lot worse, and for the fact
> that it wasn't, I'm
> > grateful.
> >
> > -- Ryan
>
>
>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Hey, Seth!

How ironic is it that your post would end in "666"?

Amused,
speedsquare

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, seth mandeville
wrote:
> But you've only been on this list since November of
> 2004. How many articles have you seen about
> letterboxing. Moreover, how can it be gettig old to
> you? How many publications have there been since
> November of 2004 and which ones annoyed YOU the most?
>
> Curious,
> Seth

I pretty much felt the same way as Seth for the first
couple of years that I was boxing. My lips were sealed
(as were most boxers') when the media came poking
around, especially with those from New England. I
finally gave in when I was approached by a reporter
from Omaha. I contacted the one active boxer in the
area and asked his opinion. He couldn't wait to get
some press in the hopes that it might encourage some
other players. In fact there are now THREE active boxers
there, not exactly a glut.

When several of us were contacted by TIME last spring,
there was worried discussion about the national exposure
and we decided that the article was going to be done
whether we participated or not. Not a one of us wanted
more press for the hobby or ourselves but we decided
to cooperate. It was our hope that the stealth aspects of
the hobby would be properly presented and act as some
sort of damage control.

After that article came out, I pretty much gave up on the
hope that the game would remain underground. It will never
again have the delicious sneaky feeling that it once had. Now
when I see yet another article on letterboxing, I sigh, roll my
eyes and continue to play on the sneaky level with the
like-minded friends I've developed over the years.

Some discussions may be repetitive but you have to keep
in mind that there are newbies joining up every day. The
archives for this list have become so unwieldy that I don't
really expect the initiates to read them as I did when I first
started boxing. They are asking the same old, same old on a
regular basis, not to be annoying but just because they want
to learn the same stuff we wanted to learn at the beginning.

I do wish that more new folks would take the time to read the
FAQs before asking questions; I do wish more would join the
New Boxers' List; AND I do wish that there were fewer repetitive
threads but I can't see that any of those is likely to happen
so I'm unwilling to waste time being annoyed. It's a game, after
all, isn't it?

Funhog



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, seth mandeville
wrote:
>
> --- rscarpen wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems like every time a letterboxing article
> > makes it into a major
> > publication, the same issues are rehashed over and
> > over again. It gets
> > old after a while.
> >
>
>
> Tell me about it!! You would think that people would
> catch on and eliminate the need for the discussion,
> but apparently that isn't working. > You may be annoyed by the frequency of this
> discussion, but it's going to happen when an article
> like this comes out. I mean after all, it's not
> discussed THAT often is it?
>
> If the issue was concerning any of the above worn out
> topics, then we would be in agreement. But, I don't
> think this one is worn out yet. Maybe after a few
> more publications I'll see it your way.
>
> Seth
>

How does it go? "Little things amuse little...." Nevermind, I remember.

Have a good day,
Seth

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "speedsquare_lbxr"
wrote:
> Hey, Seth!
>
> How ironic is it that your post would end in "666"?
>
> Amused,
> speedsquare
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, seth mandeville
> wrote:
> > But you've only been on this list since November of
> > 2004. How many articles have you seen about
> > letterboxing. Moreover, how can it be gettig old to
> > you? How many publications have there been since
> > November of 2004 and which ones annoyed YOU the most?
> >
> > Curious,
> > Seth

Seth said:

> Tell me about it!! You would think that people would
> catch on and eliminate the need for the discussion,
> but apparently that isn't working.

(takes a deep breath)

Hi Seth,

In this particular case, the article would have been published with
or without input from the letterboxing community.

The Boston Globe correspondent heard about it through either his or
his editor's wife who works at a library who knows about letterboxing.

The correspondent posted a request for input on the LBNE Board. I
called him the first second I read the post. Why? To seize the
opportunity to a) talk him out of writing the article in the first
place or b) at least attempt to control what *would* be published in
the article.

Concerning a):

I spent close to an hour on the phone with the correspondent trying
to convince him to NOT publish an article at all. For all of our
various and sundry reasons. I've been letterboxing since 2000, and I
*know* what publicity does to us. You are preaching to the choir. I
told the correspondent flat out that the very LAST thing in the world
that a letterboxer wants to see is a print article about
letterboxing. I told him about the damage the Time Magazine article
did to the community, how hundreds of clues to boxes were removed
from LbNA as a result. I appealed to him that he cannot control the
readership of his paper. It could be read by someone who would be
truly interested and respectful of the hobby - and it could also be
read by a bunch of bored teenagers who might think that finding and
destroying letterboxes was more fun than smashing mailboxes with
baseball bats. I even invoked the threat to national security, The
Patriot Act, Homeland Defense, et al, because it could be read by a
terrorist group who could use letterboxing as a means to plant bombs
at key military and political locations. (I really did. Honest.
Ask him.) It didn't matter. The editor had a bee in his bonnet and
by golly, that article was going to be published. Period. Which
brings us to -

Concerning b):

I hammered home the reason why letterboxing is what letterboxing is
reflects the very nature of the hobby - obscurity, secrecy,
discretion, respect for others and for the environment. If he was
going to write an article, write it with respect. That correspondent
got the lecture of his *life* from me about respect. And I think the
article reflects that.

Given his assignment, he had to publish an article. With or without
our help. The response he got from us would be reflected in the
article. If we had said *nothing*, he very well might have published
a completely erroneous article, which helps no one and could only
hurt us. If we had responded with hostility, he very well may have
dug deep into the subject via the 'net all by himself, *and* with an
attitude that *we* gave him, and could have published a whole *lot*
more stuff than he did, blowing all attempts at discretion aside.

I chose to respond with caution, intelligence, and respect. Respect
for this hobby and respect for every single solitary letterboxer and
every single solitary letterbox on the planet. Am I glad that the
article was published? No. Can I look myself in the eye in the
mirror and say "I did what I could to protect that which I love?".
Yes. And I stand by my words.

He listened to me, and to others. He did his homework. We, as
Americans, have the right to free speech. The article was going to
be written and published whether we liked it or not. At least we got
an intelligent and respectful article. A win/win situation to a
situation we wish we didn't have to have.

Warrior Woman

> Did anyone keep a copy of this article? I've tried everything I can
> think of on the Boston Globe site and can't seem to get to the page
> for this article.

Yahoo Groups broke the URL so the last two letters are missing.

Paste these two fragments together in the address bar of your browser:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/
2005/05/15/hikers_youve_got_mail/

Happy trails!

-- Ryan

Hey there,
I know. You had said something about that interview
before your boxes had been vandalized. Since that
happened, my feeling about the publicity has changed.
As you had seen from my response to your post. Sorry
for all the discussion. I'm getting bored with the
banter now. Articles or no articles, I'm going to
play the way that I learned to play. And I'm sure
you'll do the same.

Seth
--- Warrior Woman wrote:
> Seth said:
>
> > Tell me about it!! You would think that people
> would
> > catch on and eliminate the need for the
> discussion,
> > but apparently that isn't working.
>
> (takes a deep breath)
>
> Hi Seth,
>
> In this particular case, the article would have been
> published with
> or without input from the letterboxing community.
>
> The Boston Globe correspondent heard about it
> through either his or
> his editor's wife who works at a library who knows
> about letterboxing.
>
> The correspondent posted a request for input on the
> LBNE Board. I
> called him the first second I read the post. Why?
> To seize the
> opportunity to a) talk him out of writing the
> article in the first
> place or b) at least attempt to control what *would*
> be published in
> the article.
>
> Concerning a):
>
> I spent close to an hour on the phone with the
> correspondent trying
> to convince him to NOT publish an article at all.
> For all of our
> various and sundry reasons. I've been letterboxing
> since 2000, and I
> *know* what publicity does to us. You are preaching
> to the choir. I
> told the correspondent flat out that the very LAST
> thing in the world
> that a letterboxer wants to see is a print article
> about
> letterboxing. I told him about the damage the Time
> Magazine article
> did to the community, how hundreds of clues to boxes
> were removed
> from LbNA as a result. I appealed to him that he
> cannot control the
> readership of his paper. It could be read by
> someone who would be
> truly interested and respectful of the hobby - and
> it could also be
> read by a bunch of bored teenagers who might think
> that finding and
> destroying letterboxes was more fun than smashing
> mailboxes with
> baseball bats. I even invoked the threat to
> national security, The
> Patriot Act, Homeland Defense, et al, because it
> could be read by a
> terrorist group who could use letterboxing as a
> means to plant bombs
> at key military and political locations. (I really
> did. Honest.
> Ask him.) It didn't matter. The editor had a bee
> in his bonnet and
> by golly, that article was going to be published.
> Period. Which
> brings us to -
>
> Concerning b):
>
> I hammered home the reason why letterboxing is what
> letterboxing is
> reflects the very nature of the hobby - obscurity,
> secrecy,
> discretion, respect for others and for the
> environment. If he was
> going to write an article, write it with respect.
> That correspondent
> got the lecture of his *life* from me about respect.
> And I think the
> article reflects that.
>
> Given his assignment, he had to publish an article.
> With or without
> our help. The response he got from us would be
> reflected in the
> article. If we had said *nothing*, he very well
> might have published
> a completely erroneous article, which helps no one
> and could only
> hurt us. If we had responded with hostility, he
> very well may have
> dug deep into the subject via the 'net all by
> himself, *and* with an
> attitude that *we* gave him, and could have
> published a whole *lot*
> more stuff than he did, blowing all attempts at
> discretion aside.
>
> I chose to respond with caution, intelligence, and
> respect. Respect
> for this hobby and respect for every single solitary
> letterboxer and
> every single solitary letterbox on the planet. Am I
> glad that the
> article was published? No. Can I look myself in
> the eye in the
> mirror and say "I did what I could to protect that
> which I love?".
> Yes. And I stand by my words.
>
> He listened to me, and to others. He did his
> homework. We, as
> Americans, have the right to free speech. The
> article was going to
> be written and published whether we liked it or not.
> At least we got
> an intelligent and respectful article. A win/win
> situation to a
> situation we wish we didn't have to have.
>
> Warrior Woman
>
>
>



Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html

> Hand carved vs. Store bought is getting old. PZ KUT
> vs. Pink stuff is getting old. Stamp mounting
> discussions are getting old. Telling people how to
> re-hide properly is getting old. This issue, however,
> I don't think is getting old. I think it may be a
> call for change.

Yeah, I've gotten pretty bored of those arguments too. =) It's not
that I'm becoming nicer in old age--it's just that I'm tired of the
same arguments month after month and year after year and rarely feel
like contributing to them anymore.

But I do disagree about this issue not being old. I've seen it far
too often to want to see it rehashed again, though I suppose trying to
stop a topic from being rehashed to death is like, well, trying to
catch a waterfall. It's probably a waste of my time, but dang it, I
had to speak up this time! =)

Going back to bed now. *yawn* Wake me up for the next argument. =)

-- Ryan

Sleep well Ryan.

Seth


>
> Going back to bed now. *yawn* Wake me up for the
> next argument. =)
>
> -- Ryan
>
>
>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

It could be read by someone who would be
> truly interested and respectful of the hobby - and it could also be
> read by a bunch of bored teenagers who might think that finding and
> destroying letterboxes was more fun than smashing mailboxes with
> baseball bats.
> Warrior Woman

Why not have a *Join Membership* mandatory to LBNA web site? It might
weed out the more nefarious types (chances are that they would like to
remain anonymous).That way the clue pages will only be accessible to
those who ~need a clue~.

just a thought..
Mermaid Mom

I like that idea.

Donutz716

chunna21 wrote:
It could be read by someone who would be
> truly interested and respectful of the hobby - and it could also be
> read by a bunch of bored teenagers who might think that finding and
> destroying letterboxes was more fun than smashing mailboxes with
> baseball bats.
> Warrior Woman

Why not have a *Join Membership* mandatory to LBNA web site? It might
weed out the more nefarious types (chances are that they would like to
remain anonymous).That way the clue pages will only be accessible to
those who ~need a clue~.

just a thought..
Mermaid Mom




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/letterbox-usa/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

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

I have only seen 3 and they all seemed to be written respectfully.
When I first saw the CC Times article, I was so excited to partake in
this sport/hobby/game/obsession. I read all the LBNA FAQs (twice),
explored Silent Doug's pages (as well as other links given in the
LBNA FAQs - I cannot recall all the names of the links), read most of
the info @ Mark & Sue Pepe's webpage,joined the newboxers group when
one of the more experienced LBers was kind enough to point me in that
direction, read ALL of the newboxers archives that were available
then as well as some of the archives for letterbox-usa & LBNE and
posted questions when I still wasn't sure I had the gist. All of
this was done BEFORE I even went to find my first letterbox. I felt
that if I was going to join something that required stealth, I needed
to know as much as possible to try to do this as "correctly" (excuse
the grammer) as possible.

All of this from someone who learned about letterboxing from an
article.

Not all of us are bad. Some of us are trying to be contributing
members by planting. Our first tries may not be the best, but how
many people's first tries were? At least we are trying! The hard
part for me is to have people critcize articles being published who
learned about letterboxing from articles themselves.

Mumma & Bunny Boy =D

(P.S. I know tone of voice, etc. cannot be conveyed in a posted
message. This was not written with "angry attitude" - Just the
facts.)



> But you've only been on this list since November of
> 2004. How many articles have you seen about
> letterboxing. Moreover, how can it be gettig old to
> you? How many publications have there been since
> November of 2004 and which ones annoyed YOU the most?
>
> Curious,
> Seth

As a newbie I find this whole chain pretty humorous. Do you think in '89 the
folks of Dartmoor were thinking, "Damn yanks are going to ruin it." Dartmoor
has been around for 100+ years, gotten much more publicity, and still
manages to thrive. Why would LBNA be any different?
I've seen a lot talk on these boards about "community". Communities need to
remain open, and open to change, in order to thrive. If they don't, they
become cliques. Until someone lines up a corporate sponsorship for their
boxing addiction, or ESPN creates a crazy 1/2 hour "Box-Off" to replace the
World's Strongest Man competitions, a little publicity can't hurt.
Rather than fret, accept that newbies are a fact of life, and be thankful
for those who that take the time to answer for the 1000th time, "What's PZ
Kut?" These people put countless hours into helping newbies get off on the
right foot--letterboxing.org , altasquest,
the newboxers group, etc. Every time I ignore the "dire SC legislation" post
without reading it, I thank the patient people who steer the boat.
If a handfull people a year learn the joy of letterboxing--exploring their
surroundings, stewardship the environment, creative expression--a few pesky
posts and the occasional trail dolt is worth it. Besides, finding your own
box, or the same box for the 3rd or 4th time isnt' much fun unless it's in a
cemetary, archelogical, or historical site. : )

On 5/16/05, Mumma & Bunny Boy wrote:
>
> I have only seen 3 and they all seemed to be written respectfully.
> When I first saw the CC Times article, I was so excited to partake in
> this sport/hobby/game/obsession. I read all the LBNA FAQs (twice),
> explored Silent Doug's pages (as well as other links given in the
> LBNA FAQs - I cannot recall all the names of the links), read most of
> the info @ Mark & Sue Pepe's webpage,joined the newboxers group when
> one of the more experienced LBers was kind enough to point me in that
> direction, read ALL of the newboxers archives that were available
> then as well as some of the archives for letterbox-usa & LBNE and
> posted questions when I still wasn't sure I had the gist. All of
> this was done BEFORE I even went to find my first letterbox. I felt
> that if I was going to join something that required stealth, I needed
> to know as much as possible to try to do this as "correctly" (excuse
> the grammer) as possible.
>
> All of this from someone who learned about letterboxing from an
> article.
>
> Not all of us are bad. Some of us are trying to be contributing
> members by planting. Our first tries may not be the best, but how
> many people's first tries were? At least we are trying! The hard
> part for me is to have people critcize articles being published who
> learned about letterboxing from articles themselves.
>
> Mumma & Bunny Boy =D
>
> (P.S. I know tone of voice, etc. cannot be conveyed in a posted
> message. This was not written with "angry attitude" - Just the
> facts.)
>
>
>
> > But you've only been on this list since November of
> > 2004. How many articles have you seen about
> > letterboxing. Moreover, how can it be gettig old to
> > you? How many publications have there been since
> > November of 2004 and which ones annoyed YOU the most?
> >
> > Curious,
> > Seth
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> - To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/letterbox-usa/
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service .
>
>


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

> Why not have a *Join Membership* mandatory to LBNA web site? It might
> weed out the more nefarious types (chances are that they would like to
> remain anonymous).That way the clue pages will only be accessible to
> those who ~need a clue~.

Just as an FYI, Atlas Quest already has something similar to that
where people can choose to have their clue available only premium
members. You don't even have to be a premium member to list a box as
being for premium members only, and one can be fairly confident only
"serious" letterboxers will be able to see the clue. It still won't
protect boxes from poorly replaced letterboxes, but it does help weed
out teenage hooligans looking for a box to vandelize or a newbie
letterboxer that might not stay with the hobby for very long.

So not only does somemone have to sign up, they'd have to pay for the
privelege of getting access to your clues. =)

But by default, all clues are accissible to everyone and only a tiny,
tiny number of people have listed such "restricted boxes".
Consequently, I suspect it's not as popular of an idea as one might think.

-- Ryan

As a matter of fact, they did! The British fellow who
was featured in the '98 Smithsonian article was given a
lot of grief for that very reason. If you look at the
early archives of this list you can follow the topic. I
understand that there are some letterboxers that still
find our version of the game unappealing. Funhog

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Rick Simpson wrote:
> As a newbie I find this whole chain pretty humorous. Do you think in '89 the
> folks of Dartmoor were thinking, "Damn yanks are going to ruin it."