Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum regardless of
whether
A letterbox is an ephermal, fleeting piece of art created with the
intent to impart a certain experience. That experience changes every
time someone comes to visit. Part of that experience is that you
never quite know what you will find. (or if you will find it)
Sometimes you will see some new flora & fauna or some fascinating
wildlife along the way. Different seasons make the same box new.
New signatures, comments or a HH get a new reaction. Sometime a
letterbox has been ill-treated and will need a little TLC. That can
be part of the experience too. A letterbox is created with intention
from the artist and we can never fully know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a
little while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of
it, then the creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
If a box has touched you so deeply that you feel it must be
perpetuated, I would much rather that someone place a new box of
their own creation, with a new logbook and new clues. If it is in
the same area, so be it. Some places are meant to be seen. But to
take any part of someone else's letterbox and call it yours is
stealing. To change it in any way without permission, by moving it,
reworking the clues, or changing the stamp or logbook is an
infringement of the creator's ideas. That is why we have copyright
laws.
On on,
Laurette
phantom phiddler
> LB.org transferred to me. I had intended on either placing the box
in the
> same exact location, or very very close, keeping all the clues
intact. But
> after going back to the location we determined that the spot was
really not
> hidden well enough and there was nothing very nearby to move it to.
>
> So our new location is actually in a different spot on the same
property. I
> have kept a lot of the original verbiage but the clues are changed
enough
> that is now about 50% original and 50% new.
>
> So now my question. Is this the same box anymore? It will have
the same
> name. I intend on keeping the original planter's trailname in the
clues,
> saying that we have adopted it.
>
> But have we? It's a new stamp, I have no idea what the original
even looked
> like. It's a new final hiding place. How should I handle this?
Should the
> clues be just deleted and I add this as a new plant with no mention
of the
> old box or placer? If so I would have to reword all of the clues,
I think,
> so that none of if it would be the original planter's words.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> RIFamily
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date:
5/11/2007
> 7:34 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Adopting or stealing?
10 messages in this thread |
Started on 2007-05-16
Adopting or stealing?
From: phantom_phiddler (vitlaur@aol.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 13:27:08 UTC
Re: Adopting or stealing?
From: gramatrick (dewberrylb@gmail.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 14:08:46 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "phantom_phiddler"
wrote:
>
> Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
> always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
> pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
> mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum
I don't disagree about an owner's ownership of the box. However, I'd
like to have a polite discussion of how to handle planter's rights and
where and if they stop at some point.
In Texas recently, we had a case of a newbie who decided that she
didn't like the park where a couple of long-time letterboxes had been
placed (she believed it dangerous). She persuaded the webmasters to
archive the boxes, claiming they were damaged, and then went a step
further and pulled the boxes. I think most of us can aqree this is not
what we want.
On the other hand, in my hometown, we have a boxer who planted 80 boxes
and then abandoned the hobby 18 months ago. She doesn't respond to
emails, doesn't maintain her boxes and never updates the clues. At
this point her boxes are just litterboxes, which I find more than a
little troubling too.
On AQ, as her boxes go missing, I temporarily adopt them, change the
status, and then reassign them to her. I don't feel comfortable
adopting them permanently, but I do want to try and keep the status as
current as possible.
Where should we draw that line about old, seemingly abandoned boxes? I
know this is an old topic, but this may be a good time to rehash at
least part of it.
dewberry
wrote:
>
> Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
> always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
> pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
> mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum
I don't disagree about an owner's ownership of the box. However, I'd
like to have a polite discussion of how to handle planter's rights and
where and if they stop at some point.
In Texas recently, we had a case of a newbie who decided that she
didn't like the park where a couple of long-time letterboxes had been
placed (she believed it dangerous). She persuaded the webmasters to
archive the boxes, claiming they were damaged, and then went a step
further and pulled the boxes. I think most of us can aqree this is not
what we want.
On the other hand, in my hometown, we have a boxer who planted 80 boxes
and then abandoned the hobby 18 months ago. She doesn't respond to
emails, doesn't maintain her boxes and never updates the clues. At
this point her boxes are just litterboxes, which I find more than a
little troubling too.
On AQ, as her boxes go missing, I temporarily adopt them, change the
status, and then reassign them to her. I don't feel comfortable
adopting them permanently, but I do want to try and keep the status as
current as possible.
Where should we draw that line about old, seemingly abandoned boxes? I
know this is an old topic, but this may be a good time to rehash at
least part of it.
dewberry
RE: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Pete Mandeville (fishthis@hotmail.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 14:44:53 UTC
On, On?
I think you're getting your "sports" mixed up there hasher! :)
Fishman
From: "phantom_phiddler"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:27:08 -0000
Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum regardless of
whether
A letterbox is an ephermal, fleeting piece of art created with the
intent to impart a certain experience. That experience changes every
time someone comes to visit. Part of that experience is that you
never quite know what you will find. (or if you will find it)
Sometimes you will see some new flora & fauna or some fascinating
wildlife along the way. Different seasons make the same box new.
New signatures, comments or a HH get a new reaction. Sometime a
letterbox has been ill-treated and will need a little TLC. That can
be part of the experience too. A letterbox is created with intention
from the artist and we can never fully know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a
little while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of
it, then the creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
If a box has touched you so deeply that you feel it must be
perpetuated, I would much rather that someone place a new box of
their own creation, with a new logbook and new clues. If it is in
the same area, so be it. Some places are meant to be seen. But to
take any part of someone else's letterbox and call it yours is
stealing. To change it in any way without permission, by moving it,
reworking the clues, or changing the stamp or logbook is an
infringement of the creator's ideas. That is why we have copyright
laws.
On on,
Laurette
phantom phiddler
> LB.org transferred to me. I had intended on either placing the box
in the
> same exact location, or very very close, keeping all the clues
intact. But
> after going back to the location we determined that the spot was
really not
> hidden well enough and there was nothing very nearby to move it to.
>
> So our new location is actually in a different spot on the same
property. I
> have kept a lot of the original verbiage but the clues are changed
enough
> that is now about 50% original and 50% new.
>
> So now my question. Is this the same box anymore? It will have
the same
> name. I intend on keeping the original planter's trailname in the
clues,
> saying that we have adopted it.
>
> But have we? It's a new stamp, I have no idea what the original
even looked
> like. It's a new final hiding place. How should I handle this?
Should the
> clues be just deleted and I add this as a new plant with no mention
of the
> old box or placer? If so I would have to reword all of the clues,
I think,
> so that none of if it would be the original planter's words.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> RIFamily
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date:
5/11/2007
> 7:34 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I think you're getting your "sports" mixed up there hasher! :)
Fishman
From: "phantom_phiddler"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:27:08 -0000
Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum regardless of
whether
A letterbox is an ephermal, fleeting piece of art created with the
intent to impart a certain experience. That experience changes every
time someone comes to visit. Part of that experience is that you
never quite know what you will find. (or if you will find it)
Sometimes you will see some new flora & fauna or some fascinating
wildlife along the way. Different seasons make the same box new.
New signatures, comments or a HH get a new reaction. Sometime a
letterbox has been ill-treated and will need a little TLC. That can
be part of the experience too. A letterbox is created with intention
from the artist and we can never fully know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a
little while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of
it, then the creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
If a box has touched you so deeply that you feel it must be
perpetuated, I would much rather that someone place a new box of
their own creation, with a new logbook and new clues. If it is in
the same area, so be it. Some places are meant to be seen. But to
take any part of someone else's letterbox and call it yours is
stealing. To change it in any way without permission, by moving it,
reworking the clues, or changing the stamp or logbook is an
infringement of the creator's ideas. That is why we have copyright
laws.
On on,
Laurette
phantom phiddler
> LB.org transferred to me. I had intended on either placing the box
in the
> same exact location, or very very close, keeping all the clues
intact. But
> after going back to the location we determined that the spot was
really not
> hidden well enough and there was nothing very nearby to move it to.
>
> So our new location is actually in a different spot on the same
property. I
> have kept a lot of the original verbiage but the clues are changed
enough
> that is now about 50% original and 50% new.
>
> So now my question. Is this the same box anymore? It will have
the same
> name. I intend on keeping the original planter's trailname in the
clues,
> saying that we have adopted it.
>
> But have we? It's a new stamp, I have no idea what the original
even looked
> like. It's a new final hiding place. How should I handle this?
Should the
> clues be just deleted and I add this as a new plant with no mention
of the
> old box or placer? If so I would have to reword all of the clues,
I think,
> so that none of if it would be the original planter's words.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> RIFamily
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date:
5/11/2007
> 7:34 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
RE: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Hikers and Hounds (hikers_n_hounds@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 07:58:53 UTC-07:00
Yeah, I caught that too.
Pete Mandeville wrote: On, On?
I think you're getting your "sports" mixed up there hasher! :)
Fishman
From: "phantom_phiddler"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:27:08 -0000
Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum regardless of
whether
A letterbox is an ephermal, fleeting piece of art created with the
intent to impart a certain experience. That experience changes every
time someone comes to visit. Part of that experience is that you
never quite know what you will find. (or if you will find it)
Sometimes you will see some new flora & fauna or some fascinating
wildlife along the way. Different seasons make the same box new.
New signatures, comments or a HH get a new reaction. Sometime a
letterbox has been ill-treated and will need a little TLC. That can
be part of the experience too. A letterbox is created with intention
from the artist and we can never fully know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a
little while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of
it, then the creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
If a box has touched you so deeply that you feel it must be
perpetuated, I would much rather that someone place a new box of
their own creation, with a new logbook and new clues. If it is in
the same area, so be it. Some places are meant to be seen. But to
take any part of someone else's letterbox and call it yours is
stealing. To change it in any way without permission, by moving it,
reworking the clues, or changing the stamp or logbook is an
infringement of the creator's ideas. That is why we have copyright
laws.
On on,
Laurette
phantom phiddler
> LB.org transferred to me. I had intended on either placing the box
in the
> same exact location, or very very close, keeping all the clues
intact. But
> after going back to the location we determined that the spot was
really not
> hidden well enough and there was nothing very nearby to move it to.
>
> So our new location is actually in a different spot on the same
property. I
> have kept a lot of the original verbiage but the clues are changed
enough
> that is now about 50% original and 50% new.
>
> So now my question. Is this the same box anymore? It will have
the same
> name. I intend on keeping the original planter's trailname in the
clues,
> saying that we have adopted it.
>
> But have we? It's a new stamp, I have no idea what the original
even looked
> like. It's a new final hiding place. How should I handle this?
Should the
> clues be just deleted and I add this as a new plant with no mention
of the
> old box or placer? If so I would have to reword all of the clues,
I think,
> so that none of if it would be the original planter's words.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> RIFamily
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date:
5/11/2007
> 7:34 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pete Mandeville
I think you're getting your "sports" mixed up there hasher! :)
Fishman
From: "phantom_phiddler"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:27:08 -0000
Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum regardless of
whether
A letterbox is an ephermal, fleeting piece of art created with the
intent to impart a certain experience. That experience changes every
time someone comes to visit. Part of that experience is that you
never quite know what you will find. (or if you will find it)
Sometimes you will see some new flora & fauna or some fascinating
wildlife along the way. Different seasons make the same box new.
New signatures, comments or a HH get a new reaction. Sometime a
letterbox has been ill-treated and will need a little TLC. That can
be part of the experience too. A letterbox is created with intention
from the artist and we can never fully know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a
little while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of
it, then the creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
If a box has touched you so deeply that you feel it must be
perpetuated, I would much rather that someone place a new box of
their own creation, with a new logbook and new clues. If it is in
the same area, so be it. Some places are meant to be seen. But to
take any part of someone else's letterbox and call it yours is
stealing. To change it in any way without permission, by moving it,
reworking the clues, or changing the stamp or logbook is an
infringement of the creator's ideas. That is why we have copyright
laws.
On on,
Laurette
phantom phiddler
> LB.org transferred to me. I had intended on either placing the box
in the
> same exact location, or very very close, keeping all the clues
intact. But
> after going back to the location we determined that the spot was
really not
> hidden well enough and there was nothing very nearby to move it to.
>
> So our new location is actually in a different spot on the same
property. I
> have kept a lot of the original verbiage but the clues are changed
enough
> that is now about 50% original and 50% new.
>
> So now my question. Is this the same box anymore? It will have
the same
> name. I intend on keeping the original planter's trailname in the
clues,
> saying that we have adopted it.
>
> But have we? It's a new stamp, I have no idea what the original
even looked
> like. It's a new final hiding place. How should I handle this?
Should the
> clues be just deleted and I add this as a new plant with no mention
of the
> old box or placer? If so I would have to reword all of the clues,
I think,
> so that none of if it would be the original planter's words.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> RIFamily
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date:
5/11/2007
> 7:34 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Re: Adopting or stealing?
From: R (ontario_cacher@yahoo.ca) |
Date: 2007-05-16 11:10:03 UTC-04:00
Archiving an abandoned box
I'm starting to warm up to the idea of archiving abandoned boxes, rather than adopting them out.
* archiving a box allows the owner to maintain all claims to their clues
* archiving a box opens up the spot to other letterbox hiders.
* should the owner return to the hobby they can easily re-activate the archived box(es)
Adopting a box
Perhaps adoption could be left to the owner of the box i.e. they transfer ownership to someone rather than the webmasters doing it.
Deleting an abandoned box
Some of the problems with deleting a box from the database:
* there no longer is a historical record of the box
* people who like to keep a record of their finds lose that find from their online count (but, I've been told, LBNA logging feature was never meant to be an online record of finds, so this point is moot)
* the box may be abandoned by the owner, but it may not be missing. Deleting or archiving the abandoned box could result in the box becoming litter. Hopefully the letterboxing community does not shrug off the potential litter issue. Consider how land managers would feel if we told them...if a hider loses interest in the game their letterbox will be removed from the database but the actual box may never be retrieved and could end up abandoned on the property.
* if a box is deleted can the owner get the LBNA clue back i.e. would the webmasters be able to retrieve a deleted file?
Lone R
gramatrick wrote:
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "phantom_phiddler"
wrote:
>
> Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
> always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
> pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
> mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum
I don't disagree about an owner's ownership of the box. However, I'd
like to have a polite discussion of how to handle planter's rights and
where and if they stop at some point.
In Texas recently, we had a case of a newbie who decided that she
didn't like the park where a couple of long-time letterboxes had been
placed (she believed it dangerous). She persuaded the webmasters to
archive the boxes, claiming they were damaged, and then went a step
further and pulled the boxes. I think most of us can aqree this is not
what we want.
On the other hand, in my hometown, we have a boxer who planted 80 boxes
and then abandoned the hobby 18 months ago. She doesn't respond to
emails, doesn't maintain her boxes and never updates the clues. At
this point her boxes are just litterboxes, which I find more than a
little troubling too.
On AQ, as her boxes go missing, I temporarily adopt them, change the
status, and then reassign them to her. I don't feel comfortable
adopting them permanently, but I do want to try and keep the status as
current as possible.
Where should we draw that line about old, seemingly abandoned boxes? I
know this is an old topic, but this may be a good time to rehash at
least part of it.
dewberry
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm starting to warm up to the idea of archiving abandoned boxes, rather than adopting them out.
* archiving a box allows the owner to maintain all claims to their clues
* archiving a box opens up the spot to other letterbox hiders.
* should the owner return to the hobby they can easily re-activate the archived box(es)
Adopting a box
Perhaps adoption could be left to the owner of the box i.e. they transfer ownership to someone rather than the webmasters doing it.
Deleting an abandoned box
Some of the problems with deleting a box from the database:
* there no longer is a historical record of the box
* people who like to keep a record of their finds lose that find from their online count (but, I've been told, LBNA logging feature was never meant to be an online record of finds, so this point is moot)
* the box may be abandoned by the owner, but it may not be missing. Deleting or archiving the abandoned box could result in the box becoming litter. Hopefully the letterboxing community does not shrug off the potential litter issue. Consider how land managers would feel if we told them...if a hider loses interest in the game their letterbox will be removed from the database but the actual box may never be retrieved and could end up abandoned on the property.
* if a box is deleted can the owner get the LBNA clue back i.e. would the webmasters be able to retrieve a deleted file?
Lone R
gramatrick
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "phantom_phiddler"
wrote:
>
> Adopting boxes without the explicit permission of the creator has
> always been a hot issue with me. Kim, Martian Maggot, is one of our
> pioneering boxers. Unfortunately she is not the only one hurt by the
> mentality that a box must be perpetuated ad nauseum
I don't disagree about an owner's ownership of the box. However, I'd
like to have a polite discussion of how to handle planter's rights and
where and if they stop at some point.
In Texas recently, we had a case of a newbie who decided that she
didn't like the park where a couple of long-time letterboxes had been
placed (she believed it dangerous). She persuaded the webmasters to
archive the boxes, claiming they were damaged, and then went a step
further and pulled the boxes. I think most of us can aqree this is not
what we want.
On the other hand, in my hometown, we have a boxer who planted 80 boxes
and then abandoned the hobby 18 months ago. She doesn't respond to
emails, doesn't maintain her boxes and never updates the clues. At
this point her boxes are just litterboxes, which I find more than a
little troubling too.
On AQ, as her boxes go missing, I temporarily adopt them, change the
status, and then reassign them to her. I don't feel comfortable
adopting them permanently, but I do want to try and keep the status as
current as possible.
Where should we draw that line about old, seemingly abandoned boxes? I
know this is an old topic, but this may be a good time to rehash at
least part of it.
dewberry
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Barefoot Lucy (barefootlucy@gmail.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 12:22:56 UTC-05:00
On 5/16/07, phantom_phiddler wrote:
A letterbox is created with intention from the artist and we can never fully
know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a little
while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of it, then the
creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
******Let me first say that because I haven't had the pleasure of finding
one of Kim's boxes and I don't know all sides of that particular situation,
I am not applying my comments to Kim's situation specifically. I believe
the merits of that situation are best dealt with by the parties involved,
and not by all the onlookers who aren't privvy to all that has been said or
done.
Okay. I could buy into the whole intent thing, except that I don't by any
means believe that every letterbox is created with intention. I can believe
that the good ones are. It would be nice if they all were. But they
aren't. There are far too many boxes that are mediocre or worse stamps with
pocket spiral notebooks for logbooks, shoved into cheap containers, and all
but tossed out on the side of the road, with clues written from memory after
the fact. What was THEIR intent? There are even some nice decent boxes
that were done in earnest by reasonably talented letterboxers that were
caught up in the moment of their discovery of a new location or whatever,
who didn't develop a vision for that box - they just knew they wanted to
plant a box somewhere so that someone else could enjoy the same moment they
had. What was THEIR intent?
But even considering only the cream of the crop boxes, what is the intent of
someone who has thoughtfully created a box "with intent" and then left it to
exist on its own when they are no longer able to care for it for whatever
reason? Hasn't their intent already been lost? Or did they intend that the
box become trash? Would they prefer it become trash as opposed to being
adopted by someone else who may be able to recreate some sort of vision for
the box? I think that if someone has applied that much thought and
consideration to placing a box, they need to also see it through to the end
and if they reach a point of not being able to care for their box, they need
to bring it to a dignified end and pick it up if they don't want to see
someone else assume responsibility for it rather than let it become litter.
This is NOT a commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
of intent). I just have to wonder, if the artist has abandoned the box,
what does their intent matter really?
> --
> Barefoot Lucy
> "It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A letterbox is created with intention from the artist and we can never fully
know what was intended. We
can only surmise. Perhaps the intention was that it will only last a little
while. So if you adopt a letterbox and you change any part of it, then the
creators intentions are lost to your intentions.
******Let me first say that because I haven't had the pleasure of finding
one of Kim's boxes and I don't know all sides of that particular situation,
I am not applying my comments to Kim's situation specifically. I believe
the merits of that situation are best dealt with by the parties involved,
and not by all the onlookers who aren't privvy to all that has been said or
done.
Okay. I could buy into the whole intent thing, except that I don't by any
means believe that every letterbox is created with intention. I can believe
that the good ones are. It would be nice if they all were. But they
aren't. There are far too many boxes that are mediocre or worse stamps with
pocket spiral notebooks for logbooks, shoved into cheap containers, and all
but tossed out on the side of the road, with clues written from memory after
the fact. What was THEIR intent? There are even some nice decent boxes
that were done in earnest by reasonably talented letterboxers that were
caught up in the moment of their discovery of a new location or whatever,
who didn't develop a vision for that box - they just knew they wanted to
plant a box somewhere so that someone else could enjoy the same moment they
had. What was THEIR intent?
But even considering only the cream of the crop boxes, what is the intent of
someone who has thoughtfully created a box "with intent" and then left it to
exist on its own when they are no longer able to care for it for whatever
reason? Hasn't their intent already been lost? Or did they intend that the
box become trash? Would they prefer it become trash as opposed to being
adopted by someone else who may be able to recreate some sort of vision for
the box? I think that if someone has applied that much thought and
consideration to placing a box, they need to also see it through to the end
and if they reach a point of not being able to care for their box, they need
to bring it to a dignified end and pick it up if they don't want to see
someone else assume responsibility for it rather than let it become litter.
This is NOT a commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
of intent). I just have to wonder, if the artist has abandoned the box,
what does their intent matter really?
> --
> Barefoot Lucy
> "It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Hikers and Hounds (hikers_n_hounds@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 13:17:51 UTC-07:00
I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
Barefoot Lucy wrote: This is NOT a commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
of intent).
Recent Activity
27
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
What's your issue?
Film it. Change the world.
Health Zone
Look your best!
Groups to help you
look & feel great.
Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more.
Y! GeoCities
Share Your Passion
Join the web's lar- gest community.
.
---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Barefoot Lucy
of intent).
Recent Activity
27
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
What's your issue?
Film it. Change the world.
Health Zone
Look your best!
Groups to help you
look & feel great.
Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more.
Y! GeoCities
Share Your Passion
Join the web's lar- gest community.
.
---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: gwendontoo (foxsecurity@earthlink.net) |
Date: 2007-05-16 21:36:16 UTC
Yes, but I would rather sleep out than intent.
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Hikers and Hounds
wrote:
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> Barefoot Lucy wrote: This is NOT a
commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
> of intent).
>
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Hikers and Hounds
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> Barefoot Lucy
commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
> of intent).
>
Re: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Hikers and Hounds (hikers_n_hounds@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 14:50:17 UTC-07:00
Ouch.
gwendontoo wrote: Yes, but I would rather sleep out than intent.
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Hikers and Hounds
wrote:
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> Barefoot Lucy wrote: This is NOT a
commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
> of intent).
>
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
gwendontoo
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Hikers and Hounds
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> Barefoot Lucy
commentary against the whole idea of "intent" (I like the idea
> of intent).
>
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Adopting or stealing?
From: Barefoot Lucy (barefootlucy@gmail.com) |
Date: 2007-05-16 19:04:00 UTC-05:00
Well I hadn't really given it much thought, but I would have to agree,
especially if there is criminal intent.
On 5/16/07, gwendontoo wrote:
Yes, but I would rather sleep out than intent.
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com,
Hikers and Hounds
wrote:
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> --
> Barefoot Lucy
> "It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
especially if there is criminal intent.
On 5/16/07, gwendontoo
Yes, but I would rather sleep out than intent.
Don
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Hikers and Hounds
>
> I like Criminal Intent, it's my favorite of all of the Law and Order
shows. Vincent D'Onofrio and Chris Noth...yum!
>
> --
> Barefoot Lucy
> "It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]