> I suppose I could have just put the 1st
> stamp in a baggie, rather than a box, if that would help
> prove the point better.

If you REALLY want to prove the point that they aren't letterboxes,
just don't include the stamps! I felt if you really didn't want it
to count as a box, you'd simply write the clue on a piece of paper
and leave it in the box instead. Then it would be absolutely
impossible to exchange stamp images.

Look at it this way: What if you DID include a notebook, but some
twerp came by and ripped it off? Does that mean anyone that comes
later would not be able to count the box as a found even though they
were able to exchange stamp images anyhow? I think it should be
counted as a find, and those first two boxes really aren't much
different than the last one except for the missing logbooks.

The FAQ on the letterboxing website states: "a letterbox can only
count as Found when the letterboxer obtains a stamp image from any
stamp associated with that box, and their personal stamp image has
been imprinted (or attempted) in the logbook or other part of the
box." I've gotten a stamp image associated with the box, and I did
imprint my own signature stamp for the boxes.

Anyhow, you can officially count it as one box, but to me they look
like letterboxes, they act like letterboxes, and they feel like
letterboxes. I've exchanged stamp images, and so I'm counting it as
three finds in my book. If they aren't supposed to count as
letterboxes, don't leave stamps in them. You can still leave a clue
behind written on a piece of paper, and that leaves no question about
whether to count the box as a find or not. (Not, in that case.)

> The second stamp stands on its own
> and in no way could that ever be considered a box.

Sure it can be considered a box! Just a very creative one that
happens to have a logbook missing. =) You haven't seen the latest
model of "ultra-small" letterboxes coming out? I've considered
making full-fledged boxes out of that same stuff in places where it
would be difficult to hide the larger, more normal-sized boxes.
You'd have to hand-make a logbook to fit in it, but it can be done.
No sweat! =)

> In the long run, none of this really matters because letterboxing
> is only a "game", with no true importance on the matters of
> life.

That may be true, but a debate for the sake of debate's sake could be
a lot of fun in its own right. I've been known to argue that the
world is flat. Not that I really believe it, but it was a heck of a
lot of fun. =) In the LONG run, our pitiful lives have very little
significance on this little rock we live on--just ask the aliens
living in the next galaxy--but I still have fun letterboxing (and
debating!), even if it doesn't have any real significance.

> Lets put this whole discussion to rest so the other seekers
> can have fun too in their search for this box.

This discussion shouldn't alter whether somebody has fun searching
for the box or not. Half the fun of this box (I thought) was
debating whether to count the two "clues" as boxes! And the stamp at
the end of the hunt is absolutely gorgeous. Plus the hiding spot for
clue/box #2. Very ingenious. So not to worry, I'm sure anyone else
who comes looking for the box will have plenty of fun, regardless of
this discussion. In fact, it might even bring out MORE people who
want to see the boxes in question. =)

-- Ryan

Further discussion of this point, or any for that matter
just for arguements sake, is both immature and foolish.

It is no one's place to dictate to others "how to" or "how
not to" orchestrate their method of sharing clues, what
to include in the box, carving stamps with or without location
names, and so forth.




> If you REALLY want to prove the point that they aren't letterboxes,
> just don't include the stamps! I felt if you really didn't want it
> to count as a box, you'd simply write the clue on a piece of paper
> and leave it in the box instead. Then it would be absolutely
> impossible to exchange stamp images.
>

> Further discussion of this point, or any for that matter
> just for arguements sake, is both immature and foolish.

I'm not sure why you seem so upset by this whole thread. It wasn't
my intention to create ill-well towards anyone, and I had a great
time arguing with Amanda about whether those two "clue" boxes should
count as finds or not.

You can point at ANY hobby and claim it's foolish or immature. There
will be others who point at you or me and say how foolish and
immature we both are for chasing around the countryside for silly
little stamps. Do you care what they think? It's not really fair to
judge another's idea of fun based on our own perspective, though. I
don't "get" gardening or needlepoint fanatics (or even Nancy Drew
fanatics for that matter--did you know there was a Nancy Drew
CONVENTION in San Fancsico recently?!), but I don't call those people
immature or foolish.

Arguing--just for argument's sake--can be fun and interesting.
Trying to argue the world is flat is a mental challenge. How do you
disprove the common "proofs" that the world is flat? The textbook
example shows ships sailing in from the horizon, and the top of the
ship is visible first, thus, the world must be round? What kind of
logic is that? There COULD be other explainations for it, and the
mental challenge in thinking them up is lots of fun! At least for
me. I know not everyone shares that feeling, but it doesn't
automatically make the "hobby" foolish or immature.

> It is no one's place to dictate to others "how to" or "how
> not to" orchestrate their method of sharing clues, what
> to include in the box, carving stamps with or without location
> names, and so forth.

Nobody is doing that. I think you're alluding to my Ace of Fun
comment as well as your own box, so I'll address both of them
separately.

You can hide whatever boxes you want, however you want. I'm not
suggesting you change your boxes in any way, shape, or form.
However, whether you like it or not, the latest box you placed has
created a controversy about how to count it/them.

I suggested that putting in a piece of paper with the clue written on
it instead of a stamp would put the contraversy to rest. If the
contraversy REALLY bothers you, YOU have the power to do something
about it. Make it more clear the two clues aren't really letterboxes
by ditching the stamps.

I am NOT suggesting you do that, since it matters little to me.
However, unless you change the boxes, the contraversy will never
die. That's just a fact. Plain and simple. Some people (like
myself) will count anything with a stamp in a box as a letterbox--
whether a logbook is found or not. Others won't. There aren't any
hard and fast rules in this case, and if YOU want to end the
controversy, you WILL have to change the box by either removing the
stamp or adding a logbook. I'm not trying to sway your decision in
any way, that's just a statement of fact.

Now about the Ace of Fun box. You were alluding to a comment I made
about the box when you wrote no one should dictate "carving stamps
with or without location names."

First, constructive critisism never hurt anyone. I've gotten it on
boxes I've hidden, and I'll probably get more in the future. I
expect it, I like it, I consider the critisism, and whether I should
change any hiding habits in the future.

Second, it is my opinion that a MYSTERY box should not have a stamp
that gives away its location. I like showing off the stamps I've
collected to friends and fellow letterboxes, and if they see the
image it'll spoil the "hunt" for the mystery box if they haven't
found it yet.

Knowing Funhog like I do, I don't think that was her intention. It's
the type of mistake *I* would have made while hiding a mystery box.
At least until last month when such an event transpired with a
different mystery box. It's also the type of mistake I think others
would inadvertantly make as well.

If the hider of a mystery box doesn't care people don't have to
figure out the clue to find the box, that's OKAY! Go ahead and print
the location of the box on the stamp. But if that was the case, they
probably wouldn't have made it a mystery box in the first place.
Kind of spoils it, don't you think?

Whether anyone wants to put the location of their mystery box on the
stamp is their own perogative, but it should be a conscious decision,
not an inadvertant mistake which is what I think this is a case of.
And if someone really wants lettering on their stamp without giving
away the location of the box, there's always the name of the stamp
that can be used.

The warning about not putting the location of a mystery box on the
stamp is to warn others about this "loophole" in finding the location
of the box, and remind others who already knew about it. If they
still choose to include it, I have nothing to say about it, nor will
I feel any guilt if someone accidently discovers the location by
looking through my logbook like has happened once before.

But I wanted to make sure the location on the stamp was a conscious
decision, not an inadvertent mistake. I'm not trying to dictate
anything.

-- Ryan