Obtaining Permission for Placement on a Commercial Property

[+sbell111]

... Little by little, unpermissioned CPC hide by unpermissioned CPC hide the possibility of the general public viewing geocaching this way becomes more and more real.

Huh?

 

That statement is pretty self explanatory. Should you have comment that is void of angst and constructive to this conversation, I'll be happy respond to you. Otherwise, you will remain on ignore.

Perhaps, if you put the 'statement' in the form of a sentence, the rest of us could understand it.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Little by little, unpermissioned CPC hide by unpermissioned CPC hide the possibility of the general public viewing geocaching this way becomes more and more real.

Huh?

 

That statement is pretty self explanatory. Should you have comment that is void of angst and constructive to this conversation, I'll be happy respond to you. Otherwise, you will remain on ignore.

Perhaps, if you put the 'statement' in the form of a sentence, the rest of us could understand it.

 

Okay.. I hope I was able to clear up what I saying for you.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Something to the effect of:

3 Ignore the wishes of commercial property owners

Since most state laws do not specifically prohibit geocaching on commercial properties, treat the owner's of these properties as non entities.

Commercial properties exist to serve us. There is no need to ask anyone for permission when hiding a CPC

 

That's probably a bit much.

 

To address the Walmart bomb scare thing by TGB. You are more likely to see a bomb scare from someones forgotten sack of stuff than a cache at a wally world. Or something left behind by an RV that they do allow. Reality is that anything can be reported, and often is.

 

Come to think of it. If the RV's follow Wall Mart Waymarks would they be engaging in an organized event and would Wall Mart need to re-evaluate their corporate RV permission status?

Edited April 9, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+tozainamboku]

First, I want to thank Team GeoBlast for splitting off this topic from my potential problem caches thread. When one goes to ask permission for placing a cache in big box retailer's parking lot it opens up a whole lot of new questions, including people questioning what your motivation is in asking permission. My thread addressed the issue of what are the potential problems of placing a cache without permission and what kind of permission is adequate. There is not even agreement on what the potential problems are so I'm not sure we could agree on what is adequate.

 

Team GeoBlast suggest a potential problem of a cache place without permission:

Geocaching is only one WalMart bomb scare away from the same bad PR that other incidents like it have generated, except on a larger more national stage.

I guess the scenario would play out this way: Someone sees a geocacher replacing a 35mm container under a lamppost skirt in a Wal*Mart parking lot. Store security is called and they decide that to be safe they should call the bomb squad. The bomb squad comes out and decides that the store should be evacuated and shut down while they dispose of the "bomb". Wal*Mart is understandably upset at the lost business while the store was closed and decides that someone should pay for the losses. Geocaching.com has deeper pockets than the hider of the cache, so they sue Geocaching.com. Wal*Marts lawyers discover that there are hundreds of geocaches hidden in Wal*Mart parking lots and at other retailer as well without permission. Wal*Mart's crack public relations team immediately issues a press release about the dangerous and irresponsible geocachers who have no regard for private property rights. Wal*Mart lobbyists propose legislation in every state to ban geocaching. Geocaching is severly curtailed and Jeremy can't afford the new servers to upgrade the site.

 

This is a "Chicken Little" scenario. Perhaps it could turn out this way. More likely is that Wal*Mart security will remove the cache without th bomb squad being called. If the bomb squad is called, they will probably figure its a geocache. They won't evacuate the store, but they may cordone off a section of the parking lot and use a robot to check under the lamppost skirt. Wal*Mart may be angry at the disturbance this caused. They will have their lawyers send a letter to Geocaching.com demanding that all geocaches on Wal*Mart property be archived and possibly removed. Geocaching.com would comply. The publicity will either make Wal*Mart look foolish (which they are used to) or will make Geocaching look foolish - whose idea of fun is looking for a 35mm film can in a parking lot? Geocaching.com might update the guidelines for placing a cache to say that if a reviewer sees that a cache is placed in a parking lot, the name and phone number of the person giving persmission must be given in a reviewer note. Geocaching will continue as we know it with very little change.

[+Team GeoBlast]

First, I want to thank Team GeoBlast for splitting off this topic from my potential problem caches thread. When one goes to ask permission for placing a cache in big box retailer's parking lot it opens up a whole lot of new questions, including people questioning what your motivation is in asking permission. My thread addressed the issue of what are the potential problems of placing a cache without permission and what kind of permission is adequate. There is not even agreement on what the potential problems are so I'm not sure we could agree on what is adequate.

 

Team GeoBlast suggest a potential problem of a cache place without permission:

Geocaching is only one WalMart bomb scare away from the same bad PR that other incidents like it have generated, except on a larger more national stage.

I guess the scenario would play out this way: Someone sees a geocacher replacing a 35mm container under a lamppost skirt in a Wal*Mart parking lot. Store security is called and they decide that to be safe they should call the bomb squad. The bomb squad comes out and decides that the store should be evacuated and shut down while they dispose of the "bomb". Wal*Mart is understandably upset at the lost business while the store was closed and decides that someone should pay for the losses. Geocaching.com has deeper pockets than the hider of the cache, so they sue Geocaching.com. Wal*Marts lawyers discover that there are hundreds of geocaches hidden in Wal*Mart parking lots and at other retailer as well without permission. Wal*Mart's crack public relations team immediately issues a press release about the dangerous and irresponsible geocachers who have no regard for private property rights. Wal*Mart lobbyists propose legislation in every state to ban geocaching. Geocaching is severly curtailed and Jeremy can't afford the new servers to upgrade the site.

 

This is a "Chicken Little" scenario. Perhaps it could turn out this way. More likely is that Wal*Mart security will remove the cache without th bomb squad being called. If the bomb squad is called, they will probably figure its a geocache. They won't evacuate the store, but they may cordone off a section of the parking lot and use a robot to check under the lamppost skirt. Wal*Mart may be angry at the disturbance this caused. They will have their lawyers send a letter to Geocaching.com demanding that all geocaches on Wal*Mart property be archived and possibly removed. Geocaching.com would comply. The publicity will either make Wal*Mart look foolish (which they are used to) or will make Geocaching look foolish - whose idea of fun is looking for a 35mm film can in a parking lot? Geocaching.com might update the guidelines for placing a cache to say that if a reviewer sees that a cache is placed in a parking lot, the name and phone number of the person giving persmission must be given in a reviewer note. Geocaching will continue as we know it with very little change.

 

You are welcome and you are right, it's not the same issue. If nothing else I think it is fascinating to see the wide range of opinions generated by those few sentences in the GC.com guidelines.

 

Although I sincerely hope you are correct in your scenario, I think the reality probably will fall somewhere in the middle of yours and the CL scenario. But given that this kind of incident is not at all unusual in today's terrorist paranoid environment and much more likely to happen today than it was say a year ago, don't you think it is prudent to avoid either scenario?

Edited April 10, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Something to the effect of:

3 Ignore the wishes of commercial property owners

Since most state laws do not specifically prohibit geocaching on commercial properties, treat the owner's of these properties as non entities.

Commercial properties exist to serve us. There is no need to ask anyone for permission when hiding a CPC

 

That's probably a bit much.

 

To address the Walmart bomb scare thing by TGB. You are more likely to see a bomb scare from someones forgotten sack of stuff than a cache at a wally world. Or something left behind by an RV that they do allow. Reality is that anything can be reported, and often is.

 

Come to think of it. If the RV's follow Wall Mart Waymarks would they be engaging in an organized event and would Wall Mart need to re-evaluate their corporate RV permission status?

 

I don't think there's too many geocachers that are irresponsible enough to actually abide a creed like that. If someone actually believed that commercial property exists to serve them, they'd probably have some serious problems unrelated to geocaching.

 

I'll expand the bomb scare example to include -any- incident caused by a geocache put on their property without explicit permission that was serious enough to get the attention of the corporate types at WalMart. You'd have to be part ostrich to say that it won't happen.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I'll expand the bomb scare example to include -any- incident caused by a geocache put on their property without explicit permission that was serious enough to get the attention of the corporate types at WalMart. You'd have to be part ostrich to say that it won't happen.

 

I'll bet it's already happend with something other than a cache. Do you recall any of those hitting the news or making a media splash? I don't.

 

A quick google though of walmart and bomb gives 1.2 million hits. All that and I've not heard of one of them.

 

You are talking the ethics of permission. I freely admit that I did not ask for written permission for my former wal mart hide. Yet I would not have placed the cache that you asked to place becuse of the potential for problems even with fulll, written and certified permission from every employee of every wall mart in the country.

 

I am still amazed at how some people really have no idea how much permission is assumed (and rightfully so) in the world we live in. It's how we get on with life. Did you ever tackle the assumed permission in the homeowner example I in one of my posts?

[+Renegade Knight]

Just for kicks I'm starting to take a camera with me to document assumed permission. One of these days I'll post a photo essay on it.

[Clan Riffster]

Wal*Mart security will remove the cache without th bomb squad being called. If the bomb squad is called, they will probably figure its a geocache. They won't evacuate the store, but they may cordone off a section of the parking lot and use a robot to check under the lamppost skirt. Wal*Mart may be angry at the disturbance this caused. They will have their lawyers send a letter to Geocaching.com demanding that all geocaches on Wal*Mart property be archived and possibly removed. Geocaching.com would comply.

Toz, this scenario is what I would consider to be fairly plausable. I would like to avoid this, which is why I preach the need for explicit permission.

[+Team GeoBlast]

...I'll expand the bomb scare example to include -any- incident caused by a geocache put on their property without explicit permission that was serious enough to get the attention of the corporate types at WalMart. You'd have to be part ostrich to say that it won't happen.

 

I'll bet it's already happend with something other than a cache. Do you recall any of those hitting the news or making a media splash? I don't.

 

A quick google though of walmart and bomb gives 1.2 million hits. All that and I've not heard of one of them.

 

You are talking the ethics of permission. I freely admit that I did not ask for written permission for my former wal mart hide. Yet I would not have placed the cache that you asked to place becuse of the potential for problems even with fulll, written and certified permission from every employee of every wall mart in the country.

 

I am still amazed at how some people really have no idea how much permission is assumed (and rightfully so) in the world we live in. It's how we get on with life. Did you ever tackle the assumed permission in the homeowner example I in one of my posts?

 

The more I talk about this, the more I sound like I am predicting doom and gloom. It's really not like that but here I go again.

 

I don't think something has happened serious or news worthy enough for WalMart to address geocaching on an interplanetary level and have cause to have a chat with the owners of GC.com. That is why you haven't heard of it. But times are changing now and things like this that would have never been news in the past are making their way to CNN.

 

On the side.. does anyone else find it a little bizarre to be discussing topics like this over and over again in a Ground Speak forum? Wouldn't it take just one visit from Jeremy to put a ton of this speculation to rest?

Edited April 10, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

...I'll expand the bomb scare example to include -any- incident caused by a geocache put on their property without explicit permission that was serious enough to get the attention of the corporate types at WalMart. You'd have to be part ostrich to say that it won't happen.

 

I'll bet it's already happend with something other than a cache. Do you recall any of those hitting the news or making a media splash? I don't.

 

A quick google though of walmart and bomb gives 1.2 million hits. All that and I've not heard of one of them.

 

You are talking the ethics of permission. I freely admit that I did not ask for written permission for my former wal mart hide. Yet I would not have placed the cache that you asked to place because of the potential for problems even with fulll, written and certified permission from every employee of every wall mart in the country.

 

I am still amazed at how some people really have no idea how much permission is assumed (and rightfully so) in the world we live in. It's how we get on with life. Did you ever tackle the assumed permission in the homeowner example I in one of my posts?

 

Some else said this earlier but I don't think Geocaching falls into the same category as a lot of the assumed permission examples you have given. It's something physical you leave somewhere that will cause others to come look for it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Some else said this earlier but I don't think Geocaching falls into the same category as a lot of the assumed permission examples you have given. It's something physical you leave somewhere that will cause others to come look for it.

 

Does geocaching fall outside of a normal activity that normal and reasonable people would participate in on lands of public accomodation?

 

Where the answer is "Yes" a higher level of permission is probably warranted. Where it's "no" I really don't think you need to do all that much.

 

It ends up going back to the frisbee rule.

 

This weekend while out caching I didn't have my camera for a bunch of great presumed permission shots.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Some else said this earlier but I don't think Geocaching falls into the same category as a lot of the assumed permission examples you have given. It's something physical you leave somewhere that will cause others to come look for it.

 

Does geocaching fall outside of a normal activity that normal and reasonable people would participate in on lands of public accomodation?

 

Where the answer is "Yes" a higher level of permission is probably warranted. Where it's "no" I really don't think you need to do all that much.

 

It ends up going back to the frisbee rule.

 

This weekend while out caching I didn't have my camera for a bunch of great presumed permission shots.

 

I am all for the frisbee rule. Because I have an average amount of common sense, it is a good guide for me. It's mostly because I really don't like slinking over and apologizing to the nice old lady that just got conked on the head after I tried a fancy toss.

 

The problem is that a lot of folks feel free playing frisbee just about any place and the old ladies are never totally safe.

[+sbell111]

There is no such thing as 'totally safe'. Old ladies beware.

[crawil]

Does geocaching fall outside of a normal activity that normal and reasonable people would participate in . . .

 

You bet! We're all a bit wacko for participating in this sport/hobby/RASH/obsession!

[+The Rascals]

I guess what I have not understood in all of this is why is a Wall Mart cache such a deal? It is in a parking lot of a big box store. Is there something special about this place that needs to be shared with other people? What I enjoy about caching and what was one of the big points was getting into places that I would not usually go or see. Why any place like this? Is it just to place a cache or to log a find? To me there is no spirit of caching here. Or maybe I have just missed it all together and should move my caches to the parking lots.

[Pokagon Nature Center]

I guess what I have not understood in all of this is why is a Wall Mart cache such a deal? It is in a parking lot of a big box store. Is there something special about this place that needs to be shared with other people? What I enjoy about caching and what was one of the big points was getting into places that I would not usually go or see. Why any place like this? Is it just to place a cache or to log a find? To me there is no spirit of caching here. Or maybe I have just missed it all together and should move my caches to the parking lots.

 

You've reached enlightenment!

[+Renegade Knight]

... and the old ladies are never totally safe.

 

Thank god for old ladies.

I actually ran into this very problem while obtaining permission for a cache. They wanted to make sure their volunteers (who tend to be older) would feel safe when those "geocachers" came to call.

 

They did not want a gang of drug using, rabid, biker cachers to pull up in their mufferless HOGs, decked out in leather, chains, and hell for leather looks to come up and ask "excuse me mam, but can you hand me that geocache you have there behind the desk? It would be most appreciated."

 

Your use of the frisbee rule looks to be about the same as mine.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

I guess what I have not understood in all of this is why is a Wall Mart cache such a deal? It is in a parking lot of a big box store. Is there something special about this place that needs to be shared with other people? What I enjoy about caching and what was one of the big points was getting into places that I would not usually go or see. Why any place like this? Is it just to place a cache or to log a find? To me there is no spirit of caching here. Or maybe I have just missed it all together and should move my caches to the parking lots.

 

You have a good understaning of things. Wally world gets used as "The classic example of the parking lot hide" since there are so many of them. There is nothing special about a wal mart parking lot any more than any other parking lot.

[+sbell111]

I guess what I have not understood in all of this is why is a Wall Mart cache such a deal? It is in a parking lot of a big box store. Is there something special about this place that needs to be shared with other people? What I enjoy about caching and what was one of the big points was getting into places that I would not usually go or see. Why any place like this? Is it just to place a cache or to log a find? To me there is no spirit of caching here. Or maybe I have just missed it all together and should move my caches to the parking lots.

The simple answer is that your view of what geocaching should be is not the same as everyone's. Some people think that that best thing about the game is the ability to find a cache in a place that is passed within feet by thousands of muggles a day. The challenge to log the find without being spotted is very fun. This 'secret agent' experience is a great thing about the game.

[+Too Tall John]

Having worked for a Wal-Mart sized company where its properties are open to the public I knew this was going to be wasted time. Once my former employer found out there were Geocaches on their properties they removed all caches and banned them nationally and internationally.

 

Given all of the wonderful parks and wilderness areas where you live, you would not have found all of this time wasted. If you had created a unique Geocaching experience utlizing an a place that most people would not normally go to.

 

All you have done is verify what most of us know, that a national or mutli-national corporation is not going to allow an activity without an extensive review at the coporate level.

For the record, since this is a thread about permission on commercial property, what company did you work for?

[+Too Tall John]

A common mispercetpion about geocaching is that it's an organized actvity. An organized activity is running a student car wash to raise money for the band.

 

What you are doing here is confusing an organized activity with an organized event. Geocaching is an activity. It is organized. Thus, an organized activity. No matter the validity for the reason, as I've already said, Wal-Mart has an issue with organized activities on their property, even if that activity doesn't take place at a certain time with a large number of people (ie an event like a car wash).

 

TGB's talk with the manager went right along the lines dictated by Wal-Mart policy. Any manager who has given permission, whether explicitly or by ignoring the cache up the horse's behind, has overlooked such policies. I'd be interested to know if that mechanical horse cache is still in place. I've not heard back from the owner yet with more details, but my "favorite" Wal-Mart LPC was archived due to "Lack of Permission." Has Wal-Mart been taking action quietly already? If so, I hope it stays quiet, as my biggest concern is still about the press getting ahold of this and trying to make something of it.

[+Too Tall John]

If you own a home, there is a fair chance that you have appropriated public land for your own private use. I know for a fact that I have. Lets assume you have. Is that right? Should you not get permission to do so? What would happen if you tried? Who would you ask? How would you get it? Would it be valid? Should you even bother to ask? Actually lets explore this. Try and answer the questions.

 

Hmm... The only public lands that have surrounded my homes have been roads & sidewalks. You have permission to drive onto the road over the sidewalks, but there are laws that cover parking on the road (or sidewalk, for that matter) and some municipalities even regulate the parking of cars in your own yard, so some of my answers will be as vague as your questions. I'd have a better time answering these questions if I knew what I was "appropriating" the land for, but here it goes.

 

1. Is that right? If it doesn't hinder others using the land in any way, I suppose it may be ok, depending on what you were doing.

2. Should you not get permission to do so? Yes, you should ask to use things that don't belong to you. Thanks Robert Fulghum.

3. What would happen if you tried? I suppose it would depend on what I was doing.

4. Who would you ask? Depends on what type of public land we are talking about. Parks department, planning board, code enforcement officer, the police. I'd start at city hall/town office & see what the thought.

5. How would you get it? I would ask the appropriate person. The appropriate person is the person who has the authority to grant permission.

6. Would it be valid? If I asked the appropriate person and they said yes, the permission and my usage would be valid.

7. Should you even bother to ask? See question 2.

 

One thing I should point out is that regardless of how public lands are used, commercial property isn't public land, it is private property, with a very specific purpose. Some public lands have a much less specific purpose. While the local land manager might not have a problem with someone who borders the local town forest wanting to dump their lawn trimmings in an obscure spot, the local big box store would have a problem with someone making the same request. No, a geocache and lawn trimmings aren't really the same thing, but the views of the landowners/managers would remain the same.

[+Too Tall John]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

Edited April 12, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

Oh, I completely agree that it is relevant especially since that was his reason for denial. In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to. Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist.

 

It's human nature.

I used to have a copy of the manual in question. I had to turn it in when I left the company. The whole "Wal-Mart Spy" story? Well, Wal-Mart has successfully gotten a court order that he can't reveal Wal-Mart policies and that he needs to return all Wal-Mart materials. Wal-Mart doesn't want the general public to have access to the policies that it runs on, and in most cases, rightly so. Every single page in that book says something to the effect of "Confidential Material: For Internal Use Only!" I see no reason why the store manager should give a copy of the policy to anyone for any reason. Right or wrong, he could be fired for giving out copies of the stores policies. The policy exists. Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean that they are lying.

[+sbell111]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

It certainly is not a straw man. This entire thread is based on another thread where TGB clearly stated that he thought WalMart would shut down GC.com if they found aout about caches on their property. Many of us disagreed either because WalMart certainly already knows about caches on their property and because there are easier, quicker, and cheaper ways to remove caches from their properties. I'm of the belief that our positions don't change just because we are posting in a different thread.

[+sbell111]

Oh, I completely agree that it is relevant especially since that was his reason for denial. In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to. Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist.

 

It's human nature.

I used to have a copy of the manual in question. I had to turn it in when I left the company. The whole "Wal-Mart Spy" story? Well, Wal-Mart has successfully gotten a court order that he can't reveal Wal-Mart policies and that he needs to return all Wal-Mart materials. Wal-Mart doesn't want the general public to have access to the policies that it runs on, and in most cases, rightly so. Every single page in that book says something to the effect of "Confidential Material: For Internal Use Only!" I see no reason why the store manager should give a copy of the policy to anyone for any reason. Right or wrong, he could be fired for giving out copies of the stores policies. The policy exists. Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean that they are lying.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reread my post.

[+Too Tall John]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

It certainly is not a straw man. This entire thread is based on another thread where TGB clearly stated that he thought WalMart would shut down GC.com if they found aout about caches on their property. Many of us disagreed either because WalMart certainly already knows about caches on their property and because there are easier, quicker, and cheaper ways to remove caches from their properties. I'm of the belief that our positions don't change just because we are posting in a different thread.

If you had no hope of changing someone's mind about something, why do you even bother to come here? I'll tell you why I do. I come here in hopes to either change someone's mind or to have mine changed. I was one of the first people to say something to the effect that geocaching would come to an end because of CPCs. Because of many posts pointing out why this wouldn't happen, I have come to believe otherwise. To the best of my recollection, TGB also changed his opinion on the possibility of geocaching "grinding to a halt" long before this thread was started. To continue to exaggerate someone's viewpoints to a ridiculous end, even if they once believed it but no longer do, is the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

[Mushtang]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

Why don't you talk to Team GeoBlast about this argument then? He's the one that claimed someone asking permission might lead to the website being shut down.

 

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

[+Too Tall John]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reread my post.

Tell me what I'm missing. Here's the structure of my response: (Your original post, mine interjected in red)

 

...In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to.

I used to have a copy of the manual in question. I had to turn it in when I left the company. The whole "Wal-Mart Spy" story? Well, Wal-Mart has successfully gotten a court order that he can't reveal Wal-Mart policies and that he needs to return all Wal-Mart materials. Wal-Mart doesn't want the general public to have access to the policies that it runs on, and in most cases, rightly so. Every single page in that book says something to the effect of "Confidential Material: For Internal Use Only!" I see no reason why the store manager should give a copy of the policy to anyone for any reason. Right or wrong, he could be fired for giving out copies of the stores policies.

Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist. It's human nature.

The policy exists. Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean that they are lying.

The only sentence I didn't speak to was

Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later.

which is a moot point since the policy exists. Edited April 12, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

See my post above, but while we are at it...

TGB has a point that you are trying to devalue by bringing up a point that he made (but no longer stands by) at an earlier time. Trying to discredit him on a point that the actual point we are discussing will stand alone is attacking TGB, not the argument at hand, and is thus another fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person).

I still stand by the straw man fallacy, by the way.

[Mushtang]

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

See my post above, but while we are at it...

TGB has a point that you are trying to devalue by bringing up a point that he made (but no longer stands by) at an earlier time. Trying to discredit him on a point that the actual point we are discussing will stand alone is attacking TGB, not the argument at hand, and is thus another fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person).

I still stand by the straw man fallacy, by the way.

I guess your point would be valid to me if I'd read where he changed his mind or retracted his original statement, but maybe I missed it. Got a link?

 

So, I'm pointing out a statement by him that I see as over the top and suggesting that the prediction didn't come true. At best it can be said I'm attacking his statement (if pointing it out is attacking), but I don't see where I'm attacking him. No Ad Hominem.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What you are doing here is confusing an organized activity with an organized event. Geocaching is an activity. It is organized. Thus, an organized activity. No matter the validity for the reason, as I've already said, Wal-Mart has an issue with organized activities on their property, even if that activity doesn't take place at a certain time with a large number of people (ie an event like a car wash). ...

 

At this point we are hashing the meaning of words, and while both of us know what geocaching is we may not agree on the exact termology of how to describe it.

 

Regardless of how we think about geocaching being organized it's not a normal way of going about things. As such it's only reading the actual policy that would shed light. My bet is that geocaching falls outside Wal Marts normal defintions (or more likely Wal Mart doesn't really define organized event all that well to begin with). We can't make much progress on this front until we know the real policy.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Hmm... The only public lands that have surrounded my homes have been roads & sidewalks. ... I'd have a better time answering these questions if I knew what I was "appropriating" the land for, but here it goes.

 

1. Is that right? If it doesn't hinder others using the land in any way, I suppose it may be ok, depending on what you were doing.

2. Should you not get permission to do so? Yes, you should ask to use things that don't belong to you. Thanks Robert Fulghum.

3. What would happen if you tried? I suppose it would depend on what I was doing.

4. Who would you ask? Depends on what type of public land we are talking about. Parks department, planning board, code enforcement officer, the police. I'd start at city hall/town office & see what the thought.

5. How would you get it? I would ask the appropriate person. The appropriate person is the person who has the authority to grant permission.

6. Would it be valid? If I asked the appropriate person and they said yes, the permission and my usage would be valid.

7. Should you even bother to ask? See question 2....

 

The point I am making here isn't commercial vs. private lands. It's permission and that we very often don't ask and quite frankly don't need to ask.

 

In this example "Devil Strips". Devil Strips vary but I'm goign to just work off the ones where the sidewalk is right up to the curb. Between the sidewalk and your property is often a strip of land. In my area they are about 1' wide. Most people just plant their lawn on them. They are however public property. Nobody askes if the lawn is ok they just do it. The city, county, or road way agency that ownes them doesn't care. They know that people use it as their own property without asking. It's a known thing. There is no formal permission, no need to ask. It would actually take some work to find out who to ask if you can plant your lawn or pave your driveway over that strip. Some agencies evne have laws that require you to take care of and maintain that strip. It's not yours but now you are forced to take care of it like it is?

 

The real point is that sometimes on the issue of permission when someone says "you should ask" the right answer is "why?"

 

Next trick question.

Do you need to ask the power company to put a magentic cache on their transfomer box when that box is on your property? They own the box, you own the air space.

[+Renegade Knight]

.... Wal-Mart doesn't want the general public to have access to the policies that it runs on, and in most cases, rightly so. ...

 

This is SOP for most companies. Most policies are not trade secretes and not much different from everone elses policy on the same subject. Most companies especially the ones who have lawyers on staff though treat everthing as a trade secrete. Rightly so is another thing. Doesn't matter most of the time may be more accurate, but rightly so hits a wall at "where those policies impact the public" the public does have a right to know what the policies are. The catch 22 being that they don't need to know the ones that dont' matter but probably can't ever know the ones that do impact their rights, freedom, and safety that they should know about.

[+sbell111]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

It certainly is not a straw man. This entire thread is based on another thread where TGB clearly stated that he thought WalMart would shut down GC.com if they found aout about caches on their property. Many of us disagreed either because WalMart certainly already knows about caches on their property and because there are easier, quicker, and cheaper ways to remove caches from their properties. I'm of the belief that our positions don't change just because we are posting in a different thread.

If you had no hope of changing someone's mind about something, why do you even bother to come here? I'll tell you why I do. I come here in hopes to either change someone's mind or to have mine changed. I was one of the first people to say something to the effect that geocaching would come to an end because of CPCs. Because of many posts pointing out why this wouldn't happen, I have come to believe otherwise. To the best of my recollection, TGB also changed his opinion on the possibility of geocaching "grinding to a halt" long before this thread was started. To continue to exaggerate someone's viewpoints to a ridiculous end, even if they once believed it but no longer do, is the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

You are misintrepreting my post. I am merely saying that if I make one statement in thread A, the statement does not go away just because I am now in thread B.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reread my post.

Tell me what I'm missing. Here's the structure of my response: (Your original post, mine interjected in red)

 

...In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to.

I used to have a copy of the manual in question. I had to turn it in when I left the company. The whole "Wal-Mart Spy" story? Well, Wal-Mart has successfully gotten a court order that he can't reveal Wal-Mart policies and that he needs to return all Wal-Mart materials. Wal-Mart doesn't want the general public to have access to the policies that it runs on, and in most cases, rightly so. Every single page in that book says something to the effect of "Confidential Material: For Internal Use Only!" I see no reason why the store manager should give a copy of the policy to anyone for any reason. Right or wrong, he could be fired for giving out copies of the stores policies.

Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist. It's human nature.

The policy exists. Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean that they are lying.

The only sentence I didn't speak to was

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reread my post.

Tell me what I'm missing. Here's the structure of my response: (Your original post, mine interjected in red)

 

Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later.

which is a moot point since the policy exists.

I have a few thoughts regarding this. First, mine was merely a statement regarding human nature, which I made clear. Second, at the time of my post, you had not yet made your statement supporting the existence of such a document. Third, you have not yet told us what that policy actually states. Finally, your position at WalMart has not exactly been made clear, I don't believe. What exactly was your management position? You have put yourself out there as an expert in the company, but for all I know, you were the manager of the shoe department where your primary responsibility was stocking generic odor eaters.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

Until you can show me where someone has suggested that geocaching will grind to a halt in this thread, I must assume you like scarecrows, 'cuz you keep building the same straw man!

Why don't you talk to Team GeoBlast about this argument then? He's the one that claimed someone asking permission might lead to the website being shut down.

 

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

 

I don't want this thread to become about me or some disagreement we had in the past.

 

I will just say this and say nothing else. I was relatively new to this forum when we began discussing this issue. You and several other long time posters chose to attack, taunt, and malign me from about every conceivable angle imaginable. All of this occurred before I took a step back and watched you do this to about every other new poster in this forum and came to the obvious conclusion that this is the culture that a few posters of your same ilk have created here. I am certain that it accounts for the high rate of attrition of new posters do not continue to post here.

 

That said, I reacted very poorly while making a very futile effort to try to answer you and defend myself every time you and others decided that they were going to jump down my throat. I am certain that posts of this nature account for about half of my post total on this forum to date. I am very disappointed in those wasted minutes of my life. I am also certain that if you were so inclined, you could go back and find several reactionary posts that I am not proud of. However, I challenge you to find one from this day forward now that I've now taken the time to study you and a few other active posters here. I've come to the obvious realization that you come here for your own validation at the expense of others and I am amazed that I allowed myself to be caught up in it.

 

I've decided that I want something out of this forum besides an argument and I will only participate in constructive conversations with the many well intended individuals that post here.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+sbell111]

... I will just say this and say nothing else. I was relatively new to this forum when we began discussing this issue. You and several other long time posters chose to attack, taunt, and malign me from about every conceivable angle imaginable. All of this occurred before I took a step back and watched you do this to about every other new poster in this forum and came to the obvious conclusion that this is the culture that a few posters of your same ilk have created here. I am certain that it accounts for the high rate of attrition of new posters do not continue to post here.

 

That said, I reacted very poorly while making a very futile effort to try to answer you and defend myself every time you and others decided that they were going to jump down my throat. I am certain that posts of this nature account for about half of my post total on this forum to date. I am very disappointed in those wasted minutes of my life. I am also certain that if you were so inclined, you could go back and find several reactionary posts that I am not proud of. However, I challenge you to find one from this day forward now that I've now taken the time to read your and others posts after coming to the realization that you come here for your own validation at the expense of others.

 

I've decided that I want something out of this forum besides an argument and will only participate in constructive conversations with the many well intended inviduals that post here.

Shenanigans. You attacked and fought pretty good (sometimes in a team with other posters) and now you twist it as if you were an innocent victim. Edited April 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

... I will just say this and say nothing else. I was relatively new to this forum when we began discussing this issue. You and several other long time posters chose to attack, taunt, and malign me from about every conceivable angle imaginable. All of this occurred before I took a step back and watched you do this to about every other new poster in this forum and came to the obvious conclusion that this is the culture that a few posters of your same ilk have created here. I am certain that it accounts for the high rate of attrition of new posters do not continue to post here.

 

That said, I reacted very poorly while making a very futile effort to try to answer you and defend myself every time you and others decided that they were going to jump down my throat. I am certain that posts of this nature account for about half of my post total on this forum to date. I am very disappointed in those wasted minutes of my life. I am also certain that if you were so inclined, you could go back and find several reactionary posts that I am not proud of. However, I challenge you to find one from this day forward now that I've now taken the time to read your and others posts after coming to the realization that you come here for your own validation at the expense of others.

 

I've decided that I want something out of this forum besides an argument and will only participate in constructive conversations with the many well intended inviduals that post here.

Shenanigans. You attacked and fought pretty good (sometimes in a team with other posters) and now you twist it as if you were an innocent victim.

 

As a person with 10K posts in here, do you think you went out of your way to make me feel welcome or did you just join in the fun at the expense of the newbie. Honest answer now.

[+sbell111]

As a person with 10K posts in here, do you think you went out of your way to make me feel welcome or did you just join in the fun at the expense of the newbie. Honest answer now.

You've been participating in these forums for well over a year. Sooner or later, you're going to have to stop relying on being a noob.

 

I treated you like any other active participant in that thread.

[+Team GeoBlast]

As a person with 10K posts in here, do you think you went out of your way to make me feel welcome or did you just join in the fun at the expense of the newbie. Honest answer now.

You've been participating in these forums for well over a year. Sooner or later, you're going to have to stop relying on being a noob.

 

I treated you like any other active participant in that thread.

 

Have you ever welcomed anyone, including myself, to the forum, with anything but angst? I want you to remember that I have read your posting history before you answer this time.

[+sbell111]

Yes, I have. Would you like examples of me merely welcoming noobs to the game, or would you like them to be my attempts to help with noob problems or giving requested advice? Of course, you've already read all 17 bajillion of my posts, so you can find them yourself.

 

BTW, you might want to review the thread that you made your bones on. You got pretty darn heated (even catching a mod warning or two), yet I was calm throughout. Heck, I even stood up for you, at one point.

 

Is the pity party almost over? Either way, it's not on topic. If you want to continue it, send me a PM.

Edited April 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

See my post above, but while we are at it...

TGB has a point that you are trying to devalue by bringing up a point that he made (but no longer stands by) at an earlier time. Trying to discredit him on a point that the actual point we are discussing will stand alone is attacking TGB, not the argument at hand, and is thus another fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person).

I still stand by the straw man fallacy, by the way.

I guess your point would be valid to me if I'd read where he changed his mind or retracted his original statement, but maybe I missed it. Got a link?

 

So, I'm pointing out a statement by him that I see as over the top and suggesting that the prediction didn't come true. At best it can be said I'm attacking his statement (if pointing it out is attacking), but I don't see where I'm attacking him. No Ad Hominem.

The current discussion can stand without the statement about "the end of geocaching." By continually bringing it up, you are trying to discredit him & make his other statements look less true. Ad Hominem.

 

As to a statement predicting the end of geocaching and a retraction from TGB goes:

After much scanning of TGB's posts in the 3 threads I've been involved in for this discussion, I found only one place where he actually said anything close. Ack... I popped open a few too many windows and closed that quote... anyways, he said something to the effect of "I am concerned that geocaching may end or something else bad will happen to the game." The "something else bad" is actually closer to what he actually said than the rest of the "quote." Back this up against other statements he's made:

My main concern is the current rate of growth of the game and what geocaching is going be like in 5 years if things keep going at this rate.

I think the time consider this is now, instead of when we have reached a point of saturation that is unacceptable to property owners or a ban is forced upon us.

 

It sounds to me like most of his argument has been about overcrowding, not the website getting shut down. And finally:

 

Do I understand your quoted statement to read that "the game will come to a grinding to a halt" if I ask the local manager for permission to hide something on their property? Do you think I am the first person to ever actually do this?

Does this sound like he believes that "the game will come grinding to a halt"? No.

I, on the other hand, did at one point see the shutting down of this game as a real possibility. I no longer do. There's my retraction.

[Mushtang]

My post, therefore, wasn't a straw man argument at all, it was a reference to his Chicken Little warning.

See my post above, but while we are at it...

TGB has a point that you are trying to devalue by bringing up a point that he made (but no longer stands by) at an earlier time. Trying to discredit him on a point that the actual point we are discussing will stand alone is attacking TGB, not the argument at hand, and is thus another fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person).

I still stand by the straw man fallacy, by the way.

I guess your point would be valid to me if I'd read where he changed his mind or retracted his original statement, but maybe I missed it. Got a link?

 

So, I'm pointing out a statement by him that I see as over the top and suggesting that the prediction didn't come true. At best it can be said I'm attacking his statement (if pointing it out is attacking), but I don't see where I'm attacking him. No Ad Hominem.

The current discussion can stand without the statement about "the end of geocaching." By continually bringing it up, you are trying to discredit him & make his other statements look less true. Ad Hominem.

The currect discussion is a direct result of his other statement, so it's not at all a completely separate or unrelated issue. He decided to go ask for explicit premission and see what would really happen because a lot of us said that nothing bad would happen if someone did.

 

He said someone seeking explicit permission could result in the site being shut down, we said no it couldn't.

He said he might ask for explicit permission and show us what could happen, we said go ahead.

He said if something bad happened as a result we shouldn't blame him, we said that sounds like an excuse.

He actually ended up having a conversation about hiding coords in a WalMart parking lot, but since he's being secrative with the details of the conversation we're not sure what he did or didn't actually do.

That's when I mentioned that the site hadn't shut down yet.

 

As to a statement predicting the end of geocaching and a retraction from TGB goes:

After much scanning of TGB's posts in the 3 threads I've been involved in for this discussion, I found only one place where he actually said anything close. Ack... I popped open a few too many windows and closed that quote... anyways, he said something to the effect of "I am concerned that geocaching may end or something else bad will happen to the game." The "something else bad" is actually closer to what he actually said than the rest of the "quote." Back this up against other statements he's made:

My main concern is the current rate of growth of the game and what geocaching is going be like in 5 years if things keep going at this rate.

I think the time consider this is now, instead of when we have reached a point of saturation that is unacceptable to property owners or a ban is forced upon us.

 

It sounds to me like most of his argument has been about overcrowding, not the website getting shut down. And finally:

 

Do I understand your quoted statement to read that "the game will come to a grinding to a halt" if I ask the local manager for permission to hide something on their property? Do you think I am the first person to ever actually do this?

Does this sound like he believes that "the game will come grinding to a halt"? No.

I, on the other hand, did at one point see the shutting down of this game as a real possibility. I no longer do. There's my retraction.

Searching is sometimes difficult on these forums, so I'll quote you exactly what he said.

 

Pleeeeeez don't make me dig... What dangers are their with asking for permission to place an LPC?

 

I've got one.

 

Let's say someone approached a high level manager at Walmart and asked for permission to lift up a light pole skirt and hide something under it for others to find. Given that it is clearly spelled out behind the little box you check, isn't it logical to assume that someone has actually done this before?

 

That manager has the foresight to go one step further after telling the person he was nuts. He goes to the GC.com website and punches in the zip code of every Walmart in America. They decide they have a very big problem. Big enough to file suit against GC.com, shutting down the site completely until they work things out in court. Meanwhile, the game dies without a home.

 

Far fetched? I'd be interested in hearing why you think so.

 

If, as you say, he's since then said that he no longer believes this is possible, or something to that effect, I missed it.

[+Too Tall John]

Next trick question.

Do you need to ask the power company to put a magentic cache on their transfomer box when that box is on your property? They own the box, you own the air space.

Well, aside from the fact that most of the transformers I've seen around have signs that say "Danger! Do Not Touch!" and that I'm pretty sure that the guidelines might not expressly disallow such a hide, but it is generally frowned upon, and that I really don't want to invite people to screw around near the power supply to my home, not to mention the fact that as you said, "They own the box" I'd say "Hey, why not? Can I stick an Altoids tin to it?"

[+Renegade Knight]

Next trick question.

Do you need to ask the power company to put a magentic cache on their transfomer box when that box is on your property? They own the box, you own the air space.

Well, aside from the fact that most of the transformers I've seen around have signs that say "Danger! Do Not Touch!" and that I'm pretty sure that the guidelines might not expressly disallow such a hide, but it is generally frowned upon, and that I really don't want to invite people to screw around near the power supply to my home, not to mention the fact that as you said, "They own the box" I'd say "Hey, why not? Can I stick an Altoids tin to it?"

 

Yeah, that's it just suck all the fun out of the question by pointing out all the reasons neither of us would actually place a cache like that.

 

Personally I think I could and would be within my rights and would not need to bother asking.

[+Too Tall John]

The currect discussion is a direct result of his other statement, so it's not at all a completely separate or unrelated issue. He decided to go ask for explicit premission and see what would really happen because a lot of us said that nothing bad would happen if someone did.

The current discussion is the result of a thread in which TGB made one of many statements. The overall discussion brought on this thread, not one statement. If you believe that he truly believed that doing what he did would result in GC.com crashing to its knees, do you truly think he'd have done it?

He said someone seeking explicit permission could result in the site being shut down, we said no it couldn't.

Thank you for the quote. It looks like he was putting forth a worse case scenario to me, though.

He said he might ask for explicit permission and show us what could happen, we said go ahead.

Actually, TGB has expressed his love for this sport, his intentions were not to get it shut down. His intentions were to see what Wal-Mart's official stance on geocaching would be.

He said if something bad happened as a result we shouldn't blame him, we said that sounds like an excuse.

He actually asked that nobody call him a geocop if WalMart LPCs got banned.

He actually ended up having a conversation about hiding coords in a WalMart parking lot, but since he's being secrative with the details of the conversation we're not sure what he did or didn't actually do.

That's when I mentioned that the site hadn't shut down yet.

...snipped... If, as you say, he's since then said that he no longer believes this is possible, or something to that effect, I missed it.

Would the quotes I provided above help to clear up TGB's thoughts on the killing off of GC.com? None of them seem to say that this is what his biggest concerns are. Your quote, if it indeed is a statement of worse case scenario, doesn't mean it is what he really thinks will happen.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is the pity party almost over? Either way, it's not on topic. If you want to continue it, send me a PM.

Dude, you can post with a heavy hand at times.

 

Since you enjoy a good debate, it may help to keep in mind that you want good folks to debate with so you can keep enjoying the debate. Not agreeing is no reason to not share a beer if the time ever comes.

 

I think some of your forum bruskness is just your style, but some folks may mistake that for animosity and take it personally.

 

Of course every now than then some folks just need the beer bottle bashed over thear heads, but I haven't gotten that impression from anyone in this thread.

 

Something to think about.

[Mushtang]

The currect discussion is a direct result of his other statement, so it's not at all a completely separate or unrelated issue. He decided to go ask for explicit premission and see what would really happen because a lot of us said that nothing bad would happen if someone did.

The current discussion is the result of a thread in which TGB made one of many statements. The overall discussion brought on this thread, not one statement. If you believe that he truly believed that doing what he did would result in GC.com crashing to its knees, do you truly think he'd have done it?

Several people actually asked him not to do it, because something bad might happen. They didn't think the site would shut down, but didn't want him kicking a hornets nest just to see if the bees would get mad. He did it anyway. So while I don't think he was trying to get the site shut down, he was trying to demonstrate that asking for explicit permission would have bad results, and was willing to put up with the bad results to prove a point.

 

He said someone seeking explicit permission could result in the site being shut down, we said no it couldn't.

Thank you for the quote. It looks like he was putting forth a worse case scenario to me, though.

He put forth the scenario and then said "Far fetched? I'd be interested in hearing why you think so." To me that sounds like he doesn't think it's far fetched. He thought it was a valid concern.

 

He said he might ask for explicit permission and show us what could happen, we said go ahead.

Actually, TGB has expressed his love for this sport, his intentions were not to get it shut down. His intentions were to see what Wal-Mart's official stance on geocaching would be.

What's the difference between "showing us what could happen" and "to see what Wal-Mart's official stance on geocaching would be" in this context? Seeing what their reaction would be IS seeing what could happen.

 

He said if something bad happened as a result we shouldn't blame him, we said that sounds like an excuse.

He actually asked that nobody call him a geocop if WalMart LPCs got banned.

Okay. But doesn't that show that he was doing this while thinking that WalMart might ban LPCs as a result of his asking for explicit permission? In his mind it was possible for something really bad to come out of it, but he did it anyway just to see what would happen.

 

He actually ended up having a conversation about hiding coords in a WalMart parking lot, but since he's being secrative with the details of the conversation we're not sure what he did or didn't actually do.

That's when I mentioned that the site hadn't shut down yet.

...snipped... If, as you say, he's since then said that he no longer believes this is possible, or something to that effect, I missed it.

Would the quotes I provided above help to clear up TGB's thoughts on the killing off of GC.com? None of them seem to say that this is what his biggest concerns are. Your quote, if it indeed is a statement of worse case scenario, doesn't mean it is what he really thinks will happen.

Again, his statement about it being far fetched or not sure makes it sound like that's what he believed could happen. Because he also added to his other concerns some about over populating - that doesn't sound like he's retracting his "site shut down" scenario. It's just additional arguments against LPCs. So no, the quotes you provided don't clear up his thoughts on the site being shut down. Maybe he'll read this and decide to post that he's changed his mind about it.