Ruins ID?

[bobpbx]

I don't even see what the big deal about Hampton Furnace is.

Perhaps it may be the experience of admiring the ruins respectably only to find a freaking tupperware container lodged in the foundation stones that were lovingly mortered in place in another bygone time. And then opening up the tupperware container and seeing lovely little plastic horses, crayons, sesame street buttons, and perhaps a bus token from Pittsburgh. How quaint.

 

[gagliarchives]

Here here. Exactly right Bob.

 

[Stu]

Don't complain to me; I didn't place it. If you bothered to read my other posts, I said there was an old cache that was a good distance from the ruins. If you also read my other posts, you'd have seen I don't care for them being right on the ruins either. Take it up with the placer.
You just seem to have a problem with caching. Don't like it? Don't do it.


By the way, it's "mortared".

 

[Teegate]

Most of my post is not directed at anyone in general here as far as I know. There is a completely different cache that has me annoyed.

In any event, the sawmill thread has for me been the best one we have had in a long time, but unfortunately my participation in it is over. If you find a sawmill take my advise and keep it to yourself. It is not that they can be damaged, it just is the fact that I am tired of our discussions ending with a geocache.

Guy

 

[BEHR655]

The guy who drives as close as possible shouldn't even be caching. Part of doing it at all is for walking & getting exercise.

I don't even see what the big deal about Hampton Furnace is. First off it's somewhat well known; secondly, there are coordinates and directions for it on this site. I'm not seeing the difference. The argument of it being ruined due to cachers is null and void.

Stu,
You love the Pines, I love the Pines, we all love the Pines. That's why we're here. Unfortunately there are some that don't care squat about the Pines and it's treasures. These are the folks we worry about. Maybe some cacher comes along and thinks "Gee, these stones from this foundation would be great for a patio." Can't happen you say? Guy will show you the photo/artical (right Guy?). Note that the photo/artical I'm speaking of was not about a cacher, just a moron.

Steve

 

[Stu]

not about a cacher

:v:

 

[bobpbx]

By the way, it's "mortared".

Should I start correcting your spelling and grammar? Should I go back and pick on you a bit? C'mon Stu, I know you are above that. That is a cheap shot.

 

[Stu]

That is a cheap shot.

So is generalizing cachers.


Christ, all I did was help someone identify some ruins. I figured I'd be happy because for once I beat everyone else to the question. But no, it starts an argument instead.

Again, I don't like them being right on the ruins. That we all agree about. But I also don't like how people are saying cachers can or do ruin places when so far I've yet to see any evidence of them doing so. So far we have something about an article that has nothing to do with caching, just some larry being a jerk.
Cachers, especially the South Jersey cachers (no I'm not in their group, I don't do groups) are also likeminded. They, like us, love the Pines, and probably knew about these places well before they had a GPS. I know I did. For most of them it's just another reason to revisit places like Hampton Furnace.

 

[BEHR655]

Don't complain to me; I didn't place it. If you bothered to read my other posts, I said there was an old cache that was a good distance from the ruins. If you also read my other posts, you'd have seen I don't care for them being right on the ruins either. Take it up with the placer.
You just seem to have a problem with caching. Don't like it? Don't do it.


By the way, it's "mortared".

Stu,
Any time you point out someones spelling in discussions like this it just proves how weak your argument is.
Also, just because Bob quoted you doesn't mean he's coming down on you. He was only responding to your post. Hell, Bob doesnt dislike all caches. I've done some caching and he likes me. I think.
( I've run spell check and should be OK with this post)

Steve

 

[Stu]

Weak argument? So far you don't have one.

 

[BEHR655]

Here is the artical. Like I said, not a cacher but a human being, which cachers also are.

Steve

 

[gagliarchives]

Hell, Bob doesnt dislike all caches. I've done some caching and he likes me. I think.

Steve

lol

 

[BEHR655]

Weak argument? So far you don't have one.

That's right. If you noticed I'm not arguing.

 

[bobpbx]

Is this directed at me?

Sue, I think of you as innocently doing what cachers do. You are not being targeted. There are a few people on this site like me who value raw wilderness and forgotten ruins much more than the geocaching sport. In fact, the wilderness is worth defending, since once it is open to coffee cans, tupperware containers, and jars placed everywhere in a big hide and seek game, then the players who really could care less about the wilderness turn it into just a big park with paths and trails everywhere.

Poof! Wilderness gone. Solitude gone. Being alone for awhile hard to do.

 

[Sue Gremlin]

Wow, I have apparently stepped into a landmine of peeves. I didn't mean to offend. I never imagined that you guys had such a bone to pick with caching. I did not find this place because of this forum, I actually just spotted it from the road. I placed the cache before I asked you any information about it. I just thought it would make the cache page more interesting if I included a little bit of history about the ruins.
I do hope it calms you to know that this is a micro, and it is certainly not right on the ruin, it is about 80' away. The mill is featured in the cache page because it is a fascinating place.
As for cachers doing damage, what would you say about the lowlife that basically backed a dumptruck up to one of the cellar pits at Sandy Ridge and filled it with household garbage? I have serious doubts that was someone out caching.
I will include something on the cache page about respecting the ruins. It is preaching to the healed, but as you point out, all it takes is one jerk. Like the one who filled the pit with rusty appliances.

I like this forum very much, and have done some great reading over the past two days. As a biologist, I find what you have to show and say fascinating. I am just learning about the pines and am wowed by your knowledge.

 

[BEHR655]

Wow, I have apparently stepped into a landmine of peeves. I didn't mean to offend. I never imagined that you guys had such a bone to pick with caching.

Sue,

I have no problem with caching. It's fun. I've done it. Wouldn't hesitate to do it again. Just think some places are best left alone. These ruins get enough traffic as it is and to bring so many more people to them is not good. Every time those foundations are touched by human hands adds to their demise.
(spell checked in case Stu reads this )
Just kidding Stu. Peace

Steve

 

[WAMBA]

this thread has been a good discussion and it will definitely make me think about where i put caches in the future. i do have a cache inside some ruins, but they're not historical (a recently-burned down log cabin). i don't see as much of a problem with putting caches in recent ruins and abandoned sites as with historical ruins. i definitely see the point being made, because it would only take one ignorant cacher looking for patio materials to completely destroy some of these ruins. that's why i think if caches are placed near these places, they should as least contain information about what the place is and why it's historically significant. i think it's horrible that sue had to ask here what those ruins were; the owner of that cache should be responsible for telling visitors at least that much! the cache at hampton furnace, which is called "a good foundation," mentions nothing about hampton furnace! it's obvious the cache placer himself didn't know about the site...he says in the cache info "A rock wall in the NJ pines? Give and take and log your visit. Face North from the middle, you'll look up from within."
also, looking at the pics of this cache, i do see at least two people who drove right up next to the wall where the cache is placed.

i'm not sure if i think caches should be completely banned from these areas, but they shouldn't be on the sites themselves and the owner should damn well do their research and know what site they're jeopardizing and inform cachers what the place is and why it deserves their respect.

the most recent example i can remember of one of these "cool places" getting plundered is the stone living room up in north jersey. regretfully, i never made it up that way to see in before somebody decided to tear it apart and smash the stones it was built with. i always noticed the stone living room when it turned up on sites like stu's and weird nj and really looked forward to going there someday...now that day will never come :-( well if i remember correctly it's been partially rebuilt so i may see it yet but not in its original glory. anybody know if there was a cache on/near the stone living room? i know reading that there had been a logbook there for some time, but i think that was a non-caching logbook ;-)

 

[Stu]

The SLR was destroyed twice. One site owner felt it was his fault, since he posted directions to it, so he put together a rebuild. Well, they rebuilt it, and the very next night it was destroyed again. The stones were thrown down the side of the cliff.
They still don't know who did it, but they're guessing it was locals because the locals really hated it being there. I still don't know how they managed because many of those rocks were several hundred pounds. Whoever did it must've really hated it in order to have killed it off 2 nights in a row.

 

[annie]

If anything I'd blame Weird NJ for ruining historic sites, not geocaching. Yes, the guy shouldn't have put the cache in Hampton furnace, but considering most geocachers are like 100 years old anyway, they know it's a significant part of history. Most people who follow Weird NJ are kids that like to destroy things for the thrill of it. Hence why I hate them and think the Apocolypse is coming now that they are taking over the world

 

[WAMBA]

it mentions in that article about people plundering martha furnace. i haven't been there yet, but i know i've read that the state buried the furnace inside a fenced-in area. now, i don't know all the details, but to me that seems just as bad as plundering it. either way they're basically disassembling history and hiding it away, be it underground or on some guy's patio or fireplace. it seems they claimed they were doing it to protect the furnace from thieves, and i guess burying it would keep the physical bricks it was built with there, but what about the way those bricks were put together, the form that they made...to me the building itself should be just as important to the history of the place as the building materials.