AkCacheAddickt

1. Because none of the caches are in the review territory for which I'm responsible. 2. Because I have better things to do than to seek out non-conforming caches outside my review territory. If you're troubled by this handful of caches, you're welcome to contact their owners. One other thing which hasn't been pointed out... What one cache is, doesn't provide precedence for the next cache. So calling out a cache in this thread to be archived is quite inappropriate. I kinda thought the demanding attitude toward Keystone was a bit inappropriate as well, but that's just MHO. Especially when you could simply post an SBA to the page or write the local reviewer. Don't expect to win any popularity contests when you become known as the cache police though... Believe me, I'm not in this to win any popularity contests. I could care less what people here think of me. I'm just trying to understand why the double standard. THere are 16 caches out there that support the same agenda that someone else was told they couldn't have on their page. At least 14 of them have previously had SBA posts put on them. THose were summarily deleted. But the caches remained without modification. What gives?

So, why not archive them now that you know they are violating the guidelines?

Interesting how all those caches were published prior to mid-2007. I wonder why that is. I guess you're implying that the "no agenda" guideline was added then. Well, look a little closer, cause 2 of em were published this year. One even within the last 6 weeks. So again I ask....why the double standard??

So, the OP had to change their page because it supposedly supported an agenda. Yet, if I go to the search page and enter Support Our Troops in the keyword field, I get 16 caches that have that in the title. So why the double standard?? Click Here to see the list.