waypointazoid

I agree. So did the United States. That's why their military was ordered all the way around the world... to repel the war being waged against South Vietnam by the Soviet backed Viet Minh. Cambodia and Laos were bombed because that's where the North Vietnamese enemy was...using the Ho Chi Minh trail in bringing the war to the people of South Vietnam. It was the North Vietnamese communists that brought war to the two other countries. The US entry into these countries was reactive, not proactive. Your contention that US bombers dropped "unused bombs" on families as a matter of policy is an outright misrepresentation of history. In fact, General Westmoreland, in his book about his tenure as Commander in that theater complained about how the policy makers of the US would scrub bombing missions he proposed that would have covered hundreds of miles of the trail... all because a single thatched hut was found in reconnaissance photos. You want to talk about attrocites? Let's do. My Lai: US troops killed, maimed, raped, tortured and murdered an entire village of 300-500 civilians in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice... the established US law regulating the conduct of its military. The commanders of the unit were prosecuted by US military tribunal. During that war: the North Vietnamese Army executed over 2,500 civilians and prisoners of war during the occupation of Hue in 1968 alone. Between the years 1967 and 1972, Viet Cong death squads assasinated at least 36,000 and abducted almost 60,000 people. 8 out of 10 of them were ordinary citizens. In fact, between 1954 and 1975 the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong murdered over a quarter of a million non-combatant civilians in cold blood. A terror campaign that makes the Islamic fascist look like amateurs. During the Tet Offensive, many killed and captured Viet Cong were found to be carrying lists of people to be assasinated... "Civil servants, officers, teachers and religious figures were rounded up first and executed after quick "revolutionary" trials. A second roundup fingered leaders of civic organizations, intellectuals, professionals and individual civilians and their families who had worked for the Americans. A barber for example who had cut the hair of Americans had both his hands cut off before being liquidated." Every single one of these murders and acts of mayhem were either sanctioned or ordered by the Communist government in Hanoi, and of course, there were no prosecutions. In fact... These are the barbarians and criminals-against-humanity that they raise monuments in celebration of! I could go on citing the holocausts perpetrated on the South Vietnamese by the NVA and VC, but the system doesn't allow enough typing space. We can argue the politcal prudence of the US (and most of the free world's)entry into that war forever. But the moral prudence of it isn't questionable. The people of South Vietnam chose to be free by plebicite, and the North Vietnamese invaded them for the express purpose of taking that freedom from them, and replacing it with dictatorship. They used every tactic of war and terror that the Natzi's used, and that the Middleast terrorists are using today. The communists initiated and waged that war. The US and her allies shed their blood on that Indochinese soil, at the invitation of the legally recognized, elected, and world sanctioned government of South Vietnam in hopes of preserving their liberty. No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you rationalize, no matter how many fact-distorted and sensationalized Oliver Stone movies you fill your mind with, the historical truths are there. That what the US and her allies did in Vietnam---the core value and aim of it, was honorable, and what the communist-backed regime in Hanoi did was dishonorable--categorically. If you understand the difference between right and wrong, there's nothing subjective about it. I'm confused. Are you refering to the US and Allied troops that died, the North Vietnamese that died, the quarter of a million civillians that The North Vietnamese murdered, the ones who refused to take a stand, or are you talking about everyone: the killers, the people who killed them, and the ones without the intestinal fortitude to share in the burdens of liberty? Would those corrupt politicians include Ho Chi Minh, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong? Or, (and I'm being serious) knowing where you are, can you comment freely without fear of your life? I can. One more thing. There is a distinct difference between a victim, a villan, and a hero. If you get shot and killed, you are a victim. If you get shot and killed while trying to take someone's life or liberty, you are a villan. If you get shot and killed while trying to preserve someone's life and liberty you are a hero. The Vietnam Memorials category is for Waymarking the memorials dedicated to the heros of the Vietnam war. It's primary purpose when creating it was to give access to a database of waypoints marking those memorials, so that the generations to come could visit these memorials and reflect on what great men can and will do for the good of mankind. The last measure of devotion these heros are entitled to by their benefactors is careful respect... no matter where or how in life they are referenced. Their memory swathed in honor is the only thing they have left -- it's the only thing left that we can give them. And it isn't about "us versus them". It's not about the economy of catagorizing, or organizing a comprehensive-convenient history lesson. It's about the men who knew the difference between right and wrong and gave their lives in the pursuit of what was right... it's about elevating them up to a place of honor among the righteous that they alone have earned. It's not just about Waymarking, it's about Waymarking honor. So once again, I say: Get busy. Create a category for "Viet Cong Death Squad Memorials" or "Uncle Ho's Army" as the Reds affectionately called it. You have nothing to fear but peer itself. (pun intended) Respect to all.

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious when blatant sarcasm is missed?

To be fair and global, why do we need two categories for fairs? What reason do we have to distinguish them from one another...a fair is a fair, right?

It's not my call, but I would disagree. A "Veteran" is a person who was once a soldier whose purpose was to engage in combat. A person who served in a state-sanctioned military, whether they ever served in a hostile theater or not, is often refered to as a veteran. But in the context of war memorials, it is generally intended that "Veteran" means one who served as a combatant in a theater of conflict. A war is when two or more political entities (usually sovereign states)engage in armed conflict. Their mission includes the homicide of the opposing personnel, and destruction of the means of war and intelligencia of the opposing forces in order to effect a political end. A peace-keeping mission is altogether different. A peace keeping unit, although sometimes armed, is not in a theater of combat to engage in combat. Most often, they are troops sent into the theater by a neutral third-party nation or a combination of several nations such as the United Nations. In the course of military conflict, the political bodies of the entities at war will agree to, or be ordered to by world consensus, into temporary armistices or cease-fires. The intent is to take a time out for peace negotiations. Many times, these cease-fires are violated by one or more of the parties engaged in war. A good example is the cease-fire honorably agreed to by North and South Vietnam during the Tet holiday that they both culturally shared. In a deliberate diplomatic deception, and in violation of international law, the North Vietnamese unleashed their fiercest, most organized attack of the war during that Tet holiday, attacking almost every large city in South Vietnam. When cease-fires are agreed to or ordered, the function of peace keeping troops is to place themselves between the warring parties. They are sometimes, but not always armed in order to protect themselves while retreating in the event they are fired upon. They are there to observe and report, not to fight or enforce treaties. Political semantics. War was declared twice on Iraq, once on Afghanistan. You just don't realize it because of political semantics. An example: Instead of calling a prison a prison, it gets the misnomer "State Correctional Facility" = political semantics. A declaration of war isn't called that anymore. It's called a "Congressional Resolution", and it gives legal authority to the Commander in Chief to conduct war within the boundaries set forth in the resolution. Is it a car, or an automobile? Is it a trailer, or a mobile home? Is it a Garbage Man, or a Sanitation Technician? Is it a Declaration, or a Resolution? The U.S Constitution requires Congress to declare war...it doesn't tell them what to call the instrument they sign to do it.

As usual, Silverquill, you present a most eloquent argument. I have always thought you to be a fair and considerate one. However, eloquence, at the end of the day, is tone and not substance. Your argument, though handsomely presented, is still motivated by subjective reasoning. I agree, most have seemed to be honest opinions, but not all. Bruce stepped in to moderate early on, and more than one have offered some outrageous theories on what motivates the Memorials Managers. In another thread, it was implied that we American managers are dull. And this assumption was based on a totally false premise. In the past, I've been admonished by the moderator for "patriotism", and yet in this very thread, and in the other one, anti-American comments have passed without rebuke. Striving to be "truly global" doesn't mean you censor honest pride from the one, and yet abide veiled insult from the other. The theory that you must diminish the values of one culture to validate the values of another is political, and is as subjective as it gets. There is absolutely nothing objective about that view of "global". To say that War Memorials is any more a mess than other categories is hyperbole. Consider Restaurants and Historical Markers. There are dozens of categories that have sub-categories. Why don't we just do away with categorys and let people waymark anything any way they wish? One standard, for how to waymark makes the sport dull. Sacrificing diversity for convenience takes the challenge out of it. Why do we not hide caches and tell exactly where they are on the cache page? There's nothing "wrong" with War Memorials, it just doesn't suit you. Suppose, if you will, that someone found memorials erected in honor of the Gestapo, the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and to the ''brave and sturdy men" who operated the camps at Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. To be "truly global" and "fair", why not place these stones of celebration into the Holocaust category? After all, these memorials ARE directly and historically associated with that struggle, and we DO aspire to heal old wounds and promote peace because we are smart enough to know that "there may be very different views of who or what is honorable or "evil". And I'm sure, that in some Aryan Nation compound, there is a beautiful bust of James Earl Ray... the great white martyr who single-handedly struck the most magnificent blow for segregation and White Power, by dispatching with extreme prejudice, Martin Luther King, the icon of so-called "civil rights"...by these standards you present, shouldn't that bust, and a plaque comemorating the freedom fighters who blew up the church in Motgomery, killing two little girls... shouldn't these historically related memorials go into the Civil Rights category? Now, if that doesn't sound ludicrous to you, then you obviously have no moral boundaries in your pursuit of Waymarking. And if it does, then you have to agree that there is a line that you don't cross... and then it all boils down to a matter of degree: Where do you draw that line, and who gets to decide where it gets drawn? Now it becomes a veritable cornucopia of subjectiveness. If our quest is objectivity, then it must come from a set of common values. Not from ignoring what is evil in the pursuit of global apeasement. And the only objective measure we are left with is "what is right, and what is wrong". Anti-semitism Racism Tyranny Religious Fascism Millions have died and are dying because of these "wrongs". To forgive is one thing, to forget is altogether unfitting. To raise a memorial for those who killed and died to further these four wrongs is obscene in the first place. they are the very antithesis of the memorials dedicated to those who fought for the righteous causes: Freedom of Speech Freedom of Worship Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear The difference between these two lists is simple. It's the difference between right and wrong. I think most who have commented here know this in their gut, but are willing to sacrifice the sacredness of the honorable for the sake of greasing the game, to atone for imaginary guilty consciouses, or to further commercial enterprise. But right and wrong is black and white, and sticking to the principles of good taste and respect isn't a hat that you hang outside when you walk into the house of Waymarking. Ideology and nationalism are two distinct concepts. There most certainly are divisions between us based on ideology. I've already listed eight of them. And for the rational and just, to abandon their ideology; to compromise it; to capitulate and collaborate with an evil ideology is simply cowardly and opportunistic. Moreover, it is a reckless act to celebrate an evil ideology for the sake of apeasement. It creates a malaise of resolve, and It invites the evil to visit us again. Having an ideology and a set of priciples based on those four freedoms is a self-evident virtue, and has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism...which is a label of selfishness. Really? Pacifism is a romantic beast. The want of harmony blinds the pacifist to danger. You promote peace by what you do now and in the future, you don't promote peace by diminishing the honor of those who fought for it by throwing their carcasses into a mass grave (symbolically or otherwise) with those fools who fought against peace. And you don't promote peace by ignoring the sacred honor that provided it and continues to offer it to the entire world. It's been said: Those who are willing to forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you want to find ways to promote Waymarking, then do it without compromising what is right and decent. Waymarking is not the world, it's only part of it. And doing the right thing might not be the first step, but it certainly is the right step.

The requirements for an entry into the Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials category are written on the page where you make the entry: "Waymarks submitted to this category should be dedicated to those who served and/or perished in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and/or Iraq." "Memorials dedicated to servicemen of all allied nations in this cause may be submitted." Unfortunately, this doesn't include "peace keeping troops"...even if they are "Americans". It is true. We don't allow "anyone/anything" to be included. Everything one has a Lattitude/Longitude and a picture of is not a waymark. Otherwise we would be known as "waypointers" instead of "waymarkers". Every memorial for every brave human being who actually took up arms and waged combat against the world's terrorists in that theater and period are included. American or not. Is that bright enough for you? If it's still a mystery, here's a link that might be helpful: http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=939c798a-7e2a-4a69-816d-366b230ec8e5&exp=True We do not wish to diminish the honorable contribution that has been made by peace keeping troops. But the Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials category is for memorials to the men...and WOMEN... who fight against the complex array of terrorism in that part of the world. This category, like the Vietnam Memorials category, in addition to the fun of Waymarking, is meant to be a database for generations to come who wish to find and visit these memorials to mourn, revere, and celebrate what brave men did to keep the world safe and free.

These words are a reference to this thread, not to the description. I could be wrong, but from my understanding, forum Moderators don't have the authority to aribitrarily order category managers to make changes to descriptions. But if this situation isn't any different than the way you have dealt with me in the past, you will likely use your influence to find a way to get around that precedent and take control. Absolutely false. You are not going to see Osama Bin Laden's, or any other terrorist's memorial in the Afghanistan Iraq memorial category either. You don't see them because they were designed, submitted, and approved by the peer review system, then published by Groundspeak to be that way. The underlying reasons could not be made any clearer to you, just as they were to peer review. And if I have anything to do with it, or Waymarking, it's going to stay that way. This has nothing to do with emotion. It's about respect, and the principles of respect don't change with time. I don't speak for everyone, and I don't judge anyone else's ideas, pro or con unless provoked to do so. But this thread is about change. Those who are willing to shed a simple form of decency to play a game without regard to dignity are mounting a campaign to force that change. And deeper, this is not about the game, it's about politics. It's about mounting an attack on the underlying consideration for structuring the category the way I have. You want to pidgeon-hole me as irrationally emotional when, in actuality, I am expressing an honest and forthright passion for military dignity in all areas of life... including Waymarking. You are attempting to disect my logic in a flawed way because you have an agenda. You are too involved, and have lost your objectivity. This is why, in my humble opinion, Moderators of forums should moderate from the sidelines and not from the backfield. Now, you asked, so I'm going to answer. I think it's a mistake to bury the evil with the righteous. Even in a symbolic way such as a Waymarking catgegory. I don't speak for every war memorial category manager. I don't criticize them either, but since you asked: I do think its wrong that SOME war memorial categories are not divided between the honorable and the dishonorable. From the beginning, I have offered a simple remedy... If anyone wants to create a category for memorials that honor Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnameese Armed Forces, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Husein, Al Quaeda, the 9/11 terrorists, the Taliban, or even memorials celebrating Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany... Then get busy; do your homework; do your recruiting; put the idea through the process of review and get yourself a category to manage the way YOU see fit...and follow YOUR conscious. I don't wish anyone any ill will. I have no bone to pick with anyone who has given an honest thought to this matter. My conclusion: It was a mistake to discontinue the Virtual Geocache. It was an abdication of responsibility. It was born out of logistical considerations involving the geocache review process. But it was still a mistake. In it's place, we are left with a game where those responsibiities are the burden of the customer. This has opened a pandora's box of chaos. Instead of the prudence of publication being centered in a few professionals, it has been tossed out to every opinion, sound and unsound, that the cat drags in. The noise created by the unreasonable and outlandish all too often drowns out the reasonable, and turns a pleasurable pastime into a distasteful labor. Were Groundspeak to take a poll this very moment, asking should virtuals return and Waymarking be discontinued, the overwhelming majority of the geosports community would cry out a resounding "yes"! But Waymarking, and it's anarchic form is what we are forced to deal with. The rules are set, and the responsibilities distributed among the masses. Once you, the Waymarking community, have voted to place a responsibility into the hands of one of your peers, with a full understanding of their purpose, you should respect it. Otherwise, what we are left with is just a vulgar brawl.

To follow my logic, you first have to follow the thread. Such as this part that I posted: Any reasonably prudent person would infer from this one quote that the term "honorable men" as used by me in this thread includes women also. And maybe if you follow closely, you would see this: How am I supposed to believe you missed that, or misunderstood it? I did not imply that Allies are included... I expressed it outright. Am I supposed to believe this is an oversight, and you just didn't see it? Or is this a baiting tactic with a hidden agenda... just for the provocation factor? I'll say it again: It is this very kind of meaningless and disrespectful spin that motivated me to abandon this forum long ago. And from the moderator, no less. For those few who come here to exchange ideas in intelligent, coherent and cordial ways, and who are interested in the future of the category that this thread is based on, I offer you this: Everything you need to know about the future of that category, I have written here in this thread. You have only to read it to know everything you need to know. This is my last word on it. Happy Waymarking

It is absolutely ludicrous: this notion that memorials honor the dead and not the war. (in "war" I am assuming we are speaking of the "cause" that the memorialized fought for). Memorials for the dead are called tombstones. Memorials for those who fought in a war are there to honor the very fact that they died for a cause, and they are called "War memorials". War memorials are not about the killing... they are about the dying... the dying of a person who gave his/her life in a struggle to achieve some great blessing for their countrymen. War memorials are about those who put honor above their own lives. To seperate these martyrs from their cause makes about as much sense as saying churchs are not about God, but about the people who attend. People with tombstones are dead. People with war memorials are Honored Dead. Waymarking is different for each of us. It's nice to know there is a database here so that we can find the coolest rollercoasters... it's useful to know where every Post Office is. Sure, it's a game, but for many, it's much more than that... And as for the Vietnam Memorials category, it is first and foremost about honorable men. Men who answered the call in spite of it's flawed political purpose. Because no matter the reason for which the people call, the honorable soldier puts his personal convictions aside and does the bidding of his people. Without question, he stands between his beloved people and the war's desolation. I hold this truth to be clear and true to any human being who is capable of rational thought: That those men who died in Vietnam who fought against oppression and in the name of liberty were honorable men fighting against a dishonorable enemy. And that they have won the right to be honored in a place seperate from those who fought in the name of despotism. And... to think of them as just dead and not war dead is tantamount to stripping them of the honor that they gave their lives to earn. We didn't bury the Americans and their allies in the same graves with the Viet Cong, and we are not going to bury them together in this category either... I won't dishonor them to facilitate a simple game. Some of you may not understand that, and that's OK. some of you may not respect that and I don't care. We don't say the "f" word in this forum because it's classless and disgusting. We don't honor heros in the same place as the people who killed them for the same reason.

I am the founder of the Vietnam war memorials category. Since it is primarily me who is being dragged through the Waymarking mud, I think it is fitting that I clear up these silly assumptions, and affirm the purpose of this category. Long ago, it was decided by this group to include any Allied nation's memorial. In fact, I have approved them myself. However, there is not now, nor will there ever be a place in this category for the North Vietnamese Army, the Viet Cong, or any of their Allies who fought with them. This is an eclectic hobby. If you want to honor the enemies, past and present, of the free world, then knock yourself out: form a group and submit a category. This very type "thing" is why I long ago abandoned this forum, and stopped submitting categories: the lack of respectful decorum.

My mother of 80 years was watching my wife and I logging TB's one day, and was curious. We explained to her what they were, and within days she brought a small "John Deere" biplane for us to send out as a bug. We did, and named it Maggie's Barnstormer. She wanted to have it sent to England to my cousin, and so off we sent it. Maggie hadn't changed hands but about six times before it was in London. It got within blocks of my cousin, but he never managed to get it. (he is a muggle!) It finally fell into the hands of Coppers Lot, and I wrote him, asking him to send Maggie back to us. He did, and we struck up a friendship that, among other things, led to us setting up a bug exchange. One day, a package came through the mail with several bugs. One caught my eye. It was a bulldog coin with a picture of an elderly couple attached (TB2QF6T). I pondered that picture for a long time... imagining what it would be like to have a life-long dedication to one mate that way. How meaningful your golden years would be if you stick together through the thick and thin like that. They were a beautiful couple, and I was inspired. I wrote these words in my log: "This beautiful picture appeared out of nowhere! A lovely lady and a dashing gentleman! A majestic valley in the background! Four score years of grace in the person of a lovely couple gathering unto themselves in a suttle, affirming embrace that seems to say that forever is really possible if you believe in love! They gaze out over the enormous valley, as if reviewing a thousand shared memories! How amazingly meaningful! Oh no... I cannot let this one go! I must keep it. Because it is a reminder of sweet possibilities and the power of faithfulness...but then again, I know... I cannot keep this beauty to myself, it would be grossly selfish! I simply must pass it on, because this treasure will no doubt inspire someone, somewhere just as it has me, and it would be a sin to have them miss it! But I will remember this one as a tiny bit of delightful joy shared by my brethren from the old country! So for you, lil' travelbug, I will assist in your great escape into the new world! Live long, my little bug, and don't forget to write to your beautiful kin across the big blue pond!" Today, I received an email from wemnog, who I believe is one of the couple's children: "Hi, after your lovely words that you posted about Oriel and Ken's Great Escape-TB, which really made their day when they read it, I thought I'd just let you know that Dad passed away on 17th November. Mum was so touched by your words that she printed them off and has sent them to all the relatives. She loves to think that they are still travelling the world together in the form of this TB. Thanks for keeping them travelling. Keith (Wemnog)" Man... I was so emotionally moved by that! I was saddened to hear of Ken's passing, but I was so glad that those simple words had such an important impact on someones life. It's moments like this one, that make geocaching magical!

MrsB: This sounds like a great idea! But I will let others take the initiative... Atrus: You may read the above and inject venom into my words; I interpret it as me not agreeing with the decision handed down by Groundspeak. And the "minion" reference comes from the Groundspeak representative who contacted me with their decision; the Forum Title on his GC.com profile page was "Groundspeak minion". And as Snoogans pointed out, Groundspeak employees are often referred to as "lackeys". There was no disrespect directed at anyone at Groundspeak. ND: Guilty as charged. But I had actually decided to bring the "photo" to the attention of Groundspeak representatives before I discovered who uploaded it. Knowing who it was might have made me smile a little though, but it wouldn't have changed my decision to report the "photo". And I agree that this thread needs to be closed, and it will. But I will leave it open just in case anyone wants to respond. Don: As the assumed manager of the "slick sneaky race-card smear campaign" let me remind you what the issue here is -- the objectionable nature of the "photo" uploaded by that "good man". Issues between he and I, or even you and I, are not at issue here. (Were they contributing factors? Likely. But I digress.) But let us assume for a minute that my actions were as you described and my entire aim was to besmirch the good name of that "good man". Do my actions in any way, shape, or form change the fact that he uploaded a "photo" that showed him to be lacking in racial sensitivity? Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread! The rational, cogent arguments made by many of you were enjoyable to read. For my final word on this entire situation, please see posts #101, #141, #166, #205, #231, #261, #275, and #294. There really isn't more I can add. I will leave the thread open for another day or so just in case anyone wants to try to get us to an eighth page. Yep, your works done here pal. Everybody that knows the principle characters back home all agree that this one just might be known as the signature song you'll be remembered by. You really did your best work, and should be proud. I don't know how you can top it, unless you work up an implication of pedophilia against your next victim. I guess we'll just have to wait and see in the next episode of: OZGUFF REPORTS-YOU DECIDE All the dirt that's fit to sling!

i find this is most often the response given by people granting themselves license to say things that they know are going to be offensive. a word about the chimp thing: while some caricatures of people may be made to look chimpish on account of an exaggeration of that person's features, care ought to be exercised in some cases because racist movements of every stripe have been comparing their "inferiors" to chimps for a long, long time. it's kind of a code indicating that the person making the comparison does not consider the inferior race to be fully human and for that reason one ought to be careful. whites in the US are not the only people to have portrayed other races as being chimp or ape-like. there isn't a history of rich white people being portrayed as subhuman and ape-like. if you want to caricature bush or homer simpson or me as ape-like, that's not going to tap any long-existing racist themes. there is actually a history of typing poor immigrant white people in the US as apes, particularly the irish and italians. segments of japanese culture will caricature races they feel to be inferior as apes, as well. but the whole apes-as-african-wildlife thing is what i think makes it so easy to make little digs at black people. racism can be very subtle; feeding little commentaries about people not as good as us into the mainstream. i really think that instead of telling people to get a sense of humor it's probably best to tidy up our language and our vocabulary of images. if we mean no harm, we should not be using language and images that have traditionally been used to cause harm. you will notice that at no time have i couched my thoughts in terms of not permitting people to behave this way; i consistently place the responsibility for decent behavior on people themselves. people not wishing to appear racist should not say racist things. people not wishing to appear racist and dishonest should not say racist things and then pretend they're not racist. people wishing to appear racist should by all means come right out and say so. people wishing to call them out on this behavior should feel equally free to call it what it is. I've never read anything in my life... seriously... that so skillfully expresses white-guilt Political Correctness. This kind of reverse discrimination racism makes me want to vomit. Racism isn't a bomb made with Nitro Glycerin that will blow up if you blow your breath on it. People like this, that think that we should walk around with a microscope and a manual thick as a bible full of taboos, and listing every single item in it that could possibly, maybe, technically, legally, historically, comicly, religiously, and even remotely, possibly, or unconciously HINT that it might nudge someones delicate sensibilities... with a scorepad to keep records on people so you can accurately label all the racists... are not interested in eliminating racism... they are obsessed with it and want to embrace it like a long lost lover. I used to teach race relations classes in the Army as an NCO. Right along and beside my fellow NCO's that were Black and Hispanic. The rule was that everyone in the class could talk openly and honestly about their fears, phobias, stereotypes, beliefs etc. The idea was for the soldiers to practically run the sessions. I believe that many of those young men for the first time in their lives walked away from those classes with a better understanding of life in general. I learned first hand, that over-sensitivity to race can be just as destructive as insensitivity. If you live your life with a radar looking for something to get racially offended about you are going to find it in every facet of life. You may think that it is OK to just arbitrarily decide that someone is a racist and call them that, but using the criteria you expressed you're going to be wrong more times than you are right. And "racist" is a serious thing to call someone. That particular brand of hypersensitive-fanatic racism is likely to get you about a pound of how-do-you-like-me-now right in your grill, and you'd have all five knuckles coming to you. As long as people of any race walk around with a set of silly ideas like you have, then we can forget about being a discrimination-free society. It has got to suck walking through life with your sphincter that tight. A Racial Crime Scene Forensic Investigator and Profiler... now I've seen everything.

Duely noted. However, I am a good judge of character and I make my decisions based on my own observations. For example: I just moved into a new home and the FIRST neighbor to approach my wife and I started telling us all sorts of bad stuff about all the other neighbors, the homeowner's association, etc. My wife turned to me and said, "Is it okay if I don't like her?" I hugged her and said thank you and explained Platoon Mentality to her and she understood why she took an almost instant dislike to a lady who had been nothing but nice to us. You and I won't see things the same way and here's a good example of why: You don't get it. It's not the least bit funny to me and I'm NO Obama fan. I certainly didn't vote for him. There's nothing at all wrong with me either. How rude of you to make such an ASSumption about those that don't see it your way. If I were you I'd be hoping Snoogans' Plan A for retirement in the beautiful Eastern Sierra pans out and that Plan B to head to Asheville to spend my Golden Years doesn't go into action. I'm more like Oz than you would be comfortable with. First, let me make an apology: I was misinformed, and didn't check my facts. It was not Ozguff who posted Mr. Poopie, the cache that I mistakenly assigned to him that had the two cartoon characters made of feces. Earlier in the thread, I mistakenly used this as an example of irony in relation to Ozguff's alleged indignation of the Obama caricature. He has one known as POOP and thus the confusion. Grame, you have my most humble apology for the mistake. I regret the error. However, it doesn't change a thing about the malevolence with this thread. Second, Snoogans, I met you at GeoWoodstock. You seemed to be a jovial and unassuming fellow. I don't have a beef with you, and you know it. You also know that "what's the matter with you people" is a rhetorical statement without the kind of malice you are assigning to it. Also if it makes you feel good to call someone an a**, be courageous and candid, and just say it outright. It's alright, I can take it. I've been called worse by more important people. Shame on you for intentionally creating hostility where there was none. On another reply, there have been several occasions where I've met Ozguff. He has called me many times for phone-a-friends. But there has been an abundance of email between us. Time and again, when his conduct was... let's say... out of the normal bounds of local decorum... I appealed to his better nature. I urged him to take a less harsh approach towards his fellow cachers... especially new ones. I tried to inspire him by letting him know that he could be the single most greatest asset in the Southeast; An ambassodor for geocaching... a legend versus an anti-hero, if you will.. if he would just take a different attitude towards others. Time and again, he blew me off in the most uncaring style. He doesn't respond to friendly advice, and he doesn't respond to nasty criticism... and it got nasty. All it would take for him to be a local hero would be a positive, honest approach but he relentlessly chooses negativity and dishonesty. The routine is: offend someone with uncommon behavior; complain to Groundspeak and get rebuffed; air it out in the forums using a diversionary method; create solid disharmony with the target and all those who appeal to his better nature; monitor the target for the least weakness to begin it all over again. He is the most vindictive cacher I know, and if you defy him, you get smeared in the forums. Don't take my word for it, ask five people at random in this region, and at least one of them will tell you the same... the majority of the rest won't know him but by his reputation for this conduct. Or simply research the forums, and see how much controversy he has brought to it in the past. The ultimate negativity queen. I don't think that's what you had in mind when you say you are like him Snoogans, but I understand your personal value; until you see it, it doesn't exist, and mentioning it offends you. No one has suggested that you can't identify with anyone you wish, using whatever philosophical model you please. And let me be the first to tentatively welcome you to the area. Even though you have chosen to take an unwarranted adversarial relation to me, I'm confident that when you get here and and get that first hand experience you require before you judge everyone else but me, that you and I will become better friends. I don't understand you, but I'm sure that since I've heard and read nothing but good things about you that I would enjoy your presence here. Atrus is a good man. He is not a racist. The intention of this thread was to imply that he is, and drag him through the mud with innuendo and mob mentality. Those are the facts, and if you can't see that then it isn't a reason to start a beef with me. Saying you are a good man is pointless. Having others testify that you are is the only hope a good person has in defending against a slick sneaky race-card smear campaign. Litigation has been initiatied on lessor evidence than you can collect just in this forum, let alone if you add the history between the two people at odds. This thread is just wrong, because it's true motivation is dishonest and shameful. The fact is, that photo is not outside the Terms of Use and that was established before this thread was launched. But if the truth about the real purpose of this thread were revealed, it would fall outside those Terms with flying colors. I posted here to shed some light on that dishonesty. It's up to the community to decide what is the truth and what kind of behavior they will or will not be an accessory or co-dependent to... and decide if this stuff is what geocaching should be about. I'll leave the last word to others.

I see... it was really the OP that uploaded that offensive photo? How sneaky of him!! First, you apparently aren't paying close enough attention to effectively participate. I hope that's what the problem is. And second, an offensive photo hasn't been uploaded. I have an idea! How about you expound on your two-sentence conclusions and risk a critique of your reasoning on the matter? It would be especially refreshing if you can demonstrate an ability to do it without substituting sarcasm for substance.

Absolutely right Riffster! Logic can be so logical sometimes, can't it? There is a distinct difference between racial respect with equality and the condecending political correctness that passes for it. And don't think that people will hesitate to use it as a weapon, or to make themselves feel superior to those who don't get in step with it. Political correctness only diminishes the object of it's affection! And let me ask you Castle... when is enough? How long do we have to suffer the discrimination of a double standard like that before it becomes politically incorrect? You can't make a right with a wrong, no matter how noble it makes you feel.

Godwins law? Hardly. I don't think you understand the theory. I compared you to nothing, Grame. I only stated an incidental fact. And Snoogans, Thank you sincerely, but I have perceived nothing. I've witnessed it. You see, I live in this area. You might think you know someone, but until you have spent some time with the people throughout the Eastern seaboard who have dealt with this behavior it might be you who is unaware. My point is that this thread has a hidden agenda. It was a deliberate attempt to defame a member of the local geocaching community. Atrus, Paperman1 and catlover are some of the most gentle, kind and fun loving geocachers in this community. I know them personally, and I am telling you that I know the OP just as well. This isn't about an objectionable photograph, it's about drama... it's about slander by proxy. Those of you who this OP have appealed to, and have responded in defense of decency are to be commended for it. But if you only knew the background of everyone concerned, you would be angry about how you have been used. Read his words carefully. See how he continuously says he isn't "going there" but does anyway. Observe how he awkwardly says that he isn't accusing someone of racism, but nakedly implies it over and over. Open your mind and look, and you will see the hidden agenda. Why does this matter to me? Because it never ends. Time and again the sport is spoiled and our area defamed with shameless drama by one who abuses the system and the forums to get even for petty differences. And this time, it's gone too far. A good man's character has been assasinated. Atrus, a gentle man who has been a champion for the more conservative type of geocaching... so much so, that he refuses to log caches and only leaves a note to show that he puts his money where his mouth is when he says "it's not about the numbers"...who has been an active and supporting player who doesn't have an enemy in the community save this one... ...has had his geocaching name seriously drug through the dirt... for the fun of revenge in a petty dispute. Did the OP intend to have you label him a racist? You bet he did. And it's been done by one who time and again, upsets the local community with unpopular ideas, complaints and harrasments. Sometimes valid, sometimes not, but always with a carefully targeted individual. Relentlessly, he is alone in the Southeast with his adventurism... and always labels his monkeyshines as "just being opinionated". I respectfully ask you to reconsider your opinions towards Atrus. I stand here to tell you that what has been implied and said about him in this thread that would lead you to believe that he intended any disrespect towards any ethnic group is a slanderous untruth, and I submit to you that this thread was initiated with malice and aforethought in deceptive purpose. Has the OP made an accusation of racism? Not at all... he is leading YOU to do that for him. It's his modus operandi. If there is any indecency that aproaches the ugliness of racism, it is to accuse or imply it of another when you know in your heart it isn't true, and in so doing, to rob an innocent person of their dignity. What's it to me? To paraphrase someone who posted earlier: all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

What's the matter with half you people? It's a funny picture. Period. If it were a picture of a private citizen, it could possibly be considered slanderous in a civil court, but if a person is well known, and the subject matter is clearly parody which is obvious to any reasonably prudent person, then there is no basis for calling foul... this one was settled long ago by the Supremes. Since before electricity, politicians have been parodied and had their features distorted in cartoon, and later in pictures. I think it's clear that the object of the parody is a politician. Traditionally, political cartoonists who take these kind of toungue-in-cheek shots at the President are invited to the White House during the lame duck portion of a President's tenure. Even the President can find them funny. As a matter of fact, recently, former President Bush gave a speech using a slide show of himself in the oval office looking for something on the floor, under the desk, etc. and he narrated it by continually asking: "Where are those weapons of mass destruction?" "Are they here... are they under here?" Standing alone, and without anything else to examine, there is absolutely nothing racial about the photo. You can muster up something in your conciousness if you want too, but it's pure biased speculation to do so. The motivation behind the comedy is that the President is dumb. I suppose if you voted for him, you're offended... if you didn't, it's funny. Trouble is, as a general rule, you don't have a right not to be offended by something that doesn't have anything to do with YOU personally. The only other issue? Is it ok to do this to a black man? You are absolutely right it is! He enjoys no more right not to be parodied than any other famous person... or are we not still living in a society of equals? It is a self evident truth that this kind of parody is commonly published depicting politicians of all ethnicity. I'm 52 years old. I've written harsh articles in the local newspapers criticising Bob Jones University for their racist policies in the late 70's-early 80's. I'm not just a Republican, I'm a Libertarian, and the only inspiring and uplifting thing I can find about our President is that he is a black man. I am proud that we, as a nation, during my lifetime have shown without a shadow of a doubt that we are one people. I'm comfortable with it, and I don't look for racism in every corner of society. As a nation, have we not grown out of that kind of petty hypersensitivity, or are we doomed to have it loom over every word and every expression? I know the cache owner; I know the person who posted the log; and I know the person who started this controversial thread... and they all know each other. The cache owner is a retired Postman. He and his wife are some of the most beloved cachers in the Southeast. There is only one person in this area that will say anything bad about them, and I'll let you guess who that is. The person that posted the log is highly respected and loved too. It might interest you to know that he has thousands of finds, but does not log any of them. It wasn't the numbers, it was the fun of the cache that he was, and always is interested in. He doesn't have a racist bone in his body. The person who started this thread is one of the most prolific in these kinds of threads. Somehow, it seems that if there is anything slightly controversial, Groundspeak gets a letter from him. 99% of the time, they don't see it his way, and it's off to the forums. To be nice about it, he is the most controversial member of the community in the Southeast. I am dumbfounded that a person who would publish a cache that depicts two cartoon characters made of feces would find offense in anything. His notoriety is such that he himself has been parodied on the internet with a photo depicting him in Natzi-like uniform with the swastikas replaced with a geocaching "G". HE HAS HIJACKED YOUR ATTENTION, AND IS LAUGHING AT YOU ALL WHILE DISPARAGING HIS "ENEMY". Geocaching is a sport. Not like football, but like hunting. When is everybody going to get it into their head that it's not a competition. You are never going to know if a numbers leader got his numbers the way you think is "right" or not, so why do you even care? If you don't like what's been done with this cache, then don't hate the player, hate the game. If numbers are that important to you, then get your buds to make a cache so you can log it two, three, four or five times, but I for one am tired of crybabies who think they know what the rules are but don't, and don't want them to be anything that doesn't suit their idea of what geocaching should be. And one last thing before I get off the soap box: These people at geocaching.com know what they are doing. Just a handful of people handle the entire business. They've seen just about everything there is go down the pike. An even smaller crew has to handle all the cry babying that goes on. When they make a ruling, chances are, they've already encountered the situation before, and have lived through their mistakes and successes to build the most facinating, inexpensive hobby you could ever ask for. How 'bout giving them a break? You don't know what they know, and you are an idiot if you think you could do it any better than the people who do it every day. The Reviewers are connected. With each other, and very closely with groundpeak. They do it for the love of the sport. Period. Show some respect when they make a decision for the same reasons I already stated. Just because it might not make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense... so give your ego a rest when you all of a sudden think you know best. And most of all, have fun! Mind your own business and don't look for something to whine about unless your rig is dead and you ain't got two more AA batteries... now THAT's something to whine about! OH! ... and don't be co-dependent to agitators.

Everyone has their preferences, and that's cool. But I try to find out in advance what an event is about, and if it's just to sit, eat, and talk I don't bother. To me that's like a "smiley-grab" 1/1 skirt-lifter geocache. (no offence Starbrand) True, just getting a smiley for going geocaching is outside the rules. But having an organized hunt before or after having an event is ok. If you are going to make it weeklong, you could add all sorts of activities related to geocaching. Think geocoins and bugs... what activities could you come up with? How about a geocaching olympics? One day you could schedule a CITO. How 'bout a campfire cooking contest? Hide some temporary caches and have a poker run using poker cards in envelopes. Contact your local Department of Natural Resources and see if you can get them to send a wildlife expert to give a small seminar on dangerous plants and wildlife in the area. Get several decks of the FTF card game and have a tournament for prizes. Invite your local reviewer to come for a Q&A. Set up a compass course and have an expert teach back-up navigation. Kyaks? Rappelling? Just use your imagination, and try to make it practically about geocaching in some way! All you gotta do is get some volunteers to help and stay enthusiastic! These kinds of events are remembered!

You had us at "this issue is a molehill". Only two out of 40 have asked, only one out of 40 complained. Rare is the cacher that even looks for something like this on a cache page. Less would pain over this than do over lampskirts by about 100 to 1. Lampskirts live on, and yet the cyborgs haven't absorbed us into the collective. In North Carolina, it would take 5 minutes for me to tell a cacher what they can't do, but in South Carolina it would take me 20 minutes to tell a cacher all of what they can't do. This has nothing to do with reviewer temperament, its just the way the cookie has crumbled over the last 8 years, but the point is that if a cache will pass in SC, you can bet your sister it's gonna pass in NC... you have hundreds of caches in both states and know this; another stretched-to-the-limit argument. You've emailed me twice about this, posted the same thing twice on the cache page, you initiated an inquiry that included two reviewers. You complained directly to Groundspeak, and with no success on the horizon, now you have offered this for world-wide consideration in the Groundspeak forums, arugued it with four different angles, and in spite of the overwhelming number of "who cares" you have repeated yourself over and over... if that's not grinding an axe then there's no such thing. You had it right in the first sentence: This is a downunder molehill turned into a Sassafrass mountain.

Thanks Goff, It's true, I've never been accused of excessive brevity! And I apologize to those uninterested in what really brought us here to begin with.

I suppose it is indeed the original question that should be addressed. Should Sassafrass be re-catalogued to show it as a North Carolina cache? A cache is just a cache. It's there to be found and logged. Anything beyond that is up to the individual owner. The requirements of the cache are set by the owner. The theme, if any, is set by the owner. And most importantly, the cache, it's theme, it's requirements, and it's location is reviewed by a volunteer to test wheather that cache meets the established guidelines. Sassafrass is one of those caches that, due to it's theme, must sit on the "fence" or it's worthy theme cannot exist. The original volunteer reviewer who approved and published this cache was well aware of the issue that now has been labeled an "error". There is no error. It was unkown wheather the accuracy of all the elements was sound then, and it is still unknown. Then, as now, the relevance of the accuracy was unimportant to the intent of this cache. The intent of the owner was to bring cachers to a beautiful place, and to allow them to come to the highest peak in South Carolina. It is the peak that is the theme. The intent is simple and clear. There was no intent to include the cache in "location-based" games initiated by other cache owners. The actual scientific location of this cache has no relation to the original intent or theme of the cache. Each cache, and it's intent should stand alone when being judged for fitness to be published. It's relation to, and how it will fit into unrelated games or goals created by other cache owners or finders is not a burden that any cache owner should be forced to consider. Once you set that sort of precedent, the sky is the limit to the ensuing pettiness. So if this cache is to stand alone in it's examination for fitness, then, in this case, the two questions that had to be answered were these: 1. Has there been a reasonable effort made to establish the correct location of the cache? 2. Will any unavoidable margin of error hinder the finder in locating this cache? The first question was answered by me to the original reviewer of the cache; he was satisfied. The second question is answered by the fact that in over two years and with 40 finds, there has not been a single DNF on this cache. Out of hundreds of caches, it was one of only 5 to be nominated for an accolade by the cachers of South Carolina. The logs reflect an overwhelmingly positive experience by those who seek it. Reversing a two year old decision should not be taken lightly. Standing by a decision to insure continuity and stability of the game outweighs an inconvenienced owner whose series he has made dependent on the caches of others. This is a matter of choice: The cache page tells the finder what state this cache is officially listed in. If he needs a cache to satisfy the requirements of an unrelated game, he has free will to move to another cache for his quest. The cache owner of the game has the freedom to include or exclude any cache he wishes in setting the requirements of his own cache. And no cacher, who has logged a cache in a particular state... in good faith... should later find that his stats of a sudden have changed to satisfy the curiosity or goals... benevolent or otherwise, of another. Neither should a cacher who has satisfied the requirements of another game (Delorme, Alphabet, etc.) become suddenly lacking in those requirements. Stare Decisis: Stand by the decision (of the original volunteer reviewer) As it stands, an easy, self-designed remedy is available to every concerned party. If there is an imposed change, irreversible problems could be created, and the theme of a well received cache is greatly diminished. Every other consideration is just semantics or malcontent. Some inevitably become dysfuntional in an imperfect world. Some frown on Lamp Skirt caches. Some are bothered by guard-rail micros. Some despise a cache placed among stones, and I don't care for puzzle caches. The fact is, none of us have an inalienable right to be content with everything in geocaching. The peak, and the border are one. It is an unavoidable anomaly if you want to place a cache themed on this state's highest ground. If it doesn't suit you, calm down and move on. "You can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd... but you can be happy if you've a mind to!..."

Let me clear some things up... once again, this is my cache... First, I know this OP personally. Since he insists on airing this out here, we will. IMHO, he is "rude and demanding", and I've called him on it in a nice way on many ocassions. I said there was a hidden agenda in the creation of this thread and there is. He logged this cache long ago, but only after... right after... a personal letter from me admonishing him for picking on new geocachers for acusing them of damaging an environment that was damaged before the cache was placed... only then did he report this cache to the NC Reviewer as being in the wrong state. I was asked about it by the SC Reviewer, and no demand to change anything was made. This entire question was resolved when this cache was published. I archived this cache for reasons that had little to do with this OP and his complaint, and was urged by others, including the reviewer, to reactivate it. Two hours after archiving it, our friend here posted a note with an "inside" jab hidden in it. I deleted it, and he bypassed the usual appeal procedure, (probably because the locals know him) and it was overruled and reposted by reluctant execs. at GC.com. Within hours of the cache being reactivated, he started this thread. The OP caches under multiple names, and is about as well known as anyone in this region of the US. He has placed hundreds of caches, and has even been on television in support of geocaching. New cachers are sometimes in awe of his acomplishments. He has the potential to be a real leader and advocate for geocaching, but choses the dark side instead. There have been countless times that I have pleaded with him to live up to his legend and use it to promote good will instead of tearing down everyone else's fun. It has decended into anymosity, and this thread is just one more in a long line of recent indescretions meant to harass me for having the audacity to appeal to his sense of kindness and fellowship towards others. He'll not be happy until he finds a way to force me to submit to his will. How do you place a cache on a summit that has an imaginary line over the top of it? The terrain and the adequacy of a place to hide the cache effectively don't recognize these imaginary lines, and the satelites under wooded cover don't give much cooperation either. Add in the ambiguity of multiple surveys and computer datum translation into graphics and you'll conclude that there is no definable science you can depend on. And who cares anyway... it's geocaching, not oil drilling on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border! You do the best you can, and the cache should stand on it's own merit for it's own intended purposes and has no burden to accomodate anyone else's "Delorme" aspirations. Did I mention that Sassafrass missed by one vote being chosen Traditional Cache of the Year by the South Carolina Geocaching Association? It seems to be OK with the rest of the local community! As offered by others in this thread, it would be very easy for the OP to adjust his Delorme cache page to accomodate this anomaly. Jesus! Allow it to count or not... but true to his constant-peculiar and dominating nature, he'd insist that the rest of the community should accomodate his wants and needs, and he comes here in a not-so-forthright fashion for affirmation of his hidden agenda. Geocaching is a pastime. It is unique in that it is a game that can be defined by the player. If the player wishes, it's a game of solitaire. If you want to compete, there are those who will rule-split with you. But those who just want to have a simple family oriented adventure are the backbone of this community, and they shouldn't have to go through the gauntlet at every turn to expedite the ambitions and egos of those obsessed with meaningless facts, figures, and pointless interpretations of geography. And the boys in Seattle, and our gracious volunteers have better things to do than referee this insuferable ego-laden hairsplitting. If some of us would spend as much time talking about what is good about geocaching... cheerleading the efforts of others... if we used our experience to guide and enhance the adventure and imagination of the not-so-expereinced as we do finding something to cry about, throwing penalty flags, and trying to erase grey areas from our personal scorecards, we'd all enjoy it more... ...and we'd have more friends.

Sassafrass is my cache. I've never been concerned as much about where it is as what it is. It was placed to celebrate the highest peak in South Carolina. Period. Unfortunately, that highest peak is also split down it's middle by the NC/SC line. Where is it? some say SC... some say NC. But what is it? It is a premium ammo box geocache placed to comemorate a significant geographical feature of my home state. It is the ending point, (or midway point for some), of one of the most beautiful hiking trails in Appalachia. It's base is covered with sassafrass trees... so comes it's name. It has a beautiful view just a short walk from a South Carolina parking area. It is listed on Tigerz website as the highest-elevation cache in South Carolina. For all but the hard core nitpicker, it sits on a state line. It is a cache placed by a South Carolina cacher in the best hiding spot on South Carolina's peak to honor South Carolina... for all cachers to enjoy. Many have gently inquired about it, but only one has ever made an issue of it. I archived it for reasons that have nothing to do with the duck... the duck is really a hidden agenda... but so many asked me not to archive it because it's on their "to do" lists, and so I changed my mind and asked that it be unarchived. There's no such thing as a cache that will always meet the needs and desires of every cacher, and some have nothing better to do than to criticize them when they don't. It's been suggested that I put a note on the cache page for those who can't get a life without an official resolution. I think I'll leave it a mystery for the obsessed to chase their tales about. If you're lucky enough to visit Sassafrass, no matter wheather you come by trail or car, there is no way that you cannot cross the highest ground in South Carolina to find it, and there is no way that you cannot be inspired by the beauty of both NC and South Carolina. It's meant to take you to a special place to show you nature's beauty and wonder as well as a cartographic anomaly, And of course, there is a mystery to ponder... what other cache can you find and then still ask yourself...just where is this cache???? Resolved: it's an adventure on every level, and if that's not what geocaching is really about for you... who cares?