Jump to content

We'll Never Forget #1 - Rejected because it supports an agenda ?


4America
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

seems like a slippery slope.

 

if the 9/11 cache is posted because it's obviously a popular agenda, at what point does the line get drawn?

 

 

seems like the idea of keeping politics and agendas out of caches is a good one, and doesn't mean for a second that anyone doesn't support your view or your agenda, it just means that once that line is broken (which it appears to be now in this case) where does it stop?

 

 

but hey, what do I know.

 

 

/.02

Link to comment

seems like a slippery slope.

 

if the 9/11 cache is posted because it's obviously a popular agenda, at what point does the line get drawn?

 

 

seems like the idea of keeping politics and agendas out of caches is a good one, and doesn't mean for a second that anyone doesn't support your view or your agenda, it just means that once that line is broken (which it appears to be now in this case) where does it stop?

 

 

but hey, what do I know.

 

 

/.02

 

Nearly every cache has an agenda, whether its to bring people to a nice view, introduce them to an interesting historic site, or simply to provide numbers hounds with an easy smiley. So where would YOU draw the line?

Link to comment

Firstly I know we do not want to descend to the level of terrorist mentality, but it is worth noting that apparently the only agenda in the terrorist homelands is to perpetrate cradle to the grave hatred of USA.

Even childrens' cartoons carry this theme. 2 yearolds and up are taught to chant hate against USA, UK and Israel.

If we don't have an agenda, whether it be on GC or not we are on a slippery slope.

 

edit apostrophe

Edited by hannieIII
Link to comment

I just read this post for the first time, and I'm glad that it was resolved to the satisfaction of the OP and the cache placer.

 

I personally feel that discussing this in the forums was a good thing, because just as some may feel the geocache listing had an agenda, there are those with their own agenda, wanting you to forget 911. Someday they will deny that it ever happened.

 

If I ever forget, that means I'm already dead. Never forget 911.

Link to comment

I'm also very glad that this got resolved-- it would be a shame to know that tribute caches were considered out of bounds. I think the folks from Groundspeak handled the situation well :ph34r:

 

(Speaking of promoting agendas... I sense this thread might be taking a slight turn in that direction.... So, since the issue is resolved and there is already this thread on the NeverForget 9/11 series, I respectfully recommend that someone close this thread :o.... just a suggestion!)

Link to comment

Seems that the matter is settled but I still want to add my own little thoughts.

 

Some agendas just need supporting. Seems to me that, if there is an agenda involved here, I say again 'IF', then it is the agenda of the people who are against murder on a huge scale.

 

To say that, 'allowing these caches makes it necessary to allow the terrorists to place caches too', is completely silly. A great example of political correctness which is a sad way to think and a sad way to live.

 

I am not sure if there is an agenda involved in any real sense but, as I said above. If there is, I support it.

 

The phrase 'Remember 9/11' does not offend me at all. The fact that such a phrase was able to come into the language offends me to a degree that I can't measure.

 

Edited to add some punctuation!

Edited by bug and snake
Link to comment

"The phrase 'Remember 9/11' does not offend me at all. The fact that such a phrase was able to come into the language offends me to a degree that I can't measure",,AND SOME!!!

 

BLITZ came into my vocabulary in 1940, on the receiving end

 

The worst night of the Blitz occurred on its last night - May 10, 1941 - when 3,000 Londoners were killed

 

Do I have an agenda ?..you bet on it.

 

9-11-never-forget.gif

 

AND

 

uk_never_forget.gif

Edited by hannieIII
Link to comment

I'm glad the cache has been approved. I'm also a little disappointed with the apparently well intentioned but misguided "logic" that some have expressed for not approving it.

...If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.
...If they permit certain agendas, well, they are going to have to permit other agendas and agendas that might not nearly be as popular.
Jeremy and Groundspeak can allow or prohibit just about whatever kinds of caches they want. There is no legal requirement for them to be even-handed, "fair and balanced", etc. They aren't even required to adhere to their own guidelines, and can violate or change them at will.

 

The hijackings and murders committed by the terrorists on 9/11 were acts of evil. The response of the police, firefighters, and citizens at the WTC, the Pentagon, and aboard United 93 were heroic, selfless, and good. Some things really are black and white. Some things really do deserve commendation and commemoration. The world, not just the U.S., changed on 9/11. I'm glad the cache was approved.

Link to comment

Hey guys and gals...

 

I see this topic is drifting a bit myself. Expressing our feelings over the actions of the day and the people that caused it is more for off topic than for this forum actually. We can deal with the discussion of the caches and all, but let's keep things in check.

 

I think the caches do need to be worded correctly. Maybe over the next few days we can work on getting some language developed so we can keep some consistency and to make sure none of the submissions crosses over the line. It is a tribute to the day, just like some of my civil war caches. No sides are picked, just the memory of the event. One of my favorites is my "High Ground" cache. All I so is feature is a very cool, relatively unknown area that shows how defensive positions were laid out near rail lines down here. No agenda, no sides picked.

 

I talked to a buddy of mine today who is FDNY. It is a tough time for them right now. Keep the caches simple. Keep the emotion out of them as well. Just remember.

Link to comment

Since this hullabaloo was about my cache, I want to offer a few comments.

 

The originator of this series wanted to create a memorial series to the people who died and were injured on 9/11, a worthy goal.

 

He did create language he suggested that we all use, and emailed that HTML to me and I assume to all who decided to place one.

 

I chose not to use his HTML as I am not a programmer, had no idea what it did, and saw that it contained links to places I was not familiar with. Not that that's a bad thing, I just didn't want to take the time to research all that code.

 

I wrote what I felt like was a fitting memorial to the fallen and to the heroes among us today. I felt the attacks and results to be disgusting and said so, but then tried to express my appreciation to the heroes revealed, the sense of unity that resulted, and the natural, instinctive response by so many among us who do not set out to be heroes but perform heroicly when tested.

 

I stayed away from filling the cache with patriotic materials and chose to just let the name and description speak for itself... it contains regular cache items.

 

I listed the cache and it was published.

 

I saw this thread before checking my email and thought that it meant the whole series had been disabled, and made a post with that in mind.

 

It wasn't until CO_Admin posted pointing out that it was just my listing in question that I went to read my email and see what was going on.

 

If I had known that it was just my cache in question I would have opened a dialogue with my Reviewer to see what the issue was instead of posting here.

 

Now knowing that it was just my cache in question and that the issue was out of the hands of my Reviewer, I filed an appeal with Groundspeak, as is proper.

 

For what it's worth, I would never have brought such an issue directly to the forums as I believe the Review and Appeals process works.

 

Even had I been over-ruled I would not bring a complaint to the forums, as after a Review and an Appeal all one can do in the forums is gripe, which helps no one!

 

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, mass emailing and outcry won't change anything and just identifies you as a rude and aggressive community member. A calm and logical argument might get an appeal decision reversed, but it's not likely, especially if conducted in public.

 

As far as the issue of an agenda, the posts here show the problem with defining one. Some posters focused on the legitimate memorial to a disaster aspect, some spoke out about their personal politic and belief with various levels of passion. Can you tell which ones carry an unacceptable over-the-top agenda? Neither can I except in the extreme cases!

 

How to differentiate is often confusing. I spent 34 days doing disaster communications in Biloxi, MS. via ham radio after Katrina, begging everyone I could find to send help, yet had no problem with Groundspeak's choice not to host pages that appealed for funds and support or made refernce to the success or failure of recovery efforts.

 

On the other hand I will attend an event next month that memorializes the victims and celebrates the recovery of the survivors, an event Groundspeak has chosen to list.

 

See the difference? A listing asking us to support a charitable cause has a direct agenda.. An event memorializing the event does not. Pretty much the same logic here.

 

This time the appeal was favorable, with language that it was close to the line to remind us to watch what we write so as not to cross that thin invisible line. Next time if I am shut down the appeal may not be favorable... so be it, it's their decision and going on the warpath won't help change it!

 

Work the system, the system works.

Ed

 

EDIT - Just noticed this is post 1000! Man, I gotta get a life!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Example:

I'm placing the "Remember Iraq 2003-2006 Cache Series #1" for all of the victims of the Iraqi war. Whether they were Iraqis shot by Americans, Americans shot by Americans, Canadians shot by Americans, Iraqis killed by Iraqis, oh and don't forget Poland...these innocent people have died as a result of invasion of a sovereign nation and we should never forget the thousands who have died because of it.

 

Please help me by submitting your own cache, I want one in every county in the U.S. to get even 1/10th of the way to the total number of lives lost (and still being lost every day) as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

So...where do we draw the line? We can't make "Go go Gadget Red Cross!" caches for Katrina...but we can memorialize 9/11 in a billion caches. What about something like Pearl Harbor? Do a search, I'm guessing there's a few. Ok, how about Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Might even be a few memorial caches there. Should Germany hide a cache for every Jew put to death in a concentration camp?

 

Then what about every firefighter who dies on duty but it just didn't happen to be on 9/11/01? And the ones who die off duty...are they not worthy just because it wasn't in the act of their latest honorable effort? The paramedics, the volunteers at Ground Zero dying from respiratory problems now, the list keeps going. Lots of people do great things in response to evil/disasterous things being done.

 

I'd like Geocaching to stay out of the grand-scale memorialization business. I thought their take on the Red Cross/Katrina and London bombing geocaches was a good one. I saw this issue coming a mile away when I saw the first post asking for people to help create this cache series and well, I didn't say anything because I didn't feel like going headlong into the dark against everyone's (including my own) 9/11/01 sentimentality and reverence.

 

Oh well, I guess they buckled though. Probably an easy choice for them since I'm guessing the 2 Anti-americans that just quit their premium memberships were replaced by 4 patriots ready to support a site dedicated to helping remember 9/11.

Link to comment

Example:

I'm placing the "Remember Iraq 2003-2006 Cache Series #1" for all of the victims of the Iraqi war. Whether they were Iraqis shot by Americans, Americans shot by Americans, Canadians shot by Americans, Iraqis killed by Iraqis, oh and don't forget Poland...these innocent people have died as a result of invasion of a sovereign nation and we should never forget the thousands who have died because of it.

 

Please help me by submitting your own cache, I want one in every county in the U.S. to get even 1/10th of the way to the total number of lives lost (and still being lost every day) as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

So...where do we draw the line? We can't make "Go go Gadget Red Cross!" caches for Katrina...but we can memorialize 9/11 in a billion caches. What about something like Pearl Harbor? Do a search, I'm guessing there's a few. Ok, how about Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Might even be a few memorial caches there. Should Germany hide a cache for every Jew put to death in a concentration camp?

 

Then what about every firefighter who dies on duty but it just didn't happen to be on 9/11/01? And the ones who die off duty...are they not worthy just because it wasn't in the act of their latest honorable effort? The paramedics, the volunteers at Ground Zero dying from respiratory problems now, the list keeps going. Lots of people do great things in response to evil/disasterous things being done.

 

I'd like Geocaching to stay out of the grand-scale memorialization business. I thought their take on the Red Cross/Katrina and London bombing geocaches was a good one. I saw this issue coming a mile away when I saw the first post asking for people to help create this cache series and well, I didn't say anything because I didn't feel like going headlong into the dark against everyone's (including my own) 9/11/01 sentimentality and reverence.

 

Oh well, I guess they buckled though. Probably an easy choice for them since I'm guessing the 2 Anti-americans that just quit their premium memberships were replaced by 4 patriots ready to support a site dedicated to helping remember 9/11.

 

I think this post deserves a response from the Powers That Be at Groundspeak, for it raises some very good points.

 

I don't suppose my new cache, "War! Huh! What Is It Good For?" will be published any time soon, but I do expect my "Support Our Troops!" cache will be :)

 

MrW.

Link to comment

I would bet that there is some "agenda" attached to almost all of them. I can probably find an agenda in any cache frankly. If juggler actually had any hidden caches, I bet I could find an agenda in his.

 

If geocaches don't take you to special places, then all caches might as well be lamp post micros. Ahh, but then these lamp posts have to be somewhere lighting up something, right? Is the whole point of the lamp post micro actually an agenda to get you into the parking lot of that location, for whatever reason? How about a mountain top cache? No agenda? Heck, you need to go buy good hiking shoes to get there. Is that an agenda for stores that sell hiking shoes? What about a cache that is on an island that requires a boat because there are sharks in the waters and you cannot swim there. Is that an agenda for the boating industry? To even *go* geocaching, you have to have a GPS. Is this whole thing and agenda to sell GPSRs for the navagation device industry?

 

Let's just pull the plug on the GC servers and go Waymarking.

 

Sound like a plan? :)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

I would bet that there is some "agenda" attached to almost all of them. I can probably find an agenda in any cache frankly.

 

The concept that "every cache has an agenda" is built from poor argumenation/logic. It's true that you can read anything into whatever you want. For example, look at those who would search for sex-related imagery in every Disney movie. Therefore, every Disney movie is just a vehicle for sex-related imagery?

 

This is why I think it is wisely phrased by the guidelines that "...caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." It is a matter of perception and the people at Groundspeak are not searching for agendas, so it is when one appears and is perceived by the admin that it gets tagged as prohibited. The shades of grey are their own, but until recently, it was clear that they erred on the side of caution by denying caches that specifically solicit (as that's a fairly open'n'shut case of working an agenda) and those that made a concerted effort to portray a specific religious/political/etc agenda.

 

So my point was two-fold:

1) If rememberance/memorial caches are allowed, then at what point does the sheer volume or content of the cache suddenly shift undue weight on the series of such caches that it becomes more about the agenda and not about 50 or more new caches being placed just so each state has a new memorial cache?

2) How many unpopular memorial caches will be allowed if they follow the same "just remember, no agenda" acceptability of the new 9/11 memorial cache series? A cache titled "Remembering Iraqis killed by Americans" with a bland description (like "This is a cache hidden in a nice park where I like to visit") has even less agenda than the ones that appear to be allowed for the 9/11 series. If that's okay, then what about a "Alot of Jews died in WWII cache" or the "Palestinians are being forced from their homes by Israeli settlers cache"?

 

It was much more understandable when geocaches didn't revolve around international events as tupperware and trinket memorials based on the placers' world views.

Link to comment

Let me help you with another part of the guidelines as well...

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache.

This is exactly what happened. An exception was made. If a similar issue is brought up, you may feel free to do the same thing that TheAlabamaRambler did successfully. You need to go hide a cache first though.

 

Here, I think you dropped something by the way...

 

dspoon2.jpg

Link to comment

After looking at the listing GCY95G I will be relisting the cache. The reviewer was following the direction of what members at Groundspeak had asked her to do. Sometimes we need to look back at those decisions and decide if they were correct. In this case I believe the reviewer had made the correct decision when listing the cache.

 

In this series of caches they are placed in memory of an event. Some commentary on some of the cache listings could lead them to be interpreted as having an agenda yet I do not feel that was the purpose.

 

Sorry that this has gotten so crazy.. I was just trying to do a good thing... I have a whole slew of emails and forum messages I am working on, so if you sent me something, please be patient!

 

Thanks Hydee for approving the cache / plan. I am woking on a cache posting that could be used for all of the caches, but who do I send it to for approval?

 

My inital concern was that I didn't want to boilerplate the cache, just a couple of elements, but let the cache posterhave some freedom. Guess that wasn't such a good idea.

 

Thanks to EVERYONE that has (and hopefully will continue) assisted in the "Well Never Forget 9/11" geocaches, especially the underpaid forum moderators and cache approvers!

 

4America

 

Just use yours as the master and pictures you want everyone to use. Yours has been approved, it should be ok. Let me know on the master and I will start working on my cache page. It is hidden. thanks

Link to comment
... I don't understand why placing a cache in honor of 9/11 is considered an inappropriate agenda. ...

The caches in question put out the message that terrorism is a horrible concept. This can serve to hurt the feelings of those terrorists who also are geocachers.

 

Wait a minute. :) That's probably not it.

 

Everything is an "agenda" to someone.

 

For Crying Out Loud! They MURDERED thousands of our citizens!!!!

 

I FOR ONE, DON'T GIVE A RAT'S TAIL IF THEY (the terrorists) GET THEIR FEELINGS HURT! If they are geocachers and don't like it (memorials to 9-11), let them get another hobby- preferably one that doesn't involve airplanes and explosives.

 

We had BETTER remember, or we will RELIVE it when they DO IT AGAIN.

 

I hope there will be thousands of caches with this agenda. WE MUST NEVER FORGET 9-11

Link to comment

EVERYTHING we ever do in life represents an agenda of some kind. Enjoying the activity of Geocaching is an "agenda" we all have... that's why we go out there.

 

Rejecting Rambler's cache because of a perceived "agenda" would IN ITSELF have a "agenda" of its own. In that case, the "agenda" would be to uphold political correctness and to deny those who find the killings of 9-11-01 repulsive and disgusting, the opportunity to memorialize those who died. I mean, do we have people who think those killings WEREN'T disgusting, reviewing caches? Do we have reviewers who think that killing 3,000 people on that day was a GOOD and HONORABLE act? By denying those memorial caches, someone is tacitly saying that it's OK to "forget" 9-11 because to remember the deaths might "offend" someone.

 

If that had happened, the WRONG "agenda" wins out, and that is always an obscenity in itself.

 

Good for you, Rambler! Glad you stuck to your guns and I will make it a point to go nab your cache later today the first chance I get. Someone at Groundspeak should be ashamed, and I don't mean honeychile... she was overruled by someone who needs to get a clue.

Edited by secondnomore
Link to comment

Let me help you with another part of the guidelines as well...

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache.

This is exactly what happened. An exception was made. If a similar issue is brought up, you may feel free to do the same thing that TheAlabamaRambler did successfully. You need to go hide a cache first though.

 

I'm not claiming that anything about this particular incident happened incorrectly. Your strawman argument holds no weight. If you don't want to respond to the two points that I laid out in good detail in my last post, then feel free not to respond, but to respond with "well, but, situation X has been handled correctly" is pointless. I'm not discussing whether TAR or 4America's caches were listed according to guidelines. I'm discussing the use of geocaches as memorials and to what extent does it go from just a simple geocache to harboring an agenda worthy of getting it prohibited, whether it be because of a large and concerted effort to flood new geocaches with a common sentiment (to the extreme consider 3000 new caches placed in Manhattan for each person who died at Ground Zero) or a toned-down version of an unpopular sentiment (to the extreme consider a "What about the good things Hitler did" cache).

 

Here, I think you dropped something by the way... {picture removed}

 

Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Link to comment
The caches in question put out the message that terrorism is a horrible concept. This can serve to hurt the feelings of those terrorists who also are geocachers.

 

Wait a minute. :) That's probably not it.

... I FOR ONE, DON'T GIVE A RAT'S TAIL IF THEY (the terrorists) GET THEIR FEELINGS HURT! If they are geocachers and don't like it (memorials to 9-11), let them get another hobby- preferably one that doesn't involve airplanes and explosives. ...

Sarcasm is lost on you.

Link to comment

Let me help you with another part of the guidelines as well...

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache.

This is exactly what happened. An exception was made. If a similar issue is brought up, you may feel free to do the same thing that TheAlabamaRambler did successfully. You need to go hide a cache first though.

 

I'm not claiming that anything about this particular incident happened incorrectly. Your strawman argument holds no weight. If you don't want to respond to the two points that I laid out in good detail in my last post, then feel free not to respond, but to respond with "well, but, situation X has been handled correctly" is pointless. I'm not discussing whether TAR or 4America's caches were listed according to guidelines. I'm discussing the use of geocaches as memorials and to what extent does it go from just a simple geocache to harboring an agenda worthy of getting it prohibited, whether it be because of a large and concerted effort to flood new geocaches with a common sentiment (to the extreme consider 3000 new caches placed in Manhattan for each person who died at Ground Zero) or a toned-down version of an unpopular sentiment (to the extreme consider a "What about the good things Hitler did" cache).

My post was regarding the topic. If your post was not about the topic of the "Never Forget" cache that was rejected, then feel free to start a new topic. You posted the "strawman" post. My post was about the cache in question in this topic.

 

Here, I think you dropped something by the way... {picture removed}

Personal attacks are not acceptable.

My point has been proven. You are stirring the pot by posting off topic. I also feel you are harassing me in the forums, and I am tired of it.

Link to comment

My post was regarding the topic. If your post was not about the topic of the "Never Forget" cache that was rejected, then feel free to start a new topic. You posted the "strawman" post. My post was about the cache in question in this topic.

 

Yes, and my posts have been about that same thing. I am concerned with the fact that upon further review the "Never Forget" cache series has been approved as I see it fitting the same lines as the London bombing cache(s) that were not approved in the UK. It opens the question of what is approvable and what is not based around the agenda rule. If you feel that I need to start a new topic to discuss this branch of the discussion (which was not the implicit suggestion given to NotThePainter or briansnat when you responded to their posts earlier in this thread), then I will. I'd like to rationally discuss this issue of guidelines and geocaching.

 

My point has been proven. You are stirring the pot by posting off topic. I also feel you are harassing me in the forums, and I am tired of it.

 

I did not name you in any posts. I have not addressed you directly as you have with me in at least two posts previous in this thread. I have not made any personal attacks in any of my comments. I am not harassing you simply by participating in a forum discussion that you are choosing to participate in. I hope that a third party can look at this sequence of posts in this thread and verify that I've been very reasonable in it while you have chosen to attack my character with suggestions of dropping a giant silver spoon (from my mouth) and making it personal with statements like (paraphrasing) "juggler's never placed a cache".

Link to comment

I know I am being suckered in by someone who is trolling, however...

 

This is why I think it is wisely phrased by the guidelines that "...caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." It is a matter of perception and the people at Groundspeak are not searching for agendas, so it is when one appears and is perceived by the admin that it gets tagged as prohibited. The shades of grey are their own, but until recently, it was clear that they erred on the side of caution by denying caches that specifically solicit (as that's a fairly open'n'shut case of working an agenda) and those that made a concerted effort to portray a specific religious/political/etc agenda.

 

Following your argument that everything having an agenda is baseless, then where is the agenda in this series? Not to pick on any of the others in the series, let's use mine, #13. Where is there an agenda, personal or otherwise in this description?

 

I believe the point GC is trying to make is that putting across a political or commercial agenda is prohibited. If valuing human life, honoring selfless sacrifice or remembering someones achievements is an agenda, we need to set aside all history and social study programs in our elementary, middle and high schools.

 

So my point was two-fold:

1) If rememberance/memorial caches are allowed, then at what point does the sheer volume or content of the cache suddenly shift undue weight on the series of such caches that it becomes more about the agenda and not about 50 or more new caches being placed just so each state has a new memorial cache?

 

I looked at this 2 or 3 times and still am having problems following your point. When did volume become a factor in this particular series?

 

2) How many unpopular memorial caches will be allowed if they follow the same "just remember, no agenda" acceptability of the new 9/11 memorial cache series? A cache titled "Remembering Iraqis killed by Americans" with a bland description (like "This is a cache hidden in a nice park where I like to visit") has even less agenda than the ones that appear to be allowed for the 9/11 series. If that's okay, then what about a "Alot of Jews died in WWII cache" or the "Palestinians are being forced from their homes by Israeli settlers cache"?

 

Valid points. To your first about "Jews", do a search on the words "Jewish" or "Holocaust". They're already there, mostly taking you to or near memorials and some worded as such memorials as well. Also do a search on Civil War, World War, or Vietnam. You'll see similar results. These are past event where loss of life is being memorialized, not a political agenda.

 

The second, the Palestine issue, would be a cache that is most definitely political in it's nature so probably would not be allowed. Very different indeed, but you already knew that.

 

It was much more understandable when geocaches didn't revolve around international events as tupperware and trinket memorials based on the placers' world views.

 

I believe you meant to say that "it was much more tolerable for me" then to say "understandable". Ultimately the hobby/game still does revolve around using expensive equipment to find useless junk, and I suspect always will. I, and I suspect everyone when they think about it, feel as bad about the loss of life in the north as well as the south in the civil wars in the United States as well as Vietnam, the loss of Germans and Japanese citizens and soldiers as I do for the loss of Jewish and Polish people as well as those from the country in which I was born.

 

Do I have feelings about which political faction was justified and which wasn't? Certainly. Do I have strong feelings regarding the events that transpired on 9/11? Most definitely. If you want to move to off topic or do this privately, I will share them with you. But to say memorializing innocent life is a political agenda, to me, is offensive.

 

Sorry, I am afraid I have contributed to this getting off-topic and probably heated. This should probably be moved to the Off-topic area or locked since it will probably only go downhill from here.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

My point has been proven. You are stirring the pot by posting off topic. I also feel you are harassing me in the forums, and I am tired of it.

 

I did not name you in any posts. I have not addressed you directly as you have with me in at least two posts previous in this thread. I have not made any personal attacks in any of my comments. I am not harassing you simply by participating in a forum discussion that you are choosing to participate in. I hope that a third party can look at this sequence of posts in this thread and verify that I've been very reasonable in it while you have chosen to attack my character with suggestions of dropping a giant silver spoon (from my mouth) and making it personal with statements like (paraphrasing) "juggler's never placed a cache".

 

Well put, and some well-argued posts on the topic from you, Juggler. I have been wondering about the exact same things.

Link to comment

My point has been proven. You are stirring the pot by posting off topic. I also feel you are harassing me in the forums, and I am tired of it.

 

I did not name you in any posts. I have not addressed you directly as you have with me in at least two posts previous in this thread. I have not made any personal attacks in any of my comments. I am not harassing you simply by participating in a forum discussion that you are choosing to participate in. I hope that a third party can look at this sequence of posts in this thread and verify that I've been very reasonable in it while you have chosen to attack my character with suggestions of dropping a giant silver spoon (from my mouth) and making it personal with statements like (paraphrasing) "juggler's never placed a cache".

 

Well put, and some well-argued posts on the topic from you, Juggler. I have been wondering about the exact same things.

The posts are off topic. I only said that *if* he does place a cache, that I could find use his same logic to find an agenda in *his* cache. As I have said, I think you can find an agenda in *any* cache. Please reread this post by me once again carefully. It seems to be glossed over by some. The discussion is also off topic.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
I hope that a third party can look at this sequence of posts in this thread and verify that I've been very reasonable in it while you have chosen to attack my character with suggestions of dropping a giant silver spoon (from my mouth) and making it personal with statements like (paraphrasing) "juggler's never placed a cache".

The forum guidelines discuss the third party issue you're asking for:

Complaints: If you have an issue with a specific post/topic on this board, please use the ‘report a post’ link in the lower right hand corner of the post. We will review the post and edit/delete if necessary. Any comments on the personnel of Groundspeak or one of the volunteers, please send an e-mail message to contact@Groundspeak.com.

FWIW, mtn-man explained that the spoon was for stirring the pot, I don't know why a silver spoon makes sense in this thread. :) He has also since explained the comment about you not having any placed caches, which is the way I saw it as well (before his explanation).

 

I don't know if you consider me a third party, but figured I'd offer that up for what it's worth (to you). If you still feel the need to complain, I have provided you the information necessary to do so.

 

Quiggle

Link to comment

yep, after reading this thread, it's clear that no hate, anger, or racism has been generated by this cache at all.

 

but, since so many people have forgotten 9/11 (is there even one person who has or could forget?) it's worth making geocaching political instead of fun.

 

 

sorry, I had too much sarcasm to contain. please forgive me. :)

Link to comment

I'm still going to place my 9/11 cache out there. If that offends anyone, I'm sorry; there's a handy ignore feature you can use. I'm not doing it to be political; actually, I'm looking for ideas for swag to put in there beyond American flag items. If you have tasteful, serious ideas, please drop me an IM. No sarcastic replies, please.

Link to comment
it's worth making geocaching political instead of fun.
Indeed. I think I'll make a "Remember the heroes of Bunker Hill" cache, commemorating the unsung British heroes who selflessly died fighting an inherently evil terrorist insurgency.

See, that's the difference. These 9-11 caches don't commemorate any people, just the day. There are no sides picked. As I have said over and over, you can remember it any way you want. If you think it is great to kill innocent people, you can remember the day with fond memories.

 

If your cache wants to feature the battle that might fly. If you are picking sides, then probably not.

Link to comment

Example:

I'm placing the "Remember Iraq 2003-2006 Cache Series #1" for all of the victims of the Iraqi war. Whether they were Iraqis shot by Americans, Americans shot by Americans, Canadians shot by Americans, Iraqis killed by Iraqis, oh and don't forget Poland...these innocent people have died as a result of invasion of a sovereign nation and we should never forget the thousands who have died because of it.

 

Please help me by submitting your own cache, I want one in every county in the U.S. to get even 1/10th of the way to the total number of lives lost (and still being lost every day) as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with memorial caches. As an example, take a look at your post. You remembered everyone shot by Americans, but not one mention of the Americans who were shot. You see why they might even be necessary, or have you forgotten?

Link to comment

FYI for ju66l3r: There is a multi cache in Nagasaki where the first stage is at Ground Zero. There is also a virtual in Hiroshima near Ground Zero, but not at the A-Bomb Dome. No agendas on either one except promotion of peace. No politics or nationalism implied in either of the listings.

 

There's a cache located at Tehachapi Pass in California, a prime railroad watching site. The title of the cache is "Operation Iraq Freedom II" which only ties loosely to the location. That kind of threw me off a bit.

 

<flame suit on>

 

One would hope that 9/11 Memorial caches are placed in locations that have some relevance to the people and events involved in the tragedy. Otherwise, they will look like "agendas" and may confuse the next generation cachers - you don't want them to ask, "why is it here?"

Link to comment
One would hope that 9/11 Memorial caches are placed in locations that have some relevance to the people and events involved in the tragedy. Otherwise, they will look like "agendas" and may confuse the next generation cachers - you don't want them to ask, "why is it here?"

I was having a conversation with a buddy the other day. The topic was just how far reaching the actions of 9/11 were. Personally, I don't know of anyone, anywhere who did not feel some personal involvement. For this reason, I think you could place these caches just about anywhere and it would be relevant.

Link to comment
One would hope that 9/11 Memorial caches are placed in locations that have some relevance to the people and events involved in the tragedy. Otherwise, they will look like "agendas" and may confuse the next generation cachers - you don't want them to ask, "why is it here?"

I was having a conversation with a buddy the other day. The topic was just how far reaching the actions of 9/11 were. Personally, I don't know of anyone, anywhere who did not feel some personal involvement. For this reason, I think you could place these caches just about anywhere and it would be relevant.

Many cities and towns have plaques and memorials erected to remember 9/11, so I'm hoping the hiders will look for them and place the caches there.

Link to comment

Example:

I'm placing the "Remember Iraq 2003-2006 Cache Series #1" for all of the victims of the Iraqi war. Whether they were Iraqis shot by Americans, Americans shot by Americans, Canadians shot by Americans, Iraqis killed by Iraqis, oh and don't forget Poland...these innocent people have died as a result of invasion of a sovereign nation and we should never forget the thousands who have died because of it.

 

Please help me by submitting your own cache, I want one in every county in the U.S. to get even 1/10th of the way to the total number of lives lost (and still being lost every day) as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with memorial caches. As an example, take a look at your post. You remembered everyone shot by Americans, but not one mention of the Americans who were shot. You see why they might even be necessary, or have you forgotten?

Ummm....

 

He DID mention shot Americans... :)

Edited by ElementalJay
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...