The Lameness Thread

[+KBI]

This is King Bruce the First's new home for Lameness! A place for discussing all things "lame."

• Is there such a thing as a 'lame' cache?
  
• If not, why all the concern?
  
• If so, what makes it lame? Can one define "lame?" Is there a universally accepted consensus definition?
  
• If so, does the existence or growth of lame caches constitute a threat to the game?
  
• If they do, then what, if anything, needs to be done about it?
  
• If nothing wholesale needs to be 'done,' then how do you deal with it yourself?
  
• Do you have any other opinions or concerns related to the word “lame” as it applies to geocaching?
  

This is a topic of wide-ranging scope, and one that is apparently very important to a great many geocachers. So important, in fact, that it seems to always pop up in every thread where the original topic is even vaguely related. Many strong opinions have been presented from many sides, sometimes from directly opposing sides. I’m not trolling for angst here – this is a legitimate concern, yet it keeps legitimately getting booted from other not-quite-related threads. I figured the topic needed a home, so here it is.

 

Let’s please be considerate of each other and follow the usual rules prohibiting personal attacks and such. Otherwise, speak your opinion! Let’s also not be afraid to hear each other out or to keep an open mind. Sound logic is preferred. Rants are welcome, but direct personal insults are not.

 

Already stated your opinion elsewhere? Then feel free to either restate it here, post a link to it, or to quote yourself directly. Pick up where you left off in any reasonable and un-offensive way you prefer.

 

Also, you won’t hear me complaining too much if and when tangent topics pop up here – I want to see where this discussion leads!

[+Cache Heads]

I think lameness threads are lame

[+Klatch]

I think lameness threads are lame

 

Amen. Give it a rest.

[+emurock]

I think lameness threads are lame

 

Amen. Give it a rest.

Amen to that.

[+KBI]

I think lameness threads are lame

Amen. Give it a rest.

Amen to that.

There are a large number of folks who think this is worth discussing. There is no reason to think that you have to read this thread.

 

This is a topic of wide-ranging scope, and one that is apparently very important to a great many geocachers. ... Let’s please be considerate of each other ...

[+nekom]

The only LAME cache in my eyes is one that's misleading. i.e. a 5 terrain that's really a 2, a 1 terrain that's really a 5, a regular cache that's really a micro.

 

Beyond that, one can hunt what one likes.

[+mtn-man]

Geez, the last topic on basically the same subject was closed by a moderator less than 2.5 hours ago.

 

Another new topic already?!?!?

[+Renegade Knight]

Anti lameness threads posts are lame. Anti anti lameness posts are lame. Lame is lame because it's lame. Cool is lame given time. Jumping the shark is lame. The word lame is lame. Gel pens look cool but are lame. Duct tape is lame for duct work.

[+KBI]

Geez, the last topic on basically the same subject was closed by a moderator less than 2.5 hours ago.

 

Another new topic already?!?!?

This topic was started with the specific blessing of a Modrator. I asked before I posted.

[+mtn-man]

Anti lameness threads posts are lame. Anti anti lameness posts are lame. Lame is lame because it's lame. Cool is lame given time. Jumping the shark is lame. The word lame is lame. Gel pens look cool but are lame. Duct tape is lame for duct work.

Reading your post, I thought of the scene in the "Incredibles" movie where the bad guy says "Lame! Lame! Lame! Lame! LAME!" I decided to do an image search on google for "incredibles lame".

 

I then forgot the subject of this topic when I saw the first result.

[Mushtang]

I think lameness threads are lame

 

Amen. Give it a rest.

Amen to that.

 

If only there were some way to avoid reading threads that you don't approve of...

[Pto]

This is King Bruce the First's new home for Lameness! A place for discussing all things "lame."

• Is there such a thing as a 'lame' cache?
  
• If not, why all the concern?
  
• If so, what makes it lame? Can one define "lame?" Is there a universally accepted consensus definition?
  
• If so, does the existence or growth of lame caches constitute a threat to the game?
  
• If they do, then what, if anything, needs to be done about it?
  
• If nothing wholesale needs to be 'done,' then how do you deal with it yourself?
  
• Do you have any other opinions or concerns related to the word “lame” as it applies to geocaching?
  

This is a topic of wide-ranging scope, and one that is apparently very important to a great many geocachers. So important, in fact, that it seems to always pop up in every thread where the original topic is even vaguely related. Many strong opinions have been presented from many sides, sometimes from directly opposing sides. I’m not trolling for angst here – this is a legitimate concern, yet it keeps legitimately getting booted from other not-quite-related threads. I figured the topic needed a home, so here it is.

 

Let’s please be considerate of each other and follow the usual rules prohibiting personal attacks and such. Otherwise, speak your opinion! Let’s also not be afraid to hear each other out or to keep an open mind. Sound logic is preferred. Rants are welcome, but direct personal insults are not.

 

Already stated your opinion elsewhere? Then feel free to either restate it here, post a link to it, or to quote yourself directly. Pick up where you left off in any reasonable and un-offensive way you prefer.

 

Also, you won’t hear me complaining too much if and when tangent topics pop up here – I want to see where this discussion leads!

 

I think lameness threads are lame

 

Amen. Give it a rest.

Amen to that.

 

If only there were some way to avoid reading threads that you don't approve of...

 

I think its lame to come to a thread actually started to discuss lame, only to call the topic lame for even being mentioned. Although all opinions are sought, it seems lame to go to a thread you feel is lame only for the purpose of complaining about lame.

 

Vote with your mouse&meyboard. If lame isnt what you feel like discussing, then this isnt the lamest place for you.

 

I also think a lame cache would be a pog tube/other small/micro out in the woods, where anything large could easily fit.

[+sbell111]

What's a pog tube?

[Pto]

slightly larger/longer than a 35MM film can- (appx 2X6)

[+sbell111]

slightly larger/longer than a 35MM film can- (appx 2X6)

Do they stay relatively dry inside? I've heard that wet logbooks are evil.

[Pto]

They are Not known for their waterproofness....

 

[+wesleykey]

There are no lame caches, only lame forum threads........

[+sbell111]

They are Not known for their waterproofness....

 

I kinda like the size of them. Properly camoed, they might work well in some locations.

[Team CDCB]

Since I didn't get to post in the lame cache thread before it got closed, I thought I might post in here my definition of a lame cache:

 

Any cache that is not prepared with thought and consideration is lame.

 

A cacher needs to think carefully about the location, the container, and the presentation of the cache. He or she needs to take into consideration the land, the land owners and neighboors, and the cache finder. If those things are done, generally speaking, it will be an okay to great cache. If they are not done, it will be generally be a below-average to really lame cache.

 

A micro, even on located in a walmart parking lot, can be a good cache if the owner puts thought into it and presents it nicely. A regular container, even in the most majestic of vistas, can be lame if the owner puts no thought or consideration into it.

[+Woodlit]

Oh geeze, i think maybe 8 or 10 years ago I used to do the "pog" thing. Maybe even 12.. can't remember

 

Stack your pogs with your friends pogs face down. You then take the (forget the word for it, stamper maybe?) large heavy metal pog and slam it down on the stack. When the stack jumps, you see which pogs land face up. You then get to keep the ones that land face up, either yours or your friends. Each player would take turns with the stamper. Simliar to rolling quarters. In fact, the pogs are the geocaching equivilant to geocoins. hehehe Only pogs were some sort of cardboard.

 

This started many-a-argument with kids. Kids would put down their prized pogs, and the other kid would put down a "lame" pog. This way if they lose, they don't care. But if they win, the rewards were great.

 

Reminds me of trade-up or trade-even.

 

I myself had a pog case about 8 inches tall. Some of the cooler kids (spoiled, or parents with big $$$) would have the same case (diameter) but it would stand something like 4 feet tall. And then (hehehe coin collectors) for the most prizes pogs (again, pieces of cardboard) they would carry them in a book binder, similar to baseball cards.

 

reminds me more and more of geocoins.

 

But then, finally, schools in my area started to bann pogs. Principals and teachers said "It was gambling for kids" Plus, THEFT of pogs, stampers, pog cases, pog binders, was becoming large. Stealing them in the hall, and then selling them in the bathroom or lunch room. 25 cents each, stampers $1, or prized pogs, ranging anywhere from $1 to $20. It became so bad, fights would errupt over these pogs. Almost like a pog mafia if you will. Kids would start fights over who was best, cheating, stealing, heck , they would even start a fight with the kid with the most pogs, just to get his attention, so his buddy could steal his binder of prized pogs while he was busy defending himself.

 

I do believe, before the pog bann, kids were making boot-leg-pogs in art class behind the teachers back. They could then sell them in the lunchroom, bathroom, or school bus, generating themselves a 100% profit, because they were made with school supplies. Back to the fighting, kids would find out they were sold boot-leg-pogs, and then start a fight.

 

lol the good old days

[+Woodlit]

Oh yeah, on subject. A cache is lame if you make it lame. Sure that magentic key holder in the middle of walmart might sound lame, but if you put on your best James-Bond moves, i'm sure you could make it just as fun. Point at the sky and scream, and while people are looking up, grab it. Geocaching is what you make of it.

 

I tend to skip over caches of that nature, normally. But not because they are lame, but because I can see that in the future as being a small pick-me-up. Out christmas shopping, tired of fighting over toys on the shelf, now its raining, oh i'm hungry, carp i gotta be at work soon, but wait, mr. gps says there is a cache on the other side of the building. *grin starts to form*

 

Now you wait for the smokers to finish, wait hide back down in the bush the cart boy is coming. I hear voices, but they are far away, ok run for it! Gottcha! *full blown grin now*

[+Corp Of Discovery]

On topic: I'll give you a universal definition (in other words one that everyone can agree on) of 'lame' when you give me a universal definition of 'WOW'.

 

Kind of on topic: I've read most of the other recent threads where this 'topic' came up. It didn't seem to be "...a topic of wide-ranging scope, and one that is apparently very important to a great many geocachers." but rather one that a few posters have decided to discuss and debate ad infinitum. I also don't think it was "So important, in fact, that it seems to always pop up in every thread where the original topic is even vaguely related." but rather those same select few posters who wanted to wedge it in at the drop of a hat.

 

Off topic: If, as the title suggests, this thread is for "all things 'lame'" then it really isn't specifically about geocaching and should probably be moved to...you guessed it- the Off Topic forum.

[+BlueDeuce]

slightly larger/longer than a 35MM film can- (appx 2X6)

Do they stay relatively dry inside? I've heard that wet logbooks are evil.

 

Keep your pog tube shut.

 

 

 

That'll keep the logbook dry.

Edited December 13, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+El Diablo]

You should've named the thread..."such and such cacher post here." because you have about 3 or 4 that are about to take over your thread and I see most have already multiple posted.

 

Good luck!

 

El Diablo

[vagabond]

How about this for an answer,

Lameness is in the eye of the beholder.

What one persons thinks is lame another will not. If cacher Sam hates micros and cacher Bill likes micros which one is correct?

Since I injured my back about 18 months ago, I've logged a lot of caches some would think were lame, but hey I enjoyed them.

And yes I've done the micro behind the Dumpster, also the wet log, one wet log I walked back to the car and dried it out on my laptop.

I don't care for puzzle caches, cemetery caches, caches in peoples yards, I bypass them most of the time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is caching is many things for many different people, we're not all the same. God wouldn't that be boring if we were all the same.

[+KBI]

You should've named the thread..."such and such cacher post here." because you have about 3 or 4 that are about to take over your thread and I see most have already multiple posted.

 

Good luck!

 

El Diablo

The only multiple posters as of right now are:

 

KBI - 3

Pto - 3

sbell111 - 3

Woodlit - 2

mtn-man - 2

 

Are these the hijackers you're referring to?

[+KBI]

I'll give you a universal definition (in other words one that everyone can agree on) of 'lame' when you give me a universal definition of 'WOW'.

Exactly.

 

As I've said before:

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

 

If a potential cache owner has an idea for a new hide, and has ANY reason for believing that folks will enjoy searching for it OR that he/she will enjoy being the owner of such a cache, then I think that’s all the justification needed for proceeding with the hide (assuming, of course, that it meets the guidelines and TOS, is legal, etc, etc).

 

There will always be somebody out there who will really like it; it will provide them with welcome entertainment.

 

There will always be somebody out there who will really hate it; they will call it "lame."

 

The very soul of this game resides in its rich variety.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Anti lameness threads posts are lame. Anti anti lameness posts are lame. Lame is lame because it's lame. Cool is lame given time. Jumping the shark is lame. The word lame is lame. Gel pens look cool but are lame. Duct tape is lame for duct work.

"Lameness of lamenesses, saith the Preacher, lameness of lamenesses; all is lameness." - Soloman (misquoted)

[+BlueDeuce]

How about a cache that is found a few times, starts getting reports that the container is damaged, (wet logbook, mold, etc). Two months later someone is willing to post a Needs Maintenance Log. It starts gettings a BUNCH of DNFs. Two months later a Needs Archived is posted.

 

The owner hasn't responded to the posting or emails and hasn't logged into the site since a week after they placed the cache.

 

NOW is the cache lame?

 

I've never really bought into this "There are no lame caches" Polly Anna crap. If it takes gc.com to archive your cache, it's lame.

[Clan Riffster]

I'll pass.

[+BlueDeuce]

Come on, if gc.com allows the cache to be posted and remain then you can logically argue that the cache isn't lame.

 

Or is it Lame is a myth. An impossibility.

 

An opinion?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Paralysis is lame.

[+KBI]

I've never really bought into this "There are no lame caches" Polly Anna crap.

Come on, if gc.com allows the cache to be posted and remain then you can logically argue that the cache isn't lame.

Trying both sides of the boat to see if you can get a nibble?

 

[+TrailGators]

There are no lame taxes. There are no lame bills. There are no lame drivers. There is no lame traffic. There are no lame movies or TV shows. There are no lame books. There is no lame music. There are no lame caches. Did I die and go to heaven?

Edited December 14, 2006 by TrailGators

[+The Jester]

I'll give you a universal definition (in other words one that everyone can agree on) of 'lame' when you give me a universal definition of 'WOW'.

Exactly.

 

As I've said before:

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

 

If a potential cache owner has an idea for a new hide, and has ANY reason for believing that folks will enjoy searching for it OR that he/she will enjoy being the owner of such a cache, then I think that’s all the justification needed for proceeding with the hide (assuming, of course, that it meets the guidelines and TOS, is legal, etc, etc).

 

There will always be somebody out there who will really like it; it will provide them with welcome entertainment.

 

There will always be somebody out there who will really hate it; they will call it "lame."

 

The very soul of this game resides in its rich variety.

So why start another conversation about something that can't be defined, asking for a definition? As you said a few posts up - trying both sides trying for a nibble? (or just some angst in forums)

[+KBI]

Apparently this debate is only fun when it takes place in the wrong thread.

[+Woodlit]

If a defintion is called for, i'd have to agree with BlueDeuce.

lame cache = defunct cache

Not to confuse an owner archiving with gc.com archiving a particular cache.

[+chizu]

God wouldn't that be boring if we were all the same.

 

But easier to buy clothes!

[+BlueDeuce]

I've never really bought into this "There are no lame caches" Polly Anna crap.

Come on, if gc.com allows the cache to be posted and remain then you can logically argue that the cache isn't lame.

Trying both sides of the boat to see if you can get a nibble?

 

 

Just offering Clan Riffster a platform to stand on.

 

I think there are definately lame caches but I save it for when I'm a.....at that place that's not my home.

[+Klatch]

Apparently this debate is only fun when it takes place in the wrong thread.

The point being that the debate has taken place, whether in the correct thread or not. What more can you hope to bring out that wasn't posted in several hundred other messages?

[+sbell111]

You should've named the thread..."such and such cacher post here." because you have about 3 or 4 that are about to take over your thread and I see most have already multiple posted.

I took a quick read of the forum guidelines. It didn't say anything about a limit on the number of times that a person can post to a thread.

 

How about a cache that is found a few times, starts getting reports that the container is damaged, (wet logbook, mold, etc). Two months later someone is willing to post a Needs Maintenance Log. It starts gettings a BUNCH of DNFs. Two months later a Needs Archived is posted.

 

The owner hasn't responded to the posting or emails and hasn't logged into the site since a week after they placed the cache.

 

NOW is the cache lame?

 

I've never really bought into this "There are no lame caches" Polly Anna crap. If it takes gc.com to archive your cache, it's lame.

Certainly, I will agree that the cache owner is LAME. However, the other issues wouldn't negatively affect me.

• If the container is damaged, it wouldn't affect my search for the cache at all. I would have a few decisions to make on-site and would explain the problem when I was logging the find online, but it would likely not affect my fun quotient.
  
• If the cache were missing and I was the first to not find it, I generally wouldn't know whether it was truly missing or I just couldn't find it. While I have blown off caching because I couldn't find several caches, not finding one cache wouldn't alter my enjoyment.
  
• Finally, if other DNFs had been logged previously, I would go into the search knowing that I might not find it, so it wouldn't be an attitude buster.
  

Since your examples would not affect my attitude, I guess the cache wouldn't be lame, in my opinion. Of course, I would still consider the hypothetical cache owner to be 'lame'.

[+KBI]

Apparently this debate is only fun when it takes place in the wrong thread.

The point being that the debate has taken place, whether in the correct thread or not. What more can you hope to bring out that wasn't posted in several hundred other messages?

I disagree with your implied premise that there is no further reason to continue this debate. Yes, it has been raging for quite a while now, but very little has been resolved.

 

My reason for giving this previously homeless discussion a safe place to live was to see if there is any possibility of a resolution between the ‘lame caches annoy me and they need to go away’ types and the ‘those caches are legitimate and have every right to exist’ types. I’m very interested in seeing this thing brought to some consensus conclusion. You might call me an overly-idealistic optimist for believing that such a resolution is possible – and you might be right – but I believe it’s well worth an honest try. I’m fairly sure that some of us have already convinced others to change there minds on a few things, and it’s a fact that others have modified my thinking with some of their arguments.

 

Besides, if nothing could ever be resolved through these kinds of talks, what’s the point of ever discussing them in these forums in the first place?

 

So ... do you have a topic-related opinion to express, Klatch?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This whole lameness thing reminds me of another touchy subject - religion.

 

We pick and choose what, if anything, we believe and it is difficult to change us.

 

Sometimes we aren't even really sure why we made these decisions.

 

We seperate and distinguish ourselves from those who believe differently, even in small and trivial ways.

 

This was brought home to me when I cached in a small Alabama town a couple of years ago, maybe 6k residents, and came to a T intersection with a billboard-size sign that listed SEVENTEEN churches in town, with arrows pointing left and right for each.

 

It struck me that in this small town folks who pretty much believed the same thing had so many different ways of practicing their belief. Is the Methodist belief really so different than the Baptist belief that each requires their own building, staff, etc.?

 

They're all Christians, right?

 

Do Christians really need 17 expensive infrastructures to maintain just so they can have a few simple differences in their belief? What a huge waste of money and resources! (Yes, I am a Christian, a Baptist in fact, though raised Methodist).

 

It struck me then and I am now reminded how much like that we geocachers are.

 

We choose our beliefs and call those who don't act like us cheats. We choose our favorite hides and call others lame. We're all geocachers but we're busy building altars to our way of thinking.

 

We proselytize to get others to see things our way.

 

We divide into groups that all enjoy geocaching but prefer to be with geocachers that see things our way.

 

I wonder if we will ever be able to accept that folks are different in small ways but pretty much alike in large part, and accept that our beliefs do not make other beliefs 'lame'. We're all geocachers, right?

 

I have seen a few caches that I wouldn't have hidden, but never felt the need to proclaim them lame, just different.

 

I certainly wouldn't classify a whole genre as lame just because I don't enjoy hunting them.

[+Markwell]

I disagree with your implied premise that there is no further reason to continue this debate. Yes, it has been raging for quite a while now, but very little has been resolved.

 

My reason for giving this previously homeless discussion a safe place to live was to see if there is any possibility of a resolution between the ‘lame caches annoy me and they need to go away’ types and the ‘those caches are legitimate and have every right to exist’ types.

I take issue with two of your implied premises: A) that there are only these two camps and nothing in the middle and B) that further repetitive discussion stating the same facts over and over will somehow change the viewpoint of the far extremists' that DO live on these two ends of the spectrum.

 

While I said it in jest, my post in the previous thread ("wake me when something new is said") was trying to make a point. At some point in a thread that deals with personal preferences, whether it be micros, lameness, woods, parking lots, which GPS is better or whether the fries are better at McDonalds or Burger King, someone will stand their ground and start saying "No it isn't" and another will stand THEIR ground and say "Yes it is." At that point, the discussion has degenerated and becomes somewhat pointless.

 

I’m very interested in seeing this thing brought to some consensus conclusion.

There have been numerous threads recently TRYING to keep the conversation civil regarding "lameness" and many have offered their opinions on "lame" or "anti-lame". But as Hamlet stated "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". A cache isn't lame or cool, but a cacher or even a group of cachers can THINK that a cache is lame/cool. It can even get to the point that a large enough group of people think that a particular cache is lame/cool and this large group can (with a "bandwagon" approach) influence other undecided individuals to believe that a cache is lame/cool. But we each bring our own experiences to the table. Since everyone in this board is entitled to their opinion, I do not believe that a consensus CAN be reached.

 

Opinions of good and bad are not factual statements to be resolved by consensus. I could start a movement that periwinkle is a lame color. Some will state that they love periwinkle and other will agree that periwinkle is lame. Some may even take it so far as to say that periwinkle should be stricken from the Crayola box of 64 crayons and removed from the Hex Color listings because it offends them so much. But all of the talking by the extremists are probably not going to sway people's individual opinions on periwinkle.

 

IMO, debates over opinion will ALWAYS escalate into a Yes - No - Yes - No - Yes - No - Yes - No shouting match by stand-firm-extremists unless there is a mandate from some governing body that has power to mandate public policy. Since Geocaching.com has tried its very BEST to NOT get into the debate regarding cache quality, I believe there can be no clear consensus on this topic, and therefore no resolution to the debate.

 

You might call me an overly-idealistic optimist for believing that such a resolution is possible – and you might be right – but I believe it’s well worth an honest try.

 

Besides, if nothing could ever be resolved through these kinds of talks, what’s the point of ever discussing them in these forums in the first place?

I love honest and thoughtful debate and I always welcome a chance to fire up the synapse to write a witty retort if there is a point. But I would counter your question of "what’s the point of ever discussing them in these forums in the first place?" with "What was your intention in trying to start up this thread?" Are you trying to convince the vocal few that are diametrically opposed to your beliefs? I have yet to see any NEW information posted in any of these discussions. How could the repetition of Yes - No - Yes - No add anything to what has been discussed in the previous threads that just closed less than 48 hours ago?

[+Stunod]

Opinions of good and bad are not factual statements to be resolved by consensus. I could start a movement that periwinkle is a lame color. Some will state that they love periwinkle and other will agree that periwinkle is lame. Some may even take it so far as to say that periwinkle should be stricken from the Crayola box of 64 crayons and removed from the Hex Color listings because it offends them so much. But all of the talking by the extremists are probably not going to sway people's individual opinions on periwinkle.

 

I just need to admit that I actually checked and confirmed that periwinkle is in the Crayola 64 pack.

 

Oh, and well said Markwell.

[+sbell111]

You know, I kind of hope that this thread sits around and smolders indefinitely. That way, if anyone tries to divert some other thread, they can just be directed over here.

 

(I believe that this is my fifth post to this thread, for those of you who care about that sort of thing.)

Edited December 14, 2006 by sbell111

[+mtn-man]

Opinions of good and bad are not factual statements to be resolved by consensus. I could start a movement that periwinkle is a lame color. Some will state that they love periwinkle and other will agree that periwinkle is lame. Some may even take it so far as to say that periwinkle should be stricken from the Crayola box of 64 crayons and removed from the Hex Color listings because it offends them so much. But all of the talking by the extremists are probably not going to sway people's individual opinions on periwinkle.

You chose periwinkle on purpose didn't you. Go ahead. Say it. You know what I mean. It was just a dig at me wasn't it. Uh huh. I know. Yep. All directed at me. Poor little old me.

 

Sure, you know I'm right. Yessiree. Poking a little fun at Mr. periwinkle-man. Yep. I knew it.

 

 

(Don't worry, it is an old inside joke between us. As usual, I just cannot resist. )

[+mudsneaker]

Watermelon seeds are soooo lame.

[+KBI]

This whole lameness thing reminds me of another touchy subject - religion.

 

We pick and choose what, if anything, we believe and it is difficult to change us.

 

Sometimes we aren't even really sure why we made these decisions.

 

We seperate and distinguish ourselves from those who believe differently, even in small and trivial ways ...

That's a pretty good analogy. I like it.

 

I have taken up a distinct position in this debate, one based on my own underlying principles, and it leaves me seeing those who disagree with me as whiny, intolerant, and bossy. But wait ... these are fellow Geocachers! These are my friends. These folks I disagree with are people I know I would enjoy seeking, hiding, or just talking about geocaches with. All of them are people who's experience, intelligence and opinions I respect. It bugs me that I can't make myself see their point of view on this issue (they only want to improve the game, after all), or that I can't make them see mine (I'm only asking for a bit of tolerance, after all).

 

So – we talk. And talk. And talk. And whine and accuse and criticize and lambaste and scold and lecture and preach. This generates a noise level that is offensive to some no matter what's being discussed, but in the process of all this bickering there IS the occasional "yeah, I can kinda see your point" ... and to me that makes it all worthwhile.

 

I have seen a few caches that I wouldn't have hidden, but never felt the need to proclaim them lame, just different.

 

I certainly wouldn't classify a whole genre as lame just because I don't enjoy hunting them.

Sounds like you're on my side.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

I have seen a few caches that I wouldn't have hidden, but never felt the need to proclaim them lame, just different.

 

I certainly wouldn't classify a whole genre as lame just because I don't enjoy hunting them.

 

 

I'm willing to agree with TAR's position. Sometimes people really do change their position based on discussion.

Edited December 14, 2006 by BlueDeuce