Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Recommended Posts

Looks like I have an answer to one of my questions. Groundspeak uses double talk to throw the 'user chose to archive' in their post. At least they could have the brass to take responsibility to say 'we archived this cache due to terms and guidelines violations. Then again that would be asking too much since we can't get a set definition on exactly what is or isn't an agenda.

 

If I say, "You have 2 choices... Change the wording on the cache page or it will be archived"... And I make the choice not to change the wording, am I not making the choice to archive the cache? This whole thread is making me chuckle.... :)

Link to comment

No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.

Link to comment

No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.

 

So, in your world, this is how it would go.....

 

ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

Link to comment

No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.

 

So, in your world, this is how it would go.....

 

ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

 

Not his fault no, but you wouldn't say you impounded your own car either.

Link to comment
No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.
So, in your world, this is how it would go.....

 

ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

Not his fault no, but you wouldn't say you impounded your own car either.

It would be fair to say that he chose to have his car impounded, rather than to present his license. Similarly, the OP chose to have her cache archived, rather than change the description.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.
So, in your world, this is how it would go.....

 

ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

Not his fault no, but you wouldn't say you impounded your own car either.

It would be fair to say that he chose to have his car impounded, rather than to present his license. Similarly, the OP chose to have her cache archived, rather than change the description.

 

I agree.

 

Given choices, you make the decision. Your choice IS the decision!

Link to comment

Right, just don't forget the part where the same police office allows many other cars to speed by while finishing his donut. It's just that those particular models (agendas) didn't trip his trigger.

Right...they are human and sometimes miss one or two....good call!!

 

Truly, I'm guessing most exampls you give will have been activated before the guidelines changes...

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

Right, just don't forget the part where the same police office allows many other cars to speed by while finishing his donut. It's just that those particular models (agendas) didn't trip his trigger.

I speed with some frequency. The fact that I usually don't get pulled over won't insulate me when I get a ticket.

Link to comment

This isn't about their rules or guidelines and them being able to do whatever they want. We all are full aware of the fact that if they wanted they could fully endorse Hitler.

 

The point is the principle behind their perceived double standard. They are taking actions on a cache that are hypocritical when compared to caches of other topics.

 

It isn't about their rights. They have the right to do whatever the please. It's about their integrity and consistency, or lack thereof.

This is got to be the most blantant example of Godwin's law I've ever seen in this forum. Just barely falls short of accusing Groundspeak of endorsing Hitler. Maybe we can get this thread locked. :)

 

Egami won't give us examples of the double standard that Groundspeak is using. So we can't tell if the other cache simply thanks the troops for serving and then goes on to describe the cache at memorial like ReadyOrNot's. Or was it one that was placed at an American Legions post and had a few sentences about the American Legion. When was this cache placed? The guidelines and their interpretation change. Remember this thread. After an appeal to Groundspeak, the caches were listed although there was some limitation on what could be said. (I.E. you could remember the event but not say that we need to fight the terrorists).

 

There is of course a strong desire to have guidelines that are clear so we know what can or can't be put on a page. Groundspeak has decided to allow the reviewers some discretion in approving caches. However, the general rule seem to be that if there is a perceived agenda, Groundspeak must approve the cache. If a cache is denied, there is an appeals process. If a cache is approved that shouldn't have been someone is likely going to complain about it and Groundspeak can re-review the cache and overrule the reviewer. The funny thing about "agenda" caches is that they can generally be listed by working with the reviewer to find the wording to allow it. RK may have a point that some people take a great deal of pride in what they wrote on their cache page. But it's just a cache page so if someone suggests a way to get your cache listed I figure you might as well work with them and not be so obstinate as to "request your cache be archived".

Link to comment

This isn't about their rules or guidelines and them being able to do whatever they want. We all are full aware of the fact that if they wanted they could fully endorse Hitler.

 

The point is the principle behind their perceived double standard. They are taking actions on a cache that are hypocritical when compared to caches of other topics.

 

It isn't about their rights. They have the right to do whatever the please. It's about their integrity and consistency, or lack thereof.

This is got to be the most blantant example of Godwin's law I've ever seen in this forum. Just barely falls short of accusing Groundspeak of endorsing Hitler. Maybe we can get this thread locked. :)

 

Egami won't give us examples of the double standard that Groundspeak is using. So we can't tell if the other cache simply thanks the troops for serving and then goes on to describe the cache at memorial like ReadyOrNot's. Or was it one that was placed at an American Legions post and had a few sentences about the American Legion. When was this cache placed? The guidelines and their interpretation change. Remember this thread. After an appeal to Groundspeak, the caches were listed although there was some limitation on what could be said. (I.E. you could remember the event but not say that we need to fight the terrorists).

 

There is of course a strong desire to have guidelines that are clear so we know what can or can't be put on a page. Groundspeak has decided to allow the reviewers some discretion in approving caches. However, the general rule seem to be that if there is a perceived agenda, Groundspeak must approve the cache. If a cache is denied, there is an appeals process. If a cache is approved that shouldn't have been someone is likely going to complain about it and Groundspeak can re-review the cache and overrule the reviewer. The funny thing about "agenda" caches is that they can generally be listed by working with the reviewer to find the wording to allow it. RK may have a point that some people take a great deal of pride in what they wrote on their cache page. But it's just a cache page so if someone suggests a way to get your cache listed I figure you might as well work with them and not be so obstinate as to "request your cache be archived".

 

Well said!!

Link to comment

This isn't about their rules or guidelines and them being able to do whatever they want. We all are full aware of the fact that if they wanted they could fully endorse Hitler.

 

The point is the principle behind their perceived double standard. They are taking actions on a cache that are hypocritical when compared to caches of other topics.

 

It isn't about their rights. They have the right to do whatever the please. It's about their integrity and consistency, or lack thereof.

This is got to be the most blantant example of Godwin's law I've ever seen in this forum. Just barely falls short of accusing Groundspeak of endorsing Hitler. Maybe we can get this thread locked. :)

 

Can they, or can they not, by virtue of controlling the site and being in a free country, support whatever they choose?

 

The point was merely to offset the repetitive Straw Man that was repeated thrown up that was implying those of us who don't agree with this action somehow had some issue with the owners' rights.

 

Egami won't give us examples of the double standard that Groundspeak is using. So we can't tell if the other cache simply thanks the troops for serving and then goes on to describe the cache at memorial like ReadyOrNot's. Or was it one that was placed at an American Legions post and had a few sentences about the American Legion. When was this cache placed? The guidelines and their interpretation change. Remember this thread. After an appeal to Groundspeak, the caches were listed although there was some limitation on what could be said. (I.E. you could remember the event but not say that we need to fight the terrorists).

 

If the date this was implemented is reflected in that thread then I've already given you the information to find numerous caches in violation that meet the criteria without spoon-feeding it to anyone.

 

Frankly, I don't care about the date. If you're going to have guidelines and rules about such principles then it should be important enough to apply to all caches regardless of inception.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

This topic had me thinking that maybe my new idea for a cache isn't such a good one. I wanted to place one as a memorial to a cat of mine that died just over a year ago. He had feline leukemia. Now there isn't really any cheritys dedicated to finding the cure for feline leukemia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to place a cache to increase awareness of this deadly disease. Is that an "agenda"? I lost my best friend when he died, I still miss him very much.

Link to comment

It's clear that there has not been any resolution at all here.

 

I go back to my question; Why not eliminate the "perceived agenda" portion of the guidlines and just stick to prohibiting solicitation?

 

It sure would be nice if the reviewers in question were to weigh in here.

Link to comment

This topic had me thinking that maybe my new idea for a cache isn't such a good one. I wanted to place one as a memorial to a cat of mine that died just over a year ago. He had feline leukemia. Now there isn't really any cheritys dedicated to finding the cure for feline leukemia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to place a cache to increase awareness of this deadly disease. Is that an "agenda"? I lost my best friend when he died, I still miss him very much.

 

If it was just a simple memorial for your cat, and you provided pictures of the cat and his life story, then I would say, yes, you have an agenda, but I don't think it would violate the guidelines. If you posted a bunch of information about the "Feline Leukemia Society" and gave all kinds of history on the organization, then I would say it would probably violate the guidelines... Just my opinion though, take it for what its worth.

Link to comment

It's clear that there has not been any resolution at all here.

 

I go back to my question; Why not eliminate the "perceived agenda" portion of the guidlines and just stick to prohibiting solicitation?

It sure would be nice if the reviewers in question were to weigh in here.

How about solicitation or promotion?

 

You can push something, that is promote it, without asking for money, which is solicitation.

 

Either way this cache, and others, could still be seen as violating the guidelines.

Link to comment

...It would be fair to say that he chose to have his car impounded, rather than to present his license. Similarly, the OP chose to have her cache archived, rather than change the description.

 

The owner chose to honor their children as they saw fit.

The reviewer chose to request a tweak to the description.

The owner chose to make that tweak.

The reviewer chose to list the cache.

Someone else chose to report the cache.

GS chose to overule the orginal decision made by the reviewer and request a change.

The owner chose to keep the cache as it was.

The cache was archived.

 

Choices were made all around.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

...ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

 

Actually, yes it would be the police officers fault for impounding the car. They took the action. If they followed the law they would be in the right. If they didn't, they would be in the wrong. Either way they are are the one that made the decision to impound. The driver made the decision to not show their DL. That's the decision they made.

 

Changing this to fit the thread.

 

OFFICER: You were speeding.

ME: I'm sorry but I'm going the speed you told me to go yeserday when you gave me a warning. What's up now?

OFFICER: My boss said, today that what I told you yesterday is now speeding, when yesterday I thought it wasn't.

ME: What got your boss's panties in a twist?

OFFICER: Someone called you in and doesn't like your red car. You look like you are speeding. Slow down or I'll give you a ticket.

ME: BUT I'M DOING 25 in a 25 zone!!!

OFFICER: I percieved you as doing 30...Now you have to go 20 or I'll impound your car...

Link to comment

Looks like I have an answer to one of my questions. Groundspeak uses double talk to throw the 'user chose to archive' in their post. At least they could have the brass to take responsibility to say 'we archived this cache due to terms and guidelines violations. Then again that would be asking too much since we can't get a set definition on exactly what is or isn't an agenda.

 

Do you know for a fact it was Groundspeak using double talk or are you just taking the word of the OP?

 

As far as a definition, what would you have them do, list all possible agendas that are off limits? As some people here mentioned, almost every cache has an agenda. When I place a cache my agenda is to bring the finder to a place that I found to be scenic or interesting.

 

The question becomes when does the agenda cross the line and become inappropriate in the eyes of Groundspeak? It's pretty difficult to come up with a pat definition in a sport that is so dynamic. What they are left with is is a form of SCJ Potter Stewart's standard. They can't define it, but they know it when they see it.

 

I think most cache owners know it too. And the harder they fight, the more evident it is to me that Groundspeak was right.

Link to comment

...double post...did I make that choice or did it just happen?

 

Actually, I don't double post anymore, because I know that when it sits and spins forever to not hit the refresh button.. I wait for it to time-out and I don't have double post problems anymore.. So it would seem that you chose to double-post.. Perhaps to increase your post count?

Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

I think most cache owners know it too. And the harder they fight, the more evident it is to me that Groundspeak was right.

 

Well, if they don't fight, people would conclude that the ex-cache owner knew Groundspeak was right, and gave in. So whatever way you slice it, Groundspeak is always right, by that reasoning.

 

And no, I'm not saying whether I agree with the OP or not... this is just an observation.

Link to comment

This topic had me thinking that maybe my new idea for a cache isn't such a good one. I wanted to place one as a memorial to a cat of mine that died just over a year ago. He had feline leukemia. Now there isn't really any cheritys dedicated to finding the cure for feline leukemia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to place a cache to increase awareness of this deadly disease. Is that an "agenda"? I lost my best friend when he died, I still miss him very much.

 

If it was just a simple memorial for your cat, and you provided pictures of the cat and his life story, then I would say, yes, you have an agenda, but I don't think it would violate the guidelines. If you posted a bunch of information about the "Feline Leukemia Society" and gave all kinds of history on the organization, then I would say it would probably violate the guidelines... Just my opinion though, take it for what its worth.

 

If you do run into difficulty, you could do a travel bug for your cat, like one we did Prince Harry

Link to comment

Do you know for a fact it was Groundspeak using double talk or are you just taking the word of the OP?

 

Michael said removed at owner's request. Also note that in Michael's archival note, he stated that the owner picked up the cache. Why would the owner remove the cache if it wasn't his choice to archive it?

Link to comment

Do you know for a fact it was Groundspeak using double talk or are you just taking the word of the OP?

 

Michael said removed at owner's request. Also note that in Michael's archival note, he stated that the owner picked up the cache. Why would the owner remove the cache if it wasn't his choice to archive it?

 

Because that's what you should do with archived caches, regardless of why they were archived?

Link to comment
Do you know for a fact it was Groundspeak using double talk or are you just taking the word of the OP?

 

Given the double speak, broad definitions, lack of consistency, and wagon circling going on in this thread I'm more apt to side on that of the original poster.

 

As far as a definition, what would you have them do, list all possible agendas that are off limits? As some people here mentioned, almost every cache has an agenda. When I place a cache my agenda is to bring the finder to a place that I found to be scenic or interesting.

 

It's rather easy to see, as posted in this thread, what agendas would elicit or promote illegal activities. It's only as difficult as you make it and apparently, TPTB are choosing to make things difficult in an effort to keep the broad definitions that are obviously the issues many cachers run into and would like clear cut answers on.

 

I think most cache owners know it too. And the harder they fight, the more evident it is to me that Groundspeak was right.

 

Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

Link to comment
Why wasn't that flexibility used for the OP's cache then? It could have saved all this uproar.

Simple. "Flexibility" does not mean "we will say yes every time". They decided to say no. That very simply explains the Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches question to boot. They have decided to say no. That is their right to do so as the owner of the listing service. Simple.

I didn't ask if they have the power to do it. That goes without saying. I asked why.

Link to comment
No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.
So, in your world, this is how it would go.....

 

ME: Hello officer, why did you pull me over.

OFFICER: You were speeding. May I see your drivers license

ME: No officer, I don't want to show you my drivers license

OFFICER: If you don't show me your drivers license, I'll impound your car

ME: Sorry, I am not going to show you my license

OFFICER: [impounding Car]

ME: Hey! Why are you impounding my car, this isn't fair!

ME IN POLICE ARE BAD FORUM: My car was impounded and its the police officers fault!

Not his fault no, but you wouldn't say you impounded your own car either.

It would be fair to say that he chose to have his car impounded, rather than to present his license. Similarly, the OP chose to have her cache archived, rather than change the description.

Through her actions, Seedpicker may have chosen to have it archived, but the archival says she requested it. There is a difference.

 

As far as the whole agenda argument goes, the pro-agenda crowd can't even decide whether the agenda is related to our troops or the American Legion. :) If it was such an obvious agenda I don't think there would be a lot of confusion on it.

 

Fixed quote.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Link to comment
You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

 

To the OP, I don't think a cache in honor of her kids is inconsequential.

Link to comment

Wonder if these guys can get a cache listed if it mentions their organization??

 

It says geocaching to promote scouting... is that an agenda? :)

 

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/training...20scouting.aspx

There are already a number of caches that reference scouting in them.

Well, yeah, but there's quite a lot that mention supporting our military too... that didn't stop this controversy!

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Since she was asked to change the page prior to publication, and she complied, she may just be fed up. If there is any agenda at this point I would suspect it has more to do with trying to get a fair shake than with whatever the heck the cache page was supposed to be promoting.
Link to comment

Wonder if these guys can get a cache listed if it mentions their organization??

 

It says geocaching to promote scouting... is that an agenda? :)

 

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/training...20scouting.aspx

There are already a number of caches that reference scouting in them.

 

And guess those will all get archived as people complain about them...since they're promoting an agenda.

I think the point many have tried to make, and I'll echo it, is that people shouldn't have to report each and every cache that promotes a perceived agenda. There should be a standard and it should be applied uniformly.

 

And quite frankly, I'd be interested to see, if I were to report a list of caches that have perceived agendas on the cache pages, would TPTB really go through and archive them all? Somehow I doubt it. It's almost worth a try though.

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Sort of like Groundspeak must have an agenda if they could not let this poor woman write her own cache, and are that willing to offend so many of their members over it.

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Sort of like Groundspeak must have an agenda if they could not let this poor woman write her own cache, and are that willing to offend so many of their members over it.

 

Groundspeak has guidelines. If you want to call the guidelines an agenda, feel free to.

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Since she was asked to change the page prior to publication, and she complied, she may just be fed up. If there is any agenda at this point I would suspect it has more to do with trying to get a fair shake than with whatever the heck the cache page was supposed to be promoting.

 

She got a fair shake. She was told her cache did not conform to the guidelines. Change the page and move on. It's a geocache, not the Magna Carta.

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Since she was asked to change the page prior to publication, and she complied, she may just be fed up. If there is any agenda at this point I would suspect it has more to do with trying to get a fair shake than with whatever the heck the cache page was supposed to be promoting.

 

She got a fair shake. She was told her cache did not conform to the guidelines. Change the page and move on. It's a geocache, not the Magna Carta.

Actually, she was told her cache did not conform. She made the necessary change. It was published. SIX MONTHS later, someone decided it all of the sudden didn't conform? What changed?

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Since she was asked to change the page prior to publication, and she complied, she may just be fed up. If there is any agenda at this point I would suspect it has more to do with trying to get a fair shake than with whatever the heck the cache page was supposed to be promoting.

 

She got a fair shake. She was told her cache did not conform to the guidelines. Change the page and move on. It's a geocache, not the Magna Carta.

Actually, she was told her cache did not conform. She made the necessary change. It was published. SIX MONTHS later, someone decided it all of the sudden didn't conform? What changed?

 

My guess...THE GUIDELINES!!! About 2-3 months ago or less....you know, about the same time the commercial guidelines changed??

 

I could be wrong though...

Link to comment
Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

 

You're comparing clams and oysters. We're not talking criminal prosecutions and oppressive governments, it's a flippin' geocache. If someone is willing to expend so much effort over something so inconsequential, it tells me that there is probably an agenda in there.

Since she was asked to change the page prior to publication, and she complied, she may just be fed up. If there is any agenda at this point I would suspect it has more to do with trying to get a fair shake than with whatever the heck the cache page was supposed to be promoting.

 

She got a fair shake. She was told her cache did not conform to the guidelines. Change the page and move on. It's a geocache, not the Magna Carta.

So is it clams and oysters or geocaches and the Magna Carta? (Which is clams and atomic weapons.) Did she have an agenda or did Groundspeak have an agenda?

 

She DID change the wording to get the cache listed. Six months later she was told that her cache was in violation AGAIN. What was the agenda again? Was it supporting the troops? Was it relaying a brief history of the American Legion? Was it about birth control? Or maybe her parenting skills? One can't be sure.

 

Edit: Added the silly reference to clams and atomic weapons.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
Then can you do the same for this thread...lock it and archive it??

 

Hey..where did the mod's post go???

Still here. You blinked. I actually closed it at the same time Quiggle closed the other one. I opened it again.

 

Man In Stripes, I've already addressed your question. Go back and read my Toronto/NHL league post. Considering your avatar, I think you would probably appreciate it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...