Cache Tribute's

[+flask]

 

It's still patriotic.

 

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

http://www.onehumanfamily.info/

[+JamGuys]

http://www.onehumanfamily.info/

This was looking pretty good until Page 4 when I ran into an agenda!

Edited February 19, 2009 by JamGuys

[Trinity's Crew]

http://www.onehumanfamily.info/

This was looking pretty good until Page 4 when I ran into an agenda!

Really??? All the way to page 4?? Oh, maybe you meant an agenda you didn't agree with...

Edited February 19, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+JamGuys]

http://www.onehumanfamily.info/

This was looking pretty good until Page 4 when I ran into an agenda!

Really??? All the way to page 4?? Oh, maybe you meant an agenda you didn't agree with...

I guess I'm just slow on picking up on these pesky agendas .........

[+flask]

http://www.onehumanfamily.info/

This was looking pretty good until Page 4 when I ran into an agenda!

Really??? All the way to page 4?? Oh, maybe you meant an agenda you didn't agree with...

I guess I'm just slow on picking up on these pesky agendas .........

 

you don't even have to click the link to sense an agenda there.

 

maybe i'll click the link...

[Mushtang]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

[+briansnat]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

 

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

[Clan Riffster]

Now, now guys... Remember, it's for the "chilruns".

[+sbell111]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

I wonder where you read that.

[Mushtang]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question. And it also doesn't mean Libertarians that vote Republican and can't stand what the Democrats are doing to our government can't be patriotic too. Like me.

 

I hope you weren't calling ME a Democrat. Forum guidelines say you shouldn't insult other members.

[+Castle Mischief]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question. And it also doesn't mean Libertarians that vote Republican and can't stand what the Democrats are doing to our government can't be patriotic too. Like me.

 

I hope you weren't calling ME a Democrat. Forum guidelines say you shouldn't insult other members.

 

Can we keep the politics out of the forums, please?

[+briansnat]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

I wonder where you read that.

 

I actually made it up. I thought it was funny. Maybe I should copyright it.

 

I know. You're going to tell me I got it from Hannity's website, then refuse to provide a link because it doesn't exist.

 

By the way I'm still waiting for you to prove your last accusation of plagiarism.

Edited February 19, 2009 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

I wonder where you read that.

I actually made it up. I know. You're going to tell me you saw it on Hannity's website, then refuse to provide a link because it doesn't exist.

I actually thought that you read it somewhere because it is very similar to many, many statements all over the internet. (Here's a link. I'm not sure why you goad other people to do your google searches for you, but there it is.)

 

Either way, I don't understand why you feel the need to drag threads in the 'regular' forum into politics. It would be so much better if you kept that to the off-topic area.

Edited February 19, 2009 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

I wonder where you read that.

I actually made it up. I know. You're going to tell me you saw it on Hannity's website, then refuse to provide a link because it doesn't exist.

I actually thought that you read it somewhere because it is very similar to many, many statements all over the internet. (Here's a link. I'm not sure why you goad other people to do your google searches for you, but there it is.)

 

Either way, I don't understand why you feel the need to drag threads in the 'regular' forum into politics. It would be so much better if you kept that to the off-topic area.

 

I don't generally don't have much occasion to visit the World Wide Socialist website (I just visit the DNC website when I want to see what the commies are up to) , so I never saw that. It actually isn't quite what I said anyway.

 

And if you look at the other links they are all a reference to the original quote by Samuel Johnson. My post was a play on those words so of course you'll see many, many similar statements all over the Internet because it's one of the most famous quotes ever.

 

I realize that my posts are so incredibly pithy and brilliant that you are certain that I must get them somewhere else, but they are my own.

 

BTW it was a joke. Lighten up.

Edited February 19, 2009 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

It's still patriotic.

not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be.

I'm sure that's possible. So how can being proud of the men and women that fought for your country not be patriotic? I'm confused.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a Democrat.

I wonder where you read that.

I actually made it up. I know. You're going to tell me you saw it on Hannity's website, then refuse to provide a link because it doesn't exist.

I actually thought that you read it somewhere because it is very similar to many, many statements all over the internet. (Here's a link. I'm not sure why you goad other people to do your google searches for you, but there it is.)

 

Either way, I don't understand why you feel the need to drag threads in the 'regular' forum into politics. It would be so much better if you kept that to the off-topic area.

 

I don't generally don't have much occasion to visit the World Wide Socialist website (I just visit the DNC website when I want to see what the commies are up to) , so I never saw that. It actually isn't quite what I said anyway.

 

And if you look at the other links they are all a reference to the original quote by Samuel Johnson. My post was a play on those words so of course you'll see many, many similar statements all over the Internet because it's one of the most famous quotes ever.

 

I realize that my posts are so incredibly pithy and brilliant that you are certain that I must get them somewhere else, but they are my own.

 

BTW it was a joke. Lighten up.

I guess you missed the other half of my post.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I don't generally don't have much occasion to visit the World Wide Socialist website (I just visit the DNC website when I want to see what the commies are up to)...

 

Hey, can those of us on the left fire off some quick snarks about the right or is does thing only work in one direction?

 

Please, can we keep the poitics and the name calling out of the forums?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+briansnat]

I guess you missed the other half of my post.

 

It was a glib, nonsensical comment meant to lighten up a thread that was starting to turn political. I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

[+sbell111]

I guess you missed the other half of my post.

It was a glib, nonsensical comment meant to lighten up a thread that was starting to turn political. I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

You could also just leave your political junk in off-topic, where it belongs. Edited February 19, 2009 by sbell111

[+ArcherDragoon]

I guess you missed the other half of my post.

It was a glib, nonsensical comment meant to lighten up a thread that was starting to turn political. I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

You could also just leave your political junk in off-topic, where it belongs.

Actually, we would prefer that sort of stuff to stay out of OT so we can concentrate on Cheese!!!

[+fox-and-the-hound]

"Cache is located in a haunted location. CORDS above will lead you to hallowed ground, a place to say Thank-you to our past, present and future Veterans, and Service men and women."

 

I really think this might be a case where a small grammatical change could fix the problem. By saying the coords will lead you somewhere to perform an action you are forcing an agenda. By changing the description to "CORDS above will lead you to hallowed ground, a place where the patriotism of Veterans, and Service men and women are honored." or something similar.

[+sbell111]

"Cache is located in a haunted location. CORDS above will lead you to hallowed ground, a place to say Thank-you to our past, present and future Veterans, and Service men and women."

 

I really think this might be a case where a small grammatical change could fix the problem. By saying the coords will lead you somewhere to perform an action you are forcing an agenda. By changing the description to "CORDS above will lead you to hallowed ground, a place where the patriotism of Veterans, and Service men and women are honored." or something similar.

That does sound like a great solution. I'd run it up the flagpole and see what happens.

[+JamGuys]

I guess you missed the other half of my post.

 

It was a glib, nonsensical comment meant to lighten up a thread that was starting to turn political. I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

A well-placed smiley face can make a world of difference.

[Clan Riffster]

I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

I figured it out, sans smiley faces. I'm betting everyone else did too.

But, this wouldn't be the forums if someone didn't take offense, even if said offense was imagined.

(Oops! Almost forgot the smilies! ~~~> )

[+sbell111]

I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

I figured it out, sans smiley faces. I'm betting everyone else did too.

But, this wouldn't be the forums if someone didn't take offense, even if said offense was imagined.

(Oops! Almost forgot the smilies! ~~~> )

It's always funny when your insulting someone else, huh?

[+flask]

i've always thought that people use smilies and "lol" to signify masked hostility.

 

as in: "i am isnsulting you but you're supposed to shut up and take it because i used a smilie."

 

i have also left instructions that if i ever use one of these things, someone should come over to my house ad shoot me execution-style.

[+Castle Mischief]

It was a glib, nonsensical comment meant to lighten up a thread that was starting to turn political. I guess I need to stick the smiley faces in there because my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.

 

You inferred that Democrats are scoundrels and then called them communists. But I guess I didn't think it's funny because I'm not smart enough to...?

 

So you thought that you could fight the impending fire by throwing a little gasoline on things? How's that working out?

 

I'll take your word that you didn't mean to be political, but you approached it from a really odd angle for somebody with that goal in mind.

[+CacheOCD]

Don't forget the anarchists!

 

 

 

*ducking*

[Keystone]

We're straying off topic. The subject is "cache tributes" and the application of the "Caches that Solicit" guideline. Other debates can easily be accommodated in our spacious Off Topic forum.

[+tozainamboku]

Ah yes, the off-topic forum, the last refuge of scoundrels and probably Democrats. And while there, feel free to support the troops.

[+Castle Mischief]

Ah yes, the off-topic forum, the last refuge of scoundrels and probably Democrats. And while there, feel free to support the troops.

 

That thread is an excellent example of why caches do and should remain agenda free. In situations were there multiple sides and differing opinions, it's best for Groundspeak to do what it choses to do- just stay out of it.

 

I'm a little hazy as to why trackables are exempt from the no agenda rule but I'm not bent out of shape about it.

[Mushtang]

I'm a little hazy as to why trackables are exempt from the no agenda rule but I'm not bent out of shape about it.

I think it's because they don't have to go through the review process. All you have to do is buy a tag and attach it to anything you want, no matter how nice or offensive it is. Edited February 20, 2009 by Mushtang

[Clan Riffster]

I'm a little hazy as to why trackables are exempt from the no agenda rule but I'm not bent out of shape about it.

I think it's because they don't have to go through the review process. All you have to do is buy a tag and attach it to anything you want, no matter how nice or offensive it is.

I think even with trackables, Groundspeak shows some measure of influence. Wasn't there a geocoin that poked fun at the plight of illegal aliens? Sort of a pedestrian crossing sign, but with a Latino flavored family in silhouette? I thought TPTB shut that one down? (or it could be my Alzheimer's kicking in again)

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a little hazy as to why trackables are exempt from the no agenda rule but I'm not bent out of shape about it.

I think it's because they don't have to go through the review process. All you have to do is buy a tag and attach it to anything you want, no matter how nice or offensive it is.

I think even with trackables, Groundspeak shows some measure of influence. Wasn't there a geocoin that poked fun at the plight of illegal aliens? Sort of a pedestrian crossing sign, but with a Latino flavored family in silhouette? I thought TPTB shut that one down? (or it could be my Alzheimer's kicking in again)

The illegal alien coin was rejected when it was submitted to be a trackable coin. I believe Groundspeak still approves which coins can be trackable. However these are approved by the staff at Groundspeak and not by volunteer reviewers. So coins can have agendas so long a Groundspeak approves of them. The same is true of agenda and commercial caches. The reviewers are instructed to reject all these caches but Groundspeak may approve some if they find it is in their interest to do so.

 

On the other hand no one checks what go on the trackable's page so it isn't hard to attach a travel bug tag to a rosary or to a political button. Since the trackable pages aren't reviewed more leeway is allowed. I do recall though there was an anatomically correct (or more properly anatomically exaggerated) toy monkey travel bug that had its page locked.

[Clan Riffster]

The illegal alien coin was rejected when it was submitted to be a trackable coin.

Thanx for the clarification Toz. My memory was faulty.

[+briansnat]

You inferred that Democrats are scoundrels...

 

No, YOU did. I implied nothing of the sort.

 

On the other hand no one checks what go on the trackable's page so it isn't hard to attach a travel bug tag to a rosary or to a political button. Since the trackable pages aren't reviewed more leeway is allowed. I do recall though there was an anatomically correct (or more properly anatomically exaggerated) toy monkey travel bug that had its page locked.

 

I think truly offensive trackables will be locked, but it would have to be something that offended the sensitivities of nearly every reasonable person. If you want to release a trackable promoting a cause, it is unlikely that it will be flagged, unless that cause is something like pornography, white supremacy, anti-semitism or terrorism.

 

I do recall some controversy when somebody was offended by a TB that promoted the Boy Scouts, but I doubt Groundspeak would touch something that is moderately controversial . So if you want to create a traveler that supports the military, autism awareness, Planned Parenthood, UNICEF or saving the ticks there shouldn't be a problem.

Edited February 21, 2009 by briansnat

[+yawppy]

Do a search for "troops," "veterans," or "freedom" and you'll find dozens of caches that have stronger wording than the OP's.

 

 

You're examples are grandfathered caches.

 

Yawppy,

 

Read the Support Our Troops thread.

 

Read it, Sound so much more exciting than this forum took on. Yep just not sure what qualifies as an agenda, seen the second page of this post has been hijacked, but oh well, thanks for the input, the cache was posted, I reluctantly removed the Intro, and well guess that is the way it goes.

[+Castle Mischief]

Never mind.

 

Yawppy, good luck with your cache.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Max and 99]

I cannot believe your cache was not approved. I've noticed a huge discrepancy in reviewer approvals. Too bad they can't be consistent with the approval guidelines. It all depends on which reviewer sees your cache, and that shouldn't be the case.

[+sTeamTraen]

I cannot believe your cache was not approved. I've noticed a huge discrepancy in reviewer approvals. Too bad they can't be consistent with the approval guidelines. It all depends on which reviewer sees your cache, and that shouldn't be the case.

Short of having exactly one reviewer for the entire planet, with invariable moods, and whose opinions never change over time - a bit like the girl I read about who got photographed every morning at Polaroid while wearing an identical sweater, to test the consistency of the film - how exactly would that work?

 

If you work it out, please let my local traffic cops know. Some guys pull people over for driving 39 in a 35 zone, others let people slide right by at 42. And they're not just enforcing "guidelines" from a private company about how a game is played. Apparently the entire law enforcement system of every country on the planet works the same, imperfect way.

[+attono]

Seems to me that the issue at hand is that GS uses a sloppy definition for the term "social agenda". How hard would it be to select a dictionary definition and publish it within the guidlines so that there is no question of what constitutes a "social agenda".

 

As it is, it looks like the volunteer reviewer has decided that honoring the fallen is some sort of agenda.

 

Seems that the GS intent is good, but the execution is not.

[+Happy Bubbles]

Seems to me that the issue at hand is that GS uses a sloppy definition for the term "social agenda". How hard would it be to select a dictionary definition and publish it within the guidlines so that there is no question of what constitutes a "social agenda".

 

As it is, it looks like the volunteer reviewer has decided that honoring the fallen is some sort of agenda.

 

Seems that the GS intent is good, but the execution is not.

 

It`s not just one reviewer that feels this way - from comments made by others, it seems that most reviewers and Groundspeak staff feel that "honoring the fallen" is an agenda.

[+riviouveur]

It`s not just one reviewer that feels this way - from comments made by others, it seems that most reviewers and Groundspeak staff feel that "honoring the fallen" is an agenda.

It's one of the agendas which comes up the most often, and is most widely discussed among the reviewers. There's no special rule about it. The President of Groundspeak is a proud US Air Force veteran, by the way.

 

Seems to me that the issue at hand is that GS uses a sloppy definition for the term "social agenda". How hard would it be to select a dictionary definition and publish it within the guidlines so that there is no question of what constitutes a "social agenda".

That would be easy. But defining the word "agenda" (which goes way beyond "social agenda") is not the issue. However you define it, you will still have the problem of determining whether any set of words which might be used on the cache page, constitutes an agenda.

 

Two rules of thumb which I use when reviewing are:

- Does the wording contain an imperative verb or emotion-laden adjectives and nouns: "Take a moment to think about our fallen heroes". Simple, declarative statements of fact are more likely to pass muster: "A number of US soldiers are buried here". 99.9% of Americans will fill in the "fallen hero" bit for themselves.

- Would anyone object if the sentence in question were negated: "Ignore the stupid dead people" would not be a good thing to write.

And yes, these rules of thumb are neither universally applicable nor complete. That's life.

Edited March 19, 2009 by riviouveur

[+OregonCacher]

In all honestly, some of these posts are absolutely rediculous:

 

QUOTE(Mushtang @ Feb 18 2009, 01:22 PM)

 

"It's still patriotic. "

 

QUOTE(flask @ Feb 18 2009, 01:22 PM)

 

"not to everyone's eyes. i believe that what i consider to be true patriotism and the duty of every countryman is very different than what you consider it to be."

 

Just for the purpose of discussion, I just say if you dont believe(and) or are uncomfortable with the contents/title of the cache, then DONT SEEK IT!

 

Mushtang's idea of patriotism is on track, and I would say very aligned with most us' citizens ideals of patriotism. On top of that, I feel it is on track of the ideals of our founding fathers.

 

This threat is going to go on and on, so maybe it's time to lock it, however, heres my two cents to throw in:

 

Seems like theres so many guidelines that it'd be easier to rob a bank then place a cache somewhere.

 

I'm strongly conservative and i'm sure with the nature of what geocaching is, that i'm in the minority. If I saw a "plant a Bush back in texas" cache, I feel I, or anyone else should have the maturity to decide that just because I or anyone else is seeking this cache, does not mean someone you are condoning the behavior/aligning with the ideals of the cache. If for whatever reason anyone cannot muster the maturity to act in this manner, then simple enough, just dont seek the cache!

 

I mean I would agree generally speaking we want to stray away from social agendas being overly publically expressed in society like it is today, but now adays everyone is so affraid of making someone "feel bad", or "be uncomfortable", we have to regulate everything.

 

Final thoughts? Most cachers are adults, and they should act in that manner. Its like the old saying goes, "If you dont like what they're doing, don't participate". It seems this has been lost somewhere long down the road. Now its more of, "If you dont like it, complain, so they can't do it either".

 

Just my two cents.

Edited March 19, 2009 by OregonCacher

[+sbell111]

... Final thoughts? Most cachers are adults, and they should act in that manner. Its like the old saying goes, "If you dont like what they're doing, don't participate". It seems this has been lost somewhere long down the road. Now its more of, "If you dont like it, complain, so they can't do it either".

The counterpoint to this is:

 

Geocaching is a game. Why must we fill it with agendas? It should be enough to go out and find the box. It should not be trying to influence anyone's ideas with any agendas.

[+OregonCacher]

... Final thoughts? Most cachers are adults, and they should act in that manner. Its like the old saying goes, "If you dont like what they're doing, don't participate". It seems this has been lost somewhere long down the road. Now its more of, "If you dont like it, complain, so they can't do it either".

The counterpoint to this is:

 

Geocaching is a game. Why must we fill it with agendas? It should be enough to go out and find the box. It should not be trying to influence anyone's ideas with any agendas.

 

Yes but wouldn't it be easier to tell people to not seek if you dont agree then to try to regulate the content of every cache there is out there, and every possible geocoin or TB that could have a possible "agenda" out reviewers control?

Edited March 19, 2009 by OregonCacher

[+sbell111]

... Final thoughts? Most cachers are adults, and they should act in that manner. Its like the old saying goes, "If you dont like what they're doing, don't participate". It seems this has been lost somewhere long down the road. Now its more of, "If you dont like it, complain, so they can't do it either".

The counterpoint to this is:

 

Geocaching is a game. Why must we fill it with agendas? It should be enough to go out and find the box. It should not be trying to influence anyone's ideas with any agendas.

 

Yes but wouldn't it be easier to tell people to not seek if you dont agree then to try to regulate the content of every cache there is out there, and every possible geocoin or TB that could have a possible "agenda" out reviewers control?

Nope, the choke point is at the reviewers. It is easier to weed out the agendas there than listen to the whining about them later. Also, by getting rid of all agendas, you do away with any need to have a line as to what agendas can be listed and what cannot. Surely, you don't think that any agenda would be acceptable.

[+riviouveur]

Seems like theres so many guidelines that it'd be easier to rob a bank then place a cache somewhere.

The fact that it's been done close to a million times, including the caches which have since been archived (I wish we had ready access to the number of caches which have ever been published!) would appear to suggest that this statement may be just a tad over-simplified.

 

I publish about 98% of the caches which are submitted to me for approval. 90% of are published with no discussion; perhaps 7% require the placer to address one point; and 1% take a little longer. Sometimes, one of the points to be addressed is the wording. I ask the owner, as politely as I can, to remove a few words or a paragraph, and they generally comply. Occasionally it takes a couple of exchanges of mails to explain why I'm insisting on it. About once a year someone avails themselves of the possibility to contact appeals@geocaching.com to ask for a review of one of my decisions. Groundspeak asks for both sides of the story and makes a decision. It really is that simple, if you want it to be.

 

The bottom line is, if you want to be able to write anything you like in a cache listing, be prepared to be slightly surprised about where Groundspeak has chosen to draw the line. (If running a site with a million members coming from almost every country in the world were easy, we'd all be doing it. One of the major complaints I hear as a reviewer is how people in my part of the world think that Groundspeak is waaaaaay too US-centric.)

[+Star*Hopper]

OK, I'm moving these threads to the Off Topic forum.

 

 

 

Oh......wait.......hmmmm......something isn't working here.

Must be some kinda conservative agenda.

 

 

 

<<< WINKY! MEANS JUST KIDDING! REALLY!!!

~*

[+Team Hurley]

Hopefully this will not get me in trouble, but I see at the top of this page an add for Ann Coulter's blog. Can that not be seen by some as an agenda? Cause we all know she has a definite agenda.

 

Very much IMO.