Passion Of The Rock Cache

October 22, 2004

QUOTE
PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

QUOTE

However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

Hmmmmmm

Just seems like you could be reading into that statement too much. Not sure he meant any offense by that statement, and it seems you might be "jumping the gun", that's all.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Bubba Cache

20.7k · October 22, 2004

I realize that TNG suggested beginning the thread, but he may not be aware that it has been started. I'll shoot him an email. Lets all calm down just a bit and let him chime in.

October 22, 2004

I really shouldn't . . . no, I should go back and make dinner . . .

Some alternative points of view.

1) Anyone that suggests that this Bible puzzle cache as posted does not have a religeous agenda (i.e., sharing and exposing others to the hiders religeous zeal) is lying to themselves or others. I wouldn't pretend for a minute that my caches don't include an agenda to share and expose others to my puzzling enthusiasm. That is often what theme caches are all about.

2) The line "You should be ashamed if you don't already know this one." exposes the truth of the above comment in an arogant and potentially offensive way. Why should someone be ashamed of not knowing some verse from the bible. Is the cache hider ashamed of himself for not knowing some of the more commonly quoted verses from the Koran or the Upanishads?

3) The line "Take all you need, & don't worry about leaving anything unless you have related items." is generous . . . like a drug dealer?

So, I don't think anyone here sees a problem with the puzzle being biblical. It is the manner in which it is presented that certainly does promote Christianity that is in question. And the question should not be whether or not is is promoting a religeon, it is. The question is whether the level of promotion this cache puts forth is acceptable to this community or whether it should be toned down.

October 22, 2004

However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

I am not quite sure I follow the "offended" and "shaming" comments. I wouldn't be able to solve the problem without pulling out a bible and trying to find the references. And I went to Sunday School and church as a little tacker!

I have worked on other puzzle caches which required a knowledge of trigonometry, converting coordinate systems, and black magic stuff like that, and I freely admit that I had to look up some on line resources to solve them. But I didn't feel shamed because of any ignorance on my behalf.

But then maybe I have no shame anyway.

20.7k · October 22, 2004

Puzzler makes some very good points. Certainly, the cache would be fine with a few tiny tweaks to the verbiage. That being said, however, Iv'e read many cache descriptions that were just arrogant drivel. I don't think a cache should be archived just because others may take offense at it's arrogance. If anything, the suggestion that one should be ashamed for not knowing a specific verse (even a very popular one) would seem to take away from any Christian purpose that this cache may or may not have.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Lapaglia, I'm sorry that I ruffled some feathers... I should have bit my tongue. I realize that you are a geocacher and you ARE entitled to your thoughts and opinions. It's just that the actions that were taken by TNG really got me worked-up. I am not ashamed for stating that I should have just kept my mouth shut but felt that the thread was being 'stirred' when maybe it wasn't. If you want to come to 'Bama I'll buy you a beer or glass of whole-milk, whichever is your pleasure.

Now, let's (all geocachers) continue debating why a geocache that was previously approved was suddenly archived even though there were no disparaging remarks made on the cache page....

20.7k · October 22, 2004

... let's (all geocachers) continue debating why a geocache that was previously approved was suddenly archived even though there were no disparaging remarks made on the cache page....

I think that gets back to the shame issue. Certainly, if I had found this cache and had a problem with it, I might not be inclined to place a disparaging remark on the cache page which would only serve to mark me as a heathen.

Edited October 22, 2004 by sbell111

October 22, 2004

After reading the cache page, in my opionion, there was nothing wrong with placing this cache. I don't agree with the person who archived it. The bible is probably the most recognized book in the world, so why not be able to use it for reference? If you get offended and uptight about reading the cache page, then don't go find the cache. If a person has the right to be offended by this cache, then another person has just as much right to not be offended. So shouldn't it be an individual choice on whether to find the cache or not?

I think the cache hider was well within the rules of gc.com. As Jeff said, he didn't ask anybody to be "born again", or attend Church, or anything like that. He simply asked for the cache seekers to look up verses in the bible.

I think the cache being archived was wrong.

Just my opinion.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Redneckgal

1.2k · October 22, 2004

LaPaglia, I'm sorry that I ruffled some feathers... I should have bit my tongue. I realize that you are a geocacher and you ARE entitled to your thoughts and opinions. It's just that the actions that were taken by TNG really got me worked-up. I am not ashamed for stating that I should have just kept my mouth shut but felt that the thread was being 'stirred' when maybe it wasn't. If you want to come to 'Bama I'll buy you a beer or glass of whole-milk, whichever is your pleasure.

Now, let's (all geocachers) continue debating why a geocache that was previously approved was suddenly archived even though there were no disparaging remarks made on the cache page....

Can it be 2%???? I'm trying to cut a few carbs

Personally I think this thread needs to go into a wait and see mode.

Thats on topic and how I feel.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Lapaglia

9.4k · October 22, 2004

Now, let's (all geocachers) continue debating why a geocache that was previously approved was suddenly archived even though there were no disparaging remarks made on the cache page....

To make an assumption (haha) it is probably the same reason why the cache owner didn't post this topic. Most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy.

Which brings up a good point. This topic raises the big reason why we try to keep these issues out of geocaching.

3.9k · October 22, 2004

It really shouldn't matter if it was promoted as an oil change being needed every 3,000 miles. It was clear as to what the cache was. If it offends you, don't hunt it.

No one in this world has the power to stop the belief of others. I don't care how much you censor, you will always offend someone. My question is, why censor at all, besides commercial caches? Why not let people hide and present caches themed as they wish? If they hide a political or a religious cache, we can choose to hunt or not.

El Diablo

2.5k · October 22, 2004

As a non-christian, I feel that I should come in here and post my opinion on the matter.

This cache doesn't offend me in the slightest.

Whether or not I would hunt it is more dependant on if I were ever in the area and what type of caching I have time for than whether or not I need to look up Mark or Luke or Paul or any of the other Apostles.

This is a game, people. If the cache page said "sit through this sermon and then answer the following five questions", then yes, I would be upset. But it doesn't.

If you don't want to do a cache because the terrain is too high or the difficulty rating isn't to your liking, then you don't do it and there is no issue. If you don't want to do a SteepleChase or a Passion of the Rock or my new cache, Cavalry Cemetary Clergy - descanso na paz #2, simply don't do it. There's a no issue there.

We chose to do the caches that we do. This site doesn't tell us where we must go, it simply lists where we CAN go. Doing or not Doing is up to you as a (hopefully) fairly intelligent person.

Re-Activate the cache TG.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Thank you fly for a open and honest opinion from a non-Christian perspective. It IS appreciated.

1.3k · October 22, 2004

To make an assumption (haha) it is probably the same reason why the cache owner didn't post this topic. Most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy.

I'll note the "haha" and say that the cache owner isn't online everyday. I know this person and have no reason to doubt them. They brought it up on the local forums (one time I was flamed here by the forum regulars, who took the time to look up our forums, because it hadn't been discussed locally).

If I am not mistaken, he is also in the National Guard. His free time may be limited.

1.3k · October 22, 2004

No one in this world has the power to stop the belief of others. I don't care how much you censor, you will always offend someone. My question is, why censor at all, besides commercial caches? Why not let people hide and present caches themed as they wish? If they hide a political or a religious cache, we can choose to hunt or not.

Great post. I agree totally.

This cache was supposedly archived because a few people were offended. It seems that a lot more than a few were offended that it was archived. (I know arguing number will have no effect - but a lot of people are upset that it was archived.)

It seems no win either way you go.

It was approved, it should have been allowed to live out it's "cache life".

Of course, I still don't see how it's a solicitation. If you don't want to look for it, don't.

sd

9.4k · October 22, 2004

My second sentence (not an assumption) is that most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy. We often get emails from people who are too scared to post in the forums about issues that concern them, especially ones that have a lot of baggage (religion and politics).

Which is why it would be nice to ask questions first and shoot later (using the National Guard analogy).

1.4k · October 22, 2004

To make an assumption (haha) it is probably the same reason why the cache owner didn't post this topic. Most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy.

Well... I missed this smart-@ss remark earlier. Jeremy, I will continue to defend YOUR commercial venture, but I can't imagine a Fortune 500 CEO speaking such pure crap.

YOUR volunteer said to post it HERE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Once more because you keep wondering why this was posted here. YOUR volunteer said to post it here.

I will once again state:

I like you Jeremy and often enjoy your trite sense of humor, but how the H-E-Double-L are we supposed to read minds and email Hydee (who is a true gem) when YOUR volunteer says to post it here?

2.1k · October 22, 2004

Thank you fly for a open and honest opinion from a non-Christian perspective. It IS appreciated.

add me to that list - thanks -

some comments of my own -

yes - it is JUST a book - I defy anyone to show me a public library in this county that does not have at least several versions of the bible - and likey every other holy book also.

The shame on you comment did not offend me but it is telling about the author. Like so many of us (and in this case especially in the Bible Belt) he likely did not even think that a not-Christian might be around to find his cache. To a person who has grown up in the church, I'd sort of agreed with it when I first read it - then the bounce came - "HUH?" - not very nice. Quite true if you are a Christian - but what if you just never had the chance due to parental beliefs or lacks, to learn about that particular believe - even in the Bible Belt.

So - I think - what the heck is all the fuss about -

Or did some one drop a PM on this one and didn't have the guts to put it in the log where it belonged? We just don't know yet do we. Inquiring minds want to know.

OH PLEASE forgive me for that last one - I just couldn't stop myself.

I vote for restoring the man's cache - it would also be nice if we could get a real explanation of why it was archived. After all this I'd like to know.

Geeezz - 3 hours and 66 messages - is that a record? OT if not what is?

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Which is why it would be nice to ask questions first and shoot later

As someone who has been shot at and and fired-back, it's safe to assume that you've never been shot at have you Jeremy?

Edited October 22, 2004 by jeff35080

1.3k · October 22, 2004

My second sentence (not an assumption) is that most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy. We often get emails from people who are too scared to post in the forums about issues that concern them, especially ones that have a lot of baggage (religion and politics).

Which is why it would be nice to ask questions first and shoot later (using the National Guard analogy).

I'm sorry - didn't know I had to dissect the post - it certainly seemed that sentence was meant to go with the other.

I am sure you do. I personally think that if you have a problem with something you should take a stand and not hide behind anonymity. (that being said, even using the name southdeltan, I am easy enough to find, etc).

And as stated earlier - analogies are often flawed

-----------------------------------

sd

October 22, 2004

I received a few emails this afternoon on the issue, I am looking into it. I have read the cache page, I also signed up for the MSGA forums so that I could get more information since I was told that there was a lot of support for the cache being voice there. I have read that thread, too. I have emailed the reviewer for more information.

When I have both sides of the story I will reply to the email from the cache owner. Beyond that I have no further information for you at this time.

2.5k · October 22, 2004

Thank you fly for a open and honest opinion from a non-Christian perspective. It IS appreciated.

You're welcome.

October 22, 2004

Everyone chill out a little, back away and take a deep breath and wait for the reason why I archived this, just got home and still reading all the threads on this cache, I will be posting everything in a little e while.

Tennessee Geocacher

sorry didn't know hydee was typing

October 22, 2004

Several points:

& pay attention. This is the only post I'll do about this.

- I'd like to thank everyone who has supported our right to think for ourselves.

- I totally support everyones' right to express their opinion on this or any other subject.

- I don't have time to mess with forums or chats but I felt this was important. I'm spending 12-14 hrs a day helping to train & equip fine men & women that defend your right of free speech. Even GCs' right, as was said earlier, to "censor" whatever they thought was politically incorrect.

- I have received no negative notes on the cache page,or by email, from GC or any other unhappy visitor.

- I received no notice or chance to work with GC on any preceived problems. I would reworked the page within the bounds of good sense, but got no chance.

-I will not try to force my opinions on anyone & I resent the fact that a small minority has gotten away (again) with forcing their's on the masses (us).

As I said earlier, This post is to express my humble opinion, & thank the folks who have supported OUR sport.

9.4k · October 22, 2004

Well... I missed this smart-@ss remark earlier.

It wasn't a joking remark. I put the (haha) in there because I dislike assumptions.

Jeremy, I will continue to defend YOUR commercial venture, but I can't imagine a Fortune 500 CEO speaking such pure crap.

You're right. Their PR person would write something fluffy and empty. So you get my honest responses instead.

YOUR volunteer said to post it HERE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Yeah. I get it. I also don't know the whole story, and being 6pm PST I doubt I will until tomorrow. So let it rest.

3.9k · October 22, 2004

My second sentence (not an assumption) is that most people don't enjoy being a part in controversy. We often get emails from people who are too scared to post in the forums about issues that concern them, especially ones that have a lot of baggage (religion and politics).

Which is why it would be nice to ask questions first and shoot later (using the National Guard analogy).

So far everyone has sidestepped this...I'm going out on a limb here and really don't give a dadgum if someone saws it off behind me.

I'm not a church goer, nor do I take the bible as written, however I do believe in God. I'm also willing to bet that the majority of people...cachers included also believe in a higher power. I'm also tired of the minority of this belief dictating to the majority what we are allowed to believe or voice. We can't voice our opinions, but you can voice yours.

If this site wants to be neutral...so be it, If you ban religious caches, then you are taking a side. To be totaly neutral, you have to allow both sides.

I'm not pushing my beliefs on you....don't push yours on me.

Screw PC...if you are going to be neutral...then be neutral.

El Diablo

1.3k · October 22, 2004

One of the major reasons this caused such a stir is the way this cache was archived.

It was approved approximately 6 months ago.

Recently, (I'm gonna assume this because I know TNGeocacher does a timely job) several (TNGeocachers' words to me) complained to him about this cache so he archived it.

The cache owner was not approached about it. He gets an archival note.

The archival note is not 100% clear to the cache owner so he emailed the approver.

He recieved no reply so he started a thread in his local forums, which suddenly became very popular and also cachers in a neighboring state also learned of it.

This is where a lot of people started "jumping the gun". I don't fault anybody for doing that - they were making decisions on the information they have and it's a common thing among humans.

I notified the approver of the thread, he posted there to start a thread here.

-------

I think a lot of people were upset that this LOOKED like a unilateral "it was a Bible, lets ban it without discussing it" action. I know better because I know TNGeocacher. Using his own words he's not the best typist. I understand that short replies from him are not necessarly blunt replies.

I really think that if the communication here had been better - the cache owner had been replied to (and who's to say that the email didn't get delivered. Somebody mentioned that Aol.com doesn't accept email from their isp) this could have been avoided.

A simple "Hey, can you reword a couple of lines in this cache - it might upset a non-Christian" would have likely solved the problem.

I do defend TNGeocacher - but I also know that he doesn't have the best communication. One local geocacher who had a cache archived was upset when told "He told me he had so many caches to check he didn't have time to email each owner". Basically the cache wasn't necessarily in bad shape - but TNG didn't read all of the logs - he just saw that it had several DNF's on it. That can cause problems.

southdeltan

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Argh....

When you get "the whole story" will those of us in the local area get to know the "whole story"?

I will, however, agree that you aren't a 'fluff' man and I do respect you for that and respect the fact that you'll often go head-to-head with us... however the getting shot at point was a bit 'over the top'.

1.3k · October 22, 2004

So far everyone has sidestepped this...I'm going out on a limb here and really don't give a dadgum if someone saws it off behind me.

I'm not a church goer, nor do I take the bible as written, however I do believe in God. I'm also willing to bet that the majority of people...cachers included also believe in a higher power. I'm also tired of the minority of this belief dictating to the majority what we are allowed to believe or voice. We can't voice our opinions, but you can voice yours.

If this site wants to be neutral...so be it, If you ban religious caches, then you are taking a side. To be totaly neutral, you have to allow both sides.

I'm not pushing my beliefs on you....don't push yours on me.

Screw PC...if you are going to be neutral...then be neutral.

El Diablo

Amen

sd

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Screw PC...if you are going to be neutral...then be neutral.

Exactly. If gc.com is going to be a venue it can't take sides except to ban illegal items such as hate speech which could be considered to be a crime in certain countries.

eBay has done fairly well at being a venue. Many still question some of their actions but because they now run multiple international sites they are able to enforce laws in different countries i.e. US, UK and certain UE and Asian countries by keeping banned items for different countries from showing to certain users of said countries.

I just re-read that... did it make sense?

5.3k · October 22, 2004

On this case I agree with the approver, Requiring someone to look somethng up in a Bible or the Koran orany other religous book smacks of promotion of the relegion.

October 22, 2004

On this case I agree with the approver, Requiring someone to look somethng up in a Bible or the Koran orany other religous book smacks of promotion of the relegion.

How is this different than a cacher owner requireing me to look at a greek statue or to find an element name on a chemestry chart?

1.4k · October 22, 2004

How is this different than a cacher owner requireing me to look at a greek statue or to find an element name on a chemestry chart?

Ya got me with that question geek....

Does this mean that all caches that require someone to look-up info in a historic book or scientific manual will now be archived?!?!?!?

I'm still curious if they are going to archive Bunsen Honeydew's Biblical Garden cache. After all, it does require the use of the Bible and is located in a public park that is clearly marked as The Biblical Garden.

October 22, 2004

How about this one?

Easter Egg hunt 2

Easter Eggs are a derivative of a religious holiday celebration. Shouldn't this cache be archived as well?

Edited October 22, 2004 by bamageek

2.3k · October 22, 2004

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but what if it was archived because of the contents INSIDE the cache? Perhaps there are pamphlets etc. promoting a certain cause in it that are the problem. If so, I would agree that it should have been archived, altho the owner should have been contacted for clarification and a chance to rectify the situation. If that is not the situation however, I do not think it should have been archived.

October 22, 2004

We are looking at what is on the cache page are we not? It's not as if the so called religious aspect was hidden in the box 'till the cache is found. It's a cache folks, not an ambush.

If you choose not to do it, that is up to you - if you choose to do the thing, that is up to you too. Me? Well, it's outside of my area but I would be less than happy if I was told that I CAN'T do it coz someone else was so thin skinned that a biblical reference was offensive to them.

I personally find that those who can take offense at this cache page are just as extreme as that which they are complaining about.

If it is not acceptable for person A to promote Christianity then why would it be acceptable for B to be so actively against it?

If the 'promotional aspect' (if indeed there is one) of this cache were lurking inside the box to jump out at the finder then I might take a stand but right now, it's all open and available to all before they start the hunt. Come on folks, take some responsibility for yourself. Look for it or leave it but let others do the same at their own volition.

3.9k · October 22, 2004

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but what if it was archived because of the contents INSIDE the cache? Perhaps there are pamphlets etc. promoting a certain cause in it that are the problem. If so, I would agree that it should have been archived, altho the owner should have been contacted for clarification and a chance to rectify the situation. If that is not the situation however, I do not think it should have been archived.

It really dosen't matter if there are religious material inside the cache. If you are going to archive it because of that...then you are censoring. This site wants to be neutral...if not then let us know that you have an agenda to push.

El Diablo

1.3k · October 22, 2004

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but what if it was archived because of the contents INSIDE the cache? Perhaps there are pamphlets etc. promoting a certain cause in it that are the problem. If so, I would agree that it should have been archived, altho the owner should have been contacted for clarification and a chance to rectify the situation. If that is not the situation however, I do not think it should have been archived.

Intersting point. The cache page mentioned themed items and information about the "Rock" that is apparantly an interesting object.

Perhaps Redleg can comment on the contents.

----

Regardless - the cache owner should have been approached before this was archived.

sd

1.4k · October 22, 2004

It's a cache folks, not an ambush.

This whole issue really has my blood boiling but that comment really made me smile :lol:

I can just picture all the religious people hiding behind trees near the cache site waiting for an unsuspecting geocacher to approach the cache then jump out and start preaching to the geocacher

1.4k · October 22, 2004

This site wants to be neutral...if not then let us know that you have an agenda to push.

Yep... as the sport grows it will be harder and harder for a handful of people from Washington state to push their views on others. It's much like pornography, the definition of which can vary from community to community.

I'm cool if gc.com isn't just a venue, but just let us know that it's not and explicitly spell-out what's acceptable or not. I think that what the real question may be... is gc.com going to remain neutral on these types of subjects and act as a venue that provides value-added features or is gc.com really more than a venue?

I can and will work within whatever boundaries that are listed. I just want these boundaries to be clearly defined and then we won't ever have to have one of these discussions in the future.

October 22, 2004

I personally would feel offended if the cache had made me go and sit through a sermon to get the smiley even though I consider myself a strong Christian. The fact that i may have to go and listen to a perspective on a point that I may not totally agree on to get a find doesn't seem like a very respectful thing to do.

I also have a cache at a church that I attend for scout meetings. I put it up so that people could learn, if they chose, the interesting history the church has played in my town.

October 22, 2004

It's a cache folks, not an ambush.

This whole issue really has my blood boiling but that comment really made me smile

I can just picture all the religious people hiding behind trees near the cache site waiting for an unsuspecting geocacher to approach the cache then jump out and start preaching to the geocacher

That was a deliberate attempt to lighten the whole thing up a little bit. What does it matter if the cache does promote religion? (Christianity) Oh, I know the 'party line', don't quote that here again. What I am saying is this, if one is not 'ready' to become a Christian, or a Zoroastrian for that matter, there is not a cache in the world that will make it happen. Would a FORD cache make a CHEVY man go out and change his vehicle?

If cachers are allowed to use handles like 'Cacher With JEEP In His Screen Name' (just an example, not a pop at ANYONE) then why not a Christian themed cache? Particularly one that SEEMS as innocuous as this one!

7.2k · October 22, 2004

Guys and gals...

How about we let it rest for the night. It is now under review.

Some things have been said here that some people will probably regret.

Take three steps back from your keyboards (or at least from this topic). Take a deep breath. Go grab a snack from your kitchen. Get yourself something to drink (water, coke, beer, a double-double martini, whatever). Watch some baseball. Watch the news.

I think your points have pretty much been made.

Please? :lol: Take a break?

October 22, 2004

For those of you offended by anything to do with "religious" words, please feel free to toss out all Federal Reserve Notes in a neighborhood where it will be exposed of properly. Rest assured you won't be reprimanded for littering.

2.3k · October 22, 2004

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but what if it was archived because of the contents INSIDE the cache? Perhaps there are pamphlets etc. promoting a certain cause in it that are the problem. If so, I would agree that it should have been archived, altho the owner should have been contacted for clarification and a chance to rectify the situation. If that is not the situation however, I do not think it should have been archived.

It really dosen't matter if there are religious material inside the cache. If you are going to archive it because of that...then you are censoring. This site wants to be neutral...if not then let us know that you have an agenda to push.

El Diablo

I would say it depends on what TYPE is in the cache. If it it just informational relating to the history of the rock or church, fine. If it is encouraging you to join that church or asking you to make a donation to it, then you just stepped over the line into solicitation, and that is against the rules.

October 22, 2004

Let me start saying off that I handled this cache in the wrong fashion, I screwed up, FUBAR, what ever you want to call it, I am only human. Sorry for that and for that I owe the cache owner an apology

It happened as a chain of events on the same day, a complaint was sent to me about the cache in question, a new cache was posted with a stronger religious agenda and the first response from the new cache owner was, well there is this cache Passion of the Rock cache that is the same as mine and it was approved why not mine so I went back and looked at the cache and archived it without any prior notification to the cache owner, this was wrong on my part.

This is the thing about religion and politics you can read it one way one day and the next it somehow looked different.

In the way that I interrupted the guidelines on religious agenda, the last line “ Study The POI “ is an agenda. Inside the cache it contained material relating to the POI and knowing what the POI is, it was an agenda, but again trying to discuss religion and politics I cut it short not wanting to discuss it , my fault again, because I knew there was no way to convince anyone, and yes I asked that it be posted here for everyone to see as there were threads on two different clubs forums. Hoping to see other views on the subject.

I have been in contact with hydee and for now its out of my hands, but if there is a way for this cache to be unarchived it will be.

Tennessee Geocacher

2.3k · October 22, 2004

For those of you offended by anything to do with "religious" words, please feel free to toss out all Federal Reserve Notes in a neighborhood where it will be exposed of properly. Rest assured you won't be reprimanded for littering.

I will gladly take on the responsibility of disposing of any Federal Reserve Notes. :lol:

PO box to mail them to available upon request.

2.3k · October 22, 2004

Let me start saying off that I handled this cache in the wrong fashion, I screwed up, FUBAR, what ever you want to call it, I am only human. Sorry for that and for that I owe the cache owner an apology

It happened as a chain of events on the same day, a complaint was sent to me about the cache in question, a new cache was posted with a stronger religious agenda and the first response from the new cache owner was, well there is this cache Passion of the Rock cache that is the same as mine and it was approved why not mine so I went back and looked at the cache and archived it without any prior notification to the cache owner, this was wrong on my part.

This is the thing about religion and politics you can read it one way one day and the next it somehow looked different.

In the way that I interrupted the guidelines on religious agenda, the last line “ Study The POI “ is an agenda. Inside the cache it contained material relating to the POI and knowing what the POI is, it was an agenda, but again trying to discuss religion and politics I cut it short not wanting to discuss it , my fault again, because I knew there was no way to convince anyone, and yes I asked that it be posted here for everyone to see as there were threads on two different clubs forums. Hoping to see other views on the subject.

I have been in contact with hydee and for now its out of my hands, but if there is a way for this cache to be unarchived it will be.

Tennessee Geocacher

You are truly a big man, hats off to you.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

if there is a way for this cache to be unarchived it will be.

Just hit the 'unarchive' button

1.4k · October 22, 2004

FWIW, this is the standard disclaimer that some approvers use when dealing with a cache that contains religious materials or a religious theme:

Disclaimer: Geocaching.com does not permit the advocacy of any particular religious or political agenda on its web site. While this puzzle cache requires finding clues in a book that is used as a reference document by several organized religions, it is not the intent of this cache or the web site to promote any particular belief system or viewpoint

If the approver of the cache had placed this standard disclaimer on the cache when it was approved it would have saved all this fussing and fighting over a box hidden for others to find.

FWIW, I found this disclaimer on several Biblical themed caches from different parts of the country.

Passion Of The Rock Cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment