Geocaching : A Caucasian Sport?

June 11, 2005

I guess my point has more to do with welcoming future potential geocachers to the site.

OK, lets say Geocaching.com tries to be "more welcoming" to non whites by putting black faces on the home page photos. Lets go as far as saying that out of the 100 photos (I'm making this number up) that rotate through in a day, they make 99 of them photos of black geocachers. What happens when a non white visits the site at the instant the one photo of whites is swapped in?

It would be a conclusion derived over a period of time.

June 11, 2005

My point is that adding the photos has not come without its price, a price which may be somewhat higher than expected.

Are you kidding me?

This sport/hobbie seems to me to be completely indepentant of race, religion, what food you like, or what tv programs you watch - that's one of the great things about geocaching.

Everyone can play and you will never find a 'whites only' cache on gc.com.

The topic is not really about what the sport is, but rather how it can be perceived (or misperceived) by potential newcomers or the general public.

Edited June 11, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

June 11, 2005

... It is my impression after looking at most of the posts in this thread, however, that the folks who have indicated they are not caucasian have no real problem with the photos, while the folks who (I assume) are caucasian have the biggest problem with it. Why is that?...

White liberal guilt.

It reminds me of when I worked at a university full of PC types. A new theater arts building was capped with an antique weather vane that depicted a Native American. Some of the (white) faculty immediately protested, saying that it was racially insensitive...blah, blah, blah. It became a big issue, and got in the local paper.

Some Narragansett indians were on campus one day for completely unrelated reasons, and were shown the weather vane and asked what they thought of it. "Nice weathervane", was the opinion. They had no problem with it.

EPILOGUE: The extensive publicity about the valuable antique weathervane resulted in it being stolen. It was eventually recovered from an antique shop. The last time I saw it, it was on display inside the building where it could be protected.

I guess the moral of this story is that the group depicted should be asked whether the depiction is offending or not. A desire to see the world through someone elses eyes is not a fault. We have a better word for it, it's called empathy, not guilt.

Edited June 11, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

June 11, 2005

If I may, I can't say that as far as GPS cache posting websites go, GC.com really HAS any competitors. I suppose maybe as much as Microsoft or DeBeers have competitors.

In the interest of avoiding complacency, I site at least two others -

http://www.terracaching.com/

http://www.navicache.com/

If in fact that HAS happened, I would submit that we are better off without them. There is enough whining already.

Sounds like exclusivity to me ...

The photos displayed come from a database of images that, to my understanding are randomly uploaded to the homepage.

It is impossible that the photos are randomly uploaded. They must be manually sorted for quality.

The only solution is to have NO photos at all, which is exactly the same logic that has removed prayer from schools, and now threatens to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments from public display.

Interesting suggestion. What does having photos on the home page really add to the sport anyway? Wouldn't we be better off with Geocaching.com spending less of it's time manually sorting photos and more on creating new useful features?

Edited June 11, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

2.6k · June 11, 2005

Geez, if you aren't the gift that keeps on giving...

1k · June 11, 2005

The topic is not really about what the sport is, but rather how it can be perceived (or misperceived) by potential newcomers or the general public.

Oh, good!

Then we agree the problem is with certain individual's perception and not with the sport itself!

Great! Now we are on an even keel again.

I'm so glad we had this conversation.

June 11, 2005

Are you suggesting I should not be concerned about my hobby? Sorry but I disagree with you.

Maybe no one else will say it, and maybe I will get warned/banned/otherwise yelled at for it, but yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting, because you seem to be one of those people who can't open their mouth without pouring more fuel on a fire. DOZENS of people see this as an utter NON-ISSUE, and fortunately, most of them see that it is YOUR continuous INABILITY to see PAST race and to the sport itself that makes YOU the one with the problem.

Wouldn't we be better off with Geocaching.com spending less of it's time manually sorting photos and more on creating new useful features?

Good idea. I vote to add an "Ignore racist" button to the forum code ASAP so we don't have to read this crap anymore.

June 11, 2005

Are you suggesting I should not be concerned about my hobby? Sorry but I disagree with you.

Maybe no one else will say it, and maybe I will get warned/banned/otherwise yelled at for it, but yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting, because you seem to be one of those people who can't open their mouth without pouring more fuel on a fire. DOZENS of people see this as an utter NON-ISSUE, and fortunately, most of them see that it is YOUR continuous INABILITY to see PAST race and to the sport itself that makes YOU the one with the problem.

Wouldn't we be better off with Geocaching.com spending less of it's time manually sorting photos and more on creating new useful features?

Good idea. I vote to add an "Ignore racist" button to the forum code ASAP so we don't have to read this crap anymore.

[clapping]

June 11, 2005

Are you suggesting I should not be concerned about my hobby? Sorry but I disagree with you.

Maybe no one else will say it, and maybe I will get warned/banned/otherwise yelled at for it, but yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting, because you seem to be one of those people who can't open their mouth without pouring more fuel on a fire. DOZENS of people see this as an utter NON-ISSUE, and fortunately, most of them see that it is YOUR continuous INABILITY to see PAST race and to the sport itself that makes YOU the one with the problem.

Wouldn't we be better off with Geocaching.com spending less of it's time manually sorting photos and more on creating new useful features?

Good idea. I vote to add an "Ignore racist" button to the forum code ASAP so we don't have to read this crap anymore.

You Rock

June 11, 2005

I thought this thread is long gone!

See..... even in South Africa we don't care about skin colour when Geocaching!

My son with his new geocaching "convert" We found this boy and his family in the nature reserve last weekend while geocaching. Showed them what Geocaching is about. They enjoyed it so much that his father just ordered a GPS from my shop!

Edited June 12, 2005 by geocacher_coza

June 11, 2005

Mrs. Penguin is Chinese and her picture has been on the front page at least twice. Does that count?

24.7k · June 11, 2005

My introduction to the pay difference between men and women was in a class at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks. The professor said that he had been approached by a bank because they were being accused of paying their women less. They said they applied their compensation policy fairly across the board. Yet when you looked at what the women made vs. what the men made the men were compensated more. So he agreed to look into it. He found two things. First the men generally had been employed longer and the bank did reward experience/longevity. Second the men tended to be married while the women tended to be single. The compensation policy was such that family benefits were very good. The perception here was that the pay was not equal. The reality was that when everything was accounted for it was.

Your question is much the same. If more minorities would contribute photo's more of their photos would appear on the front page. Since anyone can at any time look up a cache and go find it, geocaching itself is not a Caucasian activity though more enjoy it than other races at present. Anyone who would enjoy finding tupperware in the woods would enjoy geocaching. I can't say what all the factors that determine if someone would enjoy that or not. But until you can you can't even answer your own question. We can guess, we can give you a swag but nothing more than that. Perhaps because geocaching is so easy to do. There is no sign with a hand that says "You must be this tall to participate." Anyone can. Maybe you are not used to seeing that sometimes freedom of choice means people actually choose other things and we don't live in a world where everyone is homogenized. Forced participation to keep the percentages clean and sharp is no more free than not being allowed to participate to begin with. Fortunately geocaching is indifferent to everything but the personal choice we make as individuals.

1k · June 11, 2005

If more minorities would contribute photo's more of their photos would appear on the front page. Since anyone can at any time look up a cache and go find it, geocaching itself is not a Caucasian activity though more enjoy it than other races at present.

Bravo!

:laughing:

1k · June 11, 2005

...
Your question is much the same. ...

RK, you completely lost me on that second paragraph. I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere, but it eludes me.

24.7k · June 12, 2005

...
Your question is much the same. ...

RK, you completely lost me on that second paragraph. I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere, but it eludes me.

Lets say this country is 60% White, 20% Black, and 20% Brown. If everone actually has freedom of choice and they chose exactly what they want nothing anywhere at all will ever have the 60/20/20 split. You shouldn't expect it, nor should you force it.

Geocaching does have that freedom of choice. For what it's worth I was wrong. Death and Taxes would have that split but that's just the way it goes.

June 17, 2005

Are you suggesting I should not be concerned about my hobby? Sorry but I disagree with you.

Maybe no one else will say it, and maybe I will get warned/banned/otherwise yelled at for it, but yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting, because you seem to be one of those people who can't open their mouth without pouring more fuel on a fire. DOZENS of people see this as an utter NON-ISSUE, and fortunately, most of them see that it is YOUR continuous INABILITY to see PAST race and to the sport itself that makes YOU the one with the problem.

Wouldn't we be better off with Geocaching.com spending less of it's time manually sorting photos and more on creating new useful features?

Good idea. I vote to add an "Ignore racist" button to the forum code ASAP so we don't have to read this crap anymore.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I still disagree with you.

June 17, 2005

Your question is much the same. If more minorities would contribute photo's more of their photos would appear on the front page.

This statement is not necessarily true as the photos are screened manually. We don't know exactly what criteria the screeners use but judging from the pics, quality is certainly one of them.

It may be that the screeners select only 1 photo per cache, in which case the quantity of photos a minority posted would make no difference.

I believe we can say with relative certainty that if more minorities participated in the sport, we would (in all probability) see more minority photos. My argument is that we should encourage minorities, by inviting them individually, but also by making the home page more inviting for those who may not be personally invited by another cacher.

2.6k · June 17, 2005

My argument is that we should encourage minorities, by inviting them individually, but also by making the home page more inviting for those who may not be personally invited by another cacher.

Do you honestly believe that non-caucasians are so craven they will be reluctant to participate in an activity until they see pictures of "their kind" doing it? I think that's an unbelievably patronizing view.

3.3k · June 17, 2005

I believe we can say with relative certainty that if more minorities participated in the sport, we would (in all probability) see more minority photos. My argument is that we should encourage minorities, by inviting them individually, but also by making the home page more inviting for those who may not be personally invited by another cacher.

If you want to be silly about it, maybe you should "do your part" by stopping your uploads of minority free images. I viewed your photo gallery and you have 109 images.

None of your 109 images show any minority cachers. 5 of the images show your "white hand", and one is a full photo of you. Maybe you can "practice what you preach," and post some "color" in your gallery.

Oh, and do us all a huge favor, Lock this thread so it will go away.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Kit Fox

June 17, 2005

None of your 109 images show any minority cachers. 5 of the images show your "white hand", and one is a full photo of you. Maybe you can "practice what you preach," and post some "color" in your gallery.

The topic is not about caucasians posting photos of non-caucasians. The topic is about non-caucasian participation in the sport.

Oh, and do us all a huge favor, Lock this thread so it will go away.

You seem to find this thread distressing but feel somehow compelled to post to it. No one is forcing you to pay attention to it. It's your choice.

24.7k · June 17, 2005

Your question is much the same. If more minorities would contribute photo's more of their photos would appear on the front page.
...I believe we can say with relative certainty that if more minorities participated in the sport, we would (in all probability) see more minority photos....

You have me scratching my head. What I said was if more minorities submitted photos more photos with minorities depicted would appear. What you said was if more minorities geocaches (implying that more would post photos..) more photo's would appear. Essentially that's the same thing in that creating a larger pool of photos means more of that pool gets chosen.

Your other comment:

My argument is that we should encourage minorities, by ...also by making the home page more inviting for those who may not be personally invited by another cacher.

Is odd. What's not inviting about it? I for one never did like the Groundspeak colors. I cached anyway. What makes it inviting? You seem to think race does. Commercials today are a rainbow I can't think of any product that is less inviting because someone other than my race is pitching it. As an aside Caucasian isn't a race Celt, Frank, Anglo, Saxon, Greek etc. are races, Caucasian is a family of races. Ditto on other "Colors". I am not less likely to use Jello because Bill Cosby pitches it. I'm not more likely to use T-Mobile because a Celt pitches that.

Do enough Celts geocache? Better start using Celtic designs on the front page. But wait, that may not have enough Zulu designs, and that may not fit what the Lakota like, and the Shoshone and Blackfoot really don't have much use for each other so better be sure to deal with that and the Basque and the Cossacks....Oh and do the Japanese do enough for their indigenous "White" tribe? Are the whites who were here before the Indians a minority since they are not the whites who are here now? It gets confusing. Better have a front page for each branch of the human genome.

Bottom line The pictures are fine. They are geocachers having fun and nice scenery. That's enough.

June 17, 2005

Amen RK. And LOL too.

20.7k · June 17, 2005

So, can this thread be killed off yet?

June 17, 2005

You have me scratching my head. What I said was if more minorities submitted photos more photos with minorities depicted would appear. What you said was if more minorities geocaches (implying that more would post photos..) more photo's would appear. Essentially that's the same thing in that creating a larger pool of photos means more of that pool gets chosen.

O.K. - to clarify this further.

1) The photos are hand selected by someone at Geocaching.com (see previous posts for substantiation)

2) Therefore, the photos that appear on the web site do not necessarily reflect either the racial representation of the geocaching public, or the quantity of photos posted by individuals or collections of individuals. They probably reflect the individual bias of the person selecting the photos within the pool of available photos.

You with me so far?

3) Any logger has the ability to post 1 or more photos in a log.

4) Any individual posting more photos may not result in more photos by that logger being selected by Geocaching.com. His pictures may consistently be of a terrible quality and get passed over by the Geocaching.com judge. Alternately, Geocaching.com may have a rule that not more than 1 photo per log is selected (or even 1 photo per cacher) is selected in a given time period.

5) However, what is clear is that more photo posting non-caucasians (as in individuals) will in all probability end up in a larger mix of non-caucasion photos appearing on the web page.

6) In fact - we are not saying the same thing if you look at the argument closely.

Commercials today are a rainbow I can't think of any product that is less inviting because someone other than my race is pitching it.

Commercials today represent far more racial diversity than they did say 10 or 20 years ago. The reason is because companies realized that by representing minorities they could attract them to their products and the company would have a greater edge than those not representing minorities. It's exactly the point I am trying to make.

Better have a front page for each branch of the human genome.

Diversity is a good thing. Ask any genetic specialist.

They are geocachers having fun and nice scenery.

They are nearly exclusively caucasian geocachers having fun and nice scenery. BTW, is it just me or are there now more nice scenery pics in comparison to the people pics?

Edited June 17, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

June 17, 2005

So, can this thread be killed off yet?

I would remind you that posting to this thread bumps it up in the list. If you would prefer to see it sink, you're best bet is to refrain from posting. I believe only a monitor and myself can close this thread and I see no reason to stop a good discussion.

And your comment is not pertinent to the topic.

Edited June 17, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

20.7k · June 17, 2005

I posted seven minutes after the previous poster. That can hardly be called 'bumping'.

BTW, I haven't seen much good discussion in this thread, have you?

20.7k · June 17, 2005

This is not a criticism of Geocaching but I can't remember the last time I saw a pic of a non-Caucasian on the home page. Are there any non-Caucasians out there? Come on, let's hear from you.

There's the original post. Many people have posted that are non-caucasion cachers. The question has been answered. Further, the thread went away from the initial topic three or four pages ago and should be locked.

Edited June 17, 2005 by sbell111

3.3k · June 17, 2005

The topic is not about caucasians posting photos of non-caucasians. The topic is about non-caucasian participation in the sport

You forgot your post where you were concerned that the "all white" pictures would scare potential minorities cachers. You made "white photos" and issue.

O.K. - to clarify this further.

1) The photos are hand selected by someone at Geocaching.com (see previous posts for substantiation)

2) Therefore, the photos that appear on the web site do not necessarily reflect either the racial representation of the geocaching public, or the quantity of photos posted by individuals or collections of individuals. They probably reflect the individual bias of the person selecting the photos within the pool of available photos

This is where you are making a HUGE assumption.

The main page photos are chosen from the available gallery pictures. Since the majority of cachers are white, we can deduce that the majority of pictures will also tend to show more white cachers.

It has nothing to do with a "color conpiracy" but everything to do with statistics. More white cachers = more white photos.

This is not exclusionary in any way shape or form. If 100 minority cachers each uploaded images of their caching experience, I have no doubt that their pictures would end up on the front page.

A simple analogy.

You have better odds of winning the lottery if you buy more tickets.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Kit Fox

June 17, 2005

I posted seven minutes after the previous poster. That can hardly be called 'bumping'.

BTW, I haven't seen much good discussion in this thread, have you?

I would remind you of the general guidelines which state that posters should stay on-topic. I agree that more on-topic posters would make a better discussion. Maybe you could help by contributing something which actually pertained to the topic.

June 17, 2005

The main page photos are chosen from the available gallery pictures. Since the majority of cachers are white, we can deduce that the majority of pictures will also tend to show more white cachers.

Agreed. I did not suggest otherwise.

It has nothing to do with a "color conpiracy" but everything to do with statistics. More white cachers = more white photos.

Agreed. I did not suggest otherwise. You may be reading more into this discussion that what is there.

This is not exclusionary in any way shape or form. If 100 minority cachers each uploaded images of their caching experience, I have no doubt that their pictures would end up on the front page.

Agreed. There was never a premise put forward that Geocaching was inherently racist. It was stated at least once to the contrary.

You might want to take a closer look at the thread for further clarification.

Edited June 17, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

8k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

Picture2.sized.jpg

2.6k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

I certainly hope not. I can't imagine a more insulting premise than the one that launched this thread.

20.7k · June 17, 2005

I would remind you of the general guidelines which state that posters should stay on-topic. I agree that more on-topic posters would make a better discussion. Maybe you could help by contributing something which actually pertained to the topic.

Again, the thread long since strayed from its topic. The topic was whether there were any non-cacuasion cachers. In response, several cachers posted, 'me', 'me', 'me', 'me', and 'I'm Spartacus!'

Since then, the topic has strayed into the land of off-topic and fallen down the well of unproductivity.

BTW, my posts are on topic. This one is in direct response to your post. My first one in here this morning was in agreement with the two posters just above who recommended putting this sad thread out of its misery.

Edited June 17, 2005 by sbell111

1k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

I certainly hope not. I can't imagine a more insulting premise than the one that launched this thread.

And what premise is that? It seemed like a simple question to me.

June 17, 2005

I would remind you of the general guidelines which state that posters should stay on-topic. I agree that more on-topic posters would make a better discussion. Maybe you could help by contributing something which actually pertained to the topic.

Again, the thread long since strayed from its topic. The topic was whether there were any non-cacuasion cachers. In response, several cachers posted, 'me', 'me', 'me', 'me', and 'I'm Spartacus!'

Since then, the topic has strayed into the land of off-topic and fallen down the well of unproductivity.

BTW, my posts are on topic. This one is in direct response to your post. My first one in here this morning was in agreement with the two posters just above who recommended putting this sad thread out of its misery.

I'm curious as to why you would express such hostility to this thread. Again, no one is forcing you to read or participate in it. You also seem strangely compelled to post to it (with comments unpertinent to the topic), which, in fact, only increases its visibility in the forum. If you were tired by the topic, it seems to me you could just ignore it.

Although I'm certain it's not the case, this kind of behavior could be misinterpreted as an attempt to sabotage the thread because you found the topic not to your liking or somehow taboo.

Edited June 17, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

9.4k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

Ha! You saw that too? I instructed the folks picking photos not to select images that are screenshots of browser windows. I was a bit offended by that picture.

If you're referring to the picture of kids, we are a bit biased when it comes to kid photos, to be honest.

2.6k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

I certainly hope not. I can't imagine a more insulting premise than the one that launched this thread.

And what premise is that? It seemed like a simple question to me.

The premise that non-caucasians as a class are too timid to join in if they don't see snapshots of people who look like themselves on the front page. It's an arrogant idea to apply to people who've spent a century or three fighting every inch of the way for rights they should've been able to take for granted. People who had to wrestle their way into politics, the academy, the military, the workplace, professional sports and a seat up front on the freaking bus are going to shy away from a game unless they have visual evidence that others of "their kind" are doing it already? Insolence.

24.7k · June 17, 2005

1) The photos are hand selected by someone at Geocaching.com (see previous posts for substantiation)

They probably always will be. That way a meth lab and nude cacher with his ammo can just a little to far to the left to be family oriented don't sneak through.

2) Therefore, the photos that appear on the web site do not necessarily reflect either the racial representation of the geocaching public, or the quantity of photos posted by individuals or collections of individuals. They probably reflect the individual bias of the person selecting the photos within the pool of available photos.

Everone has a bias. This person seems to favor people having fun and scenery. Nothing wrong there. Forcing a specific result is as racist as not allowing the opportunity. That brings us back to the having fun and scenery bias. Nothing wrong there.

3) Any logger has the ability to post 1 or more photos in a log.

True

4) Any individual posting more photos may not result in more photos by that logger being selected by Geocaching.com. His pictures may consistently be of a terrible quality and get passed over by the Geocaching.com judge. Alternately, Geocaching.com may have a rule that not more than 1 photo per log is selected (or even 1 photo per cacher) is selected in a given time period.

True on the former though more photos submitted means you have better odds of being 'published'. If the photo sucks the photo sucks, that's not racism that's ineptitude. Maybe they will get better over time. I doubt they will be blacklisted for poor photo quality.

5) However, what is clear is that more photo posting non-caucasians (as in individuals) will in all probability end up in a larger mix of non-caucasion photos appearing on the web page.

We both keep saying this but somehow you say it's differnt.

6) In fact - we are not saying the same thing if you look at the argument closely.

No, we pretty much are. You just tossed in more assumptions that resulted in the same thing I said with less assumptions.

You see an issue, I see a non issue. That's how we differ.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Renegade Knight

8k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

Ha! You saw that too? I instructed the folks picking photos not to select images that are screenshots of browser windows. I was a bit offended by that picture.

If you're referring to the picture of kids, we are a bit biased when it comes to kid photos, to be honest.

Actually I thought the screenshot of the browser window was a cool illustration of the often maligned webcam cache.

1k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

I certainly hope not. I can't imagine a more insulting premise than the one that launched this thread.

And what premise is that? It seemed like a simple question to me.

The premise that non-caucasians as a class are too timid to join in if they don't see snapshots of people who look like themselves on the front page. It's an arrogant idea to apply to people who've spent a century or three fighting every inch of the way for rights they should've been able to take for granted. People who had to wrestle their way into politics, the academy, the military, the workplace, professional sports and a seat up front on the freaking bus are going to shy away from a game unless they have visual evidence that others of "their kind" are doing it already? Insolence.

I quite agree--but I don't believe that was the premise of the original post--it was suggested later.

Auntie, the way you jumped to that conclusion, you're in danger of being mistaken for a liberal. Better calm down. :lol:

2.6k · June 17, 2005

Auntie, the way you jumped to that conclusion, you're in danger of being mistaken for a liberal. Better calm down.

Ha! Does the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" ring a bell?

1k · June 17, 2005

Auntie, the way you jumped to that conclusion, you're in danger of being mistaken for a liberal. Better calm down.

Ha! Does the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" ring a bell?

Yes--only it's not so soft.

My point, however, was that you really dissed the OP, who (I think) is not guilty as charged.

20.7k · June 17, 2005

... Although I'm certain it's not the case, this kind of behavior could be misinterpreted as an attempt to sabotage the thread because you found the topic not to your liking or somehow taboo.

What do you meen 'misinterpreted'? :lol:

2.6k · June 17, 2005

My point, however, was that you really dissed the OP, who (I think) is not guilty as charged.

The OP, however much he adjures others to stay on topic, morphed his own thread from "is everybody here white?" to "let's artificially post an unrepresentative number of brown faces to the front page to create a welcoming atmosphere." It's the latter I was reacting to and I don't think I've dissed the idea half as hard as it deserves.

On the other hand, I hate to push KA. Especially now that he's back in his Utonium suit.

21.9k · June 17, 2005

Auntie, I am really sorry, but after reading this thread I've made the decision that I must personally contribute to making the site seem more "inclusive." I will be changing my avatar to one of the many famous black cartoon characters.

Ummmm...

Thinkin'....

A little help here?

EDIT: Never mind. I figured it out!

Edited June 17, 2005 by Keystone

1k · June 17, 2005

...

On the other hand, I hate to push KA. Especially now that he's back in his Utonium suit.

You lost me on that remark...too obscure for me.

21.9k · June 17, 2005

You lost me on that remark...too obscure for me.

Hey hey hey, it was clear as day...

1k · June 17, 2005

OK...took a Google break, and now I get it.

2.6k · June 17, 2005

BTW, is it just me or are there now more nice scenery pics in comparison to the people pics?

I haven't noticed any change in the scenery-people ratio. I've seen two pictures from my gallery on the front page. The other one is solely a scenery pic, the other one has something looking like a human being in it, but one can hardly determine the race from the picture.

2.6k · June 17, 2005

You think this thread had any influence in selecting this picture?

I certainly hope not. I can't imagine a more insulting premise than the one that launched this thread.

Funny, I can think many. :lol:

Geocaching : A Caucasian Sport?

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