Why do some feel the need to hate?????

[3 Hawks]

[gotta run]

Clearly this person is and idiot who can neither spell nor string together a coherent string of thoughts. Plus he/she LIKES TO YELL A LOT in posts. I’d “consider the source.”

On the Left Side of the Road...

[-cheeto-]

It sounds like this person as you have said, only wants to spread hate and disrupt society. This is the kind of person I choose not to listen to.. kinda like other nut jobs on television blabbing all day about this and that.

God Bless America!

-cheeto-

[cheezehead]

Umm..,,what does the WGA have to do with publishing caches GC.com???Should be nothing. Even thou the Wisconsin reviewers wear many hats in the Geocaching world, those hats are not to be intertwined.

As for agendas, what’s the difference if it’s this topic, logging temps or if the WGA equally represents all of the Wisconsin Geocachers. Each topic is it’s own can of worms.

As for the disgruntled cache owner, well don’t tell then about “Geocaching for Christ” group……and yes there is one, I saw it on a list somewhere.

May 7 by Wis Kid (0 found)
There is a minor issue with this listing which needs to be addressed. I will send you an email with the details.
Wis Kid – Volunteer Reviewer
[view this log on a separate page]

OH! Let me guess!?! 🙄

Ya know, if this IS an issue, then ALL cemetery and WSQ caches should be archived.

[gotta run]

Hmmm…I’m seeing a “Biblical History” puzzle somewhere…ya know, the Bible is taught as literature…and heck, we just solved a puzzle in the area that was based on info from the Book of Mormon….

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Lostby7]

Interesting little debate you have going on there….I do hope though that everyone understands, the WGA has no part in cache approval whatsoever. Geocaching.com and it’s appointed approvers are solely responsible for all approvals. The approval process is strictly governed by the rules set by GC. Furthermore all decisions regarding cache approval by local reviewers are subject to appeal if you wish. Weather the Wisconsin approvers are members of the WGA or not is no more relevant than if they belong to a chess club.

[Mathman]

@Lostby7 wrote:

Whether the Wisconsin approvers are members of the WGA or not is no more relevant than if they belong to a chess club.

You mean there is a WGA chess club!!! ?????

[Team Honeybunnies]

I have no vested interest in this discussion, but I will bite on the bait. I will add a disclaimer that I see nothing wrong with the original log asking God to bless America before I begin playing devil’s advocate.

First, there is another involved party here whose side is not being told. I am completely neutral in this and something tells me the writing in caps came at the end rather than the beginning of the chain of communication. While the Constitution is a great document and does protect my right to believe in God, it also protects another person’s right to not believe. Without any context to the discussion, I have no idea at what point things obviously devolved. I for one would be greatly pressed before I would discuss my personal beliefs in depth with a complete stranger. The nature of geocaching’s online community does break down some barriers between strangers, but not to what I would consider that level of familiarity.

Sometimes people say things in logs that make me roll my eyes, but I have yet to feel the need to post a reply on a geocache page that is public domain. In this case someone did feel pressed enough. Why, I have no idea, but they have their reasons. Without hearing from them, I feel this is taking a (mostly) private argument to a wider audience.

If the other involved party has nothing to say on the subject they must feel that it is private and that’s the way it should remain.

This post isn’t directed at anyone, so please: no flaming projectiles. I simply saw a very one-sided discussion.

[Team Deejay]

I’m only posting to this thread since someone chose to drag my generic “public” disable log into the discussion. This is the type of log I post to caches which develop a problem after they are published. It could be a land access issue that came up, a proximity issue which occurred after a cache was moved, an issue with cache contents (whether or not placed there by the owner), or some sort of other miscellaneous problem, such as an “agenda”. These types of logs are placed so that the discussion of the problem can be done privately by email, so naturally I am not going to comment on why one was placed on any particular cache. If you are curious, you can ask the cache owner. What I do in confidence stays in confidence.

As far as logs go, Groundspeak policy requires that cache owners police the logs of their caches. Primarily this refers to making sure found logs are legitimate, but it also includes preventing the logs on a cache page from becoming a public forum on any particular issue. If you want to debate or argue over any particular topic, it needs to be in a forum or by email, not on a cache page. And, to clarify further, it is not appropriate to use a note log to attack, harass, criticize, or otherwise disparage another player for any reason. If the cache owner asks for a log to be changed or just deletes a log they feel is not appropriate, that is acceptable. It is not acceptable to criticize another player with an additional log. If you want to criticize people, take it offline.

[seldom|seen]

Thank you Team Deejay for a very insightful and thought-out response. It really is up to the cache owner to watch the logs and address anything that they consider an issue when witnessed in a public domain.

I too can tell that the exchange escalated and moved from a non-offensive public log to something more personal attack at which point is should have been kept private and not posted or laid out in sequence in this thread.

I have read many posts in my Flags of Our Fathers series that end in similar sentiments about God and Country, and while I have many things to say about America and it’s current administration (little of it positive) nor do I have much to say about organized religion, under any guise, I do not make an issue of these logs nor delete them or request to have them removed. I don’t care to. If a cacher has the desire to publicly express their feelings and faiths, then they live with the judgment of the public who reads it and makes assumptions about who they are. I would, however, remove a log if it contained any direct personal character attacks.

So, if I said facisiously, God Bless the KKK and Down with Women’s Sufferage, that’s my prerogative and I have to live with the same character judgments or suffer to explain when my words are taken out of context… Bueller?

[kbraband]

@Lostby7 wrote:

Interesting little debate you have going on there….I do hope though that everyone understands, the WGA has no part in cache approval whatsoever. Geocaching.com and it’s appointed approvers are solely responsible for all approvals. The approval process is strictly governed by the rules set by GC. Furthermore all decisions regarding cache approval by local reviewers are subject to appeal if you wish. Weather the Wisconsin approvers are members of the WGA or not is no more relevant than if they belong to a chess club.

A statement to this effect was previously made in these forums and at that time I posted a note to shed more light on the subject. (See http://wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=56642#56642 )

Since there still seems to be confusion over this, I’d like to re-clarify: The connection does exist. That very connection was one of the main carrots we held out to the Wisconsin DNR when we first approached then-director Sue Black about forming an alliance to develop a geocaching policy for DNR-managed land. We told her and her subordinates that we (the WGA) had the ability to help the DNR in case they wanted a local/regional group they could turn to help enforce specific rules about geocaching on DNR-managed properties. This has been a good working relationship in the years since then and I, as one member of the WGA, don’t want to see the reviewer connection between the WGA and Geocaching.com go away or be swept under the rug. It’s important for the long-term future of geocaching.

[Lostby7]

@kbraband wrote:

@Lostby7 wrote:

Interesting little debate you have going on there….I do hope though that everyone understands, the WGA has no part in cache approval whatsoever. Geocaching.com and it’s appointed approvers are solely responsible for all approvals. The approval process is strictly governed by the rules set by GC. Furthermore all decisions regarding cache approval by local reviewers are subject to appeal if you wish. Weather the Wisconsin approvers are members of the WGA or not is no more relevant than if they belong to a chess club.

A statement to this effect was previously made in these forums and at that time I posted a note to shed more light on the subject. (See http://wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=56642#56642 )

Since there still seems to be confusion over this, I’d like to re-clarify: The connection does exist. That very connection was one of the main carrots we held out to the Wisconsin DNR when we first approached then-director Sue Black about forming an alliance to develop a geocaching policy for DNR-managed land. We told her and her subordinates that we (the WGA) had the ability to help the DNR in case they wanted a local/regional group they could turn to help enforce specific rules about geocaching on DNR-managed properties. This has been a good working relationship in the years since then and I, as one member of the WGA, don’t want to see the reviewer connection between the WGA and Geocaching.com go away or be swept under the rug. It’s important for the long-term future of geocaching.

Perhaps 6 years ago in 2002 there may have been a stronger connection, but I do not believe that holds true today. Does Groundspeak like the idea that our reviewers are normally on the BOD? I’m sure they do, but at the same time we have also had non-BOD members hold the position of cache reviewer. Do we dangle the fact that our reviewers are active WGA members or on the BOD when dealing with government agencies? Probably; we’d be remiss to not mention that our reviewers are dedicated to the sport and what better way to demonstrate it but by showing their relevant affiliations. Is it to our benefit as an organization to have reviewers as members of the WGA? Definitely…and as BOD members absolutely, yet the two organizations are separate entities. The WGA does not make the rules of cache approval; it does not create policy. Policy is dictated by Groundspeak and our local reviewers act on their behalf and follow their rules.

[Sparse Grey Hackle]

God Bless America!

This is a great dialog generator (as has been this forum string).

To me, this is:
Not about religion.
Not about politics.
This is about intolerance.

If someone feels they want to post a: Shalom, Go Packers! Allah Akbar or Erin go Braugh or even a God Bless America to a FOOF post or whatever…. Seven-come-Eleven…whatever….so be it. This is Tupperware hunting!

There have been some excellent points being expressed here. Do I have to agree with them all? Some yes, some no, some maybe. Now, I am not overly religious or overly political for that matter.

However, personal attacks (or insinuations) because of someone’s log are bad form. And, the sending of a bile filled e-mail is way out of line….. just because it does not fit into your own political (or other) agenda(s)?

While I certainly was not much of a fan of our thirty-seventh President of the United States and nor did I like his administration but if someone has created a cache like:

“Stuck on You” pt.9 “I AM NOT A CROOK” NIXON, Nv. (GCVQ3Q) hidden in Nevada

I’d defend their right to express that sentiment or the same with:

Satan’s Joint (GCNCR8) this devil is in Georgia

Or don’t mess with……

God Bless Texas, aka: Lone Star Cache (GCZVEZ)

And my favorite……..

God Bless John Wayne (GCJJWC)) can be found in Georgia

Different strokes for different folks. Different caches for different cachers.
Why do people do the things they do? Good question.

The thing about common sense is that it is not common enough.

Have the PC police taken to the caching trail?

Zachow! Gesundheit! (GCZDTP)

Peace out (and please no flaming arrows)

[refelo]

I’m the guy who posted GC1BHQ3. Was asked to change the name and complied so the kids who worked really hard on the project could have their cache.

Turned out to be a good discussion with the kids about religious history, opinions, and their questions about what we do next with our class cache. It was a way to introduce my CE kids to geocaching and tie our classroom work to it.

They still enjoy the sport, and have their own ideas about their faith. As do we all.

I’m going geocaching. Maybe you’d like to shut off your computer and join me on the trail?

-refelo

[cheezehead]

[Author]

Posts