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

[Mathman]

@Team Deejay wrote:

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,

So does that mean if a cacher, and we know a few, doesn’t sign the log, the log should be deleted because it can’t be proven that it was found? Also for those who forgot a pen in their car after a 1/2 mile or longer hike and didn’t sign the log?

[zuma]

I think that tolerance is a two way street, and people of all belief systems need to embrace and seek to understand others points of view. Many here stated that already, better than I can. Geocaching is a hobby, an outdoor activity and it is a bit of a stretch to see how arguing about religion is any part of that.

Live, and let live whether you prefer God Blessing America or Gaia Sustaining Us All.

Live, and let live, whether you prefer micros or ammoboxes.

Live, and let live, whether you hate or love puzzles.

Live and let live, whether you are a dog person or a cat person.

Geocaching is not about religion or trying to change anyone’s belief system. But that does not mean that some geocaches cannot take you to wonderful religious sites. I am not Mormon, yet I will always remember the virtual at Nauvoo, Nauvoo’s Tears, GC61D0. I am not of the Bahi religion either, yet seeing their stunning temple dome north of Chicago was a moving experience, at GCGZRF. I am not Catholic either, but have enjoyed finding and even planting caches near churchs of great architectural interest. Likewise, I have been to many old cemetery’s in Wisconsin and elsewhere, and have enjoyed the visits. These caches are not for the intolerant, I suppose. But what is wrong with embracing what we find good in other people and in their belief systems?

zuma

[cheezehead]

[Ry and Ny]

Zuma, you had me until you said I have to be tolerant of cat people. 😉

[redrusty]

yep, icksnay on the atkay…………

while i don’t like cats…..i wouldn’t go out of my way to harm one………

[stokstad]

[gotta run]

@stokstad wrote:

I recently tried to make a cache in support of our troops and was denied it all falls under this:

Caches that Solicit.

Hmmmmm…the specifics of this would seem to be the untold story. We have our GC1CA2G and I’m sure I could think of other troop/USA/mom-and-apple-pie-supporting caches out there.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Lostby7]

@gotta run wrote:

@stokstad wrote:

I recently tried to make a cache in support of our troops and was denied it all falls under this:

Caches that Solicit.

Hmmmmm…the specifics of this would seem to be the untold story. We have our GC1CA2G and I’m sure I could think of other troop/USA/mom-and-apple-pie-supporting caches out there.

Yep I’m sure wording is a large factor.

[stokstad]

I wish I could remember exactly what I wrote. It wasn’t much different that what you wrote. I basically said thank you to the troops past present and future for the sacrifices they make and have made. But The reviewer empathized with me but said he couldn’t publish it. So I dumbed it down to basically nothing so that it would get published.

[stokstad]

@Lostby7 wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

@stokstad wrote:

I recently tried to make a cache in support of our troops and was denied it all falls under this:

Caches that Solicit.

Hmmmmm…the specifics of this would seem to be the untold story. We have our GC1CA2G and I’m sure I could think of other troop/USA/mom-and-apple-pie-supporting caches out there.

Yep I’m sure wording is a large factor.

I am pretty sure that is the whole factor. I must have worded it so it sounded political.

[Team Deejay]

Thanks for the comment, Stokstad. You are exactly correct. With regard to your cache, as we discussed, Groundspeak has given us EXPLICIT instructions to not publish “Support Our Troops” caches. At the time, I made the argument that “Support Our Troops” is so vague as to preclude it from being considered an agenda, but they told me to enforce the guidelines by their rules. So that is what I do.

With regard to the Ten Commandments cache, I can’t really discuss the specifics, but I can say that the cache was published by me, and I would publish it again. There was a specific complaint filed with Groundspeak, who decided the cache name was in violation and instructed me to archive the cache. I, instead, worked with the owner to keep the cache viable. You can talk to refelo if you want more specifics.

And notwithstanding Ken’s objections, the WGA has nothing to say about the Groundspeak guidelines for placing a cache. Groundspeak is a private, for-profit, company and makes decisions which they feel are in their own best interest. Usually these decisions are in the best interest of the game, but sometimes, they are not. The WGA has worked with the governments to add some additional regulations, but the WGA itself has no specific requirements or rules for placing a cache.

[gotta run]

So I guess I’m safe until some wacko files a complaint with groundspeak and “Thank our veterans” is the next phrase groundspeak censors…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Team Black-Cat]

There are a few discussions about agendas on the GC forums.
I really don’t envy our reviewers’ job of having to decide what constitutes an agenda.
I think Groundspeak’s policy on caches with agendas is their way of trying to avoid the type of conflict that started this thread. Some people have no tolerance for something that doesn’t fit in their perfect little world. Some people simply enjoy rocking the boat. Either way, they refuse to just say “Ok, whatever…” and move on.
Geocaching is way too much fun to take seriously.

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

@Mathman wrote:

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

Because, unfortunately, that’s the nature of the beast.

[Mathman]

@tyedyeskyguy wrote:

@Mathman wrote:

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

Because, unfortunately, that’s the nature of the beast.

Ummmm…

I didn’t write that. That wasn’t my quote.

[Author]

Posts