+Robespierre Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Totem Lake has suggested that it's Cabin Fever. I just don't understand what happened, so I gave it some thought. I put together this little scenario in my own head (and no one else is responsible). I don't wish to cause an argument. Please don't start blaming anyone. I'll shut this down when I get home from school if it is a problem. Here is the scenario I dreamed-up. 1. TC (the mag.) has already discussed including other sites (than gc) in articles. 2. TC then publishes some articles (some say "not enough," some didn't like any). 3. The moving cache site has never been openly antagonistic, and that article was well-enough received. You may correct me at any point.....in an acceptable manner. 4. Another (TC) site, however, has been openly antagonistic, and that article was not so well received. 5. If TC (the mag.) does not have gc 's cooperation, they will have lost nearly all of their interested readers. 6. GC.com is not happy with the second article due to the open antagonism, and chooses to make TC (the mag.) aware of point #5. 7. So TC makes adjustments in the name of "business." 8. Staff are unhappy. Remember, I made this up in my head trying to explain what has happened, so you may correct me. 9. The usual small core of dependable complainers are unhappy - but then, when aren't they? They start calling names, but then, when haven't they? 10. One writer feels her integrity has been compromised. She could have done much more by remaining, and I wish that she would. 11. The thread is closed, and we're waiting to see what happens next. What is the world is all of this? What is so earthshakingly important? The moment of decision: to post or not to post? What is wisdom? Post it anyway. Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 And there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. You left that out. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Robspiere, I can usually understand your posts, but you've stumped me this time. After reading the threads on both caching sites, I have an idea of what's going on. The only people with the full details are Groundspeak and Terracaching.com. I understand there is a legal matter between these two, so Today's Cacher is holding back any mention of Terracaching.com until it is resolved. *** This is just my opinion, based on what I have read. I have no inside knowledge of the situation. Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Where the OP's theory runs into trouble is when it's squared up against prior statements on the subject. For example, in this post, Jeremy says: Groundspeak has never provided any input on how Today's Cacher is run. El Diablo has said the same thing, consistently. Perhaps I'm being naive by taking both these gentlemen at their word, or I've drank too much kool-aid. If I'm wrong, and there is some sort of influence over either editorial or advertising content, I would hope that the record would be set straight. Barring that, I continue to believe that the refusal to publish the article was simply a publisher's decision. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Perhaps I'm being naive by taking both these gentlemen at their word, or I've drank too much kool-aid. If I'm wrong, and there is some sort of influence over either editorial or advertising content, I would hope that the record would be set straight. Barring that, I continue to believe that the refusal to publish the article was simply a publisher's decision. That is how I see it as well. Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) From the Terracache forums: Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:46 pm scottO wrote: It has been reviewed and edited by someone from Today's Cacher (I don't know who their alias is), but that was after the 23rd deadline. That is why I would appreciate clarification from El_Diablo on why it won't appear, or when it will. Scott, Not your fault. The article was well written as I stated before, just the wrong format. This is a policy issue. I recieved an email from Snoogans today that has a lot of potenial. Look, I know there are a lot of critics out there about the mag. All I can say is that there is a lot more going on than you are aware of. This was the best possible business decision that I had available. Accept it or not. In the past weeks I've posted suggestions to improve your site and your article. It's not like I'm not intereseted. I just can't do the article...and the owners of this site know why. It is a legal issue. El Diablo (emphasis mine) Just so you have more of the record on which to base your beliefs that it was "just a publisher's decision". Edited January 31, 2005 by ju66l3r Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) This is a fruitless exercise. Closing this thread. Edited January 31, 2005 by Jeremy Link to comment
Recommended Posts