--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Angie Arbuckle wrote:
>
>
> Why would this community not jump up and down about the idea of adding to the ranks of letterboxers out there.

Adding to the ranks is one thing, but adding to the ranks a bunch of folks that go into the game/hobby uninformed is quite another.
Many articles (Time Mag for example) leave much to be desired when it comes to explaning nuances particularly stealth.

Most of the articles I've seen are quick glimpses into Letterboxing, and most of the writers and their editors could care a hoot about Letterboxing. They are there to sell their product not to sell Letterboxing. Without learning more about letterboxing boxes tend not to be rehidden properly, new boxers plant then leave unmaintained boxes behind (trash)or clues posted without boxes at the end of the hike (clue trash).

Everytime I hear about the Time Mag article I cringe. We lost 15 boxes in the first week after that article came out.



>We have shared this with friends and cousins and two sets of grandparents. We are having so much fun we want to share it with all our friends and family.

That is the very best way to pass information along...
by word of mouth. You can tell them about it and show them about it.

Don



_______________________________________________________
>

Well written, Don.

Enjoy!
donutz716

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, gwendontoo wrote:

From: gwendontoo
Subject: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 6, 2009, 8:02 PM

















--- In letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups. com, Angie Arbuckle wrote:

>

>

> Why would this community not jump up and down about the idea of adding to the ranks of letterboxers out there.



Adding to the ranks is one thing, but adding to the ranks a bunch of folks that go into the game/hobby uninformed is quite another.

Many articles (Time Mag for example) leave much to be desired when it comes to explaning nuances particularly stealth.



Most of the articles I've seen are quick glimpses into Letterboxing, and most of the writers and their editors could care a hoot about Letterboxing. They are there to sell their product not to sell Letterboxing. Without learning more about letterboxing boxes tend not to be rehidden properly, new boxers plant then leave unmaintained boxes behind (trash)or clues posted without boxes at the end of the hike (clue trash).



Everytime I hear about the Time Mag article I cringe. We lost 15 boxes in the first week after that article came out.



>We have shared this with friends and cousins and two sets of grandparents. We are having so much fun we want to share it with all our friends and family.



That is the very best way to pass information along...

by word of mouth. You can tell them about it and show them about it.



Don



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _______

>































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Angie Arbuckle wrote:
>
>
> Why would this community not jump up and down about the idea of adding to the ranks of letterboxers out there.

We are having so much fun we want to share it with all our friends and family.

Don has a point, but the non-maintenance of clues and boxes is not exclusive to new letterboxers. Angie I just want to welcome you to letterboxing and say I'm so glad to hear you and your family are having so much fun - that's the name of the game, or one of the names! I could just see your kids sitting around deciding what colors to use - I love boxing with kids for that very reason. Happy trails.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo" wrote:
>
> >We have shared this with friends and cousins and two sets of grandparents. We are having so much fun we want to share it with all our friends and family.
>
> That is the very best way to pass information along...
> by word of mouth. You can tell them about it and show them about it.
> Don

Exactly, because it is more than finding a box, planting a box, writing a clue. There are the events, the new friends, the history (including the research!), the chat lists -- these are often not revealed or emphasized in the media. And events, friends, chat lists are how one can learn the nuances and maybe a few nuisances ;^)
ssb

True, true, and true, but I have yet to meet anyone in the other "circles"
of my life that has any idea what Lbing is. If it hadn't been for that
magazine article, I might have never found it. That's unimaginable for
me. I don't think we as a hobby should hire a PR firm, but recognize there
are potential positive things from mass media as well as negative.

Also, keep this in mind: One of the greatest boxes I ever found was at the
end of a hilly, hot 2-mile hike deep in a Utah canyon. Pretty sure that not
too many n00bs, or families with eighteen kids that would attract a lot of
attention from outsiders would undertake that particular journey. So we
have other ways of keeping boxes safe if we don't want new waves of media
wannabes from finding (and/or wrecking/losing/breaking/exposing) our stuff.

I know ppl on this list hate that Time Magazine article, but it changed my
life, so I'm willing to stand up for it.

-K




On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM, sewsowbizzy wrote:

>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com ,
> "gwendontoo" wrote:
> >
> > >We have shared this with friends and cousins and two sets of
> grandparents. We are having so much fun we want to share it with all our
> friends and family.
> >
> > That is the very best way to pass information along...
> > by word of mouth. You can tell them about it and show them about it.
> > Don
>
> Exactly, because it is more than finding a box, planting a box, writing a
> clue. There are the events, the new friends, the history (including the
> research!), the chat lists -- these are often not revealed or emphasized in
> the media. And events, friends, chat lists are how one can learn the nuances
> and maybe a few nuisances ;^)
> ssb
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I know ppl on this list hate that Time Magazine article

There are people who hate the Smithsonian article as well.
Like most everything, its all relative.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
>
>
> > I know ppl on this list hate that Time Magazine article
>
> There are people who hate the Smithsonian article as well.
> Like most everything, its all relative.
>
So true, but part of that relativity is the audience the article reaches.The audience that receives Smithsonian may be far different than that of Time Mag. (no reflection is being made towards all subscibers to Time)

I would think also that due to the small number of letterboxes around the country when the Smithsonian article hit was quite different than the number that was planted when the Time Mag article was published.
That would make a difference in the potential detrimental effects the articles have on letterboxing just due to the numbers.

Having TV shows with even less details could be problimatic primarily due to the audience it reaches.

All this tends to sound a little "high and mighty" but my point was merely to mention that the best way to have Letterboxing grow is through a "one on one" or "word of mouth" contact where some of the nuances can be transmitted rather than through mass media.

One of the better articles on Letterboxing was written for the LA Times. I was contacted by the writer and I spent quite a bit of time explaining why I didn't really want to be quoted or cooperate with her.
My "lack" of cooperation worked pretty well as she did emphasize stealth in the article.
We have no power to keep future publicity from occuring but we can help guide the way articles are written.

Don

Exactly. That is why if a letterboxer is approached for input on an article they should not decline, but take the opportunity to stress all the things that will help protect our hobby while promoting it. Since the article will be written anyway, why not get your two cents in? It doesn't mean your words will be used, but you can try. I don't think we should seek publicity, but we shouldn't run from it either.

Silver Eagle

> We have no power to keep future publicity from occurring but we can help guide the way articles are written.
>
> Don
>

I think you may have missed part of my point. I declined but the way I declined worked for a better article. My conversation with the writer took about 45 minutes and since I refused to let her quote me (and get some of my 15 minutes of fame) my conversation actually had more impact.

Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Silver Eagle" wrote:
>
> Exactly. That is why if a letterboxer is approached for input on an article they should not decline, but take the opportunity to stress all the things that will help protect our hobby while promoting it. Since the article will be written anyway, why not get your two cents in? It doesn't mean your words will be used, but you can try. I don't think we should seek publicity, but we shouldn't run from it either.
>
> Silver Eagle
>
> > We have no power to keep future publicity from occurring but we can help guide the way articles are written.
> >
> > Don
> >
>

In the past, we've turned down requests for interviews, etc from the media.
But with our recent Back to Our Roots gathering in VT, one of the stipulations for the local economic grant we were awarded was to do publicity. That left us in a very unique situation.

Our interviews with 2 of the local newspapers which turned into feature articles did a fine job stressing all of those items that we talk about here on this talk list - leave no trace, do not let children rehide boxes, leave boxes hidden better than were found (from all angles), "blessing" the box with area debris like sticks, leaves, etc.

I have to say that they did a very fine job. Silver Eagle has a valid point but one I just learned from the above experience. If we leave them to write the story, they will surely miss a key point or two. If we keep stressing the importance of the main items, hopefully they will eventually get across.

Mark



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's exactly what I have also done - declined to be interviewed & quoted, but gave a very detailed explanation of WHY. I always hope that the writer will then keep the points I've made in mind when they do write the article.

Wisconsin Hiker

---- gwendontoo wrote:
> I think you may have missed part of my point. I declined but the way I declined worked for a better article. My conversation with the writer took about 45 minutes and since I refused to let her quote me (and get some of my 15 minutes of fame) my conversation actually had more impact.
>
> Don
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Silver Eagle" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. That is why if a letterboxer is approached for input on an article they should not decline, but take the opportunity to stress all the things that will help protect our hobby while promoting it. Since the article will be written anyway, why not get your two cents in? It doesn't mean your words will be used, but you can try. I don't think we should seek publicity, but we shouldn't run from it either.
> >
> > Silver Eagle
> >
> > > We have no power to keep future publicity from occurring but we can help guide the way articles are written.
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> >
>
>

OTOH, the more people you tell about something, the more
quality and innovating people you are likely to attract,
that will expand the hobby in interesting and exciting ways :)

I just think this whole presumption that the masses are
heathen and will destroy the hobby, while readers who
happen to read Smithsonian instead of Time won't, is, well,
high and mighty, or whatever the phrase was. And it just
doesn't agree with me, as it presumes something negative
about someone you have no reason to assume something negative
about until they give you reason to. Why not assume something
positive about the unwashed masses, until they do something
disagreeable?

As I said, there are alot of people who believe readers
of the Smithsonian destroyed the hobby (OMG, look what
the Yanks are doing to our quaint, secretive, hobby. And,
quite frankly, from one frame of reference, it is true).
That is what I meant by it is all relative.

It is interesting that when you actually reread the Smithsonian
article, there is no mention of rehide the box better, and all
this other stuff people are talking about that the media should
say. Only three points of etiquette are mentioned, a clue
exchange protocol that the Yanks have chosen to ignore (so,
what was the point of telling the reporter that?), a reference
to working with park people (most Yanks have chosen to ignore
this also), and a vague reference to a "code of conduct", with
no specifics spelled out or an external reference. I maintain --
what's the difference?

This whole thing reminds me of suing gun manufacturers for
crimes committed with guns, despite the fact that the vast majority
of gun owners do not commit crimes with guns. While I see the
logic of this argument, I just don't agree with it. By this
logic, everything should be kept secret, otherwise someone may do
something bad with it. I'm not sure I buy it, but WDIK? I don't
think we should give knives or baseball bats to the masses either.
Nuclear bombs, perhaps a different kettle of fish :)

As for the Time article, it is an interesting story, as I spent a
ton of time with that reporter. I was traveling in Europe at the
time, and I remember nightly calls discussing my views on the game
of letterboxing. Unlike the Smithsonian, I don't have the article
in front of me right now, but IIRC, not a single point or idea of
mine was used therein (I could be wrong on this, but that is my
memory of it). Just goes to show that they will still write
what they want. And it is not like there is a unified voice
anyway. I'm just gonna tell them what I want to, even if it
disagrees with how others think the game should be played, or
what they or their editor want to hear. (I think a reasonable
argument can be made that there _should_ be a unified voice,
but that is for another time (this is very important in other
hobbies), but for now, as long as we are not irresponsible in
what we tell them, I don't think it matters if we disagree on the
details of how the game should be played).

There is another interesting point about the Smithsonian article
that alludes back to some other comments made in this thread. One
is describing it as "orienteering", with which it has absolutely
zero in common (orienteering is 50% map reading, 50% running,
more or less -- neither skill is used in the letterboxing described
in the article (serious orienteers do not use a compass to take
bearings, in fact, most use a different kind of compass entirely
where taking bearings makes no sense)), so it just goes to show
that even the high and mighty Smithsonian gets it wrong sometimes,
so I think we can forgive our reporters for doing so along the same
lines.

The other is this alluding to "treasure hunting". Even the Smithsonian
did it. I actually think it is a good thing. As an actual treasure
hunter, I can say with some confidence that what we get out of the hobby
is the thrill of the hunt, not the prize or PFX numbers. Moreover,
each treasure found has that chance to be special, not a commodity
(commodity items in treasure hunting are often held with disdain, or
at best, indifference or nothing special). So, I for one, actually
like this emphasis. Most treasure hunters enjoy spending hours
researching that special place that perhaps no one else has found,
that may hold something cool, rather than spending 20 hours picking
up pennies in a playground one after the next and boasting about it.
So, to me, this metaphor is a good thing, and hope reporters keep
pushing it.

JMHO, of course,
Randy
never short of opinions, devil's advocacy, or being high and mighty in
different ways :)

Well for a moment of clarity let me copy and paste the following;


"All this tends to sound a little "high and mighty" but my point was merely to
mention that the best way to have Letterboxing grow is through a "one on one" or
"word of mouth" contact where some of the nuances can be transmitted rather than
through mass media."

Articles no matter how well written can compare to introducing someone to letterboxing first hand. Mentoring them and sharing the pursuit of a letterbox seems to me a better method.

Nothing was said about the unwashed masses, but certainly personal contact would be a better introduction than just scanning whatever article you wish to cite.

Unfortunately many new letterboxers find this site through an article, ask some questions that have been hashed, and rehashed here and end up getting slammed or flamed. So remaining in the hobby tends to be either luck in not asking "What is a Hitch Hiker", or a very thick skin.

Personal attention on the otherhand can help those newboxers get to a point so that they understand where their questions can be answered without rancor or better yet where they can find answers on their own.

Thus eventually making a better letterboxer that can add quality and innovation and expand the hobby in interesting and exciting ways that will be a benefit to the hobby.

Don


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
>
>
> OTOH, the more people you tell about something, the more
> quality and innovating people you are likely to attract,
> that will expand the hobby in interesting and exciting ways :)
>
> I just think this whole presumption that the masses are
> heathen and will destroy the hobby, while readers who
> happen to read Smithsonian instead of Time won't, is, well,
> high and mighty, or whatever the phrase was. And it just
> doesn't agree with me, as it presumes something negative
> about someone you have no reason to assume something negative
> about until they give you reason to. Why not assume something
> positive about the unwashed masses, until they do something
> disagreeable?
>
> As I said, there are alot of people who believe readers
> of the Smithsonian destroyed the hobby (OMG, look what
> the Yanks are doing to our quaint, secretive, hobby. And,
> quite frankly, from one frame of reference, it is true).
> That is what I meant by it is all relative.
>
> It is interesting that when you actually reread the Smithsonian
> article, there is no mention of rehide the box better, and all
> this other stuff people are talking about that the media should
> say. Only three points of etiquette are mentioned, a clue
> exchange protocol that the Yanks have chosen to ignore (so,
> what was the point of telling the reporter that?), a reference
> to working with park people (most Yanks have chosen to ignore
> this also), and a vague reference to a "code of conduct", with
> no specifics spelled out or an external reference. I maintain --
> what's the difference?
>
> This whole thing reminds me of suing gun manufacturers for
> crimes committed with guns, despite the fact that the vast majority
> of gun owners do not commit crimes with guns. While I see the
> logic of this argument, I just don't agree with it. By this
> logic, everything should be kept secret, otherwise someone may do
> something bad with it. I'm not sure I buy it, but WDIK? I don't
> think we should give knives or baseball bats to the masses either.
> Nuclear bombs, perhaps a different kettle of fish :)
>
> As for the Time article, it is an interesting story, as I spent a
> ton of time with that reporter. I was traveling in Europe at the
> time, and I remember nightly calls discussing my views on the game
> of letterboxing. Unlike the Smithsonian, I don't have the article
> in front of me right now, but IIRC, not a single point or idea of
> mine was used therein (I could be wrong on this, but that is my
> memory of it). Just goes to show that they will still write
> what they want. And it is not like there is a unified voice
> anyway. I'm just gonna tell them what I want to, even if it
> disagrees with how others think the game should be played, or
> what they or their editor want to hear. (I think a reasonable
> argument can be made that there _should_ be a unified voice,
> but that is for another time (this is very important in other
> hobbies), but for now, as long as we are not irresponsible in
> what we tell them, I don't think it matters if we disagree on the
> details of how the game should be played).
>
> There is another interesting point about the Smithsonian article
> that alludes back to some other comments made in this thread. One
> is describing it as "orienteering", with which it has absolutely
> zero in common (orienteering is 50% map reading, 50% running,
> more or less -- neither skill is used in the letterboxing described
> in the article (serious orienteers do not use a compass to take
> bearings, in fact, most use a different kind of compass entirely
> where taking bearings makes no sense)), so it just goes to show
> that even the high and mighty Smithsonian gets it wrong sometimes,
> so I think we can forgive our reporters for doing so along the same
> lines.
>
> The other is this alluding to "treasure hunting". Even the Smithsonian
> did it. I actually think it is a good thing. As an actual treasure
> hunter, I can say with some confidence that what we get out of the hobby
> is the thrill of the hunt, not the prize or PFX numbers. Moreover,
> each treasure found has that chance to be special, not a commodity
> (commodity items in treasure hunting are often held with disdain, or
> at best, indifference or nothing special). So, I for one, actually
> like this emphasis. Most treasure hunters enjoy spending hours
> researching that special place that perhaps no one else has found,
> that may hold something cool, rather than spending 20 hours picking
> up pennies in a playground one after the next and boasting about it.
> So, to me, this metaphor is a good thing, and hope reporters keep
> pushing it.
>
> JMHO, of course,
> Randy
> never short of opinions, devil's advocacy, or being high and mighty in
> different ways :)
>

> Nothing was said about the unwashed masses, but certainly
> personal contact would be a better introduction than just
> scanning whatever article you wish to cite.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on this and other points. Note
that my comments _were specifically_ about the Smithsonian
article, without which, not too many people reading this would
be here. Of course I'm citing the article I mentioned. That's
the whole point.

And yes, the readers of Time and other mass media (in the past
and now), _have_ been disparaged along the lines of unwashed
masses (I even have private mail that uses that exact term),
while everyone (except perhaps myself) from the Smithsonian
class is never questioned. I personally find that, and the
elitism in letterboxing in general, ridiculous. This anti
mass media is just elitism, IMHO. I will say that the
Smithsonian class had no one telling us to rehide boxes.
The geniuses that we are -- we figured that one out all
on our own :-) I, at least, give newbies (I mean, I was one
once), the credit to also do so.

> Unfortunately many new letterboxers find this site through an article,
> ask some questions that have been hashed, and rehashed here and
> end up getting slammed or flamed. [...] Personal attention on the
> otherhand can help those newboxers [...]

Having witnessed firsthand how another mid-atlantic letterboxer
was handled by the "moderators" of the "newboxers" list, I wouldn't
go there ... and yes, I disagree with that action also.

My impression of newboxers, mentoring, and all of that is more
along the lines of a self-appointed elite attempting to tell
newbies how to think (as I said, I've seen this firsthand), and
I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and allowing those
who receive the information to think for themselves, and prefer
to not judge them before they do so.

Cheers
Randy

OT: No one ever speaks out for the unwashed elites. I wonder why that is.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Randy Hall wrote:

From: Randy Hall
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:38 PM



















> Nothing was said about the unwashed masses, but certainly

> personal contact would be a better introduction than just

> scanning whatever article you wish to cite.



Well, we'll agree to disagree on this and other points. Note

that my comments _were specifically_ about the Smithsonian

article, without which, not too many people reading this would

be here. Of course I'm citing the article I mentioned. That's

the whole point.



And yes, the readers of Time and other mass media (in the past

and now), _have_ been disparaged along the lines of unwashed

masses (I even have private mail that uses that exact term),

while everyone (except perhaps myself) from the Smithsonian

class is never questioned. I personally find that, and the

elitism in letterboxing in general, ridiculous. This anti

mass media is just elitism, IMHO. I will say that the

Smithsonian class had no one telling us to rehide boxes.

The geniuses that we are -- we figured that one out all

on our own :-) I, at least, give newbies (I mean, I was one

once), the credit to also do so.



> Unfortunately many new letterboxers find this site through an article,

> ask some questions that have been hashed, and rehashed here and

> end up getting slammed or flamed. [...] Personal attention on the

> otherhand can help those newboxers [...]



Having witnessed firsthand how another mid-atlantic letterboxer

was handled by the "moderators" of the "newboxers" list, I wouldn't

go there ... and yes, I disagree with that action also.



My impression of newboxers, mentoring, and all of that is more

along the lines of a self-appointed elite attempting to tell

newbies how to think (as I said, I've seen this firsthand), and

I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and allowing those

who receive the information to think for themselves, and prefer

to not judge them before they do so.



Cheers

Randy





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting that you bring up another chatlist when I did not.

Specifically I was thinking of personal email and atleast advising newboxers that this chatlist requires a fairly thick skin and can be less than friendly to those that dare to ask questions prior to researching the archives.

So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby. Maybe that is why this list has had a dwindling membership while the letterboxing hobby has grown.

Yes I think we can certainly agree to disagree.

Don

>
> Having witnessed firsthand how another mid-atlantic letterboxer
> was handled by the "moderators" of the "newboxers" list, I wouldn't
> go there ... and yes, I disagree with that action also.
>
> My impression of newboxers, mentoring, and all of that is more
> along the lines of a self-appointed elite attempting to tell
> newbies how to think (as I said, I've seen this firsthand), and
> I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and allowing those
> who receive the information to think for themselves, and prefer
> to not judge them before they do so.
>
> Cheers
> Randy
>

I have an unwashed mass. Fortunately he is the shower now.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Otis' Friends wrote:
>
> OT: No one ever speaks out for the unwashed elites. I wonder why that is.
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Randy Hall wrote:
>
> From: Randy Hall
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:38 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nothing was said about the unwashed masses, but certainly
>
> > personal contact would be a better introduction than just
>
> > scanning whatever article you wish to cite.
>
>
>
> Well, we'll agree to disagree on this and other points. Note
>
> that my comments _were specifically_ about the Smithsonian
>
> article, without which, not too many people reading this would
>
> be here. Of course I'm citing the article I mentioned. That's
>
> the whole point.
>
>
>
> And yes, the readers of Time and other mass media (in the past
>
> and now), _have_ been disparaged along the lines of unwashed
>
> masses (I even have private mail that uses that exact term),
>
> while everyone (except perhaps myself) from the Smithsonian
>
> class is never questioned. I personally find that, and the
>
> elitism in letterboxing in general, ridiculous. This anti
>
> mass media is just elitism, IMHO. I will say that the
>
> Smithsonian class had no one telling us to rehide boxes.
>
> The geniuses that we are -- we figured that one out all
>
> on our own :-) I, at least, give newbies (I mean, I was one
>
> once), the credit to also do so.
>
>
>
> > Unfortunately many new letterboxers find this site through an article,
>
> > ask some questions that have been hashed, and rehashed here and
>
> > end up getting slammed or flamed. [...] Personal attention on the
>
> > otherhand can help those newboxers [...]
>
>
>
> Having witnessed firsthand how another mid-atlantic letterboxer
>
> was handled by the "moderators" of the "newboxers" list, I wouldn't
>
> go there ... and yes, I disagree with that action also.
>
>
>
> My impression of newboxers, mentoring, and all of that is more
>
> along the lines of a self-appointed elite attempting to tell
>
> newbies how to think (as I said, I've seen this firsthand), and
>
> I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and allowing those
>
> who receive the information to think for themselves, and prefer
>
> to not judge them before they do so.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

"No one ever speaks out for the unwashed elites. I wonder why that
is."

Well....although I am not of the unwashed elites...I will now speak
out for them on their behalf...

So... we should all be thankful to the unwashed elites... namely: to Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, George Soros, Gordon Gekko (ala Blue
Horse Shoe loves Blue Star Airlines) and all the members of Skull & Bones and the Illuminati... For if it were not for them, we
might not really know the true stench that some of our fellow man
can carry around with them...

I thank them for reminding me that I am grateful to be among
the 'regular folk'...

Oh.. we were talking about letterboxing...? hmmm....


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Otis' Friends wrote:
>
> OT: No one ever speaks out for the unwashed elites. I wonder why that is.
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Randy Hall wrote:
>
> From: Randy Hall
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:38 PM

"Maybe that is why this list has had a dwindling membership while the letterboxing hobby has grown."

I'm not interested in taking sides in such a battle of the wills on
here or any other board... But, with regard to Letterboxing... the
hobby is growing because people not only are looking to get out more,
but they are also looking for a "cheaper" way to have some fun and
be active at the same time. (although it's debateable how 'cheap' this hobby really is) Lousy Economic times will do that to you.
...I doubt that this list or any other would affect a great number of
people...



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo" wrote:
>
> Interesting that you bring up another chatlist when I did not.
>
> Specifically I was thinking of personal email and atleast advising newboxers that this chatlist requires a fairly thick skin and can be less than friendly to those that dare to ask questions prior to researching the archives.
>
> So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby. Maybe that is why this list has had a dwindling membership while the letterboxing hobby has grown.
>
> Yes I think we can certainly agree to disagree.
>
> Don
>
> >
> > Having witnessed firsthand how another mid-atlantic letterboxer
> > was handled by the "moderators" of the "newboxers" list, I wouldn't
> > go there ... and yes, I disagree with that action also.
> >
> > My impression of newboxers, mentoring, and all of that is more
> > along the lines of a self-appointed elite attempting to tell
> > newbies how to think (as I said, I've seen this firsthand), and
> > I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and allowing those
> > who receive the information to think for themselves, and prefer
> > to not judge them before they do so.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Randy
> >
>

(whispering under the table). I see dead lemurs..



LMAO Talking Turtle - FLASHBACK!!!



_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.7.1
http://www.iolo.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

and I smell dead lemurs...or is that the unwashed elite...not sure....both smell the same...
the lazy letterboxer
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexis Carrington
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: mass media





(whispering under the table). I see dead lemurs..

LMAO Talking Turtle - FLASHBACK!!!

_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.7.1
http://www.iolo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of the
Time Magazine generation?

-K


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Don--when Randy endorses "blasting it out," he's speaking of using mass media to disseminate information about letterboxing. He's not saying that he would rather have people "blast away" at or flame new members asking questions on the list. You're arguing against a position that he hasn't taken.

Sheba


--- On Tue, 7/7/09, gwendontoo wrote:

So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby [....]

Don


> I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and >allowing those who receive the information to think >for themselves, and prefer to not judge them before
>they do so.
>
>
Cheers
> Randy
>









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We started boxing before the Time Magazine article. We actually were at the gathering in IL that a reporter and photographer attended to do the article. We didn't talk to them much (they were tagging along with some other letterboxers) but some of the photos in the Time article were from the IL event.

Wisconsin Hiker

---- Kermit wrote:
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

We also learned of letterboxing through the Time article. I read the
article, showed it to my husband, he was interested, but we didn't do
anything about it until I got laid off and had time to research the
subject. We started slow - 5 finds in 2004 - but have been going strong
ever since.

I thought the Time article was fine, certainly better than the various
mentions in Family Fun and others of that ilk.

EllBee, proud to be a part of the Time Magazine generation.

Kermit wrote:
>
>
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is
> of the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is newboxer friendly. The chatlist has a history of blasting new, old, and medium length boxers. Since Randy is the owner it is a reflection on his style of management and ownership.
Much of the rancor would not be tolerated unless he wanted it as such.
While Letterboxing is growing this list isn't.

Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, wilmcoe@... wrote:
>
> Don--when Randy endorses "blasting it out," he's speaking of using mass media to disseminate information about letterboxing. He's not saying that he would rather have people "blast away" at or flame new members asking questions on the list. You're arguing against a position that he hasn't taken.
>
> Sheba
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, gwendontoo wrote:
>
> So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby [....]
>
> Don
>
>
> > I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and >allowing those who receive the information to think >for themselves, and prefer to not judge them before
> >they do so.
> >
> >
> Cheers
> > Randy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

But you did it again! LOL

I didn't say anything about whether I believe the list is "newboxer friendly" or not. My comment is that it's sloppy debating to take a statement made about one topic, change the context of one of the words, and then answer as if the person making the statement had said something else.

A similar situation would be if you said you & Gwen had visited a deserted ghost town, and I said it was wrong of you to desert your wife. =)

My point is, you can't condemn someone by quoting them if they didn't actually SAY that....


"Newboxer friendly," that's a whole different subject. We can talk about that, and management styles, and growth in the hobby. But let's agree on the ground rules first. =)

Sheba





--- On Wed, 7/8/09, gwendontoo wrote:

From: gwendontoo
Subject: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 1:22 AM

Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is newboxer friendly. [....]
Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, wilmcoe@... wrote:
>
> Don--when Randy endorses "blasting it out," he's speaking of using mass media to disseminate information about letterboxing. He's not saying that he would rather have people "blast away" at or flame new members asking questions on the list. You're arguing against a position that he hasn't taken.
>
> Sheba
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, gwendontoo wrote:
>
> So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby [....]
>
> Don
>
>
> > I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and >allowing those who receive the information to think >for themselves, and prefer to not judge them before
> >they do so.
> >
> >
> Cheers
> > Randy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One must have a thick skin to participate in this group -- it can be helpful, but wow -- when something becomes a hot topic, it can be scalding! (Hence, the mention of dead lemurs -- for fellow newbies, that's a reference akin to "beating a dead horse" or a commentary that a topic has been talked to death now, so let's drop it and find something new to talk about.) I myself just read the first 4-5 postings, then skip through all the rest of the heavy artillery and look for the next topic.

I do appreciate you guys -- it just get to be a bit much, sometimes.

Blessings,

hansenclan

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Suzanne Coe wrote:
>
> But you did it again! LOL
>
> I didn't say anything about whether I believe the list is "newboxer friendly" or not. My comment is that it's sloppy debating to take a statement made about one topic, change the context of one of the words, and then answer as if the person making the statement had said something else.
>
> A similar situation would be if you said you & Gwen had visited a deserted ghost town, and I said it was wrong of you to desert your wife. =)
>
> My point is, you can't condemn someone by quoting them if they didn't actually SAY that....
>
>
> "Newboxer friendly," that's a whole different subject. We can talk about that, and management styles, and growth in the hobby. But let's agree on the ground rules first. =)
>
> Sheba
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, gwendontoo wrote:
>
> From: gwendontoo
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: mass media
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 1:22 AM
>
> Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is newboxer friendly. [....]
> Don
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, wilmcoe@ wrote:
> >
> > Don--when Randy endorses "blasting it out," he's speaking of using mass media to disseminate information about letterboxing. He's not saying that he would rather have people "blast away" at or flame new members asking questions on the list. You're arguing against a position that he hasn't taken.
> >
> > Sheba
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, gwendontoo wrote:
> >
> > So while you like to have the "blast away" method that you prefer that can run off many folks that could be a great new creative input to the hobby [....]
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > > I much prefer blasting it out via mass media, and >allowing those who receive the information to think >for themselves, and prefer to not judge them before
> > >they do so.
> > >
> > >
> > Cheers
> > > Randy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Not me!!!

hansenclan

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Kermit wrote:
>
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Some of you might be interested in a little article rom the Nov. 2006 issue of a magazine called Games. HnH set some ground rules for the reporter, she had to come on a hike and actualy find a few boxes, she had to have a stamp and trail name(we made her Lois Lane) and there had to be a picture of her dog. All in all a comprehensive article. Longer than most blurbs in local papers.

Other than forever calling Ryan an "unemployed software engineer," I don't see a lot wrong with the Time Magazine article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994721,00.html

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Kermit wrote:
>
> I know ppl on this list hate that Time Magazine article, but it
> changed my life, so I'm willing to stand up for it.
>
> -K

Gee, I don't see anything wrong with it either. First time I've heard
of the article, and thanks goes to Rick for posting a link to it. I'm
another who was introduced to the idea of letterboxing by someone who
had seen an article in a magazine. I never saw the article, but my
daughter, who spotted it and knew it would be something I would like,
copied down the web site for LBNA and the rest for me is history.

And at the risk of making a few people mad at me, which in truth is not
going to cause me to lose any sleep, because I live by the philosophy of
"if the shoe fits, wear it", some people participating in this thread
maybe should have one of my personal travelers. When you see them
you'll know which one I'm talking about.

AND I hope Randy doesn't change what goes on here - it's much too
entertaining as it is and has lately provided me welcome diversion from
my work, which happens to involve me sitting at my computer all day.

--Calli K

Rick from Boca wrote:
>
>
> Other than forever calling Ryan an "unemployed software engineer," I
> don't see a lot wrong with the Time Magazine article.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994721,00.html
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> , Kermit wrote:
> >
> > I know ppl on this list hate that Time Magazine article, but it
> > changed my life, so I'm willing to stand up for it.
> >
> > -K
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4224 (20090708) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4224 (20090708) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

gwendontoo wrote:
> Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is newboxer friendly. The chatlist has a history of blasting new, old, and medium length boxers. Since Randy is the owner it is a reflection on his style of management and ownership.
> Much of the rancor would not be tolerated unless he wanted it as such.
> While Letterboxing is growing this list isn't.
>
> Don
>
>


Personally I would take Randy's management style over that of the
newboxer list or even AQ's message boards for that matter. Is there
some rancor? Sure, but at least folks get a chance to voice their
opinion without being run off the list because the owner does not agree
with that opinion.

--
Nathan Brown

AKA Cyclonic
Penncoasters.com

The Insensitivity rolls on...

McCarthy was RIGHT!

Behind every great man is a great woman... rolling her eyes.

Ditto...my first event, a few months after I started boxing. The reporter spoke with my then-14 year old daughter and her friend, even calling her at home for follow-up, but neither were quoted or anything.

And as long as you ask, my first finds were two boxes placed by DebRocks in Bloomington, MN (Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge - Bass Ponds). Ironically (or was it letterbox karma?) she was the first letterboxer I ever met in person, at that very gathering in 2004.

--klk/FungusWoman (back to lurking)


Posted by: "kotlarek@wi.rr.com" kotlarek@wi.rr.com wi_letterboxer
Date: Tue Jul 7, 2009 7:49 pm ((PDT))

We started boxing before the Time Magazine article. We actually were at the gathering in IL that a reporter and photographer attended to do the article. We didn't talk to them much (they were tagging along with some other letterboxers) but some of the photos in the Time article were from the IL event.

Wisconsin Hiker

---- Kermit wrote:
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K
>

MizScarlet, that is pretty neat - setting ground rules for the media - Games is a unique magazine with an equally unique following. Thinking people.

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, mizscarlet731 wrote:

From: mizscarlet731
Subject: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 12:07 PM

Some of you might be interested in a little article rom the Nov. 2006 issue of a magazine called Games. HnH set some ground rules for the reporter, she had to come on a hike and actualy find a few boxes, she had to have a stamp and trail name(we made her Lois Lane) and there had to be a picture of her dog. All in all a comprehensive article. Longer than most blurbs in local papers.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't often post to online letterboxing discussions - either here or on AQ - but I read them pretty faithfully. There are likely many of us out here who would not bother to post an answer to this question after the rough replies some have given...

But, since I've aleready jumped in, here's another one for you all: I'm of the "Metro Parent" generation. For those who didn't like the previous articles, you're probably going to hate this one, but I think it was a pretty fair representation and it certainly got us going in the wonderful sport/hobby!

http://www.metroparent.com/index.php?action=show_article&article=3702&pid=1

Happy SAHD
{waiting patiently with my "idiot shields" up for the inevitable faming that will momentarily ensue... :-)}



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Kermit wrote:
>
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K

One thing I like a lot about this talk list is that people can and do say what they want without censorship. It's sickening to see a web site or blogwhere the owner is looked on as an all knowing idol and the users follow like sheep....Chuck of WWW (Amy agrees)


--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Nathan Brown wrote:


From: Nathan Brown
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:45 PM








gwendontoo wrote:
> Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is newboxer friendly. The chatlist has a history of blasting new, old, and medium length boxers. Since Randy is the owner it is a reflection on his style of management and ownership.
> Much of the rancor would not be tolerated unless he wanted it as such.
> While Letterboxing is growing this list isn't.
>
> Don
>
>

Personally I would take Randy's management style over that of the
newboxer list or even AQ's message boards for that matter. Is there
some rancor? Sure, but at least folks get a chance to voice their
opinion without being run off the list because the owner does not agree
with that opinion.

--
Nathan Brown

AKA Cyclonic
Penncoasters. com

The Insensitivity rolls on...

McCarthy was RIGHT!

Behind every great man is a great woman... rolling her eyes.



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey, Chuck! We were thinking of you last weekend when we were out in CT -
saw your new sig stamp in several logbooks and had good memories of the
Monster Mash!



This list is fine, I never understood why there needed to be a separate list
for new boxers. I also like the Yahoo regional lists, it's too bad some of
them have faded away. At least the Mid-Atlantic, Texas and Great Lakes
groups are still going strong.



Wisconsin Hiker





_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Chuck & Amy
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 11:50 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media








One thing I like a lot about this talk list is that people can and do say
what they want without censorship. It's sickening to see a web site or blog
where the owner is looked on as an all knowing idol and the users follow
like sheep....Chuck of WWW (Amy agrees)

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Nathan Brown com> wrote:

From: Nathan Brown com>
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:45 PM

gwendontoo wrote:
> Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is
newboxer friendly. The chatlist has a history of blasting new, old, and
medium length boxers. Since Randy is the owner it is a reflection on his
style of management and ownership.
> Much of the rancor would not be tolerated unless he wanted it as such.
> While Letterboxing is growing this list isn't.
>
> Don
>
>

Personally I would take Randy's management style over that of the
newboxer list or even AQ's message boards for that matter. Is there
some rancor? Sure, but at least folks get a chance to voice their
opinion without being run off the list because the owner does not agree
with that opinion.

--
Nathan Brown

AKA Cyclonic
Penncoasters. com

The Insensitivity rolls on...

McCarthy was RIGHT!

Behind every great man is a great woman... rolling her eyes.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We'vebeen seeing your Wisconsin Hiker stamp inquite a few AmericaThe Beautiful boxes and the notes you wrote. You are really putting on the miles. I was at the Oklahoma box yesterday and I think your note saidthat was number30 someting in that series for you!
I'm always surprised about how many people still talk about the MMM and the good time they had. I'm glad that it was so memorable for everyone.I have a lot of good memories about it too. ... Chuck of WWW

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Debbie Kotlarek wrote:


From: Debbie Kotlarek
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 2:36 PM








Hey, Chuck! We were thinking of you last weekend when we were out in CT -
saw your new sig stamp in several logbooks and had good memories of the
Monster Mash!

This list is fine, I never understood why there needed to be a separate list
for new boxers. I also like the Yahoo regional lists, it's too bad some of
them have faded away. At least the Mid-Atlantic, Texas and Great Lakes
groups are still going strong.

Wisconsin Hiker

_____

From: letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of Chuck & Amy
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 11:50 AM
To: letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media

One thing I like a lot about this talk list is that people can and do say
what they want without censorship. It's sickening to see a web site or blog
where the owner is looked on as an all knowing idol and the users follow
like sheep....Chuck of WWW (Amy agrees)

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Nathan Brown com> wrote:

From: Nathan Brown com>
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: mass media
To: letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:45 PM

gwendontoo wrote:
> Believe what you like, but most folks would not say that this chatlist is
newboxer friendly. The chatlist has a history of blasting new, old, and
medium length boxers. Since Randy is the owner it is a reflection on his
style of management and ownership.
> Much of the rancor would not be tolerated unless he wanted it as such.
> While Letterboxing is growing this list isn't.
>
> Don
>
>

Personally I would take Randy's management style over that of the
newboxer list or even AQ's message boards for that matter. Is there
some rancor? Sure, but at least folks get a chance to voice their
opinion without being run off the list because the owner does not agree
with that opinion.

--
Nathan Brown

AKA Cyclonic
Penncoasters. com

The Insensitivity rolls on...

McCarthy was RIGHT!

Behind every great man is a great woman... rolling her eyes.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just read the article and although I may have read the article before, I'm
not sure. It turns out I know every person mentioned in that story and I
think the article DID do a good job of emphasizing secrecy, artistry,
challenge, respect, supervision and expectations.



Wisconsin Hiker



_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robb
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:41 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Besides drama....(was mass media)








I don't often post to online letterboxing discussions - either here or on AQ
- but I read them pretty faithfully. There are likely many of us out here
who would not bother to post an answer to this question after the rough
replies some have given...

But, since I've aleready jumped in, here's another one for you all: I'm of
the "Metro Parent" generation. For those who didn't like the previous
articles, you're probably going to hate this one, but I think it was a
pretty fair representation and it certainly got us going in the wonderful
sport/hobby!

http://www.metropar
> ent.com/index.php?action=show_article&article=3702&pid=1

Happy SAHD
{waiting patiently with my "idiot shields" up for the inevitable faming that
will momentarily ensue... :-)}

--- In letterbox-usa@
yahoogroups.com, Kermit wrote:
>
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of
the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course, it was also a punctuation nightmare....

Sheba

--- On Mon, 7/13/09, Debbie Kotlarek wrote:

From: Debbie Kotlarek
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: Besides drama....(was mass media)
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 10:23 PM

I just read the article and although I may have read the article before, I'm
not sure. It turns out I know every person mentioned in that story and I
think the article DID do a good job of emphasizing secrecy, artistry,
challenge, respect, supervision and expectations.



Wisconsin Hiker



_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robb
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:41 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Besides drama....(was mass media)








I don't often post to online letterboxing discussions - either here or on AQ
- but I read them pretty faithfully. There are likely many of us out here
who would not bother to post an answer to this question after the rough
replies some have given...

But, since I've aleready jumped in, here's another one for you all: I'm of
the "Metro Parent" generation. For those who didn't like the previous
articles, you're probably going to hate this one, but I think it was a
pretty fair representation and it certainly got us going in the wonderful
sport/hobby!

http://www.metropar
> ent.com/index.php?action=show_article&article=3702&pid=1

Happy SAHD
{waiting patiently with my "idiot shields" up for the inevitable faming that
will momentarily ensue... :-)}

--- In letterbox-usa@
yahoogroups.com, Kermit wrote:
>
> Now I'm actually curious -- is there ANYONE else on this list who is of
the
> Time Magazine generation?
>
> -K





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know that Jessica spent a lot of time corresponding with those of us that were interviewed for the article, and I think she did a pretty good job. It goes more in depth than some one-page articles I've seen, and it covers many of the important points. Of course, I'm partial, because I wanted to stress the stealth aspect and she handled that well. I've always been a believer that they're going to write the article with or without me, so I may as well try to speak my peace while I have the opportunity.

TrailTroll


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Robb" wrote:
>
I'm of the "Metro Parent" generation. For those who didn't like the previous articles, you're probably going to hate this one, but I think it was a pretty fair representation and it certainly got us going in the wonderful sport/hobby!
>