Groundspeak Portal

In the not-to-recent past, another person attempted to start a Category for Hooter's and for reasons that I'd rather not comment on it failed to make it to the Directory.

Having been one that has frequently joked about starting a Hooter's Category to offset some of the other Category concepts that I've supported while not actually being interested in, I was approached to pick up the torch and run with it.

So I have.

Should you have comments or concerns that you would like to express in a mature manner regarding this possibly controversial Category, please do so here. Myself and the other Officers, and maybe other interest people will try to address them as professionally as we can.

Personally I see no reason to make this out to be something that it isn't, nor will I tolerate or respond to any wild accusations about the restaurants. I do not make such comments about Category ideas that offend me, so please extend us that same respect.

Instead, let's work together to create a Category that addresses the restaurant chain, and the concerns of those that might not be as comfortable about the wardrobe of the staff. We are a mature bunch here and open to supporting various ideas, this should be no different.

BQ

haunthunters:

team farkle 7:

haunthunters:

Waymarking aint exactly a den room full of men in top hats and monacles sipping brandy and smoking cigars, so maybe my use of "classy" is a bit strong, anyway.

"I say... is that a benchmark?"

"Why, dig it up ol' chap!"

"By george, this is in a park! We can cross-post this area ten times!"

"Splendid!"

- Elle

By Jove, I think she's got it!

Seriously, I'm having a hard time understanding the problem some people have with Hooters. I mean other than an unfortunate name, of course.

The biggest complaint I hear is the uniforms for the waitresses.

I've seen worse.

Okay, BQ? You up for some wings?

Oh, I got some [wing] bones to pick about Hooters. I got a soapbox here, trust me! When y'all write this thing, please include the actual company history. It's unique. I wouldn't call it a good unique, but it is unique from how other restaurants start-up. Or... you can just keep it the way that it was with "Hooters" written in each section. Need more be said? Hehehe

I'm hoping it doesn't lead to categories for those topless- and naked-server steakhouses along the highway. Gah...

- Elle

Many of them have a big owl out front.  Isn't that what they mean by "Hooters"?

I can complain about the uniforms too. But it's probably not for the reasons many might expect.

Topless- and naked-server steakhouses along the highway?  What?
I mean, what highway?
No, wait, that's not what I mean.

Ahem.

I've never knew those existed. Have you seen them outside of Florida?

A Hooters Waitress could walk home in uniform, and not break any laws. There is no age limit for dining at Hooters. Thats a pretty easy dividing line that would prevent categories going down a slippery slope.

globetrotters.us:

A Hooters Waitress could walk home in uniform, and not break any laws. There is no age limit for dining at Hooters. Thats a pretty easy dividing line that would prevent categories going down a slippery slope.

I often see more skin at the mall than at Hooters.  And if they didn't have the dress codes at schools you would there too.  (I won't evaluate the "quality" of skin at the mall compared to that at Hooters )

I like how you bring over my comment... as the new resounding voice of protest or something!

0ccam:

Many of them have a big owl out front.  Isn't that what they mean by "Hooters"?

I can complain about the uniforms too. But it's probably not for the reasons many might expect.

Don't like women wearing hosery with socks and sneakers? Not a fan of bright orange? Think the tank tops and short-shorts increase the likelihood of the girls getting colds?

The guys wanted a sports pub with only model-girls dressed cheaply serving them. This idea is rooted in sex exploitation. There's no denying this fact or pretending Hooters is about owls or that it's a family place (there's people who actually try to do this argument). I could have the same argument in defense of the String-Bikini Deli that's .1 mile away from the Hooters in my hometown. Kids can eat there and girls could walk home without breaking laws. And I live in a conservative FL town with a bunch of old foaggies who've chased out Starbucks. This aint even the Keys where you're not breaking the laws walking down the street naked if you have body paint on!

A family wing place? Hogbodies. But there's two locations just in the Southwest Florida area (and that's gone down from 3 in the last five years). But, man, the wings are tremendous! I just don't think the management can bring together the money necessary to franchise better. The food is good, the service is good, it's all good. It's a shame they aren't bigger. Y'all are missing out!

*Standard General Comment: Why don't we do a general Wings Restaurant Category that can include Hooters and other franchises, and that way Independent restaurants will also be waymarked?*

So I don't personally like Hooters. That said, if BQ & Team wrote it up so people who didn't know about Hooters would know what they were waymarking just from reading the category description and explained why they were unique, global, prevalent, etc etc etc, then I'd have no choice but to vote "yea", like I do for any other category that's been presented to meet the criteria. My personal feelings are irrelevant.

If Groundspeak sees a problem with the ethics of it as far as the image of Waymarking and the overall company, they have the ability to nix the category after Peer Review. I believe they are the only ones who can make an ethics call like that.

When it comes down to it, y'all really just want fair voting and that can be difficult to come by for some categories, especially Chains. Now, I said my jokes and my peace in the other thread and was going to let it go. 0ccam sorta called me out here so I'm expounding on my opinion, but it's not going to change my fair voting. It shouldn't interfer with the fair voting of anyone else, either.

Topless- and naked-server steakhouses along the highway?  What?
I mean, what highway?
No, wait, that's not what I mean.

Ahem.

I've never knew those existed. Have you seen them outside of Florida?

Yes, I have, but I'm not telling you where they are because I don't want your wife coming after me with a pitchfork!

- Elle

Thanks! I'm glad that you are able to remain open-minded when faced with an personal ethical dilemma.

That is the approach that I have espoused in regard to other categories with the potential to isolate people based on personal choice.

We will ensure to make people aware of such concerns so that they understand what they might be exposed to in the process of participation, should they not be aware.

BQ

Just checked the website.  Global?  Quite a few countries, tick.  Prevalence? seem to be several hundred, tick.  Wow?  Well, maybe "wow" isn't the word ... It does have "hmph" factor though.

If I were to review it then provided the cat was accurately written up I wouldn't vote Nay.  (Unless of course I could find a handy loophole in the criteria to justify a nay vote).  I may even vote yea, depending entirely on what kind of mood I happen to be in.

We are a mature bunch here  -LOLROTF-  and open to supporting various ideas, this should be no different. 

.... what? and you didn't send me an invite?

Okay, She-Farkle here.  Just wanted to put my two cents in since I'm from Florida and grew up with Hooters.  Let me just say that there's not much in Florida that isn't based on sex exploitation.  Would you deny a waymark for Weekie Wachee's mermaids?  I know plenty of women that go to Hooters and like it.  Those girls aren't down on their luck and forced to work there like most of the exotic dancers I knew.  Heck half of the restaurants in Gainesville, the girls chose to dress like that without being asked to.  What's the real problem with Hooters?  Or is it just bothersome that some women don't mind using what they've got.  There isn't one restaurant I've been in (regardless of how they're dressed) that a pretty girl won't use her "feminine wiles" to get better tips.  Hooters just doesn't sugar coat it.  There's a place in Devil's Elbow MO that has bras hanging from the ceiling and the waitress/bartender chooses to dress in a leather vest because it's a biker place.  Sounds bad eh?  Turns out during the day time it's the best family BBQ place you can head to on Rt 66.  Happily took our 4 yr old in there since he doesn't know what a bra is or care why they were there. 

I think this is just ridiculous to argue about Hooters, I guarantee those girls don't go home crying at night like a lot of the jobs you work down there.  I don't think there's an actual ethics problem about Hooters, I think there's a "feminine exploitation" issue, which has been the catch phrase from the beginning.  I guarantee if it had a different name there would be no issue.  I personally have an issue with Starbucks corporate practices and their blight on the face of the planet, I find them more offensive than Hooters.  Maybe there should be some introspection as to the real reason that the Hooter chain is something that you find so offensive.  Lord only knows you'll see plenty more skin walking thru any town down there than you will in the restaurant itself. 

That said I'm not trying to start a personal arguement, but I'm so sick of hearing how "sexist" Hooters is.  They're a decent restaurant, with good food, good atmosphere and all the Hooters girls I've ever met are quite happy with what they're doing. 

I think the category has merit, just as much as say the Hard Rock Cafe category.  The entire history doesn't need to be included just the basics, as with anything else an unbiased description is what is essential in waymarking.  Include a link to the history for those that are completely clueless and living under rocks, but you don't have to include the entire text.  Because for one it might be seen as "sexual exploitation", for another it's just good marketing.

I have a soapbox too, and I'm not afraid to get on it.

Jenn

team farkle 7:

I have a soapbox too, and I'm not afraid to get on it.

Jenn

Maybe you should look into why you're so offended by someone having a differing opinion. Your comment seems very defensive of something that I said I would vote for if it met the criteria.

Yes, sexism is everywhere, that doesn't mean we should suddenly be desensitised to it because there's some waymarks to get from it. I'm sure tired about hearing about things that are sexist, too. Let's just stop pointing out what's sexist! That would be easier than, say, stopping sexist things.

Having a vagina and living in Florida doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid on this issue. It really doesn't. That really reeks of wanting to have a personal argument. Whether their food is good is a personal opinion. I've had better. I also have very sensitive hearing so their loud atmosphere is not something I would call "good." However, I've heard that the food and atmosphere at the String-Bikini Deli is pretty good, too.

What's the deal with bringing up Starbucks in a thread about Hooters? There are plenty of corporations and agencies I oppose. Are you suggesting that only a good vagina-feminist-waymarker would prioritise the oppressive agencies and leave Hooters at the bottom of the list? Are you suggesting that only a good vagina-feminist-waymarker would shut up about Hooters when there are so many other sexist and classist things in the world? I'm not sure what you're saying there but I'm not sure I agree with what I'm reading.

I like categories that are well-written. You don't need to be "living under a rock" to not know what  Hooters is. Maybe the fact that you grew up in Florida "with Hooters" gives you a familiarity that others don't have? Why make people dig for information? This information can be provided in the category description. Shouldn't a category describe what should be waymarked? It can't be too hard to do this.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I already said that if the category met the requirements I would vote for it. Are you trying to convince me that it will be shotty so I vote against it? What is your point? From BQ's approach, I was confident that this would be done well, but now I'm not so sure...

- Elle

It is my intention to provide a well written category description, as is always my intention. One that details the business and what one can expect when visiting one. It will be done from an informative and non-partisan position. There is no reason to do it any other way in my opinion.

I would like think that my track record already speaks for itself in this regard. I would also like to think that it should be obvious that my dedication to Waymarking would be such that I would not do something to undermine it.

BQ

And I believe you, BQ.

I don't think the category will go through if the objective is to get everybody to like Hooters or agree with a specific mindset of what is or is not sexist. That is having a personal argument against a subjective and volatile issue. You'll have enough problems with people not voting fairly that you don't need to worry about trying to change people's minds about the restaurant itself.

If you stay on course with presenting a quality category, you know you have my vote. I'm not looking for a loophole to vote "nay," I'm always looking to vote "yea" on a new category. I got a little worried when there was talk about not putting information in there. What makes Hooters unique is the fact that it is designed with an all female model-looking waitstaff dressed provocatively in a sports pub atmosphere. This was the intention of the owners from the very beginning, it was The Concept. If you withhold that information, then the place is no different from any other restaurant and I don't see how they're unique. You see what I mean?

You know, that Drinking Fountains category... that was surprisingly well written. I really hoped that they would've push forward by just rewriting to focus on historical and/or artistic drinking fountains. I would've never considered drinking fountains before. But a well-written category can give you a perception you didn't have before... and I could see how they were Waymarkable.

So I believe that you'll do what you do, BQ, and I like what you do. I just got a little worried there and I appreciate you affirming your intentions. In fact, I may actually waymark the one in my town... just because it's next door to a Denny's and the sign out front says, quite deliberately, Denny's Hooters. And you just cannot share that with the world enough.

- Elle

haunthunters:

I like how you bring over my comment... as the new resounding voice of protest or something!

Had to do that or my sarcasm wouldn't work.

haunthunters:

0ccam:

Many of them have a big owl out front.  Isn't that what they mean by "Hooters"?

I can complain about the uniforms too. But it's probably not for the reasons many might expect.

Don't like women wearing hosery with socks and sneakers? Not a fan of bright orange? Think the tank tops and short-shorts increase the likelihood of the girls getting colds?

Nah. It's the tights and pushups. Don't like either. And the wings are overhyped.

haunthunters:

I could have the same argument in defense of the String-Bikini Deli that's .1 mile away from the Hooters in my hometown.

String-Bikini Deli??!  Is that a chain?

All kidding aside....we have a couple of restaurants here in the Metroplex called Bone Daddy's. Same concept. And a sports bar near my work called 3rd Base. If we were to try to generalize the Hooters waymarking category idea....how would we do it?  I suspect we couldn't without having to reject some submissions for going over the line.  And yet it seems a shame to -only- waymark Hooters.  So I don't see there being much chance for an "Innuendo Restaurants" category. Bummer. (oops, no pun intended.  Well, okay it was in hindsight.)

Generic wing places.   That's not a bad idea, but Hooters isn't even as much of a wing place as WingStop, and once you get some in there like that, it's questionable as to whether Hooters even belongs in a wings restaurant cat. They have too many other things on the menu.

0ccam:

Generic wing places.   That's not a bad idea, but Hooters isn't even as much of a wing place as WingStop, and once you get some in there like that, it's questionable as to whether Hooters even belongs in a wings restaurant cat. They have too many other things on the menu.

Hooters has a lot of variety on the menu - they also had an airline, publish a magazine, and sell a lot of branded merchandise - but their marketing base is the wings. I think people would generally agree that Hooters can be considered a wings place because of the emphasis that is placed on the wings.

A generic category would allow all the other wing places to have a home and might just head off having an exclusive category for every other wing chain on the planet.

Mind you, I'm assuming Hooters will pass peer review when it goes because if it's written to reflect that it meets all the criteria (many of us know it does), there's no reason why it shouldn't be added to the directory (unless Groundspeak and only Groundspeak thinks differently). On the chance that it is declined, a generic category would give a place for Hooters to be waymarked if the group doesn't want to make another run. On the other hand, the existence of a generic category may make efforts even harder for Hooters to have its own category (on the precedent that it already "belongs" somewhere).

It's something to keep in mind, but I think the circumstances of the category already in progress has to be considered and respected.

As far as your mind wandering to all the provocative restaurants of the world, I think someone with a discerning eye for that sort of thing would be more inclined to create a Playboy category, given its prominent brand name and versatility.

- Elle

Don't they have that trivia game that you play against other bars/restaurants at Hooters?

Places with the online trivia would make a good category.

globetrotters.us:

Don't they have that trivia game that you play against other bars/restaurants at Hooters?

Places with the online trivia would make a good category.

I saw one of those in a TexMex Restaurant in Tampa. That'd be the creative perception that Waymarking's known for.

- Elle

globetrotters.us:

Don't they have that trivia game that you play against other bars/restaurants at Hooters?

Places with the online trivia would make a good category.

That's intriguing. A waymarker would probably have to go in to find out if they have the trivia game....

Late to the game on this topic...

0ccam:

Nah. It's the tights and pushups. Don't like either. And the wings are overhyped.

As a native Buffalonian, I will gladly say their wings are awful. Wings are not meant to be breaded. We actually had two Hooters locations here in Buffalo but they both closed. I can understand though if you've never had "Buffalo wings" they might be kind of tasty.

haunthunters:

A generic category would allow all the other wing places to have a home and might just head off having an exclusive category for every other wing chain on the planet.

I thought about creating a wing restaurant category a long time ago being a connoisseur and all, but never went through with it since I didn't think it would pass. My hot dog restaurants category barely did.

0ccam:

That's intriguing. A waymarker would probably have to go in to find out if they have the trivia game....

That trivia game is called Buzztime, formerly known as NTN (National Trivia Network). I play regularly at the Buffalo Wild Wings near my house. All Wild Wings across the country have it along with a couple other chains and many many independents. They have a sitefinder on their website. Is it global? Not really, it's only in the US and Canada. UK had a few locations for awhile but I think Buzztime pulled out.

Rayman:

Late to the game on this topic...

I can understand though if you've never had "Buffalo wings" they might be kind of tasty.

That I can understand, Buffalo has superior wings in the same way that Canada has superior beer (ducking). Naturally those that haven't experienced "the right way" often don't know what they are missing.

Rayman:

0ccam:

That's intriguing. A waymarker would probably have to go in to find out if they have the trivia game....

That trivia game is called Buzztime, formerly known as NTN (National Trivia Network). I play regularly at the Buffalo Wild Wings near house. All Wild Wings across the country have it along with a couple other chains and many many independents. They have a sitefinder on their website. Is it global? Not really, it's only in the US and Canada. UK had a few locations for awhile but I think Buzztime pulled out.

That would be a good category, NTN now Buzztime has been around for 20+ years and is huge fun.

BQ

the blue quasar:

Rayman:

Late to the game on this topic... I can understand though if you've never had "Buffalo wings" they might be kind of tasty.

That I can understand, Buffalo has superior wings in the same way that Canada has superior beer (ducking). Naturally those that haven't experienced "the right way" often don't know what they are missing.

Rayman:

0ccam:

That's intriguing. A waymarker would probably have to go in to find out if they have the trivia game....

That trivia game is called Buzztime, formerly known as NTN (National Trivia Network). I play regularly at the Buffalo Wild Wings near house. All Wild Wings across the country have it along with a couple other chains and many many independents. They have a sitefinder on their website. Is it global? Not really, it's only in the US and Canada. UK had a few locations for awhile but I think Buzztime pulled out.

That would be a good category, NTN now Buzztime has been around for 20+ years and is huge fun. BQ

It would be a really fun category! It's one that I would use to be able to visit waymarks. Anne thought it up so if she still wants to stay category-less, one of y'all should open up a new discussion about it and start the group.

- Elle

the blue quasar:

In the not-to-recent past, another person attempted to start a Category for Hooter's and for reasons that I'd rather not comment on it failed to make it to the Directory. Having been one that has frequently joked about starting a Hooter's Category to offset some of the other Category concepts that I've supported while not actually being interested in, I was approached to pick up the torch and run with it. So I have. Should you have comments or concerns that you would like to express in a mature manner regarding this possibly controversial Category, please do so here. BQ

Maybe you should comment on the reasons the former proposal failed. That might help this discussion.  If it was on the basis of a poorly written and constructed category, that is one thing, but if it was on the merits of the category itself, then it seems that the collective opinion of the waymarking community has been exressed.  If there was some other technical problem, then that is another issue.  Obviously it sounds as if you know something the rest of us don't.

Hmmm.  "to express in a mature manner . . ."  Seems that's already gone by the wayside in this discussion.  Maybe I just have a different view of what "mature" means.

Anyway, your reputation of fairness and open-mindedness, BQ, is well appreciated!  Truly.  We'll see if you can negotiate the rocky waters of this one.

Hey, ever checked to see what the most frequently viewed waymark is?  No? It is Gray Creek Nude Beach in British Columbia.

Okay, I don't know what that has to do with anything.  I don't know the history of the Nude Beach category, but I think it was created before peer review.

Now, there seems to be some sentiment that one's personal convictions should never enter into the process of evaluating the merits of a waymark or a category.  It is as if we should just park our sensibilities and convictions at the door in the name of being mature and objective.  If that were true, then we should let a computer make the decisions.  Input the objective data, measure the data by some rigid criteria, and "Poof" we have an instant decision - no muss, no fuss.

If you say that I should vote for something that I find personally offensive in the interests of being objective, then I find that coercive!  I would never have voted for a nude beach category, either.  Obviously Waymarking has sruvived that, and I suppose we would survive Hooters, too, even though I think both are detrimental to our hobby as a whole.  (That is a peronal opinion about something  objective outcome).

So, before I'm told again that I need more "personal introspection," let me say that I do quite a bit of that and would suggest that I can hold these opinions and still be reasonable and mature  -  even open-minded.  I've been around the block, quite a few blocks actually, enough not to have become a wizened crumudgeon!   If things don't go my way, I'm not going to pick up my marbles and go home  - or throw them at somebody either.  I just ask that I have the repect and right to voice and act upon personal convictions without being vilified. No one has done that yet.

Let's see, I have personal convictions against gambling, but I've waymarkd a couple of casinos; and I could add to a list of similar categories.  I don't drink, but I've waymarked a brew pub (missed that big brewery, though).  I'm a protestant Christian, but I started the category for Roman Catholic Churches, and will soon post some Buddhist temples, and I hope to get the mosque up in Itaewon.  I think its about time we had a category for synagogues, too.  I think these all have some intrinsic value.  Can't find much worthwhile in Hooters, though.

I could be wrong.  I was wrong about manhole covers.  I really thought that category failed the "interesting" criterion.  If you take a look at it now, there really are a lot of interesting waymarks there!  So, if someone would care to bring forth some postive reasons for having a Hooters category - other than "because we can!"  I would like to listen.  What are the merits?

I don't want to hear about the quality of their wings, either.  The best wings I've ever had were at J. Michaels's Sports Pub in Salem, NH.  (How about a cat for sports pubs)?  The best ribs were at The Dinosaur in Rochester, NY.  The worst wings -- Roosters chain in Ohio!

Okay, you ought to have enough fodder to keep this thread hopping for awhile!

Cheers, from a true night hooter, uh I mean owl!

silverquill:

Now, there seems to be some sentiment that one's personal convictions should never enter into the process of evaluating the merits of a waymark or a category.  It is as if we should just park our sensibilities and convictions at the door in the name of being mature and objective.  If that were true, then we should let a computer make the decisions.  Input the objective data, measure the data by some rigid criteria, and "Poof" we have an instant decision - no muss, no fuss.

If you say that I should vote for something that I find personally offensive in the interests of being objective, then I find that coercive!  I would never have voted for a nude beach category, either.  Obviously Waymarking has sruvived that, and I suppose we would survive Hooters, too, even though I think both are detrimental to our hobby as a whole.  (That is a peronal opinion about something  objective outcome).

I actually find nothing wrong with Nude Beaches... as a category or them being in existence... but my whole perception of the nature of the human body was changed by living in Europe. You can just be without it being over-sexualised. It's not all about the owls, if you know what I mean. I don't know how things are in Korea. This is my experience. Gray Creek Nude Beach in BC is probably getting views because of the over-sexualisation. I wouldn't doubt that. My personal experience with the reality of what Nude Beaches are has changed my perception of their function so I don't think twice about the category and think gawking at the waymark is just plain ol' silly.

- Elle

Jake39:

We are a mature bunch here  -LOLROTF-  and open to supporting various ideas, this should be no different. 

.... what? and you didn't send me an invite?

I'm feeling the same...Wasn't it you Jake39 that suggested that I start this category (http://portal.groundspeak.com/forums/post/9552.aspx - October 10th of last year) and that BQ was supposed to start a "Clams, Wings and Shrimps" category???

...wait a minute mine links to a dot c-a website and his is the same but dot-com link.

 

As for any category...well written, with decent posting requirements, global or nearly categories always get a yes vote from me.

KE

BTW...my hope on the Gray Creek Beach with the photos from a couple hundred metres away is that non-waymarkers might step away from what they are doing and explore waymarking.

As always Silverquill, you provide a well thought out response to this thread. You are a beacon. And don't BS me with the false modesty you are and you know it. If you don't, you should.

Okay that's enough pumping sunshine up your frock for one day.

I would also like to say, that after four years of waymarking, beyond a doubt that Blue Quasar can and most likely will produce a write-up on this catgeory as good as, if not better than most others. You just wait.

Silverquill brought up an interesting point about what happened the first time Hooters went through.

Well, it didn't go through. The first group kind of dropped the ball.

Vote to approve group's category (Hooters). 6/1/2008 6:51:00 AM  Failed

Vote to approve group's category (Hooters). 6/3/2008 9:40:00 AM  Successful

Now at this point, shouldn't it have gone to peer review? Well for some reason it didn't.

Vote to approve group's category (Hooters). 6/15/2008 5:45:00 PM  Failed

Vote to approve group's category (Hooters). 7/7/2008 8:06:00 PM  Failed

Vote to approve group's category (Hooters). 7/13/2008 8:31:00 AM  Failed

The leader of the original group has been a no-show since mid August and Team Min Dawg ( I think it was TMD) asked BQ & myself if we would consider picking up the ball.  I have to say the original category hasn't much info on it other than how many Hooters there are, and in how many countries and states.

Well, I've been busy the past couple nights doing some research on Hooters.

So simply put, as far as merit goes, it ranks about the same as any other chain as far as I'm concerned.

Hooters also has a long-standing non-harassment policy forbidding unwelcome physical or verbal behavior, and specifically mentions sexual harassment. This policy includes a confidential reporting system for complaints, including a toll-free phone number. Since 1983, Hooters has employed over 250,000 Hooters Girls, and while even one incident is too many, this large number of employees, compared to the limited number of sexual harassment lawsuits filed, indicates this policy works.

Their words.

Their website also mentions the charitible work the corporation is involved in. The Hooters Community Endowment Fund (HOO.C.E.F.) raises money for local and national charities such as the Jimmy V Foundation for Cancer Research, Make-A-Wish Foundation, the U.S.O., Special Olympics, American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Now since I just finished reading in my local paper an article about a rise in domestic issues due largely to the economy, I decided to email Hooters and find out what kind of funds of theirs go towards programs geared toward those kind of issues. I hope I hear back from somebody.

And lastly I would just like to say that nothing She-Farkle has said was meant to offend or coerce. She was simply stating her opinion on the issue. She certainly in no way meant to put down anyone who works in the service industry. We both have had the pleasure and know it's a hard enough job to do day in and day out and to "Smile at the customer" without getting sh!t about it. (all the while wearing your "If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?" T-Shirt under your uniform.

Incidenty who the hell designs the uniforms for supermarket employees? I mean really.

My wife is now having polyester teal, coral, and navy blue flashbacks. Guess I got off easy growing up in good ol' New England where the only wild colors are the autumn leaves.

Did I really use the words Hooters and endowment in the same sentence. Oh crud.
 

team farkle 7:

Well, it didn't go through. The first group kind of dropped the ball.

Incidenty who the hell designs the uniforms for supermarket employees? I mean really.

My wife is now having polyester teal, coral, and navy blue flashbacks. Guess I got off easy growing up in good ol' New England where the only wild colors are the autumn leaves.

Well, thanks for the sunshine, you Farkles! 

Thanks for the background history on this cat proposal.  Don't I remember it being in peer review? Oh, well.  It does take some persistance to see something like this through.

Then, thanks for the research on this enterprise!  I think the problem is more one of image rather than substance.  Of course, they are all about image  - great if the image is regarded as positive, but bad if one finds the image negative, or even offensive.  I guess it is the flaunting attitude that some of us have a problem with them.  And, it also has to do with our image of waymarking as a genearlly family-friendly hobby and what impact we think such a category may have.  Like I said, I don't think it is a live or die issue, and waymarking will continue to thrive whichever way this goes.

She-Farkle  - thought your post was excellent, by the way!  Supermarket uniforms?  Hey, I'll see if I can get some Korean uniform pictures for you.  They are big on uniforms, and employ a lot of young women to entice customers, greet at the door, give out samples, etc., and some of the uniforms are quite  . . . .  well, adjectives fail me.  Wild, at least.

And, I do miss New England.  Not a native, but spent 25 years or so there.  A couple years on the Cape, the South Shore, and then up in New Hampshire for about 10 years.  Just starting to get some nice color here in the mountains of central Korea where we're living.

Thanks for your input, and we'll look forward to seeing BQ's creation!