Never mind, Eric, it is just landscape haters speaking in tongues.
Neither true nor fair, Slobodan. (Emoticon notwithstanding.)
The term really owes its existence as reaction to the great lack of originality in a huge majority of ARAT subject matter. That's why when something really cool comes up, such as Chris's two photographs, it makes us 'ere lot with a more tempered, less acolyte-like take on ARAT sit up, take notice and comment. That's why you won't find us of that persuasion generally commenting on ARAT threads.
From a personal standpoint, I find it quite difficult in my own reality to see those sorts of images in the raw, as it were, even if I do enjoy the good ones in the final, photographic presentation. I believe we probably all have visual blind spots, and that's but one of mine. Having said which, I am not suggesting that I don't feel capable of appreciating landscape work, just that I think there's so little good stuff about. Generally, I think that I feel more impressed with black/white interpretations of the genre.
As an edit: think I am really turning further and further away from colour in my own appreciation of photography; this could be an atavistic thing because of the era when I first became obsessed with the medium - it might even be a reaction to the general disappointment I feel with colour printing. Perhaps more likely is the impression that I have that black/white is just more interesting in its ability to take things out of cold reality and into a further space where imagination can run more freely. Bad colour is obvious, try to disguise it how you may - with words or with visual exaggerations - the truth will always out.