An old schoolhouse

[Skwerly]

mmmmmmm, I remember my first IHP; I'm glad you are having fun with this hobby!

 

[FliesOnly]

Very good questions flies-only. So for starters, I'm glad we agree he was trespassing to take those pictures. Right ? But that trespassing is ok , right ? Only md'ing is when trespassing "becomes bad", right ? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

It’s never as simple as you always try to make things out to be, just so you can then continue and make some sort or ridiculous point. You always have to first set your own “ground rules” and “definitions” so that your next point will make sense.

Ok: Let's go with your definition of md'ing: Which is: "digging holes" and "taking things". Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post clearly defines md'ing in those terms. Right?

Ummmmm…that’d be a big fat “No”.

…Nonetheless, let's just go with your definition.

Stop referring to your own definition as my definition.

Since yes: That makes md'ing sound NOT benign and NOT innocuous.

Did I say that we then leave the area without filling in the holes? Did I say that we must first sneak on to private property and dig holes without permission? Did I say we can remove objects from other people’s property without their permission?

Thus, since that's your definition of md'ing (your words, not mine),

Ummmmm…again…no, those are not my words. Those are your words. Those are the words of your ridiculous definition that you falsely attribute to me simply so you can continue with this rather strange and convoluted justification for stealing objects off of private property.

…then here's what you need to do: Next time you approach a park, you are not merely md'ing. You are "digging holes" and "taking things".

When I have asked private land owners for permission to detect on their land, I have indeed informed them that I would be digging holes. I also show them what I have uncovered.

So try this: With that definition, go to the city hall and ask: "Hi. Can I dig holes and take things ?" (your definition, not mine).

Sigh…and once again…”No”, that is without a doubt, NOT my definition. It’s yours. You actually made it up just a few sentences above this one. You can go back up and read it again, if you have already forgotten from whence it came.

I hope you can agree that that's a SILLY WAY to look at how we define md'ing. For starters, as I say, we will leave no trace. So what's with the "dig " thing ?

Well, you actually…what’s the word I’m looking for? Let me think? It’ll come to me!! Oh yeah…Dig!! You actually dig…that’s what “the dig thing” is all about. It’s called digging. I’m not sure why this threw you for such a loop.

And for "taking things" : Every single md'r subconsciously sees-the-difference between things that have lain the ground for years, versus the same coin or ring on someone's night stand.

But you would be taking an object that you obtained on private property without first having gained permission to detect and remove objects.

That's why none of us runs to the police dept. L&F each time we find coins and rings. We implicitly know the difference. Does that change the definition to "not taking things" ? No. But ... just saying .... I hope you can see the difference between the coin-in-the-ground (that's been there for years, and no one even knows it's there) versus helping yourself to the picnic benches, fence posts, etc.....

We’re talking about private property, dear Sir, not public.

 

[FliesOnly]

And BTW : I would not be saying any of this, if it were not for the irony I saw, that someone can go onto land, walk around, take pix, etc.... Then wonder about md'ing there.

You seriously see no difference between taking a picture and md'ing? Also, that’s not an irony.

Why isn't the proper response to reprimand the individual, for even being there in the first place ? No one seems to point that out. (BTW, I think photography is also innocuous).

Because he was taking a picture, not stealing objects that he found buried on the property...private property, I might add.

I guess what's bugging me, is this notion that md'ing is somehow inherently evil, dangerous, stealing/taking, harmful, etc..... If we start with that notion, then yes: Everything you're saying DOES INDEED logically follow.

No one is defining md’ing as evil, or dangerous, or stealing/taking (unless you’re on private property without permission of course) harmful, etc. To be clear, however, md’ing CAN be harmful and it could, in some circumstances even be dangerous. It depends on how the detectorists behaves and treats the property upon which he or she is detecting. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

…I don't see that level of hate and disdain, when I'm out and about doing my hobby. On the contrary : People come up and say "what's the best thing you've ever found", and "where can I buy one of those?" and "how deep does it go?", etc....

Even when you’re stealing objects off of their private property because you felt no need to first ask permission? Somehow I have my doubts about all the love you receive if you indeed just sneak onto someone’s property and detect without permission.

I'm just saying that I find md'ing to be equally as innocuous as photography. Which, I notice, no one here chided the fellow for walking around on that land and taking pictures. If md'ing is NOT just as benign and innocuous, then sure: All that you're saying does logically follow.

Md’ing is not just as benign and innocuous as taking a photo. It’s silly to even suggest that it is.

It's just in how we're defining innocuous.

No…it’s just in how YOU’RE defining innocuous.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....Stop referring to your own definition as my definition.....

... Those are the words of your ridiculous definition that you falsely attribute to me ....

Flies-only, I kindly refer you to Post #14 . That was your post, was it not ? And if so, these are your quotes. Are they not ?

....Digging a hole is the same as taking a picture? What would you do if you found something of value? I’m hoping you would not keep it..…

...physically taking an "object"..…

As such, you will see that ... yes, you do define md'ing as digging holes and taking and keeping objects of value .

How then to you now say this is not your definition ? Did an imposter come in and post with your name/avetar ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Did I say that we then leave the area without filling in the holes? .....

Granted, you did not. However, let's be dreadfully honest: That is the implicit image. For example, if you waltz into any city hall and say you're going to dig holes in the park, .... be honest .... what is going to be their mental image ? : Holes. Of course. You and I know we'll fill them in and leave no trace. But to define md'ing as that, from the git-go, is loaded language, that lumps it in a category of mayhem or damage.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... We’re talking about private property, dear Sir, not public.

well, ... excluding toy-soldier's input, for the moment, for sake of conversation: The "private property" that we speak of here, we shall assume is not of the nature that toy-soldier is talking about. Since that seems to be un-fenced un-posted land, and someone who can't take a scram, etc... Right ? And not something like a mall parking lot or whatever, right ?

Ok then : In that case, why wasn't the O.P. chided for having (gasp) set foot there to take those pix ? No one bats an eye about that , nor sees the irony.

And I know exactly why : Because of our definitions of md'ing vs photography. If we go with your definitions (harmful, taking things, etc...) then yes, your right. But I got news for ya : So too should he have not stepped foot there to take a picture.

But you and I know full well that whosever land it is (hunting club or whatever) probably didn't give a rat's #ss if someone walked there . As evidenced by his simply waltzing out there, as if it were a non-issue, and taking pictures. So depending on how you define md'ing, is whether or not it's as benign and innocuous and harmless and photos.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You seriously see no difference between taking a picture and md'ing? ....

Correct. Nor do I see evil in walking my dog (as long as I pick up his poop). Skipping stones on the pond (might poke someone's eye out after all), photography, hiking, md'ing, whistling dixie, etc...

I don't deny that .... if it's private property, sure, ask away ! All I'm trying to say is: I found it odd that no one batted an eyelash at the fact that the O.P. was walking around there, in the first place. If no one thinks that was wrong, then .... you'd have to be of the opinion that md'ing is somehow dangerous and damaging . If so, then sure, it can't be compared with taking pictures.

Or ... if you agree that the md'r should have been there in the first place, then we can all agree that he 1) needs permission to walk there and take pix, and 2) needs permission to md there.

How about a truce: Agree that he, likewise, was illegally trespassing. And should have had permission first. And then sure .... we can mutually easily extend that to md'ing as well. And drop the entire debate of "how evil is md'ing ?" .

 

[FliesOnly]

Flies-only, I kindly refer you to Post #14 . That was your post, was it not ? And if so, these are your quotes. Are they not ?

Ummmmm…you know we can all go back an read post #14, yes? Let me save everyone the trouble of looking back at post #14…here are my exact words:

Huh ? Wait .... If : You were 'standing right there' looking at it, then ..... was that, or was-that-not trespassing ? Why not simply metal detect then ? Which is, in my book, as innocuous and benign and someone taking photographs.

Digging a hole is the same as taking a picture? What would you do if you found something of value? I’m hoping you would not keep it…but then, if you were not going to keep it, why detect in the first place, prior to obtaining permission?

I continued with the following, after you claimed that you were not actually advocating for trespassing so you could metal detect. Here is that exact quote:

How can you say you’re not an “advocate” for it, when you are, in fact, advocating for it?

And then I finished by once again asking if you could not grasp the difference between photography and metal detecting. Here, then, is my final posting from the now infamous Post #14!!!!:

I find it odd that you see no difference between taking a picture of an "object"...and physically taking an "object". Or are you saying that you would knowingly trespass on private property and detect [because it is, to you, no different than taking a picture]...yet if you actually found something of value, you'd leave it behind? And if that's the case, then why bother to detect at all? Why not first ask for permission and set the ground rules, as it were, for what you may or may not keep?

Now, please show me where I defined md'ing as "Digging Holes" and "Taking things". Don’t take my words out of context. Don’t pick a word from one sentence and combine with a word from another sentence. Simply show me exactly where, in any of those quotes, that I defined md’ing as “digging holes and taking things”.

As such, you will see that ... yes, you do define md'ing as digging holes and taking and keeping objects of value .

I’m sitting here, shaking my head in astonishment that you have the unmitigated gall to claim I define md’ing as “digging holes and taking things”. I never said those words. Never. What I did do was ask if you seriously see no difference between taking a picture and removing an object from the ground. I never even used the words “metal” or “detecting” in that sentence.

How then to you now say this is not your definition ?

Because I never said that. Why is this seemingly so difficult for you to understand? Is English not your primary language? Do you not know the meanings of words? Is context beyond your comprehension? It is quite simple…that is not my definition because I never, not once, not ever, wrote those words down as my definition.

Did an imposter come in and post with your name/avetar ?

No…you came in and made up a BS definition and attributed it to me. Nothing I said…in the entirety of my quotes, which I have included…nothing, in any way, defines md’ing as digging holes and taking things.

 

[FliesOnly]

Granted, you did not. However, let's be dreadfully honest:

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha...good one, Tom_in_CA...good one. “…let's be dreadfully honest”....pffffft, that's hilarious.

Oh poop!! You're being serious, aren't you!!??

OK, let's be dreadfully honest then. You made up a definition of md'ing and then falsely attributed it to me. That is dreadfully honest.

That is the implicit image. For example, if you waltz into any city hall and say you're going to dig holes in the park, .... be honest .... what is going to be their mental image ?

Let’s continue with our “dreadful honestly”, shall we.
No one would walk into city hall and say something that stupid.

: Holes. Of course. You and I know we'll fill them in and leave no trace. But to define md'ing as that, from the git-go, is loaded language, that lumps it in a category of mayhem or damage.

To be dreadfully honest…other than yourself, no one that I’m aware of has defined md’ing is such a mindnumbingly stupid way…so your point is, at best, moot.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Now, please show me where I defined md'ing as "Digging Holes" and "Taking things". Don’t take my words out of context. Don’t pick a word from one sentence and combine with a word from another sentence. ..... .

Flies-only: The subject at hand (and on this forum, that matter), is what ? Metal detecting. Right ? Hence the context of the conversation, in post #14, is about ... drumroll ..... metal detecting. Right ? Ok, with that in mind, go back and re-read #14. You see how you are implicitly, given-the-context, defining (well ... including in the actions of doing) as: "digging holes" and "taking things" ?

And you would agree that that sounds, to the casual reader, as somehow creating damage ("holes/digging") and stealing ("taking things") . And I agree with you, that if this premise is true, that ... yes... it's not akin to photography. But I'm just trying to point out that both characterizations are always mitigated (which we all do, when beach hunting , park hunting, etc...) . That is: a) we leave no trace , and b) the stuff we're after is unknown to anyone. None of us considers the items we find in the beach or park to be "stealing" or "taking things".

And BTW, I know you'll make the distinction on the "taking things", to point out that one is on public land, and the other on private land. Ok, but just so you know : There are laws , that I will gladly point you to, in any/all public parks, that prohibit "harvest" , "remove", "take", & and "steal". Naturally, you don't apply them to your actions. Right ? Because we all subconsciously know that buffalo nickel or mercury dime is ... in a different class.

.... How can you say you’re not an “advocate” for it, when you are, in fact, advocating for it? ..... .

Ok, I repent. You're right. In re-reading what I wrote, I see what you're saying. Ok then, let me clarify : ONLY IN THE CASE/CONTEXT OF IT SEEMING TO BE A NON-ISSUE that the O.P. was walking around, and taking pix at the site. Only then do I raise the question of "well gee , if that was a non-issue, why not just m.d. there too ?"

I'm assuming you had no problem with him walking around and taking pix. Right ? That was ok, right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... No one would walk into city hall and say something that stupid.....

Right. Because that's a sure-fire permission killer. Right ? Hence we do NOT define or describe md'ing in those terms ! Right ? AND THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT !

So with this admission from you in mind, go back and re-read #14. In the context of md'ing, those were your exact characterizations of our hobby.

Which, by the way, I don't deny we "dig" and "take things". But .... none of us thinks of it in that light. Because we will leave no damage/trace, and we know that the stuff we're "taking" is unknown and forgotten about by any living person. Ie.: no one's been harmed. As opposed to taking a man's ring off his finger, or his wallet from his back pocket, etc....

 

[pplinker]

I like how Tom says the stuff is "unknown and forgotten" because that is just the truth. I'm going to remember that definition.

 

[flyguy784]

 

[FliesOnly]

well, ... excluding toy-soldier's input, for the moment, for sake of conversation: The "private property" that we speak of here, we shall assume is not of the nature that toy-soldier is talking about. Since that seems to be un-fenced un-posted land, and someone who can't take a scram, etc... Right ? And not something like a mall parking lot or whatever, right ? .

I’m not sure what you’re tryin to get at with your toy-soldier stuff…but the land was posted with a sign stating it was hunt club property. I’m not a lawyer, so I cannot say if walking onto land posted in such a manner constitutes trespassing.

Ok then : In that case, why wasn't the O.P. chided for having (gasp) set foot there to take those pix ? No one bats an eye about that , nor sees the irony. .

Again…it’s not an irony, but I digress. As shown by ToySoldier in posts #18 and #20, he wasn’t trespassing. I’m not sure why you want to exclude his input…it’s pertinent to the whole conversation.

And I know exactly why : Because of our definitions of md'ing vs photography. If we go with your definitions (harmful, taking things, etc...) then yes, your right.

That’s not my definition. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of defining our hobby in such terms.

But I got news for ya : So too should he have not stepped foot there to take a picture. .

Ignoring the idea that he should have been chided for trespassing (cuz…well…we’ve covered that), let’s investigate your concept of equality a bit further. Let’s say that both you and JackDetect97 walk onto the property. He takes a picture and leaves. You metal detect, get a tone, dig up a 1913 Liberty Head V Nickel and take it. You’re telling me those two events are exactly the same? He took a picture. You stole a valuable nickel.

But you and I know full well that whosever land it is (hunting club or whatever) probably didn't give a rat's #ss if someone walked there .

Correct. But you’re not talking about just walking. You want to add in theft.

As evidenced by his simply waltzing out there, as if it were a non-issue, and taking pictures. So depending on how you define md'ing, is whether or not it's as benign and innocuous and harmless and photos.

He took pictures!!! Pictures!!! He did not disturb the soil (except maybe for some footprints and a few compressed grass blades) where as you want to detect, dig a hole, remove objects that you find, fill in the hole…and then leave with your new found booty. How, on god’s green earth can you consider those two activities to be equivalent?

 

[FliesOnly]

Right. Because that's a sure-fire permission killer. Right ? Hence we do NOT define or describe md'ing in those terms ! Right ? AND THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT !

I agree...we do not define md'ing in that manner. So why do you continually accuse me of defining it in that manner?

So with this admission from you in mind, go back and re-read #14. In the context of md'ing, those were your exact characterizations of our hobby.

I wrote post #14. I posted it in its entirety just a few posts above this one…there is no need for me to go back and re-read it…I know exactly what it says.

Which, by the way, I don't deny we "dig" and "take things". But .... none of us thinks of it in that light. Because we will leave no damage/trace, and we know that the stuff we're "taking" is unknown and forgotten about by any living person. Ie.: no one's been harmed.

Wait a second here. You agree with what I said…that we “dig” and “take things"? However, when you say those words they do not become your definition…but when I say them, somehow that become my definition? Just out of curiosity, I looked up the word “hypocrite” online…their definition was simply your picture.

As opposed to taking a man's ring off his finger, or his wallet from his back pocket, etc....

So you’re good with stealing a coin worth over $4,000,000 because it was unknown and forgotten about? Remember, this about "trespassing" onto private property without permission. I take a picture. You take a 4 million dollar coin. Somehow I have a feeling the law would look at those two events as…well…to be dreadfully honest…not equivalent.

 

[FliesOnly]

Flies-only: The subject at hand (and on this forum, that matter), is what ? Metal detecting. Right ? Hence the context of the conversation, in post #14, is about ... drumroll ..... metal detecting. Right ?

Actually, “No". The context of the conversation is about obtaining permission from a landowner before waltzing onto their property and essentially stealing things.

Ok, with that in mind, go back and re-read #14. You see how you are implicitly, given-the-context, defining (well ... including in the actions of doing) as: "digging holes" and "taking things" ?

No, I do not see that because I did not define md’ing in those terms. Do you know what the word "context" actually means?

And you would agree that that sounds, to the casual reader, as somehow creating damage ("holes/digging") and stealing ("taking things") .

I really could not care less how it “sounds” to the casual reader. I like how context is important to you, until such time that context is no longer important to you.

And I agree with you, that if this premise is true, that ... yes... it's not akin to photography. But I'm just trying to point out that both characterizations are always mitigated (which we all do, when beach hunting , park hunting, etc...) . That is: a) we leave no trace , and b) the stuff we're after is unknown to anyone. None of us considers the items we find in the beach or park to be "stealing" or "taking things".

You’re moving the goalposts. This whole discussion centers on the concept of private property.

Ok, I repent. You're right. In re-reading what I wrote, I see what you're saying. Ok then, let me clarify : ONLY IN THE CASE/CONTEXT OF IT SEEMING TO BE A NON-ISSUE that the O.P. was walking around, and taking pix at the site. Only then do I raise the question of "well gee , if that was a non-issue, why not just m.d. there too ?"

Because taking pictures is not the same a md’ing. Honestly, this is really simple, why must you try to justify that which is unjustifiable?

I'm assuming you had no problem with him walking around and taking pix. Right ? That was ok, right ?

I’m not the land owner, it’s not for me to say. What I will say is that him walking around and taking pictures is not equivalent to you md’ing and removing found objects.

 

[FliesOnly]

I like how Tom says the stuff is "unknown and forgotten" because that is just the truth. I'm going to remember that definition.

They may very well be "unknown and forgotten"...but that is not legal justification to waltz onto private property and remove those objects...is it?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

. As shown by ToySoldier in posts #18 and #20, he [the O.P.] wasn’t trespassing. I’m not sure why you want to exclude his input…it’s pertinent to the whole conversation....

Ok, great. He wasn't trespassing. Now we're getting somewhere. And where is that that we're "getting" ? It's to the definition of what's ok to do, in locations where a person is not "trespassing". Agreed ?

....That’s not my definition. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of defining our hobby in such terms....

It most certainly was your definition. Refer to post #30

... You metal detect, get a tone, dig up a 1913 Liberty Head V Nickel and take it. You’re telling me those two events are exactly the same? He took a picture. You stole a valuable nickel. ...

....You want to add in theft.....

Ok, let's go with this set of definitions. Then you would agree that you, as an md'r , is in violation of laws for parks, beaches, etc... that forbid harvest/remove. When the md'r takes the 1913 nickel from that park or beach. Right ? If so, then yes, I agree that .... likewise ... is it equally as terrible for him to remove the 1913 nickel from where he (in your words) wasn't trespassing. Agreed ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... to waltz onto private property ...

strangely enough, the property to-which-you-just said he wasn't trespassing ? (refer to your 2nd paragraph @ post #34, where you agree with Toy-soldier that he either wasn't trespassing, or ... no one cares ? )

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Because taking pictures is not the same a md’ing. Honestly, this is really simple, why must you try to justify that which is unjustifiable? ...

Bingo. And here-in lies the root of our problem: The definition (ie.: level of evil-ness, harmfulness, etc...) of md'ing. If we start with your definitions/characterizations of md'ing, then yes. You're absolutely right.

And then this just begs the question: How then can you do the hobby of md'ing anywhere ? You are likewise (given those definitions) in violation of laws/rules every single place you go. If you doubt me, then list any place you detect, and .... given your definitions, I can find someone, in those locations, who will say that flies-only can no longer detect there. Care to take me up on this bet ?