Flies-only: I'm not anti-government. But I'd like to make an observation on this statement/concept:
This seems to infer that: Because you got "yes ('s)", ... that
Therefore this means that asking was necessary and proper.
I notice you love to infer meaning into everything I write, rather than just taking the entirety of my statement in context. Look, simply because I got a “yes”, in no way infers that therefore my question was necessary and proper. But, as usual, they only way your response fits is if your “inference” is correct. Everything with you seems like a dichotomy…it’s always “if this, then this”, which seemingly ignores so many other potential explanations.
I asked in person because:
A) Often times, trying to find all the [potential] rules and regulations online, can be difficult.
B) The location I was inquiring about was literally across the street from the Gov offices, and I would
pass right by those offices on my way to that location.
C) I’m a people person. I like talking with people. I’m a friendly, outgoing kinda guy.
D) I don’t think the Gov is out to screw everyone.
Right ? Because, if it had not been necessary and proper to ask, they would have answered something like this :
"Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me? If it's not disallowed, then you don't need my say-so "
Where do you come up with this stuff. Your whole argument hinges on all of your rather silly inferences and premises being correct. That is to say, the only way your response makes sense is IF, it is indeed factually correct, that my question was “necessary and proper”. But there’s absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to make that assumption. My question may very well not have been necessary, because, as you state, the “rules” may very well have been available online. But, as it turned out, I could not find that “rule” on their webpage, so I stopped by and asked. So while my inquiry may not have been necessary in hindsight, because md’ing is allowed, me not knowing whether or not it is allowed, however, made it a question that I did want to have answered.
We both know that md’ing is NOT allowed in numerous places. We both know that if a police officer or park ranger see’s you detecting in an area where it is not allowed, that there may be some negative ramifications as a result. My inquiry, then, was a reasonable course of [preventative] action. The “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission” mindset doesn’t really help when your equipment is confiscated and you face a hefty fine. Trying to avoid that situation seems like a smart move, no?
But do you really think anyone in authority and position of power ever answers like that?
Of course not…I never said anyone would answer like that, so why are you asking me if I think they would? Once again, your response is essentially a response to your own assumption, and not based in any way on anything I have said. You’re essentially arguing with yourself.
I'm glad that you got repeated yes answers. But there is an equal number of stories of people who got "no'", simply on whimsical "safe answer " rationales. In places where.... quite frankly, it was never a problem before that.
You do realize that there being "an equal number of stories" means that there is only one other story of someone who got a “whimsical, safe answer”?
I assume you meant to say that there are numerous examples of people being “whimsically told no”…so the remainder of my response will be based on that assumption. So anyway, maybe so…I have no factual basis to argue that position. But I will point out that I have not personally read of anyone confirming your claim.
This is a valid conversation. The "roots" of authority (whether via votes, and spending efficiency issues aside) is a non-issue.
