• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Story that bears repeating

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
20,637
Been many years since I related this true story. But it bears repeating. (And here's a "shout-out" to flies-only. Please tell me your thoughts on this ) :

Starting when I was still in High school, in 1980, a metal detecting club was formed in our city. It was a typical 1x per month club, where 20 to 25-ish guys get together. Have a show & tell, raffle, talk about detectors, blah blah. Very typical of all such detecting clubs of the era. And at each monthly meeting, one of the routines was : If there were any first-time visitors to the club meeting, the moderator would give them the opportunity to stand up & introduce themselves.

At one such meeting, in about 1984-ish (?) I recall that a new person was in attendance. As the meeting came to order, the moderator called on him to introduce himself. He stands up , says his name, and told how his job had moved him to our city in CA. So he was a new resident in the town. Transplanted from the SE states if I recall. He gave a quick bio of the type machine he swings, their CW type hunting in the SE, blah blah. After thanking the group for the warm introduction, he sits back down. And the meeting progresses.

Later, as we moved into the show & tell portion of the club meeting, each member gets a chance at the front to show off their favorite find of the month. Typical geeky md'ing club stuff, where you get their 1 minute of "bragging rights", haha. And then a vote is held, and whoever has the best find gets an extra "atteboy". :roll:

One particular member's turn was at the front podium, showing off an old coin he found . And said ".... found in Central park". At this junction, the newbie raised his hand. The moderator called on him. He stood up for a question :

"I thought md'ing in Central park wasn't allowed" ? :?:

A few of us turned around, looked at him, and said "Since when ?" :?: He said that when he'd first arrived in town, a few weeks earlier, he'd gone to city hall, @ the park's dept. desk, and .... asked. Someone there had told him "no".

Confusion erupted in the room. Several people were concerned that ... perhaps there was a "new rule" that had been enacted ? Because, you see, the parks here (inc. Central park, the oldest biggest park in our town) had simply always/ever been detected .... no problem. I recall people asking him : "Was that just Central park ? Or all the parks in town ?". :?: And there was discussion that we now need to go to city hall getting this clarified. And ... if true, start a solidarity to "overturn this" blah blah.

I was just a young guy in my early 20's at this time. And was merely watching all this from the sidelines. Eventually, a wise-old-salt (who'd been md'ing for 10+ yrs. by that time) interrupted the entire conversation and announces :

"Nonsense. You can detect Central park. DON'T go asking for clarifications. You'll simply open up a can of worms. Trust me, I've detected there for years, and it's a non-issue and no one cares. "

But others in the room took issue with that seemingly careless stance. Saying things like "What do you mean 'no one cares' ? Didn't you hear the fellow ? He got his answer straight from City hall ! And as a club, we're supposed to obey all laws. And be 'one-for-all and all-for-one'. How is it fair that this one fellow can't go, and the rest of us continue going ? Therefore it's our duty , as a club, to get this straightened out".

The debate went on for awhile. And now ... 35-ish yrs. later, I don't even recall the outcome. I can't remember what became of the issue . I don't recall whether anyone ever stopped md'ing there, on account of the fellow's info. Or whether the fellow disregarded the answer, and took the advice of long-timers in the area. Or whether the club went to "seek clarification". I just don't remember what happened after that.

And now ....35-ish years later, you can detect all the parks here, including Central park, until you're blue in the face. Assuming, of course, you're not being a nuisance in some other way, or begging for attention, etc....

To me, this is an example of "No one cared till you asked" psychology at work. It had never even OCCURRED to any of us long-timers, that we needed to "ask", in the first place. It had just simply always/ever been md'd, so .... it was an odd concept that someone had gone in asking "Can I ?".

As the years went on, (this was when the FMDAC was very active, with "coming to a place near you" type scary stories in every newsletter), I began to wonder if the same psychology doesn't manifest itself on larger scales. Eg.: County & state, and even national levels. And any time (up to this day) that I read of places that are now "off-limits", I sometimes wonder if the same evolution isn't at play. As to what-gets-the-ball-rolling.

I have no idea if the fellow did or didn't have a "million dollar smile" when he asked. I have no idea how he phrased the question. Or how the exact answer was phrased as a "no" to him. This story is just a micro-example of what I feel can happen on larger scales (and I have many larger-scale accounts of the same inescapable evolution !).
 
Last edited:
...

And now ....35-ish years later, you can detect all the parks here, including Central park, until you're blue in the face. Assuming, of course, you're not being a nuisance in some other way, or begging for attention, etc...
But I thought asking always led to denial of access? It's what you tell us over and over and over again. I mean, you just shot down your own argument.
 
But I thought asking always led to denial of access? It's what you tell us over and over and over again. I mean, you just shot down your own argument.


Good answer.

So: The fact that .... nothing ever became of it means that : "Therefore, it was a good thing he asked". Right ? He (in eventual actual effect) wasn't denied". Therefore, it "was a good thing he asked" . Right ?

Just making sure I understand you correctly.

And ... strangely, his "asking" , did indeed, result in "denial of access". So I'm having a bit or a problem following your trail-of-logic . :shrug:
 
Good answer.
Thanks.

So: The fact that .... nothing ever became of it means that : "Therefore, it was a good thing he asked". Right ? He (in eventual actual effect) wasn't denied". Therefore, it "was a good thing he asked" . Right ?
No harm, no foul

Just making sure I understand you correctly.
Why start now?

And ... strangely, his "asking" , did indeed, result in "denial of access". So I'm having a bit or a problem following your trail-of-logic . :shrug:
I'm not surprised you're having a problem following my logic, considering that within this very post, you admit that there was no "denial of access", and also claim that there was a "denial of access".


Now, I'm sure you're going to saying something about how that guy, 35 years ago, was "denied access", but we both know that he was denied access that one time, and that what we have been discussing here (and elsewhere) are locations shutting it down for everyone permanently...so let's not be disingenuous.
 
..... you admit that there was no "denial of access", and also claim that there was a "denial of access". ...

re-read the account, that I was witness to. And you'll see that ... yes ... he was "denied access".

The eventual ability (to-this-day) to have ability to md that park, was via MY PHILOSOPHY (ie.: don't ask "can I?" questions). It was not via your philosophy (asking "can I ?" questions).

So to whatever extent we can agree that .... md'ing at this spot is not-an-issue today, is NOT because of the person asking. If anything, his "asking" put that in jeopardy . Not advanced or caused it.

See ?


..... are locations shutting it down for everyone permanently....

Bear in mind, that ... you know .... this was a micro-example , of what happens elsewhere. Naturally .... this might not have any impact on the next city, or the county or state level, blah blah. It was only meant to show the human psychology of "pressing issues" getting "safe answers". And to illustrate, by this example, of how such balls-get-rolling, in other locations , and/or on other scales.
 
I live by the adage; if you don’t think your gonna like the answer don’t ask the question.
 
re-read the account, that I was witness to. And you'll see that ... yes ... he was "denied access".
Were you denied access? Was anyone else denied access?
Look, I’m only pointing out that your example doesn’t actually support your claim. You keep telling us that “asking permission” gets that place shut down…that “asking permission” results in some pencil pushing bureaucrat getting the place closed off to detecting. Yet, by your own admission, that did not happen here. Someone asked (and yes, they were told “no”), but the place was not closed off to detecting then, and still hasn’t been to this day…35 years later.

But of course, you still did just exactly as I predicted and used a “one person, temporary denial” to somehow or another support your larger claim of permanent denial of access for everyone. Being disingenuous doesn’t help your case.




The eventual ability (to-this-day) to have ability to md that park, was via MY PHILOSOPHY (ie.: don't ask "can I?" questions). It was not via your philosophy (asking "can I ?" questions).
My “method” did not get me, nor anyone else, banned from detecting in the parks around where I live. Actually, my method resulted in me getting written “permission”, stating that I can keep what I find (with obvious exceptions) despite and BECAUSE you kept telling me that the park has “wording” in the rules/regulations that prevents me from keeping what I find. I copied what you said and included it in my email. I was told, essentially, that your interpretation was ridiculous and that of course I can keep what I find, since…well…since that’s sort of the point behind detecting in the first place. Without asking, I never would have received written “permission” to keep what I find. Thanks for the suggestion.




So to whatever extent we can agree that .... md'ing at this spot is not-an-issue today, is NOT because of the person asking. If anything, his "asking" put that in jeopardy . Not advanced or caused it.
You have no way of knowing this. It’s quite possible that the person who denied access [to your detecting compatriot] went “up the chain of command” in a ploy to get detecting banned from the park(s) permanently, but instead was met with opposition and essentially was told that the parks are public property and activities such as metal detecting will be allowed (with obvious, certain restrictions). His attempt to get the activity banned therefore may very well have strengthened and reinforced the rules and accessibility of the park to metal detecting.




Bear in mind, that ... you know .... this was a micro-example , of what happens elsewhere. Naturally .... this might not have any impact on the next city, or the county or state level, blah blah. It was only meant to show the human psychology of "pressing issues" getting "safe answers". And to illustrate, by this example, of how such balls-get-rolling, in other locations , and/or on other scales.
But your example didn’t do any of this.
 
.....Were you denied access? Was anyone else denied access? ......

uhh, what do you call a "no", coming straight from city hall ? I'd say that is/was "denied access". Wouldn't you ? And do you think that only applied to HIM ? I know the fastest way to find out. And I'm sure you would agree. It would have been for you-and-or-I to have rushed down there and ask. Right ? Eg.: "Hello. Does that no mean only him ? Or does it include me and the rest of the club as well ?". Right ? After all, it's our duty to find out the clear answer. Right ? :?:

.....but the place was not closed off to detecting then, and still hasn’t been to this day…35 years later......

And guess why ? Because people disregarded the "no" they heard about.

The "no" only put the place in jeapardy. And ... if we'd gone to "seek clarification" and " form a solidarity to overturn it", guess where that could have gone ?

....exactly as I predicted and used a “one person, temporary denial” to somehow or another support your larger claim of permanent denial of access for everyone. Being disingenuous doesn’t help your case.......

Aaaahh, then exactly as I predicted too :) That any example, I could give, would be relegated to : A unique example that is not repeated anywhere else. Ie.: It would not represent a recurring psychology. Right ? And so-too, if I gave another 20+ examples of this, then : They too would be seen, by you, as being unique flukes. Right ?

..... Without asking, I never would have received written “permission” to keep what I find......

And again I say: 1) Congrats on your success , so far, in Russian Roulette, and 2) The mere fact that you got a "yes", simply means it was already allowed (and thus .... no 'permission' needed) in the first place.

.... His attempt to get the activity banned......

....But your example didn’t do any of this. ......

Huh ?? How do you spin it in such a way ?? To my memory, he was doing exactly as you espouse, with all sincerity : Going in to city halls, wherever he came to , and asking "HI, can I metal detect in the parks here ?" How in the world you spin his intentions or the story to anything else .... just goes to show me that even when/if I show you 20 similar encounters/outcomes , you will likewise dismiss all 20 of them. Right ?
 
uhh, what do you call a "no", coming straight from city hall ? I'd say that is/was "denied access". Wouldn't you ?
Yes…to him and him alone, and maybe not even technically to him. If the park was/is open to metal detecting (as you admit that it was and still is), then he was provided with incorrect information, and therefore wasn’t actually “banned” from detecting.




And do you think that only applied to HIM ?
Apparently it didn’t apply to anyone.




And guess why ? Because people disregarded the "no" they heard about.
Because it wasn’t actually true.



The "no" only put the place in jeapardy.
Again, you don’t know this. As I explained (and which you, of course, ignored), it’s also plausible that his asking actually led to a confirmation of the rules/regulations and perhaps even strengthened the right to detect in the park. After all, it’s been 35 years and you can still detect there. My hypothesis therefore seems waaaaay more plausible than does yours.



And ... if we'd gone to "seek clarification" and " form a solidarity to overturn it", guess where that could have gone ?
To clarification?




Aaaahh, then exactly as I predicted too :) That any example, I could give, would be relegated to : A unique example that is not repeated anywhere else. Ie.: It would not represent a recurring psychology. Right ? And so-too, if I gave another 20+ examples of this, then : They too would be seen, by you, as being unique flukes. Right ?
Look, I’m sorry that your own example did not conform to the premise you’ve been pushing. In all likelihood “he” was given false information and should not have been told he cannot detect. The park was not shut down as a whole to metal detecting. You can still detect there to this day. So how, in the name of everything holy, does that example in anyway support your premise that “asking permission” results in the park being closed to detecting?






Huh ?? How do you spin it in such a way ??
I don’t have to “spin it”. Your example doesn’t support your premise, which is that asking permission results in the park being closed to metal detecting. You constantly claim that asking permission of some "pencil push bureaucrat' will lead to a cascade of events, and then “POOF”, metal detecting is denied in the park. So lets see if your example fits that premise.

1. Was he denied access? Apparently he was, but he should not have been. He was provided with false information

2. Was anyone else denied access? No.

3. Was the park shut down to metal detecting? No.

4. Can you still detect there to this day? Yes.

5. Does you example fit your premise? No.

See, there’s no need for me to spin it at all.





How in the world you spin his intentions or the story to anything else ....
I didn’t.
 
.... then he was provided with incorrect information,...


Flies-only : I'm sure you would agree that there is often-time "ancillary language" (eg.: "Catch-all verbiage) that can-indeed be used to result in a "no md'ing" edict. Right ? There doesn't need to be a specific "No md'ing" rule, for someone to scram us, or say "no" to us. Right ?

They can rely on verbiage about "alter" and "deface", for example. Or "harvest & remove". Right ? Of course we can debate them, and .... maybe-get-them to change their mind. But .... let's be perfectly honest : We're probably going to be on the loosing end of those debates. Because, ... yes ...we "dig" and we "take things". Thus we can very much fall under those catch-all rules.

Thus he was not necessarily given "incorrect information". The "powers-that-be", that he approached, were/are indeed within their powers to decide that such things apply.

So all I'm saying is : Why even put it on their plate, as a "pressing decision" to have to make .... (that could conjure up images of geeks with shovels) in the first place ?

....2. Was anyone else denied access? No.

And guess why ? : Because they didn't ask silly questions like that fellow did. They followed my stance, not yours.
 
As the years went on, (this was when the FMDAC was very active, with "coming to a place near you" type scary stories in every newsletter), I began to wonder if the same psychology doesn't manifest itself on larger scales. Eg.: County & state, and even national levels. And any time (up to this day) that I read of places that are now "off-limits", I sometimes wonder if the same evolution isn't at play. As to what-gets-the-ball-rolling.

Just for grins I thought I'd tell you what they told me back when I was a wanna be cop at the academy. They explained there are three types of laws.

1. Statutory Law
2. Common Law
3. Whatever the Judge says Law

I used to be a "black and white" type of gal, either it was legal or no, it was not. It never occurred to me to apply this to other government employees until recently, after dealing with many frustrating multiple govt. agencies, that this "whatever I say law" follows for many of our so-called civil servants.

Now that I've had many, many recent dealings with those multitude of civil servants in various departments in various types of government entities, I've come to the conclusion that yes, if you ask, you're asking someone to make a decision that they probably haven't the actual authority to make. Because of this, if they don't know the actual answer *the law chapter and verse* chances are they will say NO just to play it safe and cover their hindquarters.

Just my observation over the past couple of years... Not saying ask, not saying don't, but if you do, at least ask the person with actual authority and knowledge to give the actual correct answer.
 
.... frustrating multiple govt. agencies, that this "whatever I say law" follows for many of our so-called civil servants.....

Thanx for chiming in BBS-gal.

I used to think that the phenomenon, that you allude to, is arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. I mean.... doesn't there need to be a specific law forbidding something in order to say "no", or "scram" ?

But the more I studied it, the more I understood it: Duly appointed public servants (cops, ranger, gardener, etc...) CAN INDEED interpret catch-all grey laws, to fit as-they-see-fit. Because: There's simply no way to make laws/rules to address every conceivable thing that might-come-up in the field. That's why there are vague laws that, for example, that forbid "annoyances ".

If cops didn't have this latitude, then Yahoo's would forever be debating semantics, in the field. And cops couldn't get their jobs done.


So while it may seem capricious and corrupting, yet: There's rhyme and reason, when you think of it.
 
Had a friend ask permission in a location I know is off limits to detecting. They denied him of coarse. Then he asked if he could fly his drone. Absolutely not! I’ve seen a lot of videos from drones come from this location. Now I’m sure guys will get busted for flying their drones because the authorities will be alerted to that very serious infraction!
 
Thanx for chiming in BBS-gal.
...

If cops didn't have this latitude, then Yahoo's would forever be debating semantics, in the field. And cops couldn't get their jobs done.


So while it may seem capricious and corrupting, yet: There's rhyme and reason, when you think of it.

You're welcome, and yup!
 
Flies-only : I'm sure you would agree that there is often-time "ancillary language" (eg.: "Catch-all verbiage) that can-indeed be used to result in a "no md'ing" edict. Right ? There doesn't need to be a specific "No md'ing" rule, for someone to scram us, or say "no" to us. Right ?
Yes, many, if not all, parks probably have wording in their rules/regulations relating to what can and cannot be done in the park.




They can rely on verbiage about "alter" and "deface", for example. Or "harvest & remove". Right ? Of course we can debate them, and .... maybe-get-them to change their mind. But .... let's be perfectly honest : We're probably going to be on the loosing end of those debates. Because, ... yes ...we "dig" and we "take things". Thus we can very much fall under those catch-all rules.
Perhaps. Remember that you brought this very thing up in another discussion we were having, and as a direct result of that conversation, I asked (god forbid!!) the person in charge of the park I was interested in, how their “verbiage” applied to metal detecting. Included in my email was your assessment of why I could be denied access to detect based on the rules/regulations about defacing property, or digging holes, or removing items. I was essentially told that your assessment was ridiculous and was additionally told that I could, of course, keep what I find, otherwise why would I bother to detect in the first place.




Thus he was not necessarily given "incorrect information". The "powers-that-be", that he approached, were/are indeed within their powers to decide that such things apply.
Well, since detecting is actually allowed there...to this day…35 years later…I feel pretty confident in stating, unequivocally, that he was given incorrect information. Besides, I’m not so sure that some college kid with a weekend job of “manning the gate” has the powers to interpret the rules/regulations in any manner they deem worthy. Plus, if they do deny you access based on that type of wording, why not go above their head and ask for clarification from the person(s) in charge of the parks…like I did? I mean, it worked perfectly for me. Heck, I even keep a printed copy of her response it in my car.
Honey and Vinegar, Tom…honey and vinegar.




So all I'm saying is : Why even put it on their plate, as a "pressing decision" to have to make .... (that could conjure up images of geeks with shovels) in the first place ?
Because it’s entirely possible that the person requesting access cannot find the rules/regulations about the park in question, or maybe they want clarification about what can and cannot be done in the park because some dude in California told him that he’s not allowed to remove the things he finds from the park? I mean, there are a plethora of reasons why someone might ask if detecting is allowed in the park.




And guess why ? : Because they didn't ask silly questions like that fellow did.
Man-o-man, if only everyone were as brilliant as you, and knew the answer to every possible question before it was even asked…what a better World we would live in.
Also, you have no way of knowing whether or not anyone else has ever asked if detecting in that park is allowed. I would wager, actually, that the likelihood that others have asked for permission over the last 35 years is pretty high…like close to 100%...and yet detecting is still allowed. How odd, yes? I mean, “asking permission” always results in getting parks shut down, doesn’t it?




They followed my stance, not yours.
Of course, you really don’t know whether or not this is even true.
But more importantly, it doesn’t matter if others asked or not. Facts are facts. It’s been 35 years and detecting is still allowed, so your premise does not hold.
 
..... your assessment of why I could be denied access to detect based on the rules/regulations about defacing property, or digging holes, or removing items. I was essentially told that your assessment was ridiculous and was additionally told that I could, of course, keep what I find, otherwise why would I bother to detect in the first place......

And as I have always said : Congratz on your success @ Russian Roulette. The fact that you were "told" those things, merely means they were already allowed. And thus: That you didn't need-to-have-asked. And ... as I've said, if you care to give me the name of that agency, I'll bet that .... with a few phone calls and emails and correct wording .... I can get your permission promptly revoked.

.... that he was given incorrect information....

Hmm, Interesting. Assuming that if the "debate-had-continued" : Re.: Whether or not a place was off-limits now. Then .... what would be the best way to resolve it ? Hmmm , let me guess what the "next step " is : Go ask the powers-that-be. Right ? Who better-to-ask, than-the-persons with the right-to-decide. Right ?

And if you agree with this method of clarifying, then ... are you beginning to see the self-fulfilling vicious loop ? (barring success in Russian Roulette, that is).

... why not go above their head and ask for clarification from the person(s) in charge....

Ahhh, I was correct in my assessment of your "next step". Right ?

.....Because it’s entirely possible that the person requesting access cannot find the rules/regulations about the park in question.....

Then they can ask where the rules-for-the-public are listed, in print, for public consumption. Because, certainly rules and laws are written somewhere. Right ? They're not secret. Right ?

......actually, that the likelihood that others have asked for permission over the last 35 years is pretty high.....

Odd that you would acknowledge this. Because with the advent of solidarity groups (who put out "dire stories" left and right), and with the advent of the internet (where "dire-stories" lead to links, which lead-to-links) I have often wondered whether or not it's not a self-fulfilling phenomenon. And it seems that you are acknowledging that, yes, .... the odds are "pretty high".

.... like close to 100%...and yet detecting is still allowed. How odd, yes?.....

Good point. And like my first-hand-account-story in this O.P., it appears that "No rule was invented". And in many other accounts of the last 35 to 40 yrs., of similar "scrams" or "no's", I can likewise relate how .... "nothing ever became of it". So by your reckoning, therefore: Asking never has any repercussions . Right ? It's harmless and doesn't result in someone(s) "inventing rules" to address "pressing issues". Right ?

I agree that .... if no one continued to "swat hornets nests" in "individual locations", then yes: Perhaps the issue is forgotten. And the individual person who passed out the "no" has perhaps retired. And no law-or-rule ever came forth. But .... that is merely the luck of Russian Roulette.

If you doubt me, then .... I can give you another case-in-point where .... it's clear-to-see (the unavoidable evolution of connect-the-dots) where asking did-indeed result in a solidified written policy/rule. Do you care to take a crack at another account ?
 
Last edited:
… The fact that you were "told" those things, merely means they were already allowed. And thus: That you didn't need-to-have-asked.
Yes and No. At one location, I probably didn’t need to ask. At another location I could not find any online information stating one way or another on the topic, so asking was route I chose. At a third location, I didn’t need to ask about detecting because I had a permit to do so. However, I did feel the need to clarify whether or not I could keep what I found, based on your interpretation of verbiage in the rules/regulations. And I did so only to prove a point to YOU…the guy that said I could be prevented from keeping what I find, or maybe even be denied the right to detect altogether based on some “verbiage” in their rules/regulations…that you were incorrect.




And ... as I've said, if you care to give me the name of that agency, I'll bet that .... with a few phone calls and emails and correct wording .... I can get your permission promptly revoked.
So you agree…acting like a d-bag can get you banned from detecting. We’re finally making progress here.





Hmm, Interesting. Assuming that the "debate-continued" : Re.: Whether or not a place was off-limits now. Then .... what would be the best way to resolve it ? Hmmm , let me guess what the "next step " is : Go ask the powers-that-be. Right ? Who better-to-ask, than-the-persons with the right-to-decide. Right ?
Sure, I guess. I mean, do keep in mind that the “asking of permission” has already occurred, so that’s water under the bridge. If I received that denial, am I totally expected to “take one for the team” and not go up the chain of command to get clarification, less everyone gets shut down?





And if you agree with this method of clarifying, then ... are you beginning to see the self-fulfilling vicious loop ?
What other method of clarifying is there? Again, remember that in this example, the “asking the permission” has already occurred.




Ahhh, I was correct in my assessment of your "next step". Right ?
Not really. What you are doing, however, is once again being disingenuous. When I said to “go above their head and ask for clarification” it was in regards to specifically being told “You cannot keep what you find” based on verbiage in their rules/regulations about “Doing Damage”, or “Removing Items”, or “Digging Holes”, etc. And I only brought THAT up because you are the one who told me that they could shut me down based on that verbiage. So I went to the top person, for clarification, and was told it is OK to keep what I find. I already knew I had permission (since I needed a permit), so all you’ve done here is taken my words out of context so you can try to support an unsupportable position.






Then they can ask where the rules-for-the-public are listed, in print, for public consumption… …Right ?
Yes, they can. We’ve been over this.
Look, your whole argument really doesn’t make any sense. Lets’ say I do as you suggest. I ask the “pencil pushing bureaucrat” (PPB) at the gate for a copy of their rules/regulations. He politely asks what it is I want to know, and I Stick to my guns and say: “to see the rules and regulations of the park.” The PPB probably thinks to himself: “Geez, what d-bag” but nonetheless provides with a copy of the rules/regulations. I can’t find anything about detecting be disallowed so I whip it out and start looking around.
So, what you’re telling me is, is that since I didn’t ask for permission, all is good? You’re honestly suggesting that if the PPB sees me detecting he will think to himself: “Gosh darn it, if only that guy would have asked me what it was he wanted to know, I could have prevented him from detecting.” “Lucky for him he stuck to his guns and I could only provide him with a copy of our rules/regulations.” “Man, I guess I messed that one up, if only I could have gotten him to ask if detecting was allowed, then I could have closed down detecting to everyone…so close…so close”.



Odd that you would acknowledge this. Because with the advent of solidarity groups (who put out "dire stories" left and right), and with the advent of the internet (where "dire-stories" lead to links, which lead-to-links) I have often wondered whether or not it's not a self-fulfilling phenomenon. And it seems that you are acknowledging that, yes, .... the odds are "pretty high".
I’m saying that the odds are high that others have asked for permission to detect at the very park you are referring to in the story. And yet, detecting is still allowed. So I’m confused…what is it that is odd for me to have acknowledged?






Good point. And like my first-hand-account-story in this O.P., it appears that "No rule was invented". And in many other accounts of the last 35 to 40 yrs., of similar "scrams" or "no's", I can likewise relate how .... "nothing ever became of it". [/I]
Ummmm…ok…so you’re admitting to multiple of examples that actually go against your own premise…that “asking permission” results in detecting getting banned? Thanks.





So by your reckoning[/I], therefore: Asking never has any repercussions . Right ? It's harmless and doesn't result in someone(s) "inventing rules" to address "pressing issues". Right ?
Nope…never said that.





I agree that .... if no one continued to "swat hornets nests" in "individual locations", then yes: Perhaps the issue is forgotten. And the individual person who passed out the "no" has perhaps retired. And no law-or-rule ever came forth. But .... that is merely the luck of Russian Roulette.
So says you. You do know that simply repeating something over and over and over again doesn’t magically make it become true, yes?






If you doubt me, then .... I can give you another case-in-point where .... it's clear-to-see (the unavoidable evolution of connect-the-dots) where asking did-indeed result in a solidified written policy/rule.
You used the word “another”, implying that you’ve already provided at least one example. Is that one in another thread, because the one in this thread, as I have shown repeatedly, does not, in fact, support your premise?
I showed just that waaaay back in post #10. Here’s what said:
”So let’s see if your example fits that premise.

1. Was he denied access? Apparently he was, but he should not have been. He was provided with false information

2. Was anyone else denied access? No.

3. Was the park shut down to metal detecting? No.

4. Can you still detect there to this day? Yes.

5. Does you example fit your premise? No.

See, there’s no need for me to spin it at all.”
To which you only addressed point #2…and even then only did so with more of your opinions, but no actual proof.







Do you care to take a crack at another account ?
Will it support your premise? I only ask because this one doesn’t, and we’ve been going back and forth about it for a while. I mean, if you have actual proof, then I will gladly concede and admit that your “example” did indeed result in a ban on all detecting. I would hope for actual proof though…not just your opinion(s).
 
Back
Top Bottom