Story that bears repeating

FliesOnly said:

..... 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”....... .

Click to expand...

F-O : In the above example, it is premised on the mental-image of a fellow (the "PPB") driving by, and taking issue with the image of a man with a detector. Right ? Eg.: He thinks "Me oh my, he might leave holes and take things. Thus he was being a D-bag when he asked for the rules/laws" Right ?

And: I'm the first-to-admit that ... yes ... there are-indeed passerbys (perhaps PPB's) that ... yes ... MAY IN FACT think those things. After all, we "dig" and we "take things". Right ? This is especially true in nice manicured turf, where .... the images of "holes" can be very pronounced. So .... we agree on this potential passerby-lookie-lou-nosy-parker potential issue. Right ?

But here's what I'm saying :

1) Even if/when you "found the rules/laws" on-your-own (with no help from PPB's), and saw nothing in there that mentions md'ing : You can STILL run-afoul of that same passerby lookie-lou. Right ?

2) Even if/when you got a PPB to say "yes" to you (if/when you "asked permission"), you can STILL run-afoul of a different passerby-lookie-lou. And if you whip out your "permission" (from the singular PPB), the griper can simply get on his cell-phone, call down to city hall and say ".... but he's tearing the place up" (which isn't true, of course). I've heard of this happening.

3) For example: The person who got permission to detect, but failed to mention "dig". A cop tries to scram them. The md'r proudly whips out their "permission". The permission is promptly revoked. And the md'r is chastised/reprimanded for "getting permission under false pretenses" . And "mincing words", for failing to mention "dig" and "holes".

4) To-the-extent that it's possible that your "permission" does indeed "deflect" the passer-by-griper, yet .... on the other hand .... it's equal "Russian Roulette" ("RR") that you could get a "no", before even-starting (as in my O.P. story). Yes , I'm not denying the possible "success" (as in your case) of the RR. But I think you can't deny the potential failure of the RR , as well in my O.P. case. Right ?

5) As for this quote of yours

FliesOnly said:

"....sees me detecting...."..

Click to expand...

That is ... uh .... very telling. Because, I think that you and I can agree that .... in a city of 200,000, that there is perhaps 2 or 3 that might "take issue" with md'ing in the park (assuming no specific "no md'ing" rule). Right ? To which no-amount of grovelling will solve a nosy-parker. That would be : a) the local archie, b) the gardener of that particular park, or c) someone having a bad-hair-day. Right ? I mean, let's be totally honest and admit that .... the average passer-by (the other 199,997 people) could care less. Right ? Hence, who is it , "that cares " ? That "sees you or I detecting", and makes a fuss ? VERY VERY FEW PEOPLE (I hope we can agree). Assuming, as I say, that we're talking routine benign run-of-mill parks. Not sensitive monuments, or actual rules.

Ok, is it yours and my duty to get every-last-person, in that town of 200k, to "sign off on you" ? If that premise is true, then yes, everything you're saying DOES INDEED logically follow. Ie.: heaven forbid that someone doesn't like something your or I did in life. Right ?

I'm not so sure I agree with this premise. I'm not saying that I don't WISH that "every last person in my town" didn't "roll out red carpets" for me. I really really wish they would and did. I would be so-much-more comfortable, knowing that I had everyone's blessings. Or ... is it possible, .... that you can choose low traffic times and avoid those singular rare lookie-lous ?

But the question is: Is this possible to please everyone in a city of 200k ? And the question is: If it's true that only 3 people, in a town of 200k "cared less", then .... what are the odds that those individual PPB's would be happen-chance passing by ? Or .... like nose-picking .... can't we frickin' be a little discreet in our timing ? Or it is our obligation to get everyone to agree that it's legal to nose-pick ?

And bear in mind, that there is ample cases of those PPB's who had never thought of the issue before, till it landed on their desk for approval. And .... faced with the "pressing issue", could indeed have passed out a safe "no". In that case, then guess what their subconscious reaction will be, next time they're passing by the park and see an md'r ? They'll recall the earlier inquiry, and think "aha ! there's one of THEM" And start booting others. I've seen this happen before !

FliesOnly said:

......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). ......

Click to expand...

I am willing to try to give you an example, that I think will satisfy the criteria that you paint. Ie.: Instead of a "nothing ever became of it" (thus you will dismiss it), I have an example of where a rule/policy DID IN FACT "become of it".

But I need your promise ahead of time that you will not simply dismiss it . As being exclusive to "just that one place" or was "built up angst that would have happened anyhow", or "how do I know you're not just making this up", blah blah blah. If you summarily dismiss what I tell you, as a fluke, never repeating, or that the evolution didn't-lead-to-the-outcome, then ..... what good is it that I give you the example I have in mind ?

I need your assurance , of what qualifies as proof, to you. Lest any proof I give you, simply be dismissed as "not good enough" or "flukes".

It has been my experience if you think in the back of your mind that it’s not allowed, then by conscience you should ask. Now being a veteran law enforcement officer, I have seen how asking can sometimes get you a no answer, but in the same instance it could be one park employee who says no, but doesn’t actually make the rules, and isn’t the one who makes the rules, he simply just doesn’t want you doing it because you might kill the grass. Here in a few places in Arkansas the Parks dept try to use that scenario if it’s over 100 years old you can’t take it. Well how are we to know with 100%!certainty that it’s going to be that old.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tom_in_CA said:

…Thus he was being a D-bag when he asked for the rules/laws"[/I] Right ?

Click to expand...

NO! Asking for a copy of the rules/regulations is fine. I’ve done it myself. He was being a d-bag when he was politely asked what it was he wanted to know…but "stuck to his guns" and simply repeated the same request. He was a d-bag when he came across as someone not wanting the PPB to know what is was he wanted to do in the park. Honestly, why must you continually take things I write out of context?

Tom_in_CA said:

And: I'm the first-to-admit that ... yes ... there are-indeed passerbys (perhaps PPB's) that ... yes ... MAY IN FACT think those things. After all, we "dig" and we "take things". Right ? This is especially true in nice manicured turf, where .... the images of "holes" can be very pronounced. So .... we agree on this potential passerby-lookie-lou-nosy-parker potential issue. Right ?

Click to expand...

Sure.

Tom_in_CA said:

But here's what I'm saying :
1) Even if/when you "found the rules/laws" on-your-own (with no help from PPB's), and saw nothing in there that mentions md'ing : You can STILL run-afoul of that same passerby lookie-lou. Right ?

Click to expand...

Yes…that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you for weeks now.

Tom_in_CA said:

2) Even if/when you got a PPB to say "yes" to you (if/when you "asked permission"), you can STILL run-afoul of a different passerby-lookie-lou.

Click to expand...

Yes…that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you for weeks now.

Tom_in_CA said:

And if you whip out your "permission" (from the singular PPB), the griper can simply get on his cell-phone, call down to city hall and say ".... but he's tearing the place up" (which isn't true, of course). I've heard of this happening.

Click to expand...

I suppose. But you do realize that this argument supports what I’ve been trying to tell you for weeks now, yes?

Tom_in_CA said:

4) To-the-extent that it's possible that your "permission" does indeed "deflect" the passer-by-griper, yet .... on the other hand .... it's equal "Russian Roulette" ("RR") that you could get a "no", before even-starting (as in my O.P. story). Yes , I'm not denying the possible "success" (as in your case) of the RR. But I think you can't deny the potential failure of the RR , as well in my O.P. case. Right ?

Click to expand...

Sure, I admit that. I’ve never actually denied that. What I’m saying, however, is that “asking permission” in and of itself, plays a very small, almost insignificant role in getting the park shut down to detecting.

Tom_in_CA said:

5) As for this quote of yours That is ... uh .... very telling. Because, I think that you and I can agree that .... in a city of 200,000, that there is perhaps 2 or 3 that might "take issue" with md'ing in the park (assuming no specific "no md'ing" rule). Right ?

Click to expand...

Ummm...providing me with PIDOOMY numbers really doesn’t mean anything.

Tom_in_CA said:

I mean, let's be totally honest and admit that .... the average passer-by (the other 199,997 people) could care less. Right ?

Click to expand...

Again, PIDOOMA numbers are meaningless.

Tom_in_CA said:

Hence, who is it , "that cares " ? That "sees you or I detecting", and makes a fuss ? VERY VERY FEW PEOPLE (I hope we can agree). Assuming, as I say, that we're talking routine benign run-of-mill parks. Not sensitive monuments, or actual rules.

Click to expand...

See previous two responses.

Tom_in_CA said:

Ok, is it yours and my duty to get every-last-person, in that town of 200k, to "sign off on you" ?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Tom_in_CA said:

I am willing to try to give you an example, that I think will satisfy the criteria that you paint. Ie.: Instead of a "nothing ever became of it" (thus you will dismiss it), I have an example of where a rule/policy DID IN FACT "become of it".

Click to expand...

Awesome.

Tom_in_CA said:

But I need your promise ahead of time that you will not simply dismiss it .

Click to expand...

You want me to give you assurances that I will simply accept and believe what you write?
Look, you don’t have a very good track record of supplying actual facts to support your claims. What I will assure you of, however, is that I will objectively read whatever you write, approaching it with an open mind and a willingness to accept your findings, if actual proof is provided to support what it is that you are trying to tell me.

Tom_in_CA said:

As being exclusive to "just that one place" or was "built up angst that would have happened anyhow", or "how do I know you're not just making this up", blah blah blah.

Click to expand...

I never said you were making it up. What I have said repeatedly, however, is that the example you provided did not support your hypothesis.

Tom_in_CA said:

If you summarily dismiss what I tell you, as a fluke, never repeating, or that the evolution didn't-lead-to-the-outcome, then ..... what good is it that I give you the example I have in mind ?

Click to expand...

I don’t think you fundamentally understand what it is I have been trying to tell you…and I don’t know why that is, because I feel that I have been abundantly clear on this.
It is you contention that “swatting the hornet’s nest” (i.e. someone asking if metal detecting is allowed) results in a cascade of events, such that in short order metal detecting has been banned from the premises.
What I’m telling you is, is that if you think about that, it actually makes very little sense. In order for “asking permission” to be the leading cause that gets us banned [because some PPB took it upon himself to gasp in utter contempt for a hobby the results in holes being dug and items being taken], then one additionally has to assume that he, along with anyone else that may view our hobby in that same light, had never seen someone metal detecting in the park before that now, infamous, day.

You’re essentially asking us to just accept that the notion of “no one cared until someone asked” is actually true. And again, that makes no sense whatsoever. For that to be the case, then you want me to believe that in all the years prior to “that day”, no one noticed and no one cared that people were metal detecting in the park. And furthermore, you want me to just accept that on “that day”, the PPB found out for the first time ever, that people were metal detecting in the park. And I’m sorry, but that just seems too farfetched to be even remotely plausible.

So, if indeed you notice what you truly believe to be a cause and effect relationship between someone asking permission, and then the park suddenly being closed off to detecting, then…as I have said repeatedly…then there had to have been some other underlying factors that led to the ban. It’s just inconceivable that no one cared until “that dude” asked.

Tom_in_CA said:

I need your assurance , of what qualifies as proof, to you. Lest any proof I give you, simply be dismissed as "not good enough" or "flukes".

Click to expand...

Proof would be factual, verifiable information provided in support of the claims you are making.

FliesOnly said:

.... Yes…that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you for weeks now.....

Click to expand...

FliesOnly said:

... But you do realize that this argument supports what I’ve been trying to tell you for weeks now, yes? ....

Click to expand...

Ok. And I maintain that no-amount of permission seeking solves that. And to whatever extent you WERE able to "deflect a lookie-lou", it's an equal or greater extent that you can likewise get arbitrary whimsical "no's", before even starting.

FliesOnly said:

....I suppose ....

Click to expand...

FliesOnly said:

...Sure, I admit that........

Click to expand...

thankyou

FliesOnly said:

.....What I’m saying, however, is that “asking permission” in and of itself, plays a very small, almost insignificant role in getting the park shut down to detecting.....

Click to expand...

Then I guess this is where we differ. In the coming couple of days, I will post another evolutionary tale, that ... IMHO, shows a distinct "connect-the-dots" lineage. And .... While I suppose you can say "that's an isolated fluke", for "just that one geographic locale", yet : I hope it shows you that the psychology does indeed happen. And thus, from that, maybe you can extrapolate to envision how other such places, that we now lament are-off-limits, might not have had the same kernals-of-seeds planted, in like-fashion. I will give a shout-out to you, when I post it.

FliesOnly said:

.....Nope. ...

Click to expand...

thankyou

Civil_war22 said:

It has been my experience if you think in the back of your mind that it’s not allowed, then by conscience you should ask....

Click to expand...

Or .... how about this: That the skittish person you describe, can look up laws/rules for himself. Eh ?

BTW: Thankyou for your LEO service !

Tom_in_CA said:

Or .... how about this: That the skittish person you describe, can look up laws/rules for himself. Eh ?



BTW: Thankyou for your LEO service !

Click to expand...

Thanks, and I assume most look up laws for where they hunt or at least should, considering it is a crime to trespass, and most agencies don’t care if they’ve never seen you there before they always jump the gun, and cite people without giving a warning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civil_war22 said:

.... considering it is a crime to trespass,....

Click to expand...

The locations in-mind , that this thread deals with, are not "trespass" issues. It's public parks.

Tom_in_CA said:

The locations in-mind , that this thread deals with, are not "trespass" issues. It's public parks.

Click to expand...

Yeah sad part is there are two parks here that are considered public, but the parks, and recreation decided to go before the city, and deem those two parks places of historical significance, and there is no signage. Sad part is there has been people arrested for being out there, what’s even more sad is there is no historical significance to the parks because they’re not at all old m, nor were there ever houses on them at one time, it was just empty farm fields back in the early days


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civil_war22 said:

...deem those two parks places of historical significance, and there is no signage.....

Click to expand...

Ok, sure : Not everything that's "allowed" or "disallowed", is necessarily on a wooden sign at the park. Eg.: nothing on the sign that disallows nudity, or murder, etc....

But still, as in the case of what you cite , that info is down-at-city-hall somewhere. Eg.: Muni codes, laws, permits, designations (of "historical"), etc.... are all available for public viewing. Ie.: if it got "deemed" (as you say) at some point in-the-past, then that's on-the-books somewhere.