Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Deteknix
List all sponsors

Go Back   Friendly Metal Detecting Forums > Metal Detecting > Research and Getting Permission

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:30 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Why is it so hard for some people to admit that they're being disingenuous and ridiculous? Honestly, if you can’t understand why the owner of a soccer field may not want you digging plugs on their soccer field during soccer season…or on their baseball field during baseball season…or on their football field during football season…or on their croquette field during croquette season…or on their grass/clay tennis courts during...well…ever, actually...then I guess it’s no small wonder why detectorists are often detested.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But does this assume, therefore, that a field needs-to-be designated for a particular use , in order to use it ? And if *not* "designated" for a particular use, then .... a person should acquire permission ? If so, I have an issue with this line of logic. Because :

d) Aaahhh, now the truth comes out. It is clear that your premise is that md'ing is harmful and damaging. If so, then Yes: Everything you're saying does logically follow.
You take what is, to most people, a simple statement about a soccer field being designed for soccer, and turn it into a ridiculous assumption about a field being designed for a particular use, with permission being needed in order to use it for some other purpose solely so you can espouse nonsense about a lack of md’ing fields, or needing permission to fly a kite...so you can then continue down the road of stating that therefore my premise must be that md’ing is harmful and damaging. Here’s an idea…just ask me if I think md’ing is harmful and damaging. We could save each other a lot of time, wasted words, and needless explanations.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But I disagree with this premise. I can retrieve coins (yes, even deep ones) and do less damage than cleats. Assuming I'm not digging in dry earth (such that roots don't take re-hold, in brittle crumbly dry soil). As long as I go @ the moist season (or a normal watered/irrigated lawn), then: I am able to leave practically no trace.

I have returned, a few days later, to locations where I've gone turf hunting. And studied to see if I can find my prior spots. And .... unless it were pointed out to someone, I can honestly say you would not be able to see the spots.
It’s great that you can return to an area a few days later and not see any damage from the plugs you removed and perfectly replaced. But that’s not the same as running around on that field while wearing cleats and encountering one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs. Your inability to see it does not mean it’s not there. It is. And it could potentially be dangerous to someone playing soccer on the field. Is the risk high enough to warrant not allowing md’rs on the field during the soccer season? My guess, in the litigious society in which we currently live, is “yes”. I know that if I broke my ankle because maybe I planted my foot “firmly” in an attempt to make a turn…right on one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs which then, much to my horror, came loose and caused me permanent ankle damage…I’d be pretty pissed off that someone was allowed to do such a thing on a soccer field.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #62  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:31 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Bill_Ace_350 View post
Is a kid wearing baseball cleats allowed to walk across a soccerfield if he doesnt play on the Soccer team?
No.

See, I can be just as silly as you.
Reply With Quote


  #63  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:40 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... Here’s an idea…just ask me if I think md’ing is harmful and damaging. ...
Yes. I could do that. But ... given the context and implications of your prior posts, I felt it was pretty much already spelled out. And here it is again:

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... And it could potentially be dangerous to someone playing soccer on the field ...

Which shows that ... yes... you do consider md'ing to ... of necessity ... leave dangerous mayhem hither and yonder.

Given this implicit definition, if you are right, then SURE : You're right. All of us should ask permission any and everywhere we go. And don't just ask "hi, can I metal detect ?" (since that would be mincing words). Instead ask : "Hi, can I leave dangerous holes ?"

But again: I disagree with this starting "given" premise.

For me, and most of us here, there would be no visible indications left. Nor anything that could give someone a twisted ankle, etc... If some other md'rs can't accomplish that, then sure, you're right : They need to ask permission first.
Reply With Quote


  #64  
Old 06-18-2019, 08:22 PM
Bill_Ace_350's Avatar
Bill_Ace_350 Bill_Ace_350 is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 962
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that they're being disingenuous and ridiculous? Honestly, if you can’t understand why the owner of a soccer field may not want you digging plugs on their soccer field during soccer season…or on their baseball field during baseball season…or on their football field during football season…or on their croquette field during croquette season…or on their grass/clay tennis courts during...well…ever, actually...then I guess it’s no small wonder why detectorists are often detested.

You take what is, to most people, a simple statement about a soccer field being designed for soccer, and turn it into a ridiculous assumption about a field being designed for a particular use, with permission being needed in order to use it for some other purpose solely so you can espouse nonsense about a lack of md’ing fields, or needing permission to fly a kite...so you can then continue down the road of stating that therefore my premise must be that md’ing is harmful and damaging. Here’s an idea…just ask me if I think md’ing is harmful and damaging. We could save each other a lot of time, wasted words, and needless explanations.

It’s great that you can return to an area a few days later and not see any damage from the plugs you removed and perfectly replaced. But that’s not the same as running around on that field while wearing cleats and encountering one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs. Your inability to see it does not mean it’s not there. It is. And it could potentially be dangerous to someone playing soccer on the field. Is the risk high enough to warrant not allowing md’rs on the field during the soccer season? My guess, in the litigious society in which we currently live, is “yes”. I know that if I broke my ankle because maybe I planted my foot “firmly” in an attempt to make a turn…right on one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs which then, much to my horror, came loose and caused me permanent ankle damage…I’d be pretty pissed off that someone was allowed to do such a thing on a soccer field.
Don't forget "tot-lots" in your list. I don't think they were designed for metal detecting.

__________________
AT Pro/Equinox 600/ACE 350/1864 Nova Scotia One Cent Piece/1864 Indian Head, 1906 Indian Head/9 Wheat/Silver Coins: 1/Silver or Gold Jewelry: 2

Reply With Quote


  #65  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:50 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Bill_Ace_350 View post
Don't forget "tot-lots" in your list. I don't think they were designed for metal detecting.
I'm not even sure what this means.
Reply With Quote


  #66  
Old 06-19-2019, 09:14 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Yes. I could do that. But ... given the context and implications of your prior posts, I felt it was pretty much already spelled out. And here it is again:
Originally Posted by FliesOnly .... And it could potentially be dangerous to someone playing soccer on the field ... .
Which shows that ... yes... you do consider md'ing to ... of necessity ... leave dangerous mayhem hither and yonder.
Man, you do like your hyperbole, don’t you!? Saying that digging holes in a soccer field could be potentially dangerous to a person playing soccer on that field, is nowhere near the same as saying that digging holes on a soccer field results in “dangerous mayhem hither and yonder”. The phrases “potentally dangerous” and “dangerous mayhem hither and yonder” are not synonymous, you know this, yes? You stated something about the “context and implications” of my prior posts, which begs the question: “Do you actually understand context?”, because I’m having a difficult time believing that you do. You have done this sort of thing to both A#1 and me in this thread alone.
I mean, it’s ironic that you read my post and admit that you could, indeed, simply ask me if I think md’ing is harmful and damaging…but instead of doing that very thing [that you admit you could do], you go on to make another of your off-the-mark prognostications…namely that now, much to my surprise, I believe that digging holes in a soccer field results in dangerous mayhem hither and yonder!! Oh dear God, I wish I had known this about myself sooner, it would have saved so many lives!!

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Given this implicit definition, if you are right, then SURE : You're right. All of us should ask permission any and everywhere we go. And don't just ask "hi, can I metal detect ?" (since that would be mincing words). Instead ask : "Hi, can I leave dangerous holes ?"
Or, you could act like a decent person by asking permission and explaining exactly what it is you intend to do and some of the possible ramifications of those actions. But what do I know, I seemingly believe that removing and replacing plugs with a small digging tool is akin to using a backhoe.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But again: I disagree with this starting "given" premise.
Of course you do. To do otherwise would mean that you’d have to admit that you’re pretty much wrong…which no of us really like to do.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
For me, and most of us here, there would be no visible indications left. Nor anything that could give someone a twisted ankle, etc...
I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You’re telling me that if you removed and then replaced a plug that was…oh…I don’t know…let’s say 3-4 inches in diameter and maybe 2-3 inches deep, that you are guaranteeing me that that piece of soil would hold firmly to the ground if a 200 pound soccer player just happened to plant his foot right on top of it while initiating some maneuver (a quick stop, or maybe a hard change of direction) that would generate a considerable amount of pressure and torque on that “invisible, perfectly replaced” plug? You can assure me that the afore mentioned plug would not come loose and maybe, just maybe, pop out of the ground, or who knows, maybe even stick to the bottom of his cleated shoe? You’re telling me that these cleated shoes could not possibly result in one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs working loose? But didn’t you say that you felt that cleated shoes actually do more damage than does md’ing? Yet, somehow these damaging shoes would miraculously NOT do damage to an area, if that area happened to be one of your “invisible, perfectly replaced” plugs? You can’t have it both ways. If you claim that cleated shoes do more damage, then you have to admit that a cleated shoe landing upon an already “damaged” piece of ground would logically have to do additional damage.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
If some other md'rs can't accomplish that, then sure, you're right : They need to ask permission first.
Well, I guess we all aren’t as perfect as you.
Reply With Quote


  #67  
Old 06-19-2019, 09:43 AM
Bill_Ace_350's Avatar
Bill_Ace_350 Bill_Ace_350 is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 962
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
I'm not even sure what this means.
"....digging plugs on their soccer field during soccer season…or on their baseball field during baseball season…or on their football field during football season…or on their croquette field during croquette season…or on their grass/clay tennis courts during..."

There you go. Hope it refreshed your memory.

__________________
AT Pro/Equinox 600/ACE 350/1864 Nova Scotia One Cent Piece/1864 Indian Head, 1906 Indian Head/9 Wheat/Silver Coins: 1/Silver or Gold Jewelry: 2

Reply With Quote


  #68  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:45 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Bill_Ace_350 View post
"....digging plugs on their soccer field during soccer season…or on their baseball field during baseball season…or on their football field during football season…or on their croquette field during croquette season…or on their grass/clay tennis courts during..."

There you go. Hope it refreshed your memory.
I knew you referring to my list…that was pretty obvious. However, there are lots of locations that I did not mention in my list, so I guess I’m still trying to understand the point you were attempting to make.
Reply With Quote


  #69  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:55 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
... I guess I’m still trying to understand the point you were attempting to make.
The way this topic arose, is that ....... in the discussion of legalities/permissions, you had pointed out that the purpose of a soccer field is for ..... uh ... soccer (as the name implies). Right ? Thus adding credence to the notion that it would be improper . Since its purpose is soccer. Not md'ing. Right ? ( Especially since we do "damage", if I can infer that from your posts.)

And what Bill & I are saying is: If we take this to its logical conclusion, then there's really no place to detect at all. Eg.: Tot lots are for TOTS (not md'ing). Football for football (not md'ing), frisbee golf courses for frisbee (not md'ing). Swim beaches are for swimming (not md'ing). And so forth.

The label does not preclude other uses. As long as you're doing no damage. And md'ing, done right, is benign & does no damage.
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #70  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:20 PM
Beachhunter's Avatar
Beachhunter Beachhunter is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Southern California
Posts: 972
Default

You guys sound like twin brothers arguing your points until a fight breaks out.
Take my word for it I have a twin brother.

__________________
Equinox 600 & 800, XP Deus, Stealth 720i

Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #71  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:59 AM
Bill_Ace_350's Avatar
Bill_Ace_350 Bill_Ace_350 is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 962
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
The way this topic arose, is that ....... in the discussion of legalities/permissions, you had pointed out that the purpose of a soccer field is for ..... uh ... soccer (as the name implies). Right ? Thus adding credence to the notion that it would be improper . Since its purpose is soccer. Not md'ing. Right ? ( Especially since we do "damage", if I can infer that from your posts.)

And what Bill & I are saying is: If we take this to its logical conclusion, then there's really no place to detect at all. Eg.: Tot lots are for TOTS (not md'ing). Football for football (not md'ing), frisbee golf courses for frisbee (not md'ing). Swim beaches are for swimming (not md'ing). And so forth.

The label does not preclude other uses. As long as you're doing no damage. And md'ing, done right, is benign & does no damage.
That pretty much sums it up.

__________________
AT Pro/Equinox 600/ACE 350/1864 Nova Scotia One Cent Piece/1864 Indian Head, 1906 Indian Head/9 Wheat/Silver Coins: 1/Silver or Gold Jewelry: 2

Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #72  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:12 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
The way this topic arose, is that ....... in the discussion of legalities/permissions, you had pointed out that the purpose of a soccer field is for ..... uh ... soccer (as the name implies). Right ? Thus adding credence to the notion that it would be improper . Since its purpose is soccer. Not md'ing. Right ? ( Especially since we do "damage", if I can infer that from your posts.)
I did not say it was “improper”. I said that certainly during soccer season, you should ask permission before md’ing on the soccer field. Wow, what a novel concept!! Personally, I think you should ask even in the off season…but I also said you would have a stronger argument that detecting is OK without permission, if you did it during the off season.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And what Bill & I are saying is: If we take this to its logical conclusion, then there's really no place to detect at all. Eg.: Tot lots are for TOTS (not md'ing). Football for football (not md'ing), frisbee golf courses for frisbee (not md'ing). Swim beaches are for swimming (not md'ing). And so forth.
But you in no way took it to any “logical conclusion”. What you did is referred to as reduction ad absurdum…taking it to an absurd, illogical, ridiculous conclusion. Me saying that during soccer season, one should ask permission before metal detecting on said soccer field in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, implies that I feel that there is no place for md’ing anywhere. It’s an absurd conclusion to reach.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
The label does not preclude other uses. As long as you're doing no damage. And md'ing, done right, is benign & does no damage.
You cannot possibly argue that md’ing does no damage. Is it permanent damage? I certainly hope not, but with some, it may very well be…but most likely that would not be the case for a vast majority of md’ers. Is it even “long term” damage? Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of “long term”, but that’s a discussion I’d rather not get in to, as my particular interactions with you have demonstrated a tendency for you to take it to silly, ridiculous levels.
Reply With Quote


  #73  
Old 06-24-2019, 01:23 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
I did not say it was “improper”. I said that certainly during soccer season, you should ask permission before md’ing on the soccer field.....
Ok. And why would someone ask permission for something that was "proper" ? Naturally no one "asks permission" for things that are "proper". Eh ? (benign, harmless, innocuous, etc...) Thus: It seems to be implied that md'ing is improper. Your context & words are very telling

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
... You cannot possibly argue that md’ing does no damage.....
And here again, we have the implied premise. Which .... if true ..... then yes: Everything you're saying does indeed logically follow.
Reply With Quote


  #74  
Old 06-24-2019, 01:28 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Flies-only: I guess what it boils down to is: Sure: Some people "might gripe". Some passerbys "might" consider it harmful. They might think you or I are bothering earthworms, or making holes, etc..... I'll grant you that.

So the knee-jerk reaction to the above truths is to: Ask permission. What can be so hard about that. Right ?

But the devil is in the details There's been scores of places where it was never an issue before. Ie.: No rules forbidding. No one ever said "no". No one ever griped. No md'rs ever had a problem. Till the day came that someone waltzed into a city hall "asking permission". They find a pencil pusher to tell them "no". Don't you see how you/I can become the latest victims of the "No one cared till you asked" psychology ? That's all we're trying to avoid.
Reply With Quote


  #75  
Old 06-25-2019, 08:03 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Ok. And why would someone ask permission for something that was "proper" ? Naturally no one "asks permission" for things that are "proper". Eh ? (benign, harmless, innocuous, etc...)
Sure they do. People ask permission for things they are unsure of all the time. And “proper” doesn’t mean benign or harmless or innocuous. Talk about “implied premise”.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Thus: It seems to be implied that md'ing is improper. Your context & words are very telling
Again we see you using the word “context” while taking what I say out of context. I mean, it’s almost comical. You have to change the meaning of the word “proper” so you can then imply that I say that md’ing is “improper”, so you can then explain to me “how telling” my words are, when, in fact (not implied) I never said what you accused me of saying.
You’re like the King of logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And here again, we have the implied premise. Which .... if true ..... then yes: Everything you're saying does indeed logically follow.
It is NOT an implied premise. Metal detecting does a level of harm, which is a statement of fact, not an implied premise. You cannot possibly deny this. I mean, we can discuss the level of harm it does, but what would be the point of that?
Reply With Quote


  #76  
Old 06-25-2019, 08:14 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
...Till the day came that someone waltzed into a city hall "asking permission". They find a pencil pusher to tell them "no". Don't you see how you/I can become the latest victims of the "No one cared till you asked" psychology ? That's all we're trying to avoid.
Seriously, which do you think is the more common occurrence?
A) People see someone detecting on the local soccer field. One of those people gets upset and goes to city hall to complain. The rest, as they say, is history
B) A detectorist goes to City Hall to ask permission to detect on the soccer field. A pencil pusher tells him “No”. The rest, as they say, is history.

From my own personal experience, I can say that I have yet to have situation “B” manifest itself. I’ve twice gone to government offices to inquire about detecting in County and City parks. The Country told me it was legal, with certain restrictions (free permit required, time of day, certain locations, level of “damage” allowed, etc) while the city told me they had no set rules, and as such, I was free to detect if I wanted to. She simply said to try to not do too much damage. Imagine that, she actually asked me to do my best to minimize any damage. And not only did she most definitely NOT say “no”, she actually wished me good luck.
Reply With Quote


  #77  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:11 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
People ask permission for things they are unsure of all the time...
Ok, sure. Granted. Then maybe the subject of the discussion here should therefore be: "Should those persons be 'unsure' of whether or not they can detect, in the first place ?" Example : Some persons are "sure" that md'ing is a non-issue. Other persons "fret themselves silly" worrying that someone-might-not-like it . So they run hither and yonder seeking clarifications and/or permissions. Only to create a self-fulfilling vicious circle when they get their "safe" answer of a potential 'no'.

And why can't they make themselves "sure" of whether-or-not something is allowed or not, by looking up laws/rules for themselves ? What's hard about that ? Why subject yourself to someone's arbitrary whim and mood ? Risking that they'll envision "geeks with shovels". Thus compelled to pass out a "safe" answer ? (when in fact, perhaps the thought would never have crossed their mind. Till you put it on their desk asking for their say-so)

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... It is NOT an implied premise. Metal detecting does a level of harm, ...
Huh ? You state here the implied premise that: Md'ing does a "level of harm." But then deny that there was that exact implied premise in your posts ? I don't get it ?

But suffice it to say : You are coming clean here. Whether implied or stated, that : MD'ing = harmful.
Reply With Quote


  #78  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:17 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
Seriously, which do you think is the more common occurrence?

A) People see someone detecting on the local soccer field. One of those people gets upset and goes to city hall to complain. The rest, as they say, is history

B) A detectorist goes to City Hall to ask permission to detect on the soccer field. A pencil pusher tells him “No”. The rest, as they say, is history.
Re.: A) I can give you multiple examples of where "permission" didn't save the person in example A. The griper tells the desk-jockey : "But he's tearing the place up " (which isn't true). And then guess what happens to the permission ? And ... praytell .... if the person in (A) gets a "yes", then that simply means it wasn't disallowed in the first place ? So how did the "yes" help him deflect the griper anyhow ? If it wasn't disallowed, then the griper can go pound sand anyhow, right ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... From my own personal experience, I can say that I have yet to have situation “B” manifest itself. I’ve twice gone to government offices to inquire about detecting in County and City parks. The Country told me it was legal, with certain restrictions
To this I would reply : Any laws or "permits" that those persons appraised you of, could have likewise been looked up for oneself. Right ? There are no "secret" permits or laws. Eh ? Any issued permit must be on a list of available permits @ the city hall. All laws are in the muni-codes that anyone can look up for themselves. Right ?

Last edited by Tom_in_CA; 06-25-2019 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #79  
Old 06-25-2019, 02:07 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,238
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... From my own personal experience, I can say that I have yet to have situation “B” manifest itself. I’ve twice gone to government offices to inquire about detecting in County and City parks. The Country told me it was legal, with certain restrictions
But the bigger response is this : Any time someone (like yourself here) gets a "yes", then .... to them ... this simply confirms the notion that : "Therefore it was a good thing I asked". Ie.: The 'yes' confirms your suspicions that asking permission was necessary and beneficial. It's as if: The mere granting of that "yes", CONFIRMS that : "Therefore it was necessary or beneficial to ask permission".

Here's why this is an easy conclusion to fall into: Because : How ELSE could the desk-jockey have said "yes" or "no" , if their permission hadn't been necessary in the first place ? As if to imply: If this power to grant permission hadn't been needed, then here is how they should have answered instead:

"Wow, that's a silly question. Why are you asking me ? You don't need my permission. If there's no laws or rules against it, then you don't need my say-so".

But no, that's not how authority works. They will bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no" . After all, the mere fact you're standing there asking, simply implies that their say-so was necessary . Lest why else would you be asking them ? Which can lead you to think : "Gee, it's a good thing I asked."

But this is a little like asking someone if you can breathe. If they say "yes", did that mean their permission was necessary or beneficial to your ability to breathe ? No, of course not. Therefore I do not construe someone's "yes" answers, as proof that .... therefore permission-asking was necessary and beneficial.

Laws can be looked up for oneself. And no ... I do not construe ancillary boiler-plate language (L&F laws, harvest/collect verbiage, alter & deface verbiage, etc...) to, of necessity, apply to us. If those things, of necessity, DID apply to us, is the day that every single park, beach, forest, etc... across the entire USA , is automatically off-limits, w/o the princely say-so of every last archie, gardener, lawyer, etc... in the country.
Reply With Quote


  #80  
Old 06-26-2019, 10:38 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 39
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Ok, sure. Granted. Then maybe the subject of the discussion here should therefore be: "Should those persons be 'unsure' of whether or not they can detect, in the first place ?" Example : Some persons are "sure" that md'ing is a non-issue. Other persons "fret themselves silly" worrying that someone-might-not-like it . So they run hither and yonder seeking clarifications and/or permissions. Only to create a self-fulfilling vicious circle when they get their "safe" answer of a potential 'no'.
Man, you do love your hyperbole and word vomit, don’t you. You certainly have a flair for the dramatic. When I searched the internet for the rules about detecting in the city parks near where I live and work, I could not find any definitive answers. So I simply walked to my local city offices and inquired. I did not run “hither”, nor did I run “yonder”, nor did I “fret myself silly”. I simply strolled calmly into the offices and received the answers I was seeking.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And why can't they make themselves "sure" of whether-or-not something is allowed or not, by looking up laws/rules for themselves ? What's hard about that ? Why subject yourself to someone's arbitrary whim and mood ? Risking that they'll envision "geeks with shovels". Thus compelled to pass out a "safe" answer ? (when in fact, perhaps the thought would never have crossed their mind. Till you put it on their desk asking for their say-so)
I’d bet you be a blast to sit down with and discuss conspiracy theories over a beer or two. You probably believe a Scottish Bigfoot rode on the back of the Loch Ness monster across the Atlantic Ocean to shoot President Kennedy so they could fake the moon landing.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Huh ? You state here the implied premise that: Md'ing does a "level of harm." But then deny that there was that exact implied premise in your posts ? I don't get it ?
Sigh…I thought I was pretty clear on this, but apparently not, so let me try again. “Implied” means indirect or obscure or inferred or unstated. You know…sorta like a “best guess”. I’m telling you straight up…in plain ol’ English that md’ing does harm. It’s NOT an “implied premise”. Rather, it’s a statement of fact. Not implied. A fact. Do we understand now?

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But suffice it to say : You are coming clean here. Whether implied or stated, that : MD'ing = harmful.
Technically, I “came clean” a few posts ago, but the actual meaning of some of my words seemed to have confused you.
Reply With Quote


Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.