Congratulations on your win in the Russian Roulette game. But : Why play it in the first place ?
Because it's not actually Russian Roulette.
They *could* fetch an arbitrary whimsical "no", Because "
1) The mere fact that you're standing there asking "Can I ?", implies that something is amis or wrong (harmful or damaging ) that you even-had-to-ask, in-the-first-place. No one asks to do benign harmless things. Thus implication inference is not-lost on the person you're asking. And thus "drives their answer".
So "they" work at the park and they know that metal detecting is allowed, yet they will outright lie to the general public because they realize that since a person is asking if it's allowed, then it must because what they're asking to do is obviously harmful to, and will damage, the park itself...therefore they feel obligated to say "No"?
2) Because the mental connotation of "a man with a metal detector" can be : Holes (even if they never saw any, nor heard of any).
This is just a repeat of #1 above
Sure it does. Why don't people ask if they can skip stones on-the-pond ? (might poke someone's eye out).
Actually, in some places, it is unlawful to throw stones into the water.
Why do we start with the assumption that what we are doing is illegal (till told otherwise), harmful, dangerous, evil, etc.... ?
No one starts with this assumption.
With implicit starting definitions like this, This tells me you've chosen the wrong hobby.
You just love to imply that I have chosen the wrong hobby simply because I feel that you waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over estimate the issue of asking a park employee if metal detecting is allowed.
Then if they really really just HAVE to talk to a live person, (eg.: maybe some Podunk little town doesn't have a website, blah blah ) then here's how to solve that : Ask the desk-jockey this instead: "Where can I find a list of the laws/rules that apply to such & such city, and the parks here. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc...." And they'll alert you to where it exists in printed form . Eg.: At city hall or the library in binder form, etc... Because it HAS TO EXIST SOMEWHERE ! No laws are "secret" .
OK...so I'm working at the "Help Desk" of at my local park. Some kindly old gentleman approaches me and asks if metal detecting is allowed in the park. Me, being a detectorist myself, am well aware that detecting is allowed, but is restricted to certain areas. I tell him this, and send him on his way. An hour or so later, another guy approaches me and asks where he can find a copy of the Park Rules and regulations. I point to the all the pamphlets along the wall, and also state that they can be found online.
And if the person says "what is it that you needed to know ?", you stick to your guns and say : "To know where the laws/rules pertaining to use of such & such park, exist in digital or paper form".
Now...as it turns out, I'm also a "people person" and always try my best to be helpful and courteous, so I also tell him that I can probably save him some time if he tells me what it is he wants to know. He seems rather gruff and put off by my inquiry and simply repeats "To know where the laws/rules pertaining to use of such & such park, exist in digital or paper form", which I find a little odd, wondering why he's being such an a-hole about it. I repeat my earlier reposnse of where they can be found, and again let him know that I'm very familiar with the parks rules and regulations and am just trying to help. He then says something like "I don't need your help, I just want to know where I can find the laws/rules pertaining to use of such & such park, in digital or paper form".
Now I ask you, Tom, as a park employee, which of those two peple am I more likely to be concerned about when it comes to "harming" my park?
Since, shucks, when others relate such incidents here on-our-very-forum, it's ... shucks ... anecdotal and can't be trusted ?
Correct...when someone tells a story that they heard from someone else, who themselves may very well of also heard it from yet a another person, then it's anecdotal and absolutely should not be completely trusted without cooroberating evidence(s).
Dude, what's up ? You're just going to summarily dismiss all accounts. This is known in psychology as a philosophical presupposition.
A philosophical presupposition? Really? What is my implicit assumption?
Look, I do not summarily dismiss your stories as false any more than I take them to be completely true. I will say that "negative" stories told by detectorists during a club meeting of detectorists are liklely going to be biased in favor of the story teller because we will only be hearing one side of the story. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Your story may be 100% correct, but without being able to hear someone speak from the other side (i.e. a repesentative from the park), how are we to know what was actually asked by the detectorist, and what was actually said in response by the park employee?
Yes I have. And : Apology accepted.
Yay!!
See the contradiction is right there ? ^ ^ . In the space of a single breath. In that very sentence itself. Because : If someone is "breaking the laws/rule", then it did not lead to that place : Being banned. Because by your own definition/premise, in that hypothetical place, by your own account, ALREADY HAD A LAW OR RULE that was being broken.
Wait...what? How, in the name of everything holy, is it a contradiction for me to point out that people who break the laws/rules are more likely to get detecting banned than someone who simply asks if it's allowed?
I'll try to explain this to you again:
Detecting in the park is allowed.
There is a rule, however, which says that detecting in area "A" is not allowed.
Someone detects in are "A".
Detecting in the park is no longer allowed.
Show me the contradiction.
So he did not "cause" a rule against us to begin. He broke an existing rule. You can't have it both ways. There's a contradiction right there ^ ^ , in the space of a single breath.
Wow.
One more time...here's the scenario (this story, as well as the names in this story, is/are totally fictitious and have no relationship to any real life situations or any persons, either living or dead):
Tim asked if detecting is allowed in the park, and was told "yes".
He was also informed of a list of rules.
Tim then went detecting and broke multiple existing rules in the park.
Detecting was then banned in the park.
Now, if park officials are asked why detecting was banned in the park, which of the above actions would most likely be the reason behind their descision? Do you really think it was becuase Tim asked if detecting was allowed, and not becuase he broke the rules?
A couple of weeks later, at the local detectorists club meeting, Tobby got up to speak. He told a story that he had heard from another club member, Rob, who had heard from Charlie that he had heard from Tim that the new guy, Bill, had asked if detecting was allowed in the park...and was told "NO!!". The club members were livid that Bill was so ignorant as to ask such a dumb question, when everyone knew that detecting was allowed. Pool ol' Bill felt terrible for getting their hobby banned and asked for forgiveness, but the club was having none of it. Tim even went so far as to suggest that they kick Bill out of the club!! The vote was unanimous, and Bill was kicked out of the club for violating the number one rule: "Don't swat the hornest nest". BiIl's life spiralled out of control. Drug addiction and a string of petty thefts resulted in both a messy divorce and a lengthy jail sentence, all because he had the audacity to ask if metal detecting was allowed in the local park.
