HOA Permission

[FliesOnly]

It is implicit . No one "asks permission" to do something that is benign and harmless, do they ? Therefore : It's implied.

Sure they do...people ask for permission for all sorts of things that are benign or harmless. Metal detecting, for example. Before I metal detect on someones property, I ask for permission. Of course, if I want to leave work early so that can go metal detecting, I always check with my boss and ask if it's OK if I leave a bit early.

 

[Diga]

Sure they do...people ask for permission for all sorts of things that are benign or harmless. Metal detecting, for example. Before I metal detect on someones property, I ask for permission. Of course, if I want to leave work early so that can go metal detecting, I always check with my boss and ask if it's OK if I leave a bit early.

Why do you ask for permission to leave work early? Probably because you leaving early without permission would be problematic. If you have to ask permission to prevent a problem, then the act itself is not benign, it's disruptive. As such, did you not just prove Tom's point?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sure they do...people ask for permission for all sorts of things that are benign or harmless. ............

No. You will never ask permission at a public park to whistle dixie, or fly frisbees. Even though those *might* run afoul of laws that forbid annoyances. Or laws that forbid throwing dangerous projectiles (might poke someone's eye out). So : I disagree.

....... Metal detecting, for example. Before I metal detect on someones property, I ask for permission. .......

F-O : Why are you confusing public property, with private property ?? OF COURSE I agree with you to get permission before md'ing on someone's PRIVATE property. But : That was not what we're talking about here, was it ? We were talking about public property where recreation, and the ability-to-be there, IS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE.

....... Of course, if I want to leave work early so that can go metal detecting, I always check with my boss and ask if it's OK if I leave a bit early.

And again I agree : SO TOO DO I DO THE SAME ^ ^ But again : That's not what we were talking about here, was it ? So : While yes it *is* necessary for you & I to "check with our boss" (before violating/changing our expected work hours), the same is not "necessary" for the conversation we are having now.


So you see what you're doing is : Assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, as evidence of your proof for it. AKA : A philosophical presupposition . Implying, again, that md'ing on-public land, where not prohibited, is necessarily : Wrong, askew, amiss, harmful, etc... Eg.: As "wrong as trespassing" is. Eg.: As "wrong as being truant at your place of employment" is. Says who ? Since when ?

 

[FliesOnly]

Why do you ask for permission to leave work early? Probably because you leaving early without permission would be problematic. If you have to ask permission to prevent a problem, then the act itself is not benign, it's disruptive. As such, did you not just prove Tom's point?

Touche...I see your point. I guess when I was making that statement, I was picturing situations when I would like to leave a little early. I have completed all my tasks for the day, and I have made sure that should an issue arise which may have require my attention, I have covered for that potential scenario. Probably not a very good example of the point I was trying to get across, though...that I will admit.

 

[FliesOnly]

No. You will never ask permission at a public park to whistle dixie, or fly frisbees. Even though those *might* run afoul of laws that forbid annoyances. Or laws that forbid throwing dangerous projectiles (might poke someone's eye out). So : I disagree.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the only time people ask for permission to "do something", is if that particular activity is malicious or harmful? You seem to put forth arguments in a "black or white" format only. You often ask leading questions. If an activity "needs" permission, then that activity cannot be benign or harmless, instead it must be malicious or harmful, otherwise no permission is needed. It's not always that easy, Tom. It's not always just black or white. Here's a subtle difference that is directly applicable to this situation. I may ask if detecting is allowed in a park, not because I view that activity as malicious or harmful, but rather I believe that THEY might view the activity as malicious or harmful.
Here's another example of why putting forth arguments in the manner that you do, can be misleading and disingenuous. On the 4th of July, can I shoot off fireworks on my own property without asking permission? Yes, yes I can. So, by your definition, shooting off fireworks must be benign and harmless, yes? But, is it harmful to my neighbor, who suffers from PTSD? Yeah, it's highly likely that it is. As such, should I go ask the neighbors if they're OK with me shooting of fireworks on the 4th of July? Well, I guess it comes down to how you were raised and what type of person you are, Tom. Personally, I would go have a conversation with the neighbors.

F-O : Why are you confusing public property, with private property ?? OF COURSE I agree with you to get permission before md'ing on someone's PRIVATE property. But : That was not what we're talking about here, was it ? We were talking about public property where recreation, and the ability-to-be there, IS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE.

Here's your "original" statement:
"It is implicit . No one "asks permission" to do something that is benign and harmless, do they ? Therefore : It's implied."
I do not see any distinction made between public and private property. I mean, if detecting is benign and harmless, then I should never need to ask permission, even for private property?

And again I agree : SO TOO DO I DO THE SAME ^ ^

Ummmmmm...actually, you have stated on more than one occasion that permission is not always needed on private property.

Implying, again, that md'ing on-public land, where not prohibited, is necessarily : Wrong, askew, amiss, harmful, etc...

No such implication is being put forth. You throw out a bunch of words and act as if they are all synonymous. Saying that something is "wrong" does not necessarily mean that it is also "amiss". Saying that something is "askew" does not necessarily mean that it is also "harmful". Saying that something is "detrimental" does not necessarily mean that it is also "reviled". Saying that something is "despised" does not also mean that it is "damaging". You throw out so many words with disticnt meanings, that putting forth an answer that is not the one you want, becomes virtually impossible. In other words, you structure your questions in such a manner that the only plausible answer is the one you desire.

Perhaps a better way to structure this problem would be to ask the following:
Can people participate in activities that may be harmful or malicious, even though permission to do so is not required?

Eg.: As "wrong as trespassing" is. Eg.: As "wrong as being truant at your place of employment" is. Says who ? Since when ?

Wait...you're not seriously trying to tell me that asking permission to detect a park (for example) is as bad trespassing, are you? Also, if I have asked and been granted permission to leave work early, then I am not being "truant", just to be clear.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the only time people ask for permission to "do something", is if that particular activity is malicious or harmful? ...

To answer that ^ ^ , I only need to go so far as to a real nice guy named "Flies-Only". Who will be the FIRST to agree that : He doesn't "ask permission" to do things that are benign, harmless, innocuous, and : Not disallowed. So to answer your own question, simply ask the guy named : F-O. And his own hand of cards will reveal the answer.

...... I may ask if detecting is allowed in a park..........,

And *THAT* ^ ^ can be accomplished by looking up the rules for said park . Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc....

.......l, but rather I believe that THEY might view the activity as malicious or harmful.
...

Ok, but be prepared F-O : You might find yourself becoming the latest victim of : No one cared UNTIL you asked. Accounts of this psychology abound. Places that were never a problem before, until someone (with your stance) took it upon themselves to ask "Is this malicious and harmful" and now : Presto. A safe "no" is passed out. Or a rule-is-born. Then that exact same desk jockey (who probably never gave the matter a moment's thought prior to this), might now see another md'r in the park. And will remember the recent inquiry and think "Aha, there's one of *THEM*", and start booting others. I've seen this play out many times F-O !

....... As such, should I go ask the neighbors if they're OK with me shooting of fireworks on the 4th of July? .....

This one ^ ^ totally lost me. Dude, if my dog barking (or me shooting off fireworks) bothers my neighbor, THEN OF COURSE I'm going to be respectful. But notice the stacked deck your PTSD scenario : It implies that you knew he had PTSD. And it seems to me that if loud bangs, or barking dogs, bothered a neighbor, then they'd let you know. I mean, is it really yours and my's responsibility , to go up and down your residential street, asking if they mind if your dog barks ? If you shot off firecrackers ? I do not see how this applies to our conversation. No more so than : *Someone in the park* might take offense at your frisbee, so ... it's your obligation to get the city's permission ? Sorry, but I just don't get this.

.... Ummmmmm...actually, you have stated on more than one occasion that permission is not always needed on private property........

I think you are referring to past threads concerning vacant lots (eg.: with a short cut pass through it, and where everyone walks their dog , blah blah), right ? (here's a pix about that) Ok : Then there's an equivocation going on . Or perhaps you're referring to some past locker room talk that goes on here ? But whatever it is : LET'S RETURN TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND (which has nothing to do with the red herring you're now offering)

.... No such implication is being put forth. You throw out a bunch of words and act as if they are all synonymous. Saying that something is "wrong" does not necessarily mean that it is also "amiss". Saying that something is "askew" does not necessarily mean that it is also "harmful". Saying that something is "detrimental" does not necessarily mean that it is also "reviled". Saying that something is "despised" does not also mean that it is "damaging". ........

In each case above ^ ^, for the person who says it's "wrong", or "askew" or "detrimental", if you were to ask them : "Why ?", THEY WILL INDEED HAVE AN ANSWER, for-their-own-stance. Right ? They don't think those things ^ ^ without a reason for *WHY* it's : wrong, askew, and detrimental. Which is fine !! I don't deny them that ! But is it really yours & I's job to : "run around getting every last person on earth to sign off on you and I " ? To make sure every last person has rolled out red carpets for us ? I do not deny that we are in a hobby with ... uh .... "connotations", Ok ? Thus yes, sometimes you *might* bump into a Karen, ok ? But to run around thinking you can "head it off at the pass", only ends up making it become a self-fulfilling vicious circle.

 

[FliesOnly]

To answer that ^ ^ , I only need to go so far as to a real nice guy named "Flies-Only". Who will be the FIRST to agree that : He doesn't "ask permission" to do things that are benign, harmless, innocuous, and : Not disallowed. So to answer your own question, simply ask the guy named : F-O. And his own hand of cards will reveal the answer.

What, in the name of every thing holy, are you talking about? I didn't say anything remotely like that. How do you know that I don't ask permission to do things that are benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed? I ask my wife, quite often, if I can do things that are benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed.
Look, this was about your original statement, which stated...and I quote:
"It is implicit . No one "asks permission" to do something that is benign and harmless, do they ? Therefore : It's implied."
Notice that you said "No one asks permission..." What you did not say is that "No one NEEDS to ask permission..." and that makes a big difference. As such, my original response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. People may indeed ask all of the time to do something that is benign and harmless. Maybe it is their upbringing. Maybe they're obsessive/compulsive? Maybe they just like to annoy their friends by constantly asking permission to do anything. I mean, who knows. I honestly thought you'd notice right away what I was doing, and see it as humor...but, alas, I have failed.

One thing I will point out, however (I can't help myself, what can I say) is that your original statement, as worded, can always be true simply because any situation which purports to be "benign and harmless" but for which permission was requested nonetheless, could be construed by others to actually have been harmful and malicious, given the right conditions or under the right circumstances. Determining if something is actually benign and harmless can be subjective.
But then, since what someone perceives to be either benign or harmless can be subjective, all I need to do to disprove your hypothesis is provide an example that does not fit your premise. And I did that, by stating that while I do not perceive metal detecting to be harmful and malicious, I may ask permission if I believe that "they" may perceive it as so. How does that not prove your premise false? Did I not asked for permission to metal detect, even though I do not see our hobby as harmful and malicious?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... How do you know that I don't ask permission to do things that are benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed? ..........

Because, silly me, I just assumed that when you fly frisbees in the park, that you don't "ask permission". If you drink water from the water fountain in-the-park, that you don't "ask permission". That if you whistle dixie (might "annoy someone") that : You don't ask permission.

Call me silly, but I just assumed that : Not you (nor ANYONE) : "Asks permission" to do those ^ ^ things which are (and I quote) : " .... benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed...."

........ What you did not say is that "No one NEEDS to ask permission..." and that makes a big difference. .........

Right ! And no one "needs" to ask permission to md'ing (if md'ing not forbidden), *IF* it is (and I quote) : " ....benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed..."

....... People may indeed ask all of the time to do something that is benign and harmless. .........

Right. Just like in our conversation right now. And guess what they risk, as soon as they do that ^ ^ ?

..... since what someone perceives to be either benign or harmless can be subjective, ......

I agree. You ....... and purist archies ....... and a few lone Karens ........ might subjectively see md'ing as horrible, evil, harmful, destructive, etc.... There's even people who will wag-their-finger at persons-who-drive cars , because, shucks, that's leaving a carbon foot print and bothering spotted owls. SURE !

...... stating that while I do not perceive metal detecting to be harmful and malicious, I may ask permission if I believe that "they" may perceive it as so.........

But notice the vicious circle there ^ ^ Why might they (and I quote) : "... perceive it as so .... " ? Here's the answer (wait for it, wait for it, here it comes) : BECAUSE YOU ASKED ! Ie.: that very same person, MAY NEVER HAVE GIVEN THE MATTER A SECOND THOUGHT (and quite frankly, never have seen you in-the-park). But lo & behold, now you've put this "pressing matter" in their laps. And ... the wheels of their craw start turning. And guess what the mental connotation could be ? Yup, you guessed it : Guys that "take things". Guys that "might leave holes", etc.... Mind you, this guy may not have ever cared less, nor have given it a moments thought (till your "pressing issue crossed his desk" in need of the "safe answer")

If you want ample examples of that ^ ^ exact psychology/ genesis playing out, let me know.

Love ya F-O Happy new years bro.

 

[FliesOnly]

Because, silly me, I just assumed that when you fly frisbees in the park, that you don't "ask permission". If you drink water from the water fountain in-the-park, that you don't "ask permission". That if you whistle dixie (might "annoy someone") that : You don't ask permission.

You are correct, I generally do not ask for permission to do any of those things. But you said "No One asks permission...", and I stated, in what was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response (i.e., that means it was meant to be humorous, Tom), that you don't know with complete certainty that "No one asks permission" to do those things. Actually, in all likelihood, there are probably millions of people out there in the World who do ask for permission to do things that you may subjectively refer to as benign and harmless.

Call me silly, but I just assumed that : Not you (nor ANYONE) : "Asks permission" to do those ^ ^ things which are (and I quote) : " .... benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed...."

And you would be 100% incorrect in your assumption, so I guess I can call you "Silly_in_CA" from this point forward, instead of "Tom_in_CA", yes?

How do I know that you're 100% incorrect, you are wondering? Well, your whole "No one cared until you asked" rant is predicted on the fact that someone asked. So either metal detecting actually is harmful and malicious, thus meaning that permission would be needed, and "that" person was justified in asking. Or metal detecting is benign and harmless, thus meaning that permission is not needed, but "that" person asked anyway...which disproves your original claim that no one asks to do something that is benign and harmless.

Right ! And no one "needs" to ask permission to md'ing (if md'ing not forbidden), *IF* it is (and I quote) : " ....benign, harmless, innocuous and not disallowed..."

Generally [though not always] correct.

And guess what they risk, as soon as they do that ^ ^ ?

Waffles with no whipped cream? Bicycles with square wheels? The end of civilization as we know it? Complete global destruction? Tell me, Tom...tell me what they risk by asking permission to do something that is subjectively benign and harmless...I am giddy with excitement. ("Golly, I wonder where he's gonna go with this?"...I say quietly to myself.)

I agree. You ....... and purist archies ....... and a few lone Karens ........ might subjectively see md'ing as horrible, evil, harmful, destructive, etc....

Oh, I see that we've now added the words "horrible", "evil" and "destructive" to your list of descriptors that I have never used to describe metal detecting. It does get tiresome when you continually attribute actions to me in which I do not, in fact, participate.

There's even people who will wag-their-finger at persons-who-drive cars , because, shucks, that's leaving a carbon foot print and bothering spotted owls. SURE !

Well, driving a car does leave a carbon footprint, so I'm not sure why ya brought this one up.
Plus, why do you hate Spotted Owls? (humor again, Tom...this is meant to be humorous...I don't actually think you hate Spotted Owls. Though, I guess I don't really know, maybe you do hate Spotted Owls...in which case this is NOT meant to me humorous (which is actually once again humorous, Tom)).

But notice the vicious circle there ^ ^ Why might they (and I quote) : "... perceive it as so .... " ? Here's the answer (wait for it, wait for it, here it comes) : BECAUSE YOU ASKED !

Ummmmmm...no. Someone asking a desk jockey if detecting is allowed does not suddenly make that desk jockey see metal detecting as "horrible, evil, harmful, destructive, etc".

Ie.: that very same person, MAY NEVER HAVE GIVEN THE MATTER A SECOND THOUGHT (and quite frankly, never have seen you in-the-park). But lo & behold, now you've put this "pressing matter" in their laps. And ... the wheels of their craw start turning. And guess what the mental connotation could be ? Yup, you guessed it : Guys that "take things". Guys that "might leave holes", etc.... Mind you, this guy may not have ever cared less, nor have given it a moments thought (till your "pressing issue crossed his desk" in need of the "safe answer")

I don't disagree with this. But like I asked in my previous post (and many many many many many posts before that), the question I want you to address is "Why?". Why do they have a preconceived notion of our hobby as being harmful and malicious? Who put that idea into their head to begin with, Tom? Where did it come from? You seem to be implying that such a notion suddenly just pops into their head out of thin air.
Are you going to give my question some consideration this time, and finally at least try to formulate a response?

If you want ample examples of that ^ ^ exact psychology/ genesis playing out, let me know.

I have read your examples, many many many times. What I would like to read this time are all of the peer-reviewed journal articles that I'm sure you have, explaining the phenomenon of why a desk jockey says "No" when asked if metal detecting is allowed. Anecdotal 2nd, 3rd, or 4th person stories, while interesting and certainly contributory, are not really the best evidences on which to base such a generalized conclusion. I mean, you say that it ("it" being the proverbial "No") happens every time someone asks for permission, but all you supply are the same ol' stories. I once asked if detecting was allowed in one of our local parks (the webpage wasn't clear), and yet I was not told "No". On the contrary, I had a pleasant conversation with a desk-jockey and was told that all I needed was a free permit. So there must be more to those stories that you love to tell, yes?

Love ya F-O Happy new years bro.

Back at ya, Silly_in_CA.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......... So either metal detecting actually is harmful and malicious, thus meaning that permission would be needed, and "that" person was justified in asking. ..."

Let's just cut-to-the-chase F-O : That ^ ^ is your stance, isn't it ? Then essentially that puts you in the camp of "karens" and "purist archies". Then in THAT case, why did you ever get into this hobby ? Didn't it occur to you that you'd be (gasp) digging ? And "disturbing" ? And "Taking", etc.... ?

...... Tell me, Tom...tell me what they risk by asking permission to do something that is subjectively benign and harmless...I am giddy with excitement. ..........

You know full well the answer. Because this isn't the first time we've gone back & forth on this. The risk is that they/you/I bump into the psychology of : "No one cared .... *UNTIL* you asked" routine scenario. If you doubt that is the risk, I've got scores of examples to share with you.

...... Ummmmmm...no. Someone asking a desk jockey if detecting is allowed does not suddenly make that desk jockey see metal detecting as "horrible, evil, harmful, destructive, etc".....

Notice that I said, and have always said : "risks" that happening. Meaning that, sure : It's not 100% There's also persons who fetch a "yes help yourself". All I'm saying is that examples of the opposite ("safe answer") abound. If you doubt that, let me know and I'll give you examples.

You can't deny that the mental impression connotation, of a man-with-a-metal detector, is : Holes. Right ? EVEN IF YOU & I WON'T LEAVE ANY. Yet to the person who is tasked with your "pressing question", that could be , and often is : Their connotation. And that VERY SAME PERSON might never have given the matter a moment's thought before you came in.


BTW: The fact that you and I might fetch a "yes" does not, in my book, mean that : Therefore it was necessary to-have-asked (ie.: It's pretty hard to argue with a "yes", eh ?). But notice that supposition also works the other way: If they'd said "no" , you would ALSO BE SAYING TO YOURSELF : "Gee it's a good thing I asked, because now I know I can't". So you see that : Either a "yes" or a "no", is somehow supposed to lend credence to the notion that : "Asking is necessary". But I've never understood that notion, because : What other answer did you THINK they were going to give ? I mean, did you really think they were going to say "Gee, that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? If it's not illegal or forbidden, then .... why would you be asking me ?" No, of course they never answer that way.

Why do they have a preconceived notion of our hobby as being harmful and malicious? ....
........

Because it's simply the mental image/connotation, of "a man with a metal detector". EVEN IF YOU AND I WOULD BE LEAVING NO TRACE.

..... You seem to be implying that such a notion suddenly just pops into their head out of thin air.

Nope. Not out of "thin air". It's out of persons who come in grovelling (bless their little hearts), seeking red carpets and princely sanctions. As if the thing needed permission. After all, you WOULDN'T BE THERE ASKING, if it was : Benign, innocuous, and harmless. So *there* is the where the notion comes from. NOT "thin air", but the : Grovel crowd.

.....Back at ya, Silly_in_CA.

Love ya F-O ! Happy new Years

 

[gismapper]

As a neutral observer (I see valid points on both sides of this argument, and at various times and in various situations, I've found myself going both routes), and with a bit of a scientific background, I think there's only one way to resolve this.

I propose an experiment. Pick some randomly sampled parks across the country, in various settings and various political and social climates, where metal detecting is not currently forbidden by posted law. Call/email the various park management entities and ask "the question". Follow up at various intervals later, as a different person, asking for permission (or simply monitoring the entity's website for park rule changes).

There's a good study in here somewhere. Could also be an opportunity if you happen to know a college student studying psychology. If we can get some grant money...

I'm only half kidding, but I figured I'd lighten it up a bit.

I have no doubt that simply asking the question is enough to drive a policy change. I'm curious what the percentage is. I feel like it's not often enough to shut down the hobby. But if asking shuts down my favorite, closest go-to park that's given up several gold rings over the years...now that would be a shame. I've had Township public works guys drive right past me and wave. That makes me feel like I'm OK. There's nothing posted. Better leave that park out of the study.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I propose an experiment. .......

As a past md'ing club president, and having been in this hobby since the mid 1970s (as a Jr. high school kid), I saw the entire evolution of this. And , after seeing a real-world example of the psychology , on a micro-scale, here in my own city, I began to wonder if it doesn't happen elsewhere. And on larger scales. So I began to pay attention. And in the era of the internet forums (starting late 1990s), began to follow the topic on social media md'ing forums (yeah yeah, I know, an "un-healthy" interest, doh !).

And sure enough, my suspicion , of the genesis of "attention against us" was indeed rooted in this genesis, scores of times.

Thus gismapper, your "experiment" has been done, already, in -real-time real-world experiments, all-the-time. I've collected scores of such genesis stories.

...... I've had Township public works guys drive right past me and wave. .....

You better hurry and ask him. Golly, you "can't be too sure", eh ?

... Better leave that park out of the study. ...

Nope. Go ask. Be sure to pepper the question with words like "dig" and "holes" and "remove/take", and "treasure" and so forth. You want them to grasp the full implications of your request. You "can't be too safe", right ? You don't want to "mince words" or be "less than forthcoming", right ? Their subjective preference might-not-like it. So hurry and "make sure"

 

[gismapper]

You want them to grasp the full implications of your request.

Actually, I just want to find a way to snag some grant money

 

[Uptown603]

Tom,


In the early 90's all the way through the mid 2000's I played a competitive level of mens fast pitch softball. I played in 4 leagues. Each "park" was different. Let's call it Concord, Bow, Suncook and Laconia.

Bow and Suncook had town employees, but they were snow plow guys, road fix it guys and the occasional mow the ball fields guys. The chances of running into those guys on the hours they'd be mowing the field were slim. If it rained heavy all day, but stopped at 5pm and we had a 6pm game we would bust out rakes and speedy dry around the mound, plate and any low areas surrounding the bases. There was never an issue , no big deal and we'd attempt to rake the field out after game play. It was also the responsibility of the two teams to "drag" the infield for the next group playing the next night. Games were only cancelled when the two captains and umpire(s) got together and deemed play unsafe for players.

Now..... here's where black and white doesn't work. Laconia and particularly Concord would NEVER allow us to "work" on their fields. No grabbing a rake to fix the mound, no bringing a shovel full of jock mix in to dump In the right hand batters box (although usually there was no need as the park was pristine to play on). These "parks" had full time employees who would stay until 5 trying to prepare the field for play, but would also make the call if the game was going to be cancelled at that time.. Not because of safety to the players , but ruining the infield creating a pile of work for them the next few days. These field hosted many state and national qualifying tournaments. It didn't matter if stopped raining at 2 , if there were puddles on the field we weren't playing and nobody was trying to "fix" it with speedy dry or new mix brought on the field.

You could absolutely "get away with" detecting Bow and Suncook. Hell you could probably go right in the outfield and never get caught or bothered. However..... I you can rest assured that if you were "caught" in either Laconia or especially Concord you would get your ass handed to you verbally from the park workers. Possibly physically removed if you got yapping at them back about this rule, that rule etc. I have no idea if there is a "no detecting " law in either Laconia or Concord, but it wouldn't matter.

The point is there are times when we should all "read the room" when it comes to our hobby. Your "nobody cared until you asked" theory has many holes in it. A person could quickly find out that someone DOES care and now their twice as pissed that you felt entitled enough to just march your ass on their had work and sink a shovel in the turf they've been babying since the snow melted.

You speak of psychology often....... I think you've even mentioned you work in the field. Either way, have you ever met the kind of person that HEARS you but doesn't listen? The kind of person that is only waiting for the other to take a breath while discussion their points or opinions only so you can tell them why they're wrong? Not even chewing on their thoughts for a second...... That's YOU behind a keyboard.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......... A person could quickly find out that someone DOES care .......

Hey there Uptown, great conversation. I've studied your inputs, and here's my thoughts :

Essentially what you are describing is : Karens. And I've never denied that Karens exist. All I'm saying is that : By going in ahead of time, thinking you'll "have some paper to whip out of your pocket" , to deflect those potential Karens, is risky. More risky than any "deflections" you might get out of it.

And in the case that you cite : What would be the difference if you or I ran into those particular Karens, and got a "scram" ? We'd give lip service & leave . You would now be "appraised". So then : What's the difference between THAT sort of appraisal, or having gone to find some city person, to tell you "no" AHEAD OF TIME ? No difference, right ? Either way is a "scram" (or a "no", or whatever you want to call it).

And remember : We're talking about places where there's no specific law or rule that said "no md'ing" , so : Don't think that your response is going to be : "You might get arrested". Ok ?

And as for those other two parks, where you admit that : No one's asking permission, and no one's having any issues, then presto : You ally with me that : We shouldn't be asking permissions for where it's not necessary, right ?

And as for proposed ability of a permission to "deflect busy bodies" (and thus you think your story of those Karen's merits it), I'll give you a story , I read on this forum a few years ago, in the next post .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There was a post from a guy, on this forum, asking the following question :

"When going in to city hall park's dept. offices, to 'get permission' to detect in the park, should you mention digging ?"

Well, as you can imagine, the consensus (EVEN FROM THE TAME FOLKS HERE), was that : "... No. Leave that out. Just say "metal detecting"...." Because to waltz in, asking if you can dig holes in the park, is a sure-fire-permission killer, right ? Ie.: It's the FASTEST way to get a "no", right?

But THEN the guy explained the reason for his question : At a prior park he had been too, he had gotten a "yes" (aka : "permission" or whatever you want to call it), from a city hall near him. But as he was detecting, an irate park worker started harping on him . Not unlike the "karens" you described in your post Uptown. The md'r proudly whips out his "permission". And cites the name, of the person at city hall, who had said it was Ok. But as soon as the irate park worker hears that name (someone whom he knew, apparently), he gets on his cell-phone, and CALLS that person.


The md'r nervously stands there, over-hearing the entire conversation : And he hears the park worker tell the desk jockey : "But he's tearing the place up !" (which isn't true, of course). So when that call ended, the karen-park-worker launched into an angry lecture to the guy. Saying that : "She says you didn't tell her that you'd be digging", blah blah And the md'r was made to feel like he'd been dishonest, misrepresenting, deceiving, mis-leading, etc... And was sent packing .


Hence the reason for his current question. Doh !


And I've heard other humorous stories of persons getting conflicting answers, AT A SAME LOCATION. Depending on who you asked, how you worded it, what they're mood is, etc.... And in one such place : A certain hunter was getting silver from the oldtown park, where he'd gotten a "yes". When a fellow hunter he met heard this, he was a little confused. Because he'd gotten a "no" for the same location. The two hunters compared notes, and decided to go down to city hall to "get this clarified" . Because, shucks, you "can't be too safe", right ? You "might run into a Karen", eh ? Well, do you care to guess what happened, when these 2 men went down to city hall to get it clarified ? Yup, you guessed it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Uptown: As for your story of the 4 parks, of which 2 of them had "Karens" : Seeing as how there's no *specific* law or rule that said no md'ing (and they were no doubt basing it on verbiage about "alter & deface", right ?), then : Couldn't you simply go on days when those workers aren't there ? Like after 5 or 6pm when their shift is surely over ?

Example : We had one park like that, in a certain big-city park, where : a few of us had gotten a "scram", in course of a month or so. We compared notes , and realized it was the exact same man. And we put 2+2 together and realized that he was an office worker, who worked in a city admin building, which sits at the edge of that park.

I'd been scrammed at just before 8am one day, and my buddy had been scrammed by him at a hair after 5pm on a different day. So we figured out that it's an 8 to 5 office worker. Who walks through the park, to & from the parking lot, to work each day.


So we simply knew, from then on, to either not hunt this particular park before 5:30pm, or simply go on a Saturday or Sunday . Presto, problem solved. Why can't this be the solution ?


I'M NOT SAYING THAT I LIKE having to solve the issue in-that-way ^ ^ But just saying that : To think you're going to convert the singular Karen, or "get the city counsel to roll out red carpets" for you, is also not going to solve it. Most of the time, it simply makes things worse. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Uptown603]

Hey there Uptown, great conversation. I've studied your inputs, and here's my thoughts :

Essentially what you are describing is : Karens. And I've never denied that Karens exist. All I'm saying is that : By going in ahead of time, thinking you'll "have some paper to whip out of your pocket" , to deflect those potential Karens, is risky. More risky than any "deflections" you might get out of it.

And in the case that you cite : What would be the difference if you or I ran into those particular Karens, and got a "scram" ? We'd give lip service & leave . You would now be "appraised". So then : What's the difference between THAT sort of appraisal, or having gone to find some city person, to tell you "no" AHEAD OF TIME ? No difference, right ? Either way is a "scram" (or a "no", or whatever you want to call it).

And remember : We're talking about places where there's no specific law or rule that said "no md'ing" , so : Don't think that your response is going to be : "You might get arrested". Ok ?

And as for those other two parks, where you admit that : No one's asking permission, and no one's having any issues, then presto : You ally with me that : We shouldn't be asking permissions for where it's not necessary, right ?

And as for proposed ability of a permission to "deflect busy bodies" (and thus you think your story of those Karen's merits it), I'll give you a story , I read on this forum a few years ago, in the next post .

There's a huge difference between "Karens" and the park workers. Those fellas took pride in their work. They knew how nice that park was and they wouldn't stand for someone with a shovel cutting their turf on any of the fields. Baseball, softball or football.

The point to my story is yes.... I do kind of agree with you. Learn to read the room is better advice than "sneaking". My personally, I'd ask every time and every place I was going to detect but that's because of where I live, how I was raised and just the culture I've been surrounded by my entire life. I don't live in the concrete jungle or get yours before someone else does. Or the screw them, I don't know them what do I care mentality.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There's a huge difference between "Karens" and the park workers. .......

Not "effectively" a difference, in-my-book. They ^ ^ can both accomplish the same end result. Namely : To put teeth behind a "scram". The non-employee "karen" can raise a stink to higher-ups, just like the city-employee park worker. And so at the end of the day, they are each : "Karens". I do not deny the differences (once can boot you "instantly", while the other has to go through a channel or two beyond them). But at the end of the day, for this discussion, the outcome /discussion is-the-same.

....... Those fellas took pride in their work. ........

And I take "pride in their work" too. Which is exactly why I leave no trace of my presence. Thus not disturbing/harming any of their "work".

....... but that's because of where I live, how I was raised and just the culture I've been surrounded by my entire life. ......

Yes : My culture and "how I was raised" too. Which is why I look up potential laws & rules for myself. Thus : What can be more "culturally abiding" than that ? What can be more law-abiding & "cultural" than that ?

Again, you are smuggling a premise notion in "through the back door" again, that : You and I are wrong, askew, harmful, and un-lawful, UNLESS you and I had everyone else's express say-so-blessing. Says who ? Since when ?

.... "sneaking".........

So in the case of the real-life-example, that I gave you in post # 97, you're going to classify that as : "Sneaking" ?

....... Or the screw them, I don't know them what do I care mentality.....

And there ^ ^ it is again ^ ^ : The back-door smuggle-in presupposition . That : Md'ing is "screwing" them. How so ? Since when ? Says who ? Here's why you say that : Because you are STARTING with the definition that md'ing = askew, harmful, dangerous, risky, vile, un-lawful, etc... Until-given-princely-blessing to the contrary.


If all that ^ ^ is true , THEN YES, YOU'D BE CORRECT ! But since when ? Says who ? In other words, you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, as evidence of your-proof-for-it.


Trust me : I too wish I could convert every last person to love & adore my hobby. Ok ? But I've realized that's not always possible.

 

[Uptown603]

Not "effectively" a difference, in-my-book. They ^ ^ can both accomplish the same end result. Namely : To put teeth behind a "scram". The non-employee "karen" can raise a stink to higher-ups, just like the city-employee park worker. And so at the end of the day, they are each : "Karens". I do not deny the differences (once can boot you "instantly", while the other has to go through a channel or two beyond them). But at the end of the day, for this discussion, the outcome /discussion is-the-same.



And I take "pride in their work" too. Which is exactly why I leave no trace of my presence. Thus not disturbing/harming any of their "work".



Yes : My culture and "how I was raised" too. Which is why I look up potential laws & rules for myself. Thus : What can be more "culturally abiding" than that ? What can be more law-abiding & "cultural" than that ?

Again, you are smuggling a premise notion in "through the back door" again, that : You and I are wrong, askew, harmful, and un-lawful, UNLESS you and I had everyone else's express say-so-blessing. Says who ? Since when ?



So in the case of the real-life-example, that I gave you in post # 97, you're going to classify that as : "Sneaking" ?



And there ^ ^ it is again ^ ^ : The back-door smuggle-in presupposition . That : Md'ing is "screwing" them. How so ? Since when ? Says who ? Here's why you say that : Because you are STARTING with the definition that md'ing = askew, harmful, dangerous, risky, vile, un-lawful, etc... Until-given-princely-blessing to the contrary.


If all that ^ ^ is true , THEN YES, YOU'D BE CORRECT ! But since when ? Says who ? In other words, you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, as evidence of your-proof-for-it.


Trust me : I too wish I could convert every last person to love & adore my hobby. Ok ? But I've realized that's not always possible.

Let me save you some time Tom. For clarity I KNOW what I was saying when I typed it. I don't need you to twist , assume, convert or any other manner if which you're simply stating a "Yeah , but" . My kids do the same thing........