Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked?

[Tom_in_CA]

Mark, when he said we do not ".....have the right to something that is not yours...", I don't think he was talking the individual finds. I think he was talking about rights to detect a given place. That's what the "something" was, if I'm understanding him correctly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Please keep politics out of argument.

 

[Tnmountains]

It is like life. The no's today can turn into Yes tomorrow. Simple logic says you have to keep trying.

 

[mikeraydj]

The problem is that even in public places there is a expected use. Just because a park is ok to walk your dog, doesn't give you permission to bring a backhoe. So there are people that are a little taken aback when they see someone digging in a park, even though it hasn't been prohibited. The burden is on us to show them our hobby is not destructive and that we are stewards of the park too.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

The problem is that even in public places there is a expected use. Just because a park is ok to walk your dog, doesn't give you permission to bring a backhoe. So there are people that are a little taken aback when they see someone digging in a park, even though it hasn't been prohibited.

Gee...Back to exagerating again...Who is bringing a backhoe? Your only jumping from one extreme to another. Nowhere near reality

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If insults do not STOP, timeouts will START...



in·sult

verb

inˈsəlt/

1.

speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

"you're insulting the woman I love"

synonyms:abuse,*be rude to,*slight,*disparage,*discredit,*libel,*slander,*malign,defame,*denigrate,*cast aspersions on,*call someone names,*put someone down;*More

noun

ˈinˌsəlt/

1.

a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.

"he hurled insults at us"

synonyms:abusive remark,*jibe,*affront,*slight,*barb,*slur,*indignity;*More

 

[mikeraydj]

Gee...Back to exagerating again...Who is bringing a backhoe? Your only jumping from one extreme to another. Nowhere near reality

I was making a point. Some people equate what we do as just as destructive as a backhoe. I am sorry you don't understand an analogy. But it isn't far off in some non detectorists minds. That people see what we do as an unnatural activity for the public space. And that there are those who planned the parks that did not envision metal detecting when writing the ordinances. So again, it is up to us as detectorists to show them we are no harm to where we hunt.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

I was making a point. Some people equate what we do as just as destructive as a backhoe. I am sorry you don't understand an analogy. But it isn't far off in some non detectorists minds. That people see what we do as an unnatural activity for the public space. And that there are those who planned the parks that did not envision metal detecting when writing the ordinances. So again, it is up to us as detectorists to show them we are no harm to where we hunt.

I got ya...and yes, I do understand your analogy, It just seems like its one extreme to the next. And I know you werent directing it at me personally, which is how I took it orginally.

But yes, I do agree that there are some people out there that don't respect property.

 

[kayakpat]

Yes Diggin this subject has been beat to death, there are some that think they can determine what actions they can do with property that is not theirs and someone else is responsible for it's care. Everybody talks rights and freedoms but they do not understand what that means or where their rights end and others begin. when it isn't yours, respect goes alot further than definance. Things haven't changed over the years but peoples attitudes have, and people who have property or are responsible HAVE become more defensive in allowing access, and that is because of peoples actions before and the lack of respect for the properties authority. I see alot of people here seem to hate any kind of authority, well get use to it, there isn't anywhere on earth that you can really get away from some one or some kind of authority. ugh more snow today, oh well to be in warm sunny weather

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........ don't carry your shovel into city hall .....

What ? You mean I WASN'T supposed to carry my shovel with me when I approached the front desk to ask ? haha.

I have even heard of others wisely telling the advice of "leave out all mention of the word: dig, or holes, etc...". And instead, only use the phrase "metal detect". Sounds like wise advice, right ? Afterall, talking about "holes", "dig", etc... is probably the FASTEST way to get a no, eh ? And then guess what sometimes happens: The md'r goes to the park and proceeds to detect. Someone comes up to accost him and gripe. The md'r proudly whips out his "permission". The griper promptly gets on his cell phone, calls to city hall and says: "But he's tearing the place up!" (which isn't true, of course). Whereupon the md'r is thereby scolded for getting permission under false pretenses, failing to be less than forthcoming, etc....

That's why I show up in city halls with a shovel in my hand, lest I be "mincing words" and lest they "not get the full mental implications of my question".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....there are people that are a little taken aback when they see someone digging in a park, even though it hasn't been prohibited. ....

Mike: I agree. There is ... uh ... "connotations" that are inescapable in our hobby. That you might be about to leave scars, mess, etc.... But if you and I leave no trace, then in our minds, we have fulfilled the spirit of the law. But you're right: That won't stop someone ELSE from walking by, and dis-liking it, griping, etc..... I fully agree.

My solution to this (I hate to say it), is to avoid such individuals. Because I simply do not think it's possible to run around ahead of time, and get all those persons to "sign off" on you, before you start. Thus rather than think it's my duty to placate all such individuals, and get their blessings, is to pick lower traffic times and avoid such encounters.

To use an analogy: If md'ing at a particular beach were absolutely no problem (for example). Let's say you showed up and started getting real close to people's beach blankets as they sunbathed. Or walked through their volley-ball games, etc.. What do you think would happen ? MD'rs would be seen in a bad light , and someone would gripe to lifeguards, etc... Right ? So what do we ALL do subconsciously ? Is we pick low traffic times, and avoid such persons who may gripe. NOT BECAUSE we think we're necessarily "doing anything wrong", but .... just as a matter of courtesy, to not ruffle people's feathers.

Another example: Nose picking: Not illegal, but ... don't we all sort of use a little discretion in our timing, so-as-not-to-offend ?

This is why, when it comes to turfed parks (which are the butt of most such encounters), that I do most of my hunting at very odd hours: after 5pm, before 7am, or ... quite frankly ... at night. So peaceful. So serene.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Th'r, I hope those 2 posts didn't contain any insults. And I hope they were/are just answers/input on an intellectual level, for something that pertains to md'ing. So .... I hope I'm not on your radar as a "time-out" recipient.

If so, then .... what happens when someone comes on (as does sometimes happen), with a sincere question on this very topic ? Yes I can see the purposeful "instigation" of starting the topic might be "stirring the pot" (sorry). But in other cases, it does indeed come up for discussion. Eg.: someone got booted, so they're asking advice. Or someone's getting ready to travel somewhere, so they inquire ahead or ask advice, etc... Those would seem to be legitimate questions/scenarios, eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Good points and you don't have to worry about insulting me....

Thanx Kemper. Since you say I don't have to worry about insulting you (and since you know we're on the same page/allies), then please take this to heart:

Be careful about the way things sound. If your "position" has merits, it will stand on its own facts/points, etc... If it doesn't then someone else with an alternate point of view will shine the brighter. I've learned that the merits alone will speak for themselves, for readers to sort out.

So when you go to post, do I like I do sometimes: I open up another browser, and go back to other matters, or step away from my 'puter, etc... Then 15 min. later, I come back and re-read. Sometimes I see something that I want to tone down, lest it be construed as a jab, etc....

 

[jeff of pa]

after seeing this title Over & over for the Last few weeks

Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked?

I keep thinking.

3 Guys with detectors walk up to a Grounds Keeper .

The Middle one asks Can I detect here ?

The Groundskeeper says NO ! & walks Away

Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked ?

Yes if the other two pretend they Were Not paying attention

 

[Tom_in_CA]

after seeing this title Over & over for the Last few weeks

Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked?

I keep thinking.

3 Guys with detectors walk up to a Grounds Keeper .

The Middle one asks Can I detect here ?

The Groundskeeper says NO ! & walks Away

Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked ?

Yes if the other two pretend they Were Not paying attention

Haha, funny. I think we would all agree, that clearly, when that worker said "no" in the presence of all 3 (yet directed at only the middle guy who asked), that .... it would be inferred to apply to all of them.

But your post does speak to the larger question. Because if we all agree that that "no" applied to all 3 of those guys, then why doesn't a "no" (given to one lone individual who walks into city, county, or state offices) apply to all other md'rs as well then ?

Such was the situation we faced in our city's club. One fellow (who, upon moving to our city, took it upon himself to go ask) got a "no". So for the LIFE of him, he couldn't understand why all the other md'rs in that club had no problems or issues md'ing the parks in question. In his mind (you can hardly blame him), the rest of the club members seemed to be lawless, etc.... He raised a stink, and wanted to go "get it clarified" (or appeal his no, etc...). Meanwhile, those of us old-timers said "just go, no one cares". He couldn't understand that. I mean, can you blame him? Ie.: "how can you argue with a 'no' straight from city hall ?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

AS I highlighted above I see what you are saying.....

Kemper, since we see the same way on topics of this nature, I consider you a friend and ally. So I'm trying to understand (as I read and re-read your posts), why yours sometimes got picked out as somehow "insults", or that you take others to you to be "insults". All I can say is: Pick your battles, and err on the side of caution. Keep it strictly facts and data. If your ideas/position have merits, those factors will persuade on their own power.

Another thing: if you keep it shorter (even though you're passionate, I know), then a) people will read it all, rather than skim, and b) you will tend to spot superfluous things that aren't needed.

 

[cudamark]

I think Tom would have to agree with that. He's had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek as much as the rest of us in various topics!

 

[jeff of pa]

Haha, funny. I think we would all agree, that clearly, when that worker said "no" in the presence of all 3 (yet directed at only the middle guy who asked), that .... it would be inferred to apply to all of them.

But your post does speak to the larger question. Because if we all agree that that "no" applied to all 3 of those guys, then why doesn't a "no" (given to one lone individual who walks into city, county, or state offices) apply to all other md'rs as well then ?

Such was the situation we faced in our city's club. One fellow (who, upon moving to our city, took it upon himself to go ask) got a "no". So for the LIFE of him, he couldn't understand why all the other md'rs in that club had no problems or issues md'ing the parks in question. In his mind (you can hardly blame him), the rest of the club members seemed to be lawless, etc.... He raised a stink, and wanted to go "get it clarified" (or appeal his no, etc...). Meanwhile, those of us old-timers said "just go, no one cares". He couldn't understand that. I mean, can you blame him? Ie.: "how can you argue with a 'no' straight from city hall ?"

I can sympathize with his situation , But at the same time bringing it up could cause Problems in itself.

as a club, if he is a Member of the club it's an especially hard choice.
The club should be all for one & one for all.

Meaining the one should not want to make things bad for the rest,
But yet the Club should consider him also.

There is one Village near me.

I detected it without asking Permission With no Problem.
Even the boro workers never approached me while they were in the area.

I approached the Teen Girl at the Pool for permission to detect.
got a yes, hunted the pool for an hour or so & loaded up on change

next Visit again no Problem when the boro showed up.
They had to do work at the pool & opened the Gate.
I walked over & asked if I could hunt in the Pool.
boro worker says No.
I said ok Thanks anyway !
he said you can't hunt out here either

screwed !!!!!

Next Visit I went to the Boro Office & asked. Secretary made some calls & said Go for it.

Back to the park I went. Boro workers never said a word.

Years later I showed up, Boro workers were there so I asked.

No was the Response

I haven't wasted my time in that Village since. But if I do in the Future,
No I will not be asking. and if approached I may head to the Boro Office.

But since I am not in a club, I may raise hell if I see others I don't know detecting & I get a no.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.. but I understand what you are saying.....

I am just as much a rabble-rouser (ie.: passionate) as you on this. So I don't understand why you got singled out on that "other" forum, any more than I should have. I have NOT seen any personal "insults" in your post (beyond the usual and customary challenges thrown out to other people's views). But I have to admit: I also didn't see any personal attacks on you either (which would merit "flagging", etc....) on your part.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

jeff of pa: Your last post about that boro, park, pool area, workers, etc... goes to show something revealing:

Far from being a "set answer" based on "set policy" (ie.: a uniform rule or law, and hence a uniform consistent yes or no), that the question can be answered completely different. Depending on a) who you ask, b) how you ask it, c) their mood, etc....

Thus all the more reason to a) not accept someone else's "no" as being across the board, and b) to look up the rules for oneself , if you are skittish, worried, etc....