Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,821
.... an employee of a governmental agency might ask themselves, "it is awfully presumptuous for them to be doing that digging." Of course they might be very wrong...but why not SHOW the proper attitude and not only gain entry but also for them to say...wow those folks really dot their "i's" and that's what I want them to feel after dealing with me...and that trash I find is gonna be gone. I only know that this choice I have made has gotten me a TON of permissions......
Richie, a few replies IN THE CONTEXT OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES :
a) I do not consider "digging" to be "presumptuous". If you define our hobby to = "digging" and "presumptuous", then yes, everything you're saying does logically follow. Because I guarantee you that every single speck of public land (parks, beaches, forests , etc...) forbid "digging" is some form or fashion. ("alter", "deface", etc....). But you and I leave no trace, right ? We cover our holes, and you can't even tell we were there. Right ? Thus the only thing that "flag-waving" is going to do , is make you a giant bullseye in need of attention !
b) I consider the "proper attitude" and "dotting my I's" to be md'ing at places that do not have an express explicit "no md'ing" rule. What can be more "proper" than that ??
c) As for your "yes's" : Congratz. And I guess this implies that the permission asking was good and beneficial. Presumably because the mere fact you netted a "yes", therefore implies that : "It was good that I asked".
Heck, even a "no" answer would have netted the same implication. Because then you'd say : "It was a good thing I asked, because now I know I can't detect" . Right ?
So whether the answer is "yes" or "no", the implied conclusion is: "Therefore asking is necessary and beneficial" . Otherwise: How could they have answered the question in the first place, if their say-so wasn't necessary . Right ? Have I understood this connection of dots correctly ?