Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,781
A few recent threads on the main forum sections brought up a topic, that I believe needs further discussion.
It's the issue of: "commentary" versus "law". At what point does "commentary" BECOME equivalent to "law" ?
To start with, here's what I mean by "commentary" : It's when there isn't any specific express dis-allowance that truly says "No MD'ing". Yet someone can certainly come along and still say "No". And point you to citations (ie.: the actual codified laws, rules, ordinances, etc...) that deal with "alter", "deface", "harvest" "remove". Or worse yet : "Dig" (because we "dig" after all), and "cultural heritage" (you might find something old after all).
In each and every one of the "commentary" cases, it can be argued by us that there's a technical way around. Eg.: cover your spots and leave no trace, only look for new stuff, etc...
Nonetheless, we all know that the powers-that-be do have the latitude to administer the land as they-see-fit. And ... by golly ... if they say "no", and point to any of the ancillary verbiage, then we are not likely to survive a debate of semantics.
Such a "no" (ie.: "commentary") can come in multiple forms:
1) Someone calls and asks "Hi can I metal detect?" Someone tells him "no". The dejected md'r posts the results of his inquiry on a forum post (to alert his fellow md'rs, to save them embarrassment ). That gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. After all, it was the authoritative word on the subject.
2) Someone sends an email, or clicks on the "ask a question" question of some agency. They receive a "no", that is now .... I suppose ... in print form. Because that person can show anyone else that "No" screen-capture, that they received "straight from the top".
In each of the above 2 scenarios, perhaps the person answering pointed you to ancillary language that, in their mind's eyes, results in that "no".
3) Perhaps the person who did #2 above, was a list-compiler. The "no" makes it on to that list. The FMDAC state-by-state list attempt is one such great example. And if you follow back in the evolution of how that list evolved, you will sometimes see something dire-sounding (eg.: "inquire at each kiosk", or "no", etc....). Yet when you go to click on the expanded version (ie.: the rationale and citation of actual law/rules), you THEN begin to see that it's based on ... as I say ... Ancillary verbiage. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
Now if the "commentary" evolves its way up to official links that we md'rs pass back and forth, are they still "commentary" ? Or are they now "law" ?
I will give an example in the next post .
It's the issue of: "commentary" versus "law". At what point does "commentary" BECOME equivalent to "law" ?
To start with, here's what I mean by "commentary" : It's when there isn't any specific express dis-allowance that truly says "No MD'ing". Yet someone can certainly come along and still say "No". And point you to citations (ie.: the actual codified laws, rules, ordinances, etc...) that deal with "alter", "deface", "harvest" "remove". Or worse yet : "Dig" (because we "dig" after all), and "cultural heritage" (you might find something old after all).
In each and every one of the "commentary" cases, it can be argued by us that there's a technical way around. Eg.: cover your spots and leave no trace, only look for new stuff, etc...
Nonetheless, we all know that the powers-that-be do have the latitude to administer the land as they-see-fit. And ... by golly ... if they say "no", and point to any of the ancillary verbiage, then we are not likely to survive a debate of semantics.
Such a "no" (ie.: "commentary") can come in multiple forms:
1) Someone calls and asks "Hi can I metal detect?" Someone tells him "no". The dejected md'r posts the results of his inquiry on a forum post (to alert his fellow md'rs, to save them embarrassment ). That gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. After all, it was the authoritative word on the subject.
2) Someone sends an email, or clicks on the "ask a question" question of some agency. They receive a "no", that is now .... I suppose ... in print form. Because that person can show anyone else that "No" screen-capture, that they received "straight from the top".
In each of the above 2 scenarios, perhaps the person answering pointed you to ancillary language that, in their mind's eyes, results in that "no".
3) Perhaps the person who did #2 above, was a list-compiler. The "no" makes it on to that list. The FMDAC state-by-state list attempt is one such great example. And if you follow back in the evolution of how that list evolved, you will sometimes see something dire-sounding (eg.: "inquire at each kiosk", or "no", etc....). Yet when you go to click on the expanded version (ie.: the rationale and citation of actual law/rules), you THEN begin to see that it's based on ... as I say ... Ancillary verbiage. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
Now if the "commentary" evolves its way up to official links that we md'rs pass back and forth, are they still "commentary" ? Or are they now "law" ?
I will give an example in the next post .