Hmm , ok, let's remove "trespass". OK ? Ie.: Remove all locker-room talk. Ok ? For places like (gasp) RR right-of-way, etc..... Let's just keep the conversation on public land. Where "trespassing" isn't an issue any more. Ok ?
It’s a continuum. People who may have a negative connotation about our hobby don’t really care if they saw someone on private property, or someone on public property, or heard a story from a friend, or read an article in a paper, or watched a story on the news, or any combination of these. You seemingly want to make this solely about “pencil pushing bureaucrats” at public parks…and I’m telling you that any existing negative connotations they may be harboring would most likely be a result of the hobby as a whole, not your restricted “parks only” example(s).
Then in THAT case, can we agree that there is not the "built up angst" that you envision ? That those powers-that-be aren't passing out "no's", because of "trespassing". Ok ? You therefore agree that they aren't passing out "no's", because they envision people who "trespassed" ? Do we agree now ?
No, we don’t agree now. You can’t simply break metal detecting down into separate entities based simply on where someone happens to be detecting. That’s sort of the whole point. People have a negative connotation of metal detecting because of the entirety of the hobby. If someone doesn’t like us and/or our hobby, it’s not like they only dislike us when we’re in a park. It’s a continuum.
And thus: You agree that people who : A) look-up-rules for themselves (if they are skittish), and B) As long as they don't see anything that says 'no m'ding' , and C) thus deduce that it's not dis-allowed, that therefore D) are NOT therefore part of the "built-up angst" that you envision. Right ?
Your whole premise fell apart in the first sentence of this post.
If it's as you say: "locating the rules/regulations" only, then .... what's wrong with my suggestion ? Ie.: Instead of asking "Can I metal detect?" , to, instead, ask:
"Where can a person see/read all the rules/regulations pertaining to park usage ?". Whats
"vinegar" about that ?
That wouldn't be "vinegar"...but how opportune that you “accidently” left out the rest of the story, becasue that’s not where you stopped with your example. You continued your little exercise by mentioning that the park employee then asked “why” they wanted a copy, to which you reply with what I would consider to be a condescending tone and attitude.
Actually here’s exactly what you said in Post #50
“If they say "What is it that you need to know ?" You stick to your guns and say : "To know where the rules/laws pertaining to park usage are, for public viewing”
To me, as a Park Employee, if I was trying to be friendly and see if maybe I could just answer your question, and you responded like that, I’d think you’re kind of a d-bag and would certainly keep a close eye on you…and probably tell others to watch out for you as well.
And that, dear friend, is how a negative connotation of our hobby gets started...thanks a lot!!
Yet ... oddly/ironically, your stories of Russian-roulette success, mean "causation" ? Those accounts (aka "stories" ) are factual. Right ? Yet accounts (aka stories) to the contrary, are automatically suspect ? Pretty convenient on your part, eh ?
Ummmmm…there’s no “causation” in my example. That’s the point. I asked and nothing happened. There’s nothing to correlate. Now, if I were making the claim that my asking somehow “unlocked” a previously closed site to detecting, then I would potentially committing an error of correlation and causation. But I’m not making any such claim. I’m saying my action (asking) had no effect on access.
