A quiz @ the Genesis of off-limits sites:

[kayakpat]

claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[slink]

no matter if it is private property or public or corporations, property has a owner, or a authority in charge of property has the same rights to ban or allow any action to the property they are in charge of. Geez, you do not have that right of determination

Exactly!

 

[Sluice Willis]

You do not have the authority to stop someone from quoting posts that you put on the open forum. You've been warned about the troll remark. Later......

All I hear is blah, blah, blah. I didn't call you a troll, I told you to stop trolling me. This is a common term used at all the forums to describe exactly what you are doing. If it's taken as an insult maybe you should stop doing it.

Internet Troll - A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.
The best thing you can do to fight an internet troll is to not answer..or report them. Urban Dictionary: Internet Troll

I don't have the authority to stop somebody from quoting me, you are correct. But I do have the authority to report harassment, and that is precisely what you are doing! I did not comment on any statements you have made until after you had quoted me several times. I asked you to refrain from quoting me or replying to my posts because I dislike your attitude.

You may not.... Abuse, defame, harass, threaten, stalk, or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
You may not.... Post, upload, send personal messages, transmit or otherwise make available any inappropriate, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, vulgar, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, or unlawful content.

Harassment - The act or an instance of harassing, or disturbing, pestering, or troubling repeatedly; persecution:

Considering you quoted me several times before I ever responded to you, the nature of why you quoted me and the fact you continue to do so even though I asked you to stop, I feel it's harassment and violates the rules of the forum. And from now on out I'm just going to report your harassment to the moderators and let them deal with you.

 

[slink]

The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?

What....Its already been discussed that before anyone ask it was already offlimits.

Twist it however you want like always Kemper,no way this one can be blamed on asking permission.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?

I agree, when will some learn......?

Sprewell Bluff is a Ga State Park, anyone who doesn't ask is setting their selves up for a confrontation with authorities.. In Florida all state parks are off limits except for a few on the coast and then only on the beaches.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....... It seems that a quick google search confirms that it is indeed off limits. Yet somehow those pre existing regulations were caused by people asking permission. ....

Sluice: yes, in this case, the news link did not support the notion I thought it did. I concede that. Ok ? I was going by what the article itself said . It said: a) multiple people are asking b) they are told "no, because of artifacts".

Yes you have come on and made clear that there WAS /IS in fact a specific rule for "no md'ing", that pre-dated that. As to why the answer to those md'rs (and the story /link) didn't come out and say that, I don't know. I was going by what was written there.

And although *this* particular story, it turns out, does not show a "no one cared till you asked" psychology (I admit), that doesn't mean that there are cases of this going on. Just didn't turn out to be shown in this particular story.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Yet somehow those pre existing regulations were caused by people asking permission......

Curious: Do you know how the original "no md'ing" rule, at this particular agency, got dreamed up? I don't know how long ago it was put into print there, but ........ suffice it to say, neither of us (?) knows how it got dreamed up, way-back-when. It's possible it could have been a case of "pressing issues/questions passed up and down the chain of command", at some point in the past.

For example, going back to the OP link: You'll see they cite the fact that multiple people had come in asking . It's not hard for me to imagine that, way-back-whenever this rule got there as a specific, that it could have come on their radar as "something that needs a rule", because of this psychology. I'm not 100% of that , but .... just sayin'.

Oh: And if ever someone COULD research back to the orignal genesis (example: talk to the guy who put it in draft form, for vote by the council, blah blah), they would NEVER say "because people were asking can I?". Instead they will typically reach for a "go-to" reason. Ie.: holes, artifacts or something. But the real question is: Ok, but what put THAT on their radar? Because IMHO, "holes" or whatever is just the "go-to" reason. When in fact, perhaps it wouldn't have necessarily crossed their mind, had it not been brought up as a "pressing issue" for their "princely say-so".

As I say, I can't be 100%, but .. just sayin' I wonder.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... When you can cite a specific example where asking permission led to a place becoming off limits then we can talk. .....

Really ? You promise ? If I can cite you examples, you'll acknowledge the train of events could/can happen ?

And by "off-limits", do you mean as in a printed rule, or do you also include just "no's" passed out to individuals, as also meaning "off-limits"? Let me know and I'm prepared to cite some chapter and verses

 

[Tom_in_CA]

no matter if it is private property or public or corporations, property has a owner, or a authority in charge of property has the same rights to ban or allow any action to the property they are in charge of. Geez, you do not have that right of determination

I do not dispute that kayakpat. They MOST CERTAINLY can make any rule they desire. They can forbid the wearing of blue T-shirts if -they-so-desire. I agree.

And so too can they decide to forbid md'ing. I agree. But it seems to me that the question here is: "why put that on their radar as something to consider doing?" That's all I'm saying.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My comment was in reference to Tom's post that I quoted. I did not say it was blamed on people asking permission so that statement does not relate to me. Everyone should know State and Federal law and abide by those as I've said in reference to them. Here in Missouri State parks do allow metal detecting on certain beaches. Some of our parks are restricted to protect what the State considers artifacts and some are restricted to prevent damage to the park alone. A person might be able to detect other areas in the parks that are restricted because of the damage issue if they get approval from the Park Ranger. I doubt the Park Ranger would have the authority to allow detecting other areas on the ones restricted because of artifact issues. This shows why I encourage others to know the law and also know that it is not always as simple as reading that law and considering a site lost. City parks are more commonly under Codes,Ordinances and Policys etc. There is room for discretion on those and people should know the difference between a law and a code,for instance, and should not think they need permission to detect a park that is not clearly restricted in a code. Those in authority can better make a decision on whether or not to let someone detect if they see how they are doing it. They do not have to make that decision without doing that but some have by posting and writing clear rules into codes and those we must obey as well as the authority that we may encounter in the field.

The article certainly doesn't mention anything about improper metal detecting or illegal detecting. If I am reading between the lines correctly I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?

I addressed your comments which were made in regard to the article as you stated, you stated the park ban was due to "someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and that was why the ban is in place."

I would say that improper detecting had nothing to do with the ban but rather someone kissing up to the powers-to-be and once again a ban is in place because someone did that. When will some ever learn ?

Be careful when backing up so fast, you will run over someone...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense

correct. And that's why you and I can go look up those laws, and hence not be ignorant of them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

hey guys, I think this got ship-wrecked. While the notion/topic of the genesis of places dreaming up a "no md'ing" rule is a valid one, for conversation, yet THIS opening example link, did NOT show that. So therefore, everything hereafter, keeps going back to the particular link failing to show that.

So if the subject of "when we need to ask permission" is going to be talked about, it can not be talked about in context of that link. Alright already. It's the "achilles heel". Kemper is wanting to therefore switch to the "general" topic, yet, sluice and others are seeing this "achilles heel" that the OP link doesn't apply.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

hey guys, I think this got ship-wrecked. While the notion/topic of the genesis of places dreaming up a "no md'ing" rule is a valid one, for conversation, yet THIS opening example link, did NOT show that. So therefore, everything hereafter, keeps going back to the particular link failing to show that.

So if the subject of "when we need to ask permission" is going to be talked about, it can not be talked about in context of that link. Alright already. It's the "achilles heel". Kemper is wanting to therefore switch to the "general" topic, yet, sluice and others are seeing this "achilles heel" that the OP link doesn't apply.

Tom, your the OP, you posted the link as the example, kemper attacked the hunters who asked about hunting a State Park.......Both you and Kemper are saying it was the fault of the people who asked about hunting.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Not backing up at all and I will stand by my statements. Reading between the lines (as Tom asked) I'm thinking the Archies kissed up to the powers -to-be and that is why metal detecting is banned. Nice try but when we make assumptions as to what someone said, instead of asking them when we don't know ,we could get the wrong picture. Tom asked to read between the lines on his post. I did not ask that of mine.

Beep, beep, beep.... [emoji597] ---->


It is a state park, metal detecting is not allowed in Ga State Parks.

From Ga State Park Rules...
http://gastateparks.org/rules?s=14493.0.0.5&genstatic=1

"Collecting: All wildlife, plant life, driftwood, artifacts and any other natural or man-made features are protected and may not be disturbed or removed. Please leave wildflowers for other visitors to enjoy. Possession of metal detecting equipment is prohibited."

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, your the OP, you posted the link as the example, kemper attacked the hunters who asked about hunting a State Park.......Both you and Kemper are saying it was the fault of the people who asked about hunting.

Corrrect. And it's falling apart because the very link I used to open it up for discussion, it turned out, did/does not support that. Oh sure, we can all muse as to why their rule ever started years prior to that, (ie.: turn it in to a GENERAL conversation on the issue), but that turns into a train-wreck. Because ........ that would need to be ANOTHER thread, not THIS one. Doh!

So Kemper, Sluice, etc... I , as the OP here, recant this particular thread. Thanx for chiming in. Thanx for showing how the article wasn't a good example, etc.... No need for y'all to go at each other's throats. It's just discussion, and nothing personal.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My comment was not in reference to that . My comment was in reference to what Tom posted. I stand by my comment. Reading between the lines I think the Archies got detecting banned in the area Tom referenced. They might be the reason for Ga. State Park bans as a whole too. I hope you understood my clarification in post # 73.

Members post count and admins/mods post count are not the same, we still see all posts included deleted posts and they are still visible and numbered.

We know what you meant......

 

[Sluice Willis]

Question is, how many times has this happened? How many times has asking permission been blamed for restrictions that already existed? Google "metal detecting Georgia state parks" how long does it take to determine they are off limits?

I believe if a person can't tell the difference between when permission is needed, and when it's not needed they should find another hobby altogether! This is about people being greedy and trying to justify hunting places that gives us a bad image. When you get people saying "There should be a law against that!" eventually there is. There are places we CAN hunt but probably SHOULDN'T, because it leads to people complaining to the point where those in charge create regulations. When you stir crap, you get some on ya! The best places to detect are the places nobody has been yet, and those places almost always require permission. If you asked permission and this inspired them to restrict detecting, you may want to change the way you're asking! Just a thought, the only people that tell me no, are those mean old cat ladies that hate everybody anyway, their cats like me though! Lol!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No.........

 

[Sluice Willis]

Corrrect. And it's falling apart because the very link I used to open it up for discussion, it turned out, did/does not support that. Oh sure, we can all muse as to why their rule ever started years prior to that, (ie.: turn it in to a GENERAL conversation on the issue), but that turns into a train-wreck. Because ........ that would need to be ANOTHER thread, not THIS one. Doh!

So Kemper, Sluice, etc... I , as the OP here, recant this particular thread. Thanx for chiming in. Thanx for showing how the article wasn't a good example, etc.... No need for y'all to go at each other's throats. It's just discussion, and nothing personal.

Sooo what you are saying is you're the real instigator then! As for Sprewell Bluff if anybody had anything to do with it it would have been the environmentalists, they speak for the trees just like the Lorax! But all of GA state parks are off limits so that would mean the GADNR is responsible for that decision. According to the article they claim it's due to possible artifacts. Possibly because GA feels compelled to protect and preserve those Civil War artifacts but leaving them undiscovered and rotting in the ground. I never once said I agreed with it, but that's just how it is. Or maybe they just don't want people digging for treasure in their parks. I bet if you e-mail them you will get a better answer as to why than you will from anybody on here, unless anybody here is a GADNR official.

 

[Sluice Willis]

In reference to what I highlighted above ,that to me is like saying " Don't detect in the park because if you do, metal detecting might be banned there" That's what it sounds like to me, but you may mean something else.

Obviously you didn't get it then, maybe you should trade in your metal detector for a fishing pole. And just a friendly reminder deliberately trying to provoke and offend me is a violation of forum policy. I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to report you, consider that fair warning.