Just though I'd see if anyone was paying attention to what site they were on......
Continue.
Had me, until I saw it was posted in "Humor" 😀 Then I was just curious and had to click on it!;-)
Thread doesn't count unless 1/3 of the posts are you responding to yourself.
Oh it is funny
that the 'heated' discussion of the importance of Dykes V Arnold is succinctly argued point/counterpoint style in the Marc Cheves editorial column of the American Surveyor.
To think of all the yada yada yada that went on in those posts here and it can be intelligently argued in a few columns of print.
Good read and good editing by Mr. Cheves.
> Thread doesn't count unless 1/3 of the posts are you responding to yourself.
and to another government surveyor lifer and you keep taking shots at the government that was your employer.
strange irony..
and funny too.
I get a rash now whenever I see or hear the word bogus. 😉
And you absolutely must end emphatic statements with a question mark?
Oh it is funny
I enjoyed the DYKES discussion in American Surveyor was well.
It sounds like your rash is a bogus rash. 😉
what if his rash is the first one and not just one protracted on paper?
> It sounds like your rash is a bogus rash. 😉
Had a bogus rash once, itched like He11. Worst part was the rash was right on my latitudinal curve. :-O
> > It sounds like your rash is a bogus rash. 😉
>
> Had a bogus rash once, itched like He11. Worst part was the rash was right on my latitudinal curve. :-O
"right on my latitudinal curve" - Funnest thing posted all week! 😀 :star:
Oh it is funny
Yes, that was good, I learned from it which should be the point, really.
Dykes is a good decision, IMO, but it isn't directly citable in most States. There isn't any reason why a Surveyor couldn't follow its reasoning because it is persuasive.
You guys are hilarious!
That is all. 😀
Cowboys Section to Subdivide
Doesn't much easier than this!
The Original Rectangular System
Cowboys Section to Subdivide
I don't mind the rectangular system, its these darn diagonals that mess everything up 🙂
Cowboys Section to Subdivide
I always thought it was a good idea to layout the roads where the people used them 🙂 (or they lead their cows)
Such as designing a campus; Why not wait a year and see where everyone walks and then layout the sidewalks?
Oh it is funny
> Yes, that was good, I learned from it which should be the point, really.
>
> Dykes is a good decision, IMO, but it isn't directly citable in most States. There isn't any reason why a Surveyor couldn't follow its reasoning because it is persuasive.
I have to disagree somewhat with you Dave. The Dykes decision should and probably will be cited in many other PLSS states. The Dykes court apparently scoured the country looking for references itself. It found only a few out-of-state cases that addressed the issues they faced, upon which they partly based their decision.
What is interesting is those that adamently argue that the Dykes decision shouldn't be cited and/or used by surveyors, fail to cite any controlling court decision that has supported the "bogus theory" (the theory that mathematics trumps good faith efforts and reliance). In other words, where are the citable decisions that have held the contrary principles stated in Dykes? Until there are some, I'm gonna follow case law and the Manual, one would be foolish to do otherwise.
And a comment to those who seem to revel in poking fun at Keith, while I enjoy a good chuckle as much as anyone, Keith is an intelligent, honorable, and principled man. Lets not let this get out of hand here, especially on a site where he has no avenue to defend himself. If you want to make it personal, at least post it where he can respond. Remember, we are professionals.
Oh it is funny
Right on Brian...
It (Keith's "argument") needs as much "air-time" as possible. It's NOT just about the current (or past) BLM procedures/activities, so much as it IS about PRIVATE Surveyors who can't seem to recognize a previously (and legally) SUBDIVIDED Section when they see one!
Loyal
Oh it is funny
I can get to where Dykes got by just citing the manual and good sense really.
In Dykes the Court had two choices, one which relied on a math professor playing geometry on the ground which fit nothing and messed up an entire Section or a Boundary Surveyor who identified the established center which fit everything and harmonized the boundaries closely with occupation. The Courts are increasingly looking to us as boundary experts to guide them to the best evidence of the boundary which doesn't necessarily require case cites. I am concerned many are not up to the challenge. I see too many cases where the surveyors act like it's still 1950 and provide the court with a bunch of nonsensical geometry while sitting back and expecting the Judge to figure it out. Cases where a real expert appears and provides the reasoning for why it isn't necessarily the pretty geometry go much better.
For the reasons you have stated I am staying out of the Keith discussion whom I have personally met.
