I submitted an electric easement legal description and sketch to the power company and it was returned because I hadn't shown the area of the easement (which is a 10' x 10' square). They can't let anything slide past. Geez.
Sounds like somebody is trying to justify their existence through nonsense.
99.99431415 square feet, more or less Or---0.002295554 acres, more or less.
Geez is right.
No, see, you didn't follow their rules either: Nearest square foot for under an acre, otherwise acreage with three (3) places to the right of the decimal point. Nothing else will do.
Deleted due to my unintended insensitivity.
My apology Bruce.
It's typical in my area to show both square footage and acreage. One reviewer commented that my three decimal place acreage didn't match my square footage by four square feet. Now I take C3D's square footage, calculate the acreage, then recalculate the former to match. Reviewers are great, they've taught me the value of deep breathing exercises while providing valuable insights into the workings of the moronic mind.
I have a handful of reviewers for which I purposely omit a north arrow or misspell something so they get to feel like they're doing their job and I don't have to get bent out of shape after a request to change a font or some other superfluous detail.
It's funny how all they care about is the area, because area=$$, and it's low on our priorities.
Murphy, you might enjoy Alexander King's "May This House Be Safe From Tigers," where he explained he had learned to include an obvious blunder in his artwork, like someone with two left hands, to give a reviewer something easily correctable to complain about.
In the late 1980s and 1990s I worked in the environmental field as a hydrogeologist. My first position was with Martin Marietta Astronautics Group (now Lockheed-Martin). I was the junior member of a three-man group charged with oversight of various environmental consultant firms. Martin Marietta had entered into a consent agreement with the U.S. EPA to conduct a remedial investigation of the Superfund site at their rocket plant in Waterton Canyon southwest of the Denver metro area.
In consultation with us, our consultants prepared proposals for various site investigations. The initial proposals were internal documents and a consensus was usually reached on the level and scope of the investigation necessary to adequately characterize the extent of the contamination. The consultants would prepare the official work proposal, which was significantly less than what was internally decided and submit it to the EPA.
The EPA's review almost invariably came to the conclusion that the proposed remedial investigation was "woefully inadequate." Of course it was and it was purposeful. The EPA was able to save face with the public that they were on duty and holding the scumbag polluter responsible. We then negotiated a revised work plan that was invariably close to the initial proposed work plan.
Everyone knew what was going on!
I didn't see anything insensitive, and I always enjoy your posts. Can you put it back?
Bruce, nothing that needs to be undeleted. I intended to tease you about your reluctance to do what you were told. I ended the post with "geezo, weezo!" That was a favorite saying of my old optical mineralogy and petrography professor that loosely translates to "Lordy, Lordy!" The target was suppose to be the utility company's picker of nits, but it read like my target was you.
Just another example of my difficulty expressing humor via the written word. 🙂
Gene, of course, that was the way I took it. Picker of nits, indeed. Ha.
