Wow...."Hate-you-a-lot" is it?
First, I would argue that opinions are not irrelevant in this discussion. Interpretation of the manual and "BLMeez" is subject to what the manual says. I should be able to read the manual in English and know what its intention is. I disagree with the BLMeez being some overriding factor in its interpretation.
I hope "parole" isn't part of your BLMeez.
In all fairness, I can see where you are going, and that maybe, in my CCR I shouldn't identify a monument I identified by perpetuated evidence as "existent". However, I might argue that the position is "existent" even if the actual monument is obliterated. In fact that would make much more sense in the interpretation (oops there comes an opinion) of the manual. The monument may be obliterated but the position is "existent" by extrinsic evidence. Or the Monument may be existent as well as the original position if the monument has not been disturbed. How about one other: the monument may be existent, but the position is "obliterated" which might be the case of a monument being dug up and moved by a land owner, but the extrinsic evidence can determine the original position.
Okay, sorry. Your points are well-taken, but your apparent overbearing attitude and all-knowing persona, makes a guy want to poke a few holes in your pontifications.
