Kent, it has been over a week since I asked you to extend me the courtesy of either confirming or denying whether we are using different source material in our discussion. And, while you have yet to respond to my request, you have found time to post more than 60 times in 8 different threads, including this one. I donÛªt know whether evading someone counts as courtesy in your neck of the woods, but as far as I am concerned thatÛªs not being very considerate, to say the least.
As my brother might say, or was that dad, ÛÏboys one of you is dumber than a coal bucketÛ. Is it me for expecting too much from you? Or, is it you for allowing someone like me to back you in to a corner where you cannot even provide an obfuscation?
Well, you aren't a Texas surveyor, so I really didn't see the relevance of your inquiry (which, in any event related to another thread than this one).
Kent McMillan, post: 348786, member: 3 wrote: Well, you aren't a Texas surveyor, so I really didn't see the relevance of your inquiry (which, in any event related to another thread than this one).
I take it from your response that you consider someone that is unlicensed in Texas as undeserving of courtesy. Well at least you were able to provide an obfuscation this time.
I made the inquiry after you raised the issue in this thread whether I was confused. That should be relevant enough. But, if you want to respond in the other thread, knock yourself out. Until you do, I will look for it here.
Had the issue you want to perseverate upon not been fully answered more than once in the relevant thread, I might have more patience with this attempt to resuscitate it here. Anyone who has read this thread will recognize that it deals with another topic entirely, not the specific enforcement action that was the subject of the earlier one.
Kent McMillan, post: 348872, member: 3 wrote: Had the issue you want to perseverate upon not been fully answered more than once in the relevant thread, I might have more patience with this attempt to resuscitate it here. Anyone who has read this thread will recognize that it deals with another topic entirely, not the specific enforcement action that was the subject of the earlier one.
There you go again, obfuscating. I am merely trying to determine whether the board minutes that I used are different than the so-called newsletter that you refer to above. This has never been answered, here, there or anywhere. Anyone who has read this thread knows that you accused me of being confused in this thread. I have given you the opportunity to enlighten me, but you choose not to do so, which says a lot about your character.
A post that is unrelated to the thread remains a post unrelated to the thread, no matter how many times or how plaintively it is reoffered.
And, an obfuscation remains an obfuscation. Why do you persist in disparagement, when my question was posted in this thread in response to a comment by you herein?
There you go again with distortion. I doubt that anyone who reads this thread will come to the conclusion that you desire.
.
I didn't get clarification directly from the TBPLS on this issue, however, I did just notice that the TBPLS has made the following proposal to the Texas Administrative Code:
663.19(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing including how it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
It seems strange that this rule change would be necessary if this was already what the rule said. Regardless, here it appears that this will likely be the rule regarding documentation of monuments in the near future. My preference would be that the new clause be phrased:
including if it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer and if so, how.
as there is language that allows for traceable markings not to be placed on a monument set, if it is unreasonable to do so, making the question of how null:
663.17(d) Where practical (emphasis mine), all monuments set by a Professional Land Surveyor to delineate or witness a boundary corner shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer.
Shawn Billings, post: 359055, member: 6521 wrote: I didn't get clarification directly from the TBPLS on this issue, however, I did just notice that the TBPLS has made the following proposal to the Texas Administrative Code:
663.19(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing including how it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
It seems strange that this rule change would be necessary if this was already what the rule said. Regardless, here it appears that this will likely be the rule regarding documentation of monuments in the near future. My preference would be that the new clause be phrased:
including if it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer and if so, how.
as there is language that allows for traceable markings not to be placed on a monument set, if it is unreasonable to do so, making the question of how null:
663.17(d) Where practical (emphasis mine), all monuments set by a Professional Land Surveyor to delineate or witness a boundary corner shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer.
That's the problem with trying to idiot-proof rules instead of being more selective about who gets registered in the first place. All of a sudden, everything needs training wheels.
