Kent McMillan, post: 439383, member: 3 wrote: So, what you're saying is that you agree with Keith Williams' nutty views or are you saying that you actually agree with the general principle stated as if it were an obvious proposition in Clement v. Packer, i.e,
"It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey."
but just don't think that as a general principle it applies to Colorado? it seems to me that you can't have it both ways, eh?
Sigh....Thank heavens you are not licensed in Colorado, Kent. Regarding your quote in italics there are situations regarding junior-senior mining claims where that would not apply (see Chapter X of the Manual or my previous post for examples; i.e. for technical gaps). The more you yak, the more apparent it is that you are clueless about surveying anywhere but Texas.
[SARCASM]Out here in the West there's an old saying that, "the contrary can be shown", so yeah we get to have it both ways.[/SARCASM]
Gene Kooper, post: 439385, member: 9850 wrote: Sigh....Thank heavens you are not licensed in Colorado, Kent. Regarding your quote in italics there are situations regarding junior-senior mining claims where that would not apply (see Chapter X of the Manual or my previous post for examples; i.e. for technical gaps).
Okay, so for the record : your natural inclination is to say that you really don't have any idea as to whether junior grants control the boundaries of senior grants or not? That must be fun for your clients.
Kent, you know nothing about surveying in Colorado. Please stop your juvenile debating tactic of rephrasing other's words into trite and misleading sound bites. I said no such thing.
[SARCASM]Should you ever decide to quit surveying, you'd be a natural as a spicy press secretary.[/SARCASM] :rofl:
Gene Kooper, post: 439407, member: 9850 wrote: Kent, you know nothing about surveying in Colorado. Please stop your juvenile debating tactic of rephrasing other's words into trite and misleading sound bites. I said no such thing.
Well, in that case, you shouldn't have any difficulty restating your views in a way that leaves no room for ambiguity. Be sure not to leave out whether or not you think that "It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey." Q: That is, after all, at the crux of the matter about which you complain, isn't it? A: Yes, it is.
Kent McMillan, post: 439409, member: 3 wrote: Well, in that case, you shouldn't have any difficulty restating your views in a way that leaves no room for ambiguity. Be sure not to leave out whether or not you think that "It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey." Q: That is, after all, at the crux of the matter about which you complain, isn't it? A: Yes, it is.
So now your intellectual dishonesty has devolved to repeatedly asking a silly, yes/no question, eh? Who knew surveying was so simple! 🙂
Gene Kooper, post: 439416, member: 9850 wrote: So now your intellectual dishonesty has devolved to repeatedly asking a silly, yes/no question, eh? Who knew surveying was so simple!
Not at all. it is you who have objected to the observation made by the US Supreme Court in its 1888 decision in Clement v. Packer and I'm merely asking whether as a point of daily practice of the profession of land land surveying in Colorado whether you disagree with the US Supreme Court.
You are perfectly free to post either that that
(a) you don't know enough about the question to have an opinion or
(b) that you do agree with the court as a general statement of principle.
What I've understood you to post is that you actually
(c) disagree with the obvious principle as stated by the US Supreme Court in Clement v. Packer.
As I noted above, this has to be fun for your clients.
Holy Cow, post: 439381, member: 50 wrote: (With snoot pointed skyward) May I please have those three minutes of my life back to put to far better use, Mr. FL/GA?
Sorry for the disruption I love these fights err "conversations". I cannot participate because I work in PLLSia and am thus considered "just plain stupid". 😎
FL/GA PLS., post: 439424, member: 379 wrote: I cannot participate because I work in PLLSia and am thus considered "just plain stupid"
Thank God I'm licensed in Pennsylvania so I don't have to face the questioning from the honorable gentleman from Texas who's apparently the chairman of the RPLS Committee on Un-Clement v. Packer Activities: "Are you know or have you ever been a member of the bend senior lines party"
Holy Cow, post: 439277, member: 50 wrote: Is snootiness somehow required to pass the survey licensure examination? What ever happened to professional congeniality?
Perhaps the best term to apply is:
Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.
I thought that arrogance (today's snootieness) was requisite for licensure. Or at least it is in Texas. They have an entire form and everything asking for snarky remarks to sample landowner statements.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You guys really should learn how to use the "ignore" feature. It makes for peaceful, pompous free surfing of beerleg.com.
Hi-staker, post: 439442, member: 8208 wrote: You guys really should learn how to use the "ignore" feature. It makes for peaceful, pompous free surfing of beerleg.com.
What fun would that be? 😉
Old silverback gorillas live for the chance to snort snot and pound the ground....
Hi-staker, post: 439442, member: 8208 wrote: You guys really should learn how to use the "ignore" feature. It makes for peaceful, pompous free surfing of beerleg.com.
I've done that in the past, but it makes so many of the treads unintelligible. It's like cutting Satan out of the Old Testament...you're reading along all fine and dandy, then all of a sudden it's "Hey, what did they do to deserve THAT?"
Kent McMillan, post: 439420, member: 3 wrote: Not at all. it is you who have objected to the observation made by the US Supreme Court in its 1888 decision in Clement v. Packer and I'm merely asking whether as a point of daily practice of the profession of land land surveying in Colorado whether you disagree with the US Supreme Court.
You are perfectly free to post either that that
(a) you don't know enough about the question to have an opinion or
(b) that you do agree with the court as a general statement of principle.
What I've understood you to post is that you actually
(c) disagree with the obvious principle as stated by the US Supreme Court in Clement v. Packer.
As I noted above, this has to be fun for your clients.
Kent, once again it is a case applicable only to Pennsylvania where the U.S. Supreme Court acted as the surrogate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We don't practice in Pennsylvania so the case is meaningless to both me and you. My answer is (d) I don't give a darned what they say, 'cause it doesn't matter in Colorado. If you want to continue this, please find a case that is precedent to Colorado and/or Texas, then we will have something to talk about.
In the meantime, my opinions on bending lines through intermediate corners is included in the thread I linked to earlier. Read it if you want to confront and/or challenge my views.
Not too long ago there were four or five of us 'old guys' that meet for breakfast regularly at a local caf?? on our loud and outrageously antiquated motorcycles. The conversations are usually dominated by stories of our 'glory days' and the pros and cons of Lipitor. Occasionally things devolve into politics and personal matters. Two of our pack decided to 'go there' over the current political climate. We other three ordered more coffee....
Dawdling citizens with children were moving their chairs away as the noise escalated. The conversation make a quick turn (somehow) to ex-wives and just how crappy Mopar products really are...some folks thought a fist fight was fixin' to break out. Someone finally threw some bananas at the two that were shaking the trees and growling. It was over as quick as it started.
In less than a minute the two that wanted each others guts spilled on the floor were laughing and making plans to hit the lake later together and see if the fish were biting.
All in a day's work for the over sixty crowd. 😉
Gene Kooper, post: 439450, member: 9850 wrote: Kent, once again it is a case applicable only to Pennsylvania where the U.S. Supreme Court acted as the surrogate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
You've obviously missed the fact that the remark was framed as a general statement of the law, not something specific to Pennsylvania.
paden cash, post: 439341, member: 20 wrote: ...a warm turd in a tepid punchbowl.
The most valuable take away from this thread.
paden cash, post: 439453, member: 20 wrote: Not too long ago there were four or five of us 'old guys' that meet for breakfast regularly at a local caf?? on our loud and outrageously antiquated motorcycles.
this is neither outrageously loud nor antiquated, but i'm about sick of not having enough time for it to be anything other than a commuter or a coffee shop bike.
kinda wish i could just tell the family to jump in the pathfinder and meet me in colorado, but they fly home and i have to bring the car back...
Kent McMillan, post: 439457, member: 3 wrote: You've obviously missed the fact that the remark was framed as a general statement of the law, not something specific to Pennsylvania.
Hey, I'm not the one that is conflating an obscure Pennsylvania decision into a general statement of law, you are. It is nothing more than an exquisite example of your skill at quote mining and being obtuse, Kent. You're really good at it. Hehe
Gene Kooper, post: 439469, member: 9850 wrote: Hey, I'm not the one that is conflating an obscure Pennsylvania decision into a general statement of law, you are.
Actually, the Supreme Court of Utah read the statement of the Court in Clement v. Packer exactly as I do and took it as a statement of law so general as to also be applicable to Utah in their decision in Washington Rock Co. v. Young et al.
