Notifications
Clear all

Surveyor's Error - 1904

26 Posts
13 Users
0 Reactions
3 Views
(@dane-ince)
Posts: 571
Registered
 

thanks EAPLS

I had read that before and then Dave mention 1930 and having a laspe of memory I was incredulous that it had been so long after 1891 when surveyor's were regulated. Just goes to show that if you mess things up bad enough the state will regulate your actions.

Sorry Dave, I will never questions your highness again... lol

 
Posted : October 7, 2011 1:04 pm
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

thanks EAPLS

> Sorry Dave, I will never questions your highness again... lol

Why would you say this, Dane?

Do you know that there is a difference between a PE and an LS? I have to ask given your behavior last night.

 
Posted : October 7, 2011 2:14 pm
(@dane-ince)
Posts: 571
Registered
 

DAVE DAVE DAVE

The difference between an engineer and a surveyor is that the engineer calcs the building wrong in 1904, hands the calcs to the surveyor to stake, being to lazy to check it or lacking the education to know how to do so the surveyor stakes the building wrong and gets blamed for it owning to the fact that the surveyor is plainly to stupid or honest to lie out of the entire matter... In the menawhile our ever brilliant engineer designs and builds a dam that fails some 24 years latter and then suffers the same fate as the surveyor Licensure. Ergo the difference between a surveyor and an engineer is 39 years and the fact that only surveyors and pre 82 civils can continue to screw up boundary surveys.

Happy now?

 
Posted : October 7, 2011 8:07 pm
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

DANE DANE DANE

When you are already standing in a hole I suggest you stop digging.

Note that all I said was "No PEs before 1930" which is a true statement (for Dane: the opposite of a lie). Dane goes off the deep end AGAIN over that simple statement, can't figure that one out. I said nothing about Land Surveyors because it is common knowledge in California that the first Land Surveyor licensing act was in 1891.

There is a Frank J. Baker in the list of Civil Engineers but since Civils were not licensed in 1904 that really isn't relevant. The F.J. Baker in the story was operating without a license in 1904 although he may have the been the same F.J. Baker who was registered as a Civil Engineer in 1929 or 30.

I don't think William Mulholland had anything to do with the building in San Francisco but I could be mistaken.

 
Posted : October 7, 2011 8:12 pm
(@dane-ince)
Posts: 571
Registered
 

Dave got humor?

Dave what I said was simple enough. But it makesme wonder if you are devoid of humor at all?

Again for those with a challenge, my point was and is that it is interesting that surveyors were required to be licensed 38 years before engineers.

Oh yeah I did say something about you being WRONG ON THE INTERNET AGAIN (that was meant as a joke) I think I even included a lol after the statement

 
Posted : October 8, 2011 8:55 am
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

Dave got humor?

Ha.

So now it was all a big joke, sure it was.

That sort of "humor" usually doesn't play well on the internet. I know from personal experience. I casually ignited a fire storm over two versions of a 1/16th corner because I was tired from a long, steep and hot day back in August 2010. I just was being my sarcastic self but no one else seemed to think it was very funny. Oh well.

 
Posted : October 8, 2011 1:21 pm
Page 2 / 2