Shawn Billings, post: 345379, member: 6521 wrote: If history is any indication, you will not quote me accurately.
Why would I need to change your views? They are a perfect example just as you've written them. I will change your name to something else, though.
The reason for Nail Polish to find its way to the drill hole in the pan of a curbline of the parking area was based upon the fact that the business operating on that land and my client being a Nail Salon.
When I came in to ask the owner to come and see where his monuments were, I also ask him to bring along a bottle of red or orange polish.
He reached to a shelf that held a rather complete example of a rainbow of colors and he picked a shade of bright red and I had him to pour that into the drill hole........I then took a wireflag to mix and stirred in most of the concrete dust.
The description did contain a witness reference to a 3 inch chain link fence post bearing S 14å¡50' W at 1.73 feet.
Well, it's a safe bet that your client will definitely remember where that corner was marked.
You know what really Grinds My Gears:
When someone sets a MAG nail and calls it a PK! I mean; WTH!?
You know what their feeble excuse usually is: Well, that's what we've always called the nails we set. You know, like saying please hand me a Kleenex when the box clearly says Equate!
Where not describing nose wipey's here people! we are talking confused surveyor's 2 years from now; wondering whether they have the right point or not!
Sorry about venting like this; I thought about starting a new thread; but this thread seemed to be along the lines; so why not create less confusion...
B-)
More like you asking for a box of Kleenex and getting just the empty box with a surly proprietor wanting to argue that you asked for a box and got a box that had been made by the Kleenex company, so your requirements have obviously been met. No refunds.
Andy Nold, post: 345296, member: 7 wrote: I have not reviewed enough of the new investigator's cases to say that it applies to him, but more than one of the previous investigator's charges seemed like they weren't sure exactly what rule violation needed to apply but the work was crap so they needed to be charged with something. He had a few catch all charges like failure to do adequate research. I'm not saying ...
Am I correct in interpreting your comments to mean that the rules have sometimes been stretched by the board investigator?
LRWells, post: 345784, member: 7284 wrote: Am I correct in interpreting your comments to mean that the rules have sometimes been stretched by the board investigator?
I would say misapplied, in my opinion. I'm not saying rule violation charges weren't appropriate but the rule that was selected was probably a weak choice.
Thanks, misapplied it is. I just wish that Kent could be as concise and to the point. That is, if he would ever ÛÏman upÛ and respond to the two unanswered questions that I asked him above.
Good luck with that. He's on the ignore list because of his obtuseness.
Busted for one rule and complied to other probable and possible infractions in order to satisfy the terms to remain in business.
Asked and answered - multiple times.
Kent McMillan, post: 345903, member: 3 wrote: Asked and answered - multiple times.
Asked and answered; what a crock of deceit.
I asked you four times for the basis of a comment that you made about Shawn, and the best I got from you was a link to one of your pontificatory posts as to your position on ID caps. And, I asked you five times whether you were concerned about the apparent misstatement of Rules 663.19(4) and (6) in the board minutes concerning the complaints and all I got from you was obfuscation, when the answer could have been as easy as yes or no.
An answer to the former question is probably beyond your ability, as conciseness and relevance is just not your forte.
Asked and answered; what a crock of deceit.
I asked you four times for the basis of a comment that you made about Shawn, and the best I got from you was a link to one of your pontificatory posts as to your position on ID caps. And, I asked you five times whether you were concerned about the apparent misstatement of Rules 663.19(4) and (6) in the board minutes concerning the complaints and all I got from you was obfuscation, when the answer could have been as easy as yes or no.
An answer to the former question is probably beyond your ability, as conciseness and relevance is just not your forte.
I really didn't get the idea that you were following the thread. Clearly, the evidence cited in the board newsletter supported a finding that the registrants had violated the rule as alleged.
The rest of your questions are completely immaterial given that the registrants themselves provided the evidence of their failures to meet the minimum standard and also agreed that they had failed to do so in the final order.
Kent McMillan, post: 346349, member: 3 wrote: I really didn't get the idea that you were following the thread. Clearly, the evidence cited in the board newsletter supported a finding that the registrants had violated the rule as alleged.
Once again your answer is unresponsive to my question, but it would have been justified had you answered no to the question. It may not mean anything to you, but considering the mistaken references in the board minutes, I question the clarity of the evidence.
Kent McMillan, post: 346349, member: 3 wrote:
The rest of your questions are completely immaterial given that the registrants themselves provided the evidence of their failures to meet the minimum standard and also agreed that they had failed to do so in the final order.
This response is so far off the mark as to give new meaning to obfuscation. Unless you are counting the number of times I have posed them, I do not understand what you mean by the rest of my questions, as I have only asked you two questions. In any event, my other question had nothing to do with the registrants, as can readily be seen by anyone following the thread.
Your comments generally implied that you thought that registrants who agreed that they had violated Rule 663.17(d) should not be charged with violating Rule 663.17(d) and wanted to argue various questions that were irrelevant. There was so little to your arguments that I can't imagine why any ethical Texas registrant would advance them. Since you have already mentioned that you aren't licensed in Texas and either can't get licensed here or would prefer not to be, your objections are a mildly interesting subplot, but not a particularly relevant one.
Another story pertinent to this discussion; I was attending an Ethics CEU class a few years ago being taught by the former Board investigator. We came to this topic, and I asked why one wouldn't describe the inscription on what was set or found. I went on to state that future retracing surveyors working on the subject property or adjoining property may want to contact you, or you may want to contact the other surveyor (that surveyed on adjoiner) to discuss possible mistakes/ambiguities, or just to seek other evidence that you may not have uncovered or that has disappeared.
His lack of trepidation, emphatic & confident reply? "I've never called another surveyor and have no need to".
I was astounded to say the least.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 346510, member: 188 wrote: ...His lack of trepidation, emphatic & confident reply? "I've never called another surveyor and have no need to".
I was astounded to say the least.
Send his email address to Kent...he'll appreciate it.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 346510, member: 188 wrote: Another story pertinent to this discussion; I was attending an Ethics CEU class a few years ago being taught by the former Board investigator. We came to this topic, and I asked why one wouldn't describe the inscription on what was set or found. ... His lack of trepidation, emphatic & confident reply? "I've never called another surveyor and have no need to".
I'm hoping that wasn't Garey Gilley. He has been known to call a surveyor I know well asking about getting information.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 346510, member: 188 wrote: Another story pertinent to this discussion; I was attending an Ethics CEU class a few years ago being taught by the former Board investigator. We came to this topic, and I asked why one wouldn't describe the inscription on what was set or found.
As another footnote to Rule 663.17(d), I'll mention this amusing anecdote that is based entirely upon heresay. The late W.C. Wilson did himself make a practice of setting identifiable monuments, but argued that it should not be required of all registrants. I'm pretty sure that his reason for wanting to spare the other registrants of the enormous burden of actually putting their professional identification on monuments they were responsible for was that it would make the markers that he was already setting a bit less special.