Actually, "hearsay" was the basis of my anecdote.
I was surprised when told the investigator did not visit the property mentioned in any complaints to see for themselves. Perhaps that meant that person did not visit the property, it was not a complete discussion of their process. It may be contracted out, I don't know.
Kent McMillan, post: 346596, member: 3 wrote: I'm hoping that wasn't Garey Gilley. He has been known to call a surveyor I know well asking about getting information.
Your an intelligent fellow Kent.
Am I correct in concluding that Mr. Gilley was not the subject investigator?
Once again, you respond with obfuscation. I never attempted to make such an implication, as I do not have sufficient facts to do so, and I challenge you to point out where I did,.
The reason my arguments seem so little to you is I never attempted to proffer one in this discussion. Instead I have expressed several observations I had made, the first of which was Rule 663.17(d) is, at best, ambiguously stated if it can be interpreted the way you would like it to be. My second observation was you managed to change the discussion to something other than the intent of the original post to this thread.
PS. I dare you to concisely answer my questions.
LRWells, post: 346656, member: 7284 wrote: Am I correct in concluding that Mr. Gilley was not the subject investigator?
Considering that there have been only two Board investigators that have been employed by the TBPLS, the current one being Larry Billingsley, and I had said "former" in my original post, I'll let you decide.
Spelling police alert: That should've been "You're" in my reply to Kent.
I was trying to think of all of the investigators. Wasn't Jerry McGray an investigator at one time? Perhaps it's semantics. It may be that Gilley was the first full time investigator. I really don't remember... slept since then.
Thanks, that is a very judicious reply.
LRWells, post: 346668, member: 7284 wrote: Thanks, that is a very judicious reply.
Perhaps my memory has slipped, but I believe that Gary was the first full-time investigator as Shawn stated.
Kent,
Here is my adventure this morning:
(a) He did not add his tag, as required. That is mandatory, not an option.
(b) His not adding his tag is a moot point because there are in fact three iron rebars there, not two, all of them tagged with well known numbers, and the oldest is right where I thought it should be.
(c) Amazing what a shovel can turn up if you actually dig in the ground, and then carefully scrape away the dirt around the iron rebars to find the tags.
Bruce Small, post: 346720, member: 1201 wrote: Here is my adventure this morning:
(a) He did not add his tag, as required. That is mandatory, not an option.
(b) His not adding his tag is a moot point because there are in fact three iron rebars there, not two, all of them tagged with well known numbers, and the oldest is right where I thought it should be.
(c) Amazing what a shovel can turn up if you actually dig in the ground, and then carefully scrape away the dirt around the iron rebars to find the tags.
Three rebars, all with tags, is impressive. Is the idea that some surveyors don't use stainless steel wire to attach the tag and the wire just rusts away so that the less-than-diligent practitioner can claim not to find the tags?
So the nut of your argument is that you want to claim that a rule that states:
663.17(d) Where practical, 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.
is sufficiently ambiguous that it means nothing? Where exactly are you licensed if not in Texas?
You know very well that you are distorting my words. I never said it meant nothing! Instead, I said it is ambiguous if it can be interpreted the way you would like it to be.
That was applicable about 280 posts ago.
Thank you for making the point so clear.
Hey, I got my professional ethics component of my CEU's for this year out of this thread. It prompted me to write a history of some of the most important rules of Texas practice. Without this thread, I would have never known how widely unaware many Texas registrants are of certain rules and probably would not have written anything.
If you think the horse is dead you havenÛªt being paying attention.
If you find the discussion boring, I challenge you to start one that will have greater participation. While it might not be the meatiest, as best that I can tell, this discussion could very well be the champ as to number of posts and is second in views to the Bogus Theory of Subdividing Sections.
I believe there is quite a lot to be learned from this discussion already besides the knowledge gained by Kent, as he states below. For instance, I have learned not to expect a straight answer from him, which is something that some already know and others should heed. And, who knows what will be learned by the time the discussion runs its course.
Kent McMillan, post: 346933, member: 3 wrote: Hey, I got my professional ethics component of my CEU's for this year out of this thread. It prompted me to write a history of some of the most important rules of Texas practice. Without this thread, I would have never known how widely unaware many Texas registrants are of certain rules and probably would not have written anything.
By the way, for the benefit of any further questions, one side trip of this thread has been a simple exercise in logic. The logical proposition is that if a surveyor is required to describe the monuments that he or she sets, then absent any evidence to the contrary, a surveyor's description of a marker he or she has set is presumed be correct.
So, a surveyor who reports, say, that a "1/2-inch iron rod" was set with no mention of professional identification is presumed to have set a 1/2-inch iron rod without the professional identification that Texas surveyors are required to attach to monuments we set, except in certain situations where it is plainly impractical to do so.
View 1: The surveyor is required to describe so if we PRESUME he described accurately then he did not properly identify his monuments.
View 2: The surveyor is required to identify his monuments, so if we PRESUME he did identify them, then he did not fully describe them.
Those views are equally logical.
(Ok, I'm a sucker for taking the bait on a thread that should have died long ago. I'll go away now.)
Bill93, post: 348881, member: 87 wrote:
View 1: The surveyor is required to describe so if we PRESUME he described accurately then he did not properly identify his monuments.
View 2: The surveyor is required to identify his monuments, so if we PRESUME he did identify them, then he did not fully describe them.
Those views are equally logical.
And a registrant is entirely free to assert that he or she incorrectly described a monument, but really did set a monument with profesional identification. It's still a violation, but of a different rule. Since an isolated instance of failing to correctly describe a monument would be a lesser violation than a flagrant and consistent failure to set identifable monuments, it is logical to conclude from just the record that no such demonstration was made and that no professional identification really was attached to the monument described as "set 1/2-inch iron rod".
The only reason I mention this is that there is at least one poster who indicates that he or she finds the simply logic of this situation impossible to understand and this disposes of that.