Kent McMillan, post: 348884, member: 3 wrote:
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.
Nosiree Bob, this does not dispose of the situation not by any stretch of the imagination. It is not logical to come to that conclusion from the record alone. It takes either an express admission or a field examination, which of itself may not be conclusive as all it would take is either earthwork or an unscrupulous abutter to destroy the evidence.
Kent, in another thread, I asked you three times whether the newsletter that you refer to in both that thread and above is the same as the 5/29/15 minutes of the TBRLS. And, all that I got in return from you is obfuscation and scorn. You even questioned the relevance of my inquiry, saying in effect that it belongs in this thread. Well, here I am, please extend me the courtesy of answering my question.
Sorry, but being able to think logically is the cost of admission to this thread.
Well, considering that the entire discussion had been based upon :
a) the rules of the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying and
b) the facts as set forth in the minutes of the TBPLS that Shawn Billings linked to, what else should a person reaonably have concluded but that you weren't even following the thread?
BTW, from your use of "earthwork" and "abutter", I'm guessing that you are somewhere in the East - possibly Massachusetts or New York - fretting about Texas surveying practice. What did I win?
So, if I set a pin with a cap on it bearing my name and number, should I call that our in the description?
ie: "to a capped pin set bearing my own name." (or something to that effect)
Can we safely assume that if the cap named is not my name that I found it? I can leave out the word found when referring to a named cap. In the description, it will say "according to a survey by [me]" and any set caps would have my name on them. However, if I call out a name, we can agree that I found it and didn't set a cap bearing a different name?
I ask these silly questions because, although these items are not required, I'd like to run with the big dogs. I'm writing three descriptions containing my caps, a different company's caps and a bare 5/8" rebar and a MAG nail set (without a tag).
In use the text of a legal can easily get separated from the bits of your "Exhibit A" that identify who performed the survey and prepared the legal. SO, yes, I'd absolutely include details about what is written on the cap in the text of a legal description. That is typical practice around here.
mattharnett, post: 349039, member: 6458 wrote: So, if I set a pin with a cap on it bearing my name and number, should I call that our in the description?
ie: "to a capped pin set bearing my own name." (or something to that effect)
Can we safely assume that if the cap named is not my name that I found it? I can leave out the word found when referring to a named cap. In the description, it will say "according to a survey by [me]" and any set caps would have my name on them. However, if I call out a name, we can agree that I found it and didn't set a cap bearing a different name?.
The practices I follow are:
a) Always describe any monument as either "found" or "set" unless it is a natural monument like a fence, stream, or tree for which "found" or "set would be absurd. If I have recovered a monument that previously set, I mention that fact so that the provenance is clear.
b) Always describe any monument, regardless of whether it is found or placed in a way that gives the next surveyor a more than adequate basis for identifying it as the same you described. That means describing any cap by size, material, and full stamping or imprinting. Caps can get mangled, so having as many of the words to compare to the remaining fragments is useful.
Kent McMillan, post: 348880, member: 3 wrote: 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.
Just to be clear, did approval of your CEU's for ethics in some way include a decision from the board that your argument was correct: that the violators were in violation of rule 663.17d because they did not describe the identification on the iron rods they set?
Have you actually read the board rules on CEU's?
Shawn Billings, post: 349100, member: 6521 wrote: Just to be clear, did approval of your CEU's for ethics in some way include a decision from the board that your argument was correct: that the violators were in violation of rule 663.17d because they did not describe the identification on the iron rods they set?
Would I be correct in concluding from your question that you haven't actually read the TBPLS criteria for CEU credits?
Kent McMillan, post: 349114, member: 3 wrote: Would I be correct in concluding from your question that you haven't actually read the TBPLS criteria for CEU credits?
Ah. Thanks. That clears it up.
Kent McMillan, post: 348896, member: 3 wrote: Well, considering that the entire discussion had been based upon :
a) the rules of the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying and
b) the facts as set forth in the minutes of the TBPLS that Shawn Billings linked to, what else should a person reaonably have concluded but that you weren't even following the thread?
The board rules and minutes are what I have been using; nothing more, nothing less. Therefore a reasonable person would have concluded that I was in fact following the thread. And, a reasonable person would also conclude that your dogged distortions are designed to arrive at the desired outcome. The plain hard truth of the matter is Rule 663.17(d) merely requires that an identifiable monument be set, and your attempts to rationalize a broader interpretation are quite unreasonable.
Kent McMillan, post: 348898, member: 3 wrote: BTW, from your use of "earthwork" and "abutter", I'm guessing that you are somewhere in the East - possibly Massachusetts or New York - fretting about Texas surveying practice. What did I win?
Close but no cigar. When asked in person, I frequently reply by saying ÛÏyou probably wonÛªt believe me but IÛªm from Boston, MA.Û Upon receiving a puzzled look, I then tell the person ÛÏIÛªm actually from Ft. Worth, TexasÛ, which generally puts the matter to rest. For what it is worth, I used to live in Quonset Point, Davisville and Narragansett, Rhode Island.
A few years after a move like that it should be impossible for anyone to understand what you are saying as you blend the two local accents into something unintelligible.
[MEDIA=youtube]yi71pNHu1pc[/MEDIA]
If you enjoy that just let it keep going to find another Archie Campbell story.
If you enjoy Ray Stevens just let it keep going as Ray gets political after Archie's stories.
Dang it. I thought I started with this one.
[MEDIA=youtube]F-t_xNy7SxY[/MEDIA]
>your dogged distortions are designed to arrive at the desired outcome
Actually, I'm pretty sure his evasive and incomplete responses are designed to see how long he can keep others arguing.
Kent McMillan, post: 346727, member: 3 wrote: 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?
No, no, no - that stainless steel stuff is WAY too expensive!
Do we have to keep making the snide remarks? Is that a requirement for making a comment on this thread?