Assuming that you mean in terms of surveying someone's property boundaries:
I gather all of the facts that will enable me to mark your boundaries in the same place that they were originally made. I will report all of the facts I've found and will explain their significance and relative importance to your boundary location. If I find improvements that do not appear to have been properly placed relative to your boundary, I will locate them and show their relationship to your property lines. Some improvements may also be facts which helped me to determine the correct location of your boundaries. They will be shown along with an explanation as to why I considered them to be reliable evidence of your boundaries.
Your turn. In your words, not mine, and no "That's what I was trying to say." If it is, fine, but still articulate your thoughts in your own words.
Surveyor In Training, post: 346740, member: 10308 wrote: Answer me this.
In a short sentence describe in the most simplest terms what a surveyor does. Act like its a layman who asked you what a surveyor actually does.
I believe that is the problem they are addressing.
You should never summarize (with no clear indication of your position) or simply add small statements (that do not clarify your position) in an open ended argument or discussion.
The resulting miscommunication only serves to make things worse.
eapls2708, post: 346742, member: 589 wrote: Assuming that you mean in terms of surveying someone's property boundaries:
I gather all of the facts that will enable me to mark your boundaries in the same place that they were originally made. I will report all of the facts I've found and will explain their significance and relative importance to your boundary location. If I find improvements that do not appear to have been properly placed relative to your boundary, I will locate them and show their relationship to your property lines. Some improvements may also be facts which helped me to determine the correct location of your boundaries. They will be shown along with an explanation as to why I considered them to be reliable evidence of your boundaries.
Your turn. In your words, not mine, and no "That's what I was trying to say." If it is, fine, but still articulate your thoughts in your own words.
In regards to surveying someone's property. Yes.
That's way more then a sentence though.
My initial statement that you have problem with is a relative simple sentence to articulate to a layman in regards to what we do.
A surveyor takes a deed aka legal description and puts the deed lines on the ground for the client to see.
that1surveyor, post: 346743, member: 2169 wrote: I believe that is the problem they are addressing.
You should never summarize (with no clear indication of your position) or simply add small statements (that do not clarify your position) in an open ended argument or discussion.
The resulting miscommunication only serves to make things worse.
Well the polite thing would be to ask someone to clarify what they meant instead of assuming
eapls2708, post: 346738, member: 589 wrote:
If you make that attempt, you will also be making an opportunity for yourself to learn even faster because by articulating what you mean rather than defending against what you didn't mean, you begin to increase your understanding and use the comments of others to fine tune your knowledge rather than seeing those comments as projectiles to deflect and defend against.
Daniel,
Please understand this opportunity. Evan et.al ARE on your side...we are all in this together! Before you reply to this post, start one of the 'hello' posts...tell of us about your hometown... About your dog in your photo... Let us get to know each other...our education and experiences...
DDSM:beer:
Paragould? How old are those railroad ROW?
While that may be the case, it never hurts to keep your end as clear as possible.
You can't assume that the other person will know exactly what you mean or that they will get clarification.
With no insult intended to any parties in this discussion...You should always phrase something in a way that it is clear to even the lowest common denominator. This is especially true in a technical or otherwise professional discussion.
Surveyor In Training, post: 346744, member: 10308 wrote: In regards to surveying someone's property. Yes.
That's way more then a sentence though.
My initial statement that you have problem with is a relative simple sentence to articulate to a layman in regards to what we do.
A surveyor takes a deed aka legal description and puts the deed lines on the ground for the client to see.
The surveyor finds the deed lines on the ground where they already exist unless they have not been established yet, it's only a layout job once.
Dave Karoly, post: 346751, member: 94 wrote: The surveyor finds the deed lines on the ground where they already exist unless they have not been established yet, it's only a layout job once.
If a couple lines are missing you don't lay them out again?
You asked me to do something that takes more than a single sentence to explain in a way that communicates what the surveyor does in plain language.
Making the constraint of putting it in one sentence is what caused the misunderstanding in the first place. You can choose to learn or you can choose to argue. One makes you appear intelligent, the other simply makes you look stubborn and willfully ignorant. Why are you choosing to fight when I'm trying to help you?
eapls2708, post: 346753, member: 589 wrote: You asked me to do something that takes more than a single sentence to explain in a way that communicates what the surveyor does in plain language.
Making the constraint of putting it in one sentence is what caused the misunderstanding in the first place. You can choose to learn or you can choose to argue. One makes you appear intelligent, the other simply makes you look stubborn and willfully ignorant. Why are you choosing to fight when I'm trying to help you?
Yeah I'm done with this thread cause that's all you want is an argument.
Surveyor In Training, post: 346752, member: 10308 wrote: If a couple lines are missing you don't lay them out again?
Maybe they are not missing, maybe you need to dig deeper.
Do you want one sentence or a more complete explanation. The shorter the summary, the more details that need to be left out.
You can go with Dave's one sentence explanation and insert the presumption that, yes, he will mark the lines or corners on the ground. Or you can go with my 3 or 4 sentences and insert fewer assumptions (or have fewer open questions), or you can read all the stuff many of us have posted throughout the entire thread.
Stop fighting. Stop silly attempts to trip up others by placing ridiculous constraints on the answers you ask for. Start participating to effectively communicate and to learn.
If you're going to sit at the grown ups table, you need to be willing to join in the conversation on a grown up level. Sorry to be blunt, but you've been behaving like a block-headed adolescent to folks who are trying to help you. Get with the program or go sit at the kids' table.
eapls2708, post: 346761, member: 589 wrote: Do you want one sentence or a more complete explanation. The shorter the summary, the more details that need to be left out.
You can go with Dave's one sentence explanation and insert the presumption that, yes, he will mark the lines or corners on the ground. Or you can go with my 3 or 4 sentences and insert fewer assumptions (or have fewer open questions), or you can read all the stuff many of us have posted throughout the entire thread.
Stop fighting. Stop silly attempts to trip up others by placing ridiculous constraints on the answers you ask for. Start participating to effectively communicate and to learn.
If you're going to sit at the grown ups table, you need to be willing to join in the conversation on a grown up level. Sorry to be blunt, but you've been behaving like a block-headed adolescent to folks who are trying to help you. Get with the program or go sit at the kids' table.
Point proven
I couldn't agree more. 2 semesters of "boundary law" isn't enough, let alone Idaho's education requirement: "Three (3) credits in Surveying Law and Boundary Descriptions". No, that isn't 3 credits in each, but a total of 3 credits for both...................
Surveyor In Training, post: 346756, member: 10308 wrote: Yeah I'm done with this thread cause that's all you want is an argument.
Daniel,
That takes me back to 1975 during my LSIT days...I used to think my mentor, Roy H. Black (RLS 690), was trying to trick me...to argue...to make me feel stupid. Now I know the value of the education of all of his 'Whys? ' He was not looking for an argument as much as he was 'testing' me for my professional career. He figured that if I could prove it to him, I could prove it to anyone.
(thanks again, Roy)
DDSM:gammon::plumbbob:
I was thinking along the same lines Dan... back to the days when I knew so much more than I do now and so much more than the people who had tried to teach me things from time to time.
It's easy to get frustrated at someone who refuses to learn, but it's hard to be mad when I remember that I was the blockhead 30 or so years ago. I think it's a prerequisite trait to becoming a surveyor. Need to spend a decade or two learning everything the hard way.
eapls2708, post: 346767, member: 589 wrote: I was thinking along the same lines Dan... back to the days when I knew so much more than I do now and so much more than the people who had tried to teach me things from time to time.
It's easy to get frustrated at someone who refuses to learn, but it's hard to be mad when I remember that I was the blockhead 30 or so years ago. I think it's a prerequisite trait to becoming a surveyor. Need to spend a decade or two learning everything the hard way.
I mean you don't know when to shut up and be done with something. You just want to argue to argue. I'm just gonna put you in the category with Kent.
First off I haven't learned one thing from your post that I didnt know. From my first post you started lecturing me and I kept telling you that's not what I meant but you kept going on. Then I tried to clarify my post so you could see where I was coming from but you kept wanting to argue. Then you resort to name calling which I don't take kindly too. But you go ahead and hide behind your keyboard.
You don't always have to get the last word to win an argument.
;">this video, you may not have enjoyed it before. A true classic.
Geez ......... relax a bit. Everyone here is only trying to help. I can remember being "schooled" quite a few times by members of this board, and yes, I took it personally --- for a while. Then I started researching what I thought, and what others were trying to teach me, yep, they were usually right. That is where I learned the most - trying to prove others wrong. Maybe a wrong way to go, but it worked. Now I have learned to try and research my own opinions so I can back them up as necessary.
From your screen name "surveyor in training", I and I assume others, assumed you would be more eager to add to your knowledge from this great resource. As you will find, certain phrases and words such as "stake the deed" tend to be hot-buttons in certain topics, and you may need to explain your thoughts more in depth and carefully. If you are having a hard time discussing and explaining certain principles, ideas, and methods to a bunch of surveyors, imagine how all the non-surveyors, that you must communicate with, can easily misunderstand what you are trying to convey.
socratic method