There you go again with distortion. I doubt that anyone who reads this thread will come to the conclusion that you desire..
And, an obfuscation remains an obfuscation. Why do you persist in disparagement, when my question was posted in this thread in response to a comment ...
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 - possi...
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 Pr...
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 min...
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 ...
Kent McMillan, post: 348872, member: 3 wrote: Had the issue you want to perseverate upon not been fully answered more than once in the relevant thread...
Kent McMillan, post: 348786, member: 3 wrote: Well, you aren't a Texas surveyor, so I really didn't see the relevance of your inquiry (which, in any e...
Kent, it has been over a week since I asked you to extend me the courtesy of either confirming or denying whether we are using different source materi...
Kent McMillan, post: 346961, member: 3 wrote: I think you have your threads confused. This is a thread about the early history of Rule 663.17 and the ...
Kent McMillan, post: 346951, member: 3 wrote: Since you've failed to support your continued suggestion that somehow the facts described in the newslet...
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 gr...
Kent McMillan, post: 346924, member: 3 wrote: Actually, your comments have been indistinguishable from those of a habitual violator looking for a "Get...
Au contraire, mon ami (and I use that term rather loosely) once again you are obfuscating. I have been following the thread very carefully and anybod...
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...
There you go again, back to obfuscation, thatÛªs the Kent I have come to expect, with a dose of disparagement. Neither my knowledge of surveying prac...
Thanks, that is a very judicious reply.
Thanks, concise and to the point. This is a first time experience for me. I just wish it had been yes.
According to the board minutes for complaints 12-36, 37 & 38, the surveyors were found guilty of violating 663.17(d) for not mentioning on the pla...
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 ...