More or Less

[Mike Mueller]

This statement is ofttimes used extraneously. In one description it followed every course and when the matter was taken to court, the judge knocked out all of the statements of "more or less." The theory expressed was that inasmuch as they were used throughout, they carried no meaning whatsoever.

Good thing its only on the area then. That way the judge would know it was the lowest in priority in the minds of the scrivenor, and original grantor in case there was ever any issues of ambiguity.

"Anything else is "more or less", ah, how much more or less? Completely meaningless without quantification. Pure donk. The most common counter I hear is "the area is not controlling and if I state 'more or less' readers will understand". I do not buy it."

Seems like we have the basis for creating a test that will give us some concrete evidence. I do not know how to start a poll, but will try to get one going if I can figure it out. That would cover the surveyor side of the audience.

If we asked 100 non-surveyors what they thought "more or less" meant on the areas, I would predict that over %70 would say it meant that the area was not exactly what the number written was. Anyone have a good idea for creating a poll like that? Facebook group or some such?

Generally, these have been Benson Bullseye issues, except chute 6. We have plenty of that to go around locally.

As an aside, every time you say "Benson Bullseye" I find myself saddened that someone I respect for being as educated and knowledgeable as yourself would use what is effectively an ad hominem attack in a discussion. I guess its technically an ad locum attack, but it is the same thing, IE a trick used when the substance of your side of a discussion is lacking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," (more or less is useful on area) to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic (happens to live in the Bay Area), and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent. "(Benson Bullseye)

We went through the evidence for your assertion that the Bay Area is a center of horrible surveying in another thread and all your predictions fell short. But even if it was correct, are you using the term to try and convince those living in the Bay Area to change? Or to try and characterize a set of supposed practices you can use as a bad example? What is the positive outcome that is produced by using a phrase like that?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...

Generally, these have been Benson Bullseye issues, except chute 6. We have plenty of that to go around locally.

...
We went through the evidence for your assertion that the Bay Area is a center of horrible surveying in another thread and all your predictions fell short.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean it is evidence to the contrary. As I explained in the same thread, the Benson Bullseye is a theory to explain something that is unexplainable. Sweet tea and porch talk, may be proven otherwise. Just not by you, yet. The door is still open.

I can understand why you, residing near the center of the Bullseye, would see it as an ad hominem attack - which I am not above in a given instance. However, when I write about practices that land surveyors outside of the Bullseye could not imagine - practices I have seen with my own eyes - it adds credibility as the geographic location is a real place and not an abstract hypothetical that would appear unimaginable, widespread and not a weird one off. Less traveled, regular law abiding folks, unfamiliar with the Bullseye regional practices, would be unlikely to believe they exist, hyperbole. If someone wanted to check the veracity of the claims they could visit the bridge, Alcatraz and detour to see the private records or stop in to visit the locals. Like you, they are generally friendly and willingly 'splain their practices. I consider most of the Bullseye professionals I know as friends and quite likable.

Many examples of, er, non-standard practices are repeatedly and uniformly defended by private land surveying folks in the Bullseye i.e. "more or less" (rather than acknowledge it is written in the Good Book and the misuse is defended with vigor), together with the private survey records attributed to a single sentence in a 1968 newsletter, "record boundaries" (we have this problem locally, maybe less pervasive), CYA notes, stand against setting monuments, no regulations, no standards, and the list goes on for our land surveying Appalachia.

I do not readily recall anyone south of Bakersfield arguing or defending, ah, shall we say, "non-textbook"(?) or simply "wildcat surveying"(?) - I will gladly accept you picking something you find more palatable. I cannot simply say "NorCal" because I recognize the textbook practices in Humboldt and most other regions outside of the Benson Bullseye proper. Haven't you ever wondered why the locally accepted practice is at odds with the laws and textbooks? Rhetorical question.

Again, we have some issues locally, but the County Surveyor's offices, Caltrans, City Surveyors etc from Ventura County south are generally uniform in their textbook practices and have collaborated with local private land surveyors to provide a standard of practice that includes filing maps that show monuments (plural), boundary establishment notes, that conform to the laws, etc.

I do not intend to disparage you in particular or others, generally. I no longer have ambitions to see it changed. Most days I am grateful for the discussion to pass the time.

"I said no offense" Ricky Bobby

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Mr. Wooley . . .

I see the light! I've been saved! (

( . . . but when apropos - will still use "more or less".)

Thank you for the debate!

Respectfully,

Crazy Phil

[LS_8750]

Mr. Warren Smith's discussion above basically sums up what I have seen and used in my practice.

When you think about it, setting aside good and evil, just about everything else is more or less.

On the other hand, I have seen the "more or less" thing over used, which resulted in uncertainty.