California Surveyors Forums

Berk,

If you want to remain ignorant, no need to visit a forum like this. I'll keep offering my opinions and analysis for those who are educable. I'll also continue to read the opinions of other knowledgeable surveyors so that I continue to learn.

Sorry for you that you find learning so objectionable.

land butcher wrote:LOL. But according to a CalTrans office guy I talked to once, anywhere on the gear spk and/or washer is close enough.

A well respected surveyor who had worked my town for nearly half a century said the same for the 6" square concrete mons set in the 20s.

Berk, have you heard of the Gong Show?
Here comes the hook.

Your remarkably juvenile and unsolicited response to a professional on a public forum is totally unacceptable. Nothing in my comments to Ryan were directed at or required any response from you.

Berk Blake, PLS

E_Page wrote:Berk,

If you want to remain ignorant, no need to visit a forum like this. I'll keep offering my opinions and analysis for those who are educable. I'll also continue to read the opinions of other knowledgeable surveyors so that I continue to learn.

Sorry for you that you find learning so objectionable.

Evan has a second chair on his band wagon .. Has my name on it unless he sold it out from under me.

Evan's posts are ones I usually read. I have been running around doing this work since 1970 and Evan has lot's of very good things to say.

I don't have a problem with his dissertations, only his attacks for no reason that I can discern.

LS 4722 wrote:Evan has a second chair on his band wagon .. Has my name on it unless he sold it out from under me.

Evan's posts are ones I usually read. I have been running around doing this work since 1970 and Evan has lot's of very good things to say.

to this forum, whether specifically directed at another submitter or just in general, I would expect that I would be open to responses (positive or negative or neutral) from anyone who would so desire to add their two cents worth to the discussion that I have decided to participate in.

But you remember now, that I am always right and anyone who has a different opinion than mine, is out to lunch and hasn't returned yet. ;)

Berk,

You began with the snide remarks ("Get off your bandwagon", etc.). I prefer to remain within the bounds of civil discourse but will fire back when fired upon. If you're going to take your shot and then whine when the person you directed it to replies in kind... you need to better consider next time whether you should take the part of the discussion directed to you (in this case the one that new monunuments aren't what makes a survey a "real" survey), and respond with a childish retort, respond with a reasonable argument toward the other view, or give the comments deeper consideration with regard to the view you've held.

I welcome your professional comments, but you hit me, I hit back. Bullies tend to cry and eventually mind their manners or go away when their target hits back.

Thanks for the kind words Paul.

Please take a moment to see the forest through the trees.

Often enough, some material discrepancy is discovered during a survey triggering the 8762 requirement, when setting monuments was never part of the scope of work to begin with. Such is the case when you find yourself in the middle of two surveys (probably doing topo work) that don't agree with one another, but on the face of the documents in the office there was no problem. Good Grief! Now we have 8762 hanging over our heads, and we have monuments abound that don't agree with each other. What good would it do to set more monuments? Document your findings, resolve the issue utilizing the best evidence available, and file the map. The map is a record of the survey you performed and reveals the material discrepancy discovered and the solution provided. Ding Ding.

Now, say you did a half mile long traverse through the mountains looking for stuff and found nothing, but after your field and office work you know where the corner should go. Well then set the damn monument as a courtesy to yourself and the public at large.

E_Page wrote:Thanks for the kind words Paul.

No problem Evan. Thanks for the C note for saying them :)

LS_8750 wrote:Please take a moment to see the forest through the trees.

Often enough, some material discrepancy is discovered during a survey triggering the 8762 requirement, when setting monuments was never part of the scope of work to begin with. Such is the case when you find yourself in the middle of two surveys (probably doing topo work) that don't agree with one another, but on the face of the documents in the office there was no problem. Good Grief! Now we have 8762 hanging over our heads, and we have monuments abound that don't agree with each other. What good would it do to set more monuments? Document your findings, resolve the issue utilizing the best evidence available, and file the map. The map is a record of the survey you performed and reveals the material discrepancy discovered and the solution provided. Ding Ding.

Now, say you did a half mile long traverse through the mountains looking for stuff and found nothing, but after your field and office work you know where the corner should go. Well then set the damn monument as a courtesy to yourself and the public at large.

Clark, EXACTLY!

My last comment on your rude repartee.

You seem to have missed the FIRST comment that I made to Ryan, which was before your dissertation and decided to kibitz my SECOND comment to him, which came after your dissertation.

Seems that you confused my comment with what you decided that I was talking about "a compiled from record map" which did prompt my snide THIRD comment.

Please note that I did not mention that you were ignorant nor that this forum wasn't meant for you. No, I asked to get off your bandwagon as I resented your editorializing my comments. Evan you obviously fired the first shot. My response certainly did not deserve your slash and burn comments.

If I have misconstrued any portion of this, I humbly apologize, but I don't believe that is the case.

Berk Blake, PLS

E_Page wrote:Berk,

You began with the snide remarks ("Get off your bandwagon", etc.). I prefer to remain within the bounds of civil discourse but will fire back when fired upon. If you're going to take your shot and then whine when the person you directed it to replies in kind... you need to better consider next time whether you should take the part of the discussion directed to you (in this case the one that new monunuments aren't what makes a survey a "real" survey), and respond with a childish retort, respond with a reasonable argument toward the other view, or give the comments deeper consideration with regard to the view you've held.

I welcome your professional comments, but you hit me, I hit back. Bullies tend to cry and eventually mind their manners or go away when their target hits back.

Great explanation Clark.