Heh heh...
Tell me Kevin, what did you do before taking up IT? Lawyer? Writer of
insurance policy fine print? Are you the creator of the pages of warranty
and disclaimer information in 2-point print that accompany almost every
purchase these days?
JMcL
----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 02/01/2002 10:29 am -----
"Kevin_Cullimore@mck
insey.com" To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Kevin_Cullimore
cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Why use
wildcard mask [7:30597]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m
01/01/2002 05:46
pm
Please respond
to
"Kevin_Cullimore@mck
insey.com"
Hmmmmm.
At least two meta-issues in play here.
1. It remains to be seen whether or not someone can assimilate all extant
written materials and possess the fleetness of thought required to fill in
any functional gaps that might result from the difficulty of conveying
knowledge/competence/expertise via purely representational means to a
degree sufficient to pass the hands-on portion of the cert. Historically,
Cisco has done a better job than all other established vendors bearing
certification in making sure that people's knowledge transcends
regurgitation, and has thus done a credible job of forcing people to assume
that their high-level certs are not conferred upon those with inadequate
amounts of real-world experience. Given a natural suspicion of all those
involved in the process of developing educational & psychometric materials
(although, the behaviour & output of the more famous members of the list
has led me to suspend that almost involuntary mistrust where warranted),
I'd almost be happy to see someone succeed, but I'd have to assume that the
number of possible circumstances that would lead to such a result are
dwarfed by incompatible/mutually exclusive sets of circumstances.
In this specific case, many postings to this newsgroup would indicate that
a voluminous amount of hands-on lab preparation time has been involved in
the attempt referred to within the confines of your reply. I'm not sure
whether or not someone with an impeccably accurate reading knowledge of
router & protocol behavior & a set of skills honed by means of an optimal
leveraging of a high-end lab setup might be able to successfully pass the
CCIE lab exam. I suppose it would be interesting to know if, in addition to
lower-level "paper" certs, there exist legitimately conferred "virtual"
CCIE certs.
In this specific case, many OTHER postings to this newsgroup would
indicate-on behalf of the candidate-a non-trivial amount of relevant
hands-on experience in production environments prior to the same attempts
referenced during my last paragraph. I'd assume that it's an open question
as to how much hands-on is sufficient to pass the lab, and that most
judgements are rendered impossibly complex due to the profoundly symbiotic
relationship between the representational & hands-on knowledge that is most
likely required to achieve the set of letters that provided an impetus for
a study group in the first place.
So, the relevance of your observation to the specific case is not clear. If
you can productively do so, please clarify.
2. Regarding a suggested new year's resolution:
While that specific notion has indeed saved the lives of a countless number
of individuals throughout the course of western civilization, I'm not sure
what constitutes "your own business."
In the case of a private conversation between yourself & Howard where you
explicitly discount the years of hands-on configuration, design &
troubleshooting experience as either too out of date or non-existent, a
third party forwarding the message and intervening might legitimately be
interpreted as NOT minding one's own business.
When an individual (or group: I well remember days of three individuals
owning three aol accounts would sit behind three computers plugged into the
same lan, sitting in the same room, would be able to to join chat rooms
hosted by AOL & swap seats to provide a completely different point of view
& some well-needed intellectual discontiguity to a conversation that
started off its existence well beyond stale) replies to a newsgroup
posting, notions of privacy and exclusivity are indeed compromised by an
implicit adherence to the operational design of the newsgroup. If you had a
constructive point to make and indeed expected others to respect your
wishes about those not amongst the two of you to mind their own business,
you would have established direct correspondence. If you were indeed
desiring to broadcast a commentary about someone else's post (even IF a
reply to your own) without engaging in revelant discourse about the
integrity of your argument or the correspondence of your propositions to
extant reality, then your post to the newsgroup would have to indeed be
regarded as an act in bad faith. If you intended to carry on a dialogue
between two INDIVIDUAL mail ACCOUNTS in such a manner that the entire
newsgroup would be privy to an exclusive information exchange between you
and what you hoped might be a target, then that constitutes the most gross
violation of newsgroup ettiquette that one might expect to encounter. Even
in my most contentious posts, I only attack a vendor for what I consider
bad-faith behavior. I EXPLICITLY leave indivduals out and EXPLICITLY
provide grounds by which I might be falsified.
Anyway, there remains ambiguity about the nature of the term "comments" as
it is deployed within your missives & Howard's. Directly outlining the
issues and possible points of misunderstanding/ambiguity might be
productive; ignoring the content of the reply is not. To the extent that ad
hominem attacks might have effectively discredited his remarks, more ad
hominem remarks of a substantially similar nature do not further your cause
any.
DISCLAIMER: I remember reading about issues about being able to record but
not save comments in various versions of IOS. I also know that
non-parameter related information might be snuck into a configuration via
access-lists or interface description commands. I claim no understanding of
either party's argument (certainly not that implicitly championed by the
less-well-known fellow [i say implicitly championed because I'm not sure
that he presented a workable argument, whether right or wrong]).
nota bene: trans-sovereign implementation of written english conventions &
repetition of certain key phrases ("parallel construction" the old foggies
call it) intentional.
"Cisco Cisco" @groupstudy.com on 12/31/2001 11:06:10 PM
[lots of rubbish snipped]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30636&t=30597
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
