This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of "college ed" and to the
definite disfavor of "certification" seems to come most intensely from your
address. The undertext is always the same: "Go to college."
Is there a career-oriented quasi-political interest element at play here
somewhere?
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
>
> This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of "college
> ed" and to the
> definite disfavor of "certification" seems to come most
> intensely from your
> address. The undertext is always the same: "Go to college."
Woah, now there's something that completely came
MAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 11:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
>
> This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of "college
> ed" and to the
> definite disfavor of &qu
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
>
> My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?),
>
> Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are
> legitimate. You
> mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get "easy
> money" from a
> relatively naive market faced with the new "IT" dimension.
>
>
-
From: "n rf"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
> Jack Nalbandian wrote:
> >
> > My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?),
> >
> > Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are
> > l
his thread, as there have been requests for
this to stop.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
>
> My fri
I've been trying to hold my tongue on this one since this firestorm comes
up at least once a quarterBUT:
NRF is correct. Attacking him and his motives fails to address the issue
at hand. Rightly, or wrongly, there is a slight devaluation of the CCIE
certification and it's not NRF's fault.
: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
I've been trying to hold my tongue on this one since this firestorm
comes
up at least once a quarterBUT:
NRF is correct. Attacking him and his motives fails to address the
issue
at hand. Rightly, or wrongly, there is a slight devaluation o
ern
and balanced commentary on the matter, but mythology is all I read from his
angle. That is my observation, and you have not convinced me otherwise.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Craig Columbus
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 3:19 PM
To: [EMA
>Jack Nalbandian wrote:
Boy, for a guy who says that he wants to close the thread, you really have a
lot to say.
>
> 1. Attacking his motives and attacking his character are
> mutually exclusive
> endeavors. I attack his motive of defaming the certification
> process itself
> in a series of dif
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 June 2003 15:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
>Jack Nalbandian wrote:
Boy, for a guy who says that he wants to close the thread, you really have a
lot to say.
>
> 1. A
STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
Shawn K.
P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
>Jack Nalbandian wrote:
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
Shawn K.
P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: R
Steve Wilson wrote:
>
> Thank you gents,
> I have come to the conclusion that Jack and NRF is one and the
> same person.
> Anyone who has seen, or read, "Fight Club" will recognise the
> symptoms. Any
> minute now NRF will shoot himself through the mouth and end it
> all.
I think I really am goin
fairly.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Robertson, Douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
This has been an entertaining thread, but the way I see it is this.
Maybe
the high/low
At 4:41 PM + 6/11/03, Kaminski, Shawn G wrote:
>STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
>
>Shawn K.
>
>P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
>
What is the velocity of the sparrow, measured in CCIE units?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70544&t=70328
LOL! OK. I will only accuse you of blatant bias, if that feels better.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Steve Wilson
Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: 11 June 2003 23:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
At 4:41 PM + 6/11/03, Kaminski, Shawn G wrote:
>STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
>
>Shawn K.
>
>P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
>
What is the ve
Mark W. Odette II wrote:
>
> Robert, the way you described your hiring/screening process is
> the way I
> wished all Corporate America job providers did it.
>
> It's nice to know that at least one business out there doesn't
> hide
> behind an HR group that isn't prepared to perform the screening
Craig Columbus wrote:
> passing from October 2002 to present. The most recent number
> I've seen is
> 11757. Which, averages about 170 people per month.
> Extrapolating to
> October, the number of people passing from Oct 2002 to Oct 2003
> should turn
> out to be around 2044. My conclusion th
much as I hate to help keep this particular thread alive --- below
""n rf"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Craig Columbus wrote:
>
>
> > passing from October 2002 to present. The most recent number
> > I've seen is
> > 11757. Which, averages about 170 people per month.
> > Extrap
Look, guys, the bottom line is this. The fact is, it is more desirable to
have a lower-number ccie than it is to have a higher-number. I believe that
this is so because the test was more rigorous in the past than it is today,
but even if you don't believe this to be the case, you have to acknowle
22 matches
Mail list logo
