From: Raymond Jett \(rajett\) (rajett@cisco.com)
Date: Mon May 01 2006 - 10:23:23 ART
Oh come on...
Yes there were 2 prerequisites... But how are you going to prove those
prerequisites? Who wants to send copies of test reports in? It's based
on an honor system at best.
Yes there are vendors on the list. There will always be vendors on the
list in some shape, form, or fashion. I have never seen the grossly
over-the-top kind of advertising that you are alluding to. Will they
pump up their product? Yes. It's in their best interest. Will they take
the feedback given? Yes. Again, it's in their best interest.
All these posts remind me of the old mail list joke listed below...
And of this:
http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/al
bum01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg
RJ
------------------------
Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: 1,331:
1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light
bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
bulbs.
53 to flame the spell checkers
156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light
bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list.
41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.
109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take
this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb
203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and
alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.
111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all using
light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail
list.
306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where
to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for
this technique, and what brands are faulty.
27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs
14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post
corrected URLs.
3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to
this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list.
33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all
headers and footers, and then add "Me Too."
12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy.
19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."
4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.
1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.
47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for,
leave it here.
143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ccie6705
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:16 PM
To: 'Scott Morris'; 'Michael Yang'; security@groupstudy.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: People on the list....
Scott I truly value your opinion, and I stand in awe at what you have
done and achieved, I'm not trying to criticize you in anyway however
that said there are a few things I would like to point out that I feel
are incorrect with your post.
I seem to remember when I signed up for the group there were 2 pre
requisites they may have changed since I joined but when I signed up
this is what they were,
First you should have passed the written exam and second you should be
preparing for the CCIE lab exam.
I'm not saying anyone should be banned, booted or asked to leave, I'm
just pointing out what the rules were when I joined the group. I
understand some folks join and lurk but without question this group has
been used on numerous occasions as a market place for IPExpert products,
from both the consumers and also from the folks selling the product, if
from nothing else but there email signatures alone on every reply they
post promote the product. I have not seen the same type of "marketing"
for want of a better expression from any of the other Lab sellers such
as NLI, Trinet, Hello computers or any of the other guys out there.
I am one of folks who felt a little aggrieved with the IPExpert product,
mainly due to lack of what I would consider to be full labs, but that
was my fault I should have read the product details better we live and
learn. I only found out about IPExpert products through this group and
have seen this group used on numerous occasions as a market place for
the IPExpert labs. If folks are going to use a medium to sell a product
then they should also take any negatives they get from that same market
place, which I believe they have done admirably and I look forward to
seeing them make good on there promises.
Perhaps if Wayne and his crew maybe toned down there email signatures
and there apparent need to push IPExpert products down our throats at
every opportunity then get maybe they may have not suffered so much this
past week. I remind you all this is a study group, let the folks who are
studying sell your products for you, and I would ask IPexpert and anyone
else out there to please remember that. To those who seem to think its
something different and use it as a free marketplace to push their
products then perhaps they need to remember why most of the members of
this group are here because as the sign up rules state we have all
passed our written exams and are studying for the CCIE lab exam and we
dont have time for this crap to continuously rumble on and on.
Shaun Nicholson CCIE 6705
CCNP, CCSP, INFOSEC, JNCIA-M
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:55 PM
To: 'Michael Yang'; security@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: People on the list....
There are many people on this list who never actually contribute (we
call them lurkers). Does that make them any more or less able to be
here?
There are many messages we tend to see that may or may not appeal to our
interests (such as all those "REAL" CCIE lab exams).
What do you do to those? I don't recall you replying to each and every
one of them. Matt is giving a valid response to customer concerns and
is NOT using the list to do marketing. Leave it alone, and let the
thread die if you don't like what it's saying.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Yang
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:02 PM
To: security@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Opinion about IPExpert Workbook
Mr. Brooks-why are you on this list? You are the VP of sales and
business development for IPExpert. In your email you state:
"Paul (Group Study's owner) and I have talked extensively and I know it
is
his desire and the purpose of GS that threads pertain to technical
discussions that every subscriber can relate to."
I looked at the archives and noticed you have NEVER added anything
technical of any content to this list. I think the group study owner
should remove you from the list. It looks like this list is for
technical people and not for marketing people! You should do the right
thing and unsubsribe yourself from this list and stop wasting our
bandwidth on your marketing spew.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Brooks at IPexpert"
<matt@ipexpert.com> To: "'Jason Wist'" <Jason.Wist@lvs1.com>; "'Jens
Petter'" <jenseike@start.no>; "'Wayne Lawson'" <wayne@ipexpert.com>;
"'ccie16081'" <ccie16081@yahoo.com>; <security@groupstudy.com> Cc:
<smorris@ipexpert.com> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:10 AM Subject:
RE:
Opinion about IPExpert Workbook > > Hello, all. > Thanks for the
exchange, as positive comments and constructive criticism both help us
to improve. However, Group Study is not the place for the thread. >
Paul (Group Study's owner) and I have talked extensively and I know it
is his
desire and the purpose of GS that threads pertain to technical
discussions that every subscriber can relate to. All vendors have their
own sales websites and support outlets. Participating vendors *should*
direct
customers to their own lists for support issues, rather than use
Paul's
bandwidth for free, but I digress... > I can assure those interested
that we will be looking into the specific product and customer service
issues tomorrow and throughout this week. In the meantime, to be sure
there are no lost emails or other communication problems, I offer you
my own cell phone number - 810.434.7447 - which I carry with me more
than I should. ;) > Thanks for your patience and willingness to help
us improve! > Matt Brooks IPexpert, Inc. VP Sales & Business
Development +1.810.326.1444 x101 - http://www.IPexpert.com > >
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Wist
[mailto:Jason.Wist@lvs1.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 11:30 PM To: Jens Petter; Wayne Lawson;
ccie16081; security@groupstudy.com Cc: Matt Brooks at IPexpert;
smorris@ipexpert.com Subject: RE: Opinion about IPExpert Workbook >
Here's my $.02. I will start off by stating that I attended an
IPExpert Bootcamp back in January of this year, and without disclosing
any details, I requested my money back due to very poor instruction.
I must state that Wayne was very apologetic and took care of my refund
after hearing my problems with the instruction. He was understanding
and very reasonable in dealing with the problems I had experienced.
Although this did not help me in my efforts to pass (failed my 1st
attempt 3 weeks after the bootcamp), I found he was accessible and
willing to reason with the situation. > I believe that no matter what
product you purchase there will be errors and we as students have to
identify them and raise them to the attention of the vendor. I
understand that this has been done, I just thought I should share my
experience. > Regards, > JW > ________________________________ >
From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of Jens Petter Sent: Sun
23/04/2006 11:32 AM To: 'Wayne Lawson'; 'ccie16081';
security@groupstudy.com Cc: 'Matt Brooks at IPexpert';
smorris@ipexpert.com Subject: RE: Opinion about IPExpert Workbook > >
> Hey WAYNE... this is not my buisniss but when you call people liers
then I need to say something > Why do you call him a lier... He is
totally right about that workbook... Man you are never able to take
criticism about your products... he is not lying.. I also remember you
(ipexpert)promised ver 2 of the security book just after they had
changed the lab that year(2003) and he is right the book came last
year... so he is totally telling the truth.... > You should rather
look at your customer service, and you say if you have any complaints
contact you and matt... man you can wrote you guys 10 mails before you
answers the mail > > -----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Wayne Lawson Sent: 23. april 2006 17:34 To: 'ccie16081';
security@groupstudy.com Cc: 'Matt Brooks at IPexpert';
smorris@ipexpert.com
Subject: RE: Opinion about IPExpert Workbook > 16081 - Who are you?
Your statements are outright lies - if you have any complaints or
issues, please contact me - or our VP of Sales, Matt Brooks directly.
> Thank you for choosing IPexpert!, Wayne A.
Lawson II Founder, President & CCIE #5244 - IPexpert, Inc. >
-----Original Message----- From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of ccie16081 Sent: Saturday,
April 22, 2006 8:15 PM To: security@groupstudy.com Subject: Opinion
about IPExpert Workbook > Here is my opinions about the IPExpert
workbook: > I purchased the first IPExpert Workbook version 1.0 back in
July 2003 for $499. The book had a lot of errors in it that it was
not even funny. In other words, the material is a piece of crap,
completely useless. I contacted IPExpert in August 2003 and spoke
directly with Wayne Larson.
Wayne assured me that IPExpert will come out with IPExpert 2.0 in
Septemter that will fix a lot of errors in version 1.0. Not only
that, they will send me a free upgrade of the IPExpert 2.0
workbook. Wayne sound believable on the phone when I talked him. >
It
turned out that he just outright lied to me about the version 2.0 . I
do
not think version 2.0 was released until late in 2004 or perhap 2005.
They did not even bother send me verion 2.0 workbook which I found to
be in-excusable, it is just bad business from IPExpert. Not only that,
the materials in the workbook are so bad and will not help anyone
preparing for
the Security lab. At least, that's how I feel about it. > I think
the
folks at IPExpert are a bunch of crooks. They put out a shitty product
called IPExpert Workbook to screw honest consumers like you and me.
I would never buy anything from them again. It seems like everytime
people complained about the IPExpert Workbook, I see emails from People
at IPexpert defending it by saying that the workbook is going through
a revamp. Yeah right, you guys have been saying that crap since 2003.
For me $499 is not a big deal because I can afford it but I know for
a lot of folks in this forum who has to pay their own lab equpipments,
rack time, lab fee and air fair,
$499 is a big deal for them. It is not right for IPExpert to rip
them
off like that. > I did not use hello computers or TriNet workbooks so
that I can not comment on them but I can definitely say with 100%
conviction that purchasing IPExpert Workbook is a completely waste of
money. > That's my 2c. > CCIE16081 > >
--------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1"/min.
Make
PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. > >
---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo!
FareChase
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:20 ART