From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Mon May 01 2006 - 20:23:41 ART
I wasn't aware there was a politically correct term for the "passive
members" of the list! I'll attempt to find some other term of endearment to
use that may be more appropriate. :)
Now, while I don't typically read the web pages to see how things are
advertised (so I can't say anything about that part), I will note that I
rarely teach the security bootcamps. R&S is the mainstay of courses, and
service provider seems to be following up a bit lately, and I keep plenty
busy with those. Not to say things may not rearrange in the future, but
unfortunately, we haven't found any suitable method of cloning yet (likely a
good thing, I'm not sure the world would be a safe place with more than one
of me anyway!). But always feel free to ask who the instructor is going to
be, and to avoid future dilemmas like what you mention, there are going to
be standards and policies in place that will make all experiences a better
one for everyone involved.
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
smorris@ipexpert.com
http://www.ipexpert.com
PS. It's "alluded" to, although apparantly he "eluded" your efforts to find
the number. :)
PPS. There isn't anything wrong with being a "passive member", it's not
like we called you a List Voyeur or something! Heheheh...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Jason Wist
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:27 AM
To: Scott Morris; Michael Yang; security@groupstudy.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: People on the list....
Scott,
With all due respect, perhaps us "lurkers" would prefer to be called
something like "passive members" or something. I have met all the criteria
to participate and have attempted my lab twice to no avail so far. However,
I have learned a ton from "lurking" the threads without having to or being
able initiate or respond.
My last post on this topic was somewhat in support for IPExpert for how they
were very accessible right after my unsuccessful bootcamp and took action
immediately. That being said, I agree that the members of this list should
be made aware of the accuracy and quality of any of the vendors' products
(given IPExpert's presence, this should improve their product dramatically
and perhaps other vendors can learn from this as well to improve theirs).
Which speaks to another point you made about CCIE's credibility, I do agree
with you that by falsifying credentials discredits a program, which was in
large part the problem with the IPExpert bootcamp I attended. Our
instructor did not offer his CCIE number, but eluded to being a 2 CCIE (R&S
and Security). Given that any CCIE instructor I have had in the past has
offered their number, this struck the class as unusual that it was not
readily offered. Not to mention it was advertised that you, Scott, were to
be instructing the bootcamp and only upon arrival at the bootcamp it was
discovered you wouldn't be. Anyway, an inquiry was made to IPExpert and it
still has not been confirmed that this individual has their CCIE Security
(instructor), and it still is not posted by the CCIE validation tool.
Therefore, I think it is only fair that people spending ~$600 or so for
materials or ~$4500 on bootcamps are forewarned on the shortcomings of the
product so they can make their own assessment on the value/risk they are
willing to accept. I hope that this list can get back to the task at hand.
Regards,
J
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:20 ART