From: serge Hacopian (sergehh@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 18:11:19 ART
On a much lighter note this might help to not forget things that might not
be perfect for a reason.
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of
a pole which she carried across her neck. One of the pots had a crack in
it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of
water. At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the
cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing
home only one and a half pots of water. Of course, the perfect pot was
proud of its accomplishments. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its
own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had
been made to do.
After 2 years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to
the woman one day by the stream. "I am ashamed of myself, because this
crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house."
The& nbsp;old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are flowers on your
side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?" "That's because I have
always known about your flaw, so I planted flower
seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you
water them." "For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful
flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this
beauty to grace the house." Each of us has our own unique flaw. But
it's
the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so
very interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take each
person for what they are and look for the good in them.
So, to all of my crackpot friends, have a great day and remember to
smell the flowers on your side of the path!
And send this to any or all of your cracked pot friends within 5
minutes
and see what happens! Don't forget the one that sent it to you.
Mahalo,
all the best to every one preparing for the IE labs.
>From: "Mark Lasarko" <mlasarko@co.ba.md.us>
>Reply-To: "Mark Lasarko" <mlasarko@co.ba.md.us>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>, <jenseike@start.no>
>Subject: RE: All CCIE Workbooks
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:13:32 -0400
>
>I wrote that to/for the entire GS population.
>Vendors, elders, newbies, lurkers, etc...
>I see over_and_over that many complain
>about things already addressed on the
>vendor's site(s).
>
>~Or~ a new instructor comes along and
>inherits the task of cleansing what was
>left behind in haste as another departed.
>
>Either way it gets old quick.
>
>Training materials have to be "rushed" at times.
>Why? - Because the industry demands it!
>We helped create this monster and therefore we are
>in some part contributors to the problem at its core.
>
>Look at the crap Cisco released - those lame old labs.
>How horrible was that? Right from the source??
>Talk about quality control :(
>
>This is not exclusive to IT learning materials.
>Automotive, pharmaceuticals, "spinach"...
>Can you say "Vista?"
>Not trying to rant, just keeping it real.
>And yes, I expect intelligent peers to do the same.
>
>We are only_human. Let's at least be adults.
>While I agree everyone is entitled to their
>opinion the fact is that vendors try their best
>to keep us current and that in itself offers a
>less_than_perfect environment. They try their
>best to deliver what we want, when we want it.
>They all update their materials constantly.
>Think about how long it takes to do documentation.
>(We all do an immaculate job on this, with all these hours in the day,
>right?)
>
>Then, when vendors are cast in a negative light
>(which happens more than the positive IMO)
>and try to offer a response they are too often
>flamed by those too ignorant to know otherwise.
>(Meaning they have not communicated with the vendor
>as effectively as they should have or could have)
>
>Like the automobile you mention.
>Every one I have every had has been less
>than perfect, and considering the assembly
>line robots replacing carbon-based life forms
>that put the pieces together I would say it is
>just as likely that spell checkers and other
>forms of *automation*, scripts, etc... combined
>with inconsistencies in images and platforms
>(As implemented by we who use them)
>YES!, there will be errors.
>(Not to mention multiple_solutions - "it depends")
>
>You are no longer comparing apples to apples
>by the time the products are refined and released new
>announcements are posted, things change, vendors
>attempt to adjust as best they can.
>If you buy a car from a dealership you don't go
>to the BBB and complain right off the bat, right?
>You give them a chance, or three, recalls aside.
><insert_Lemon_law_here>
>
>
>That said, I have used four of whom I believe to
>be the "top five" and they have all had some errors,
>but nothing that I would consider excessive in comparison
>to the rest of what I see in the real world. And they ALL
>have been responsive and made accommodations when needed.
>Not to mention the twisted satisfaction I get when I see
>something that is not right - it makes me feel like I am learning,
>which motivates me to contribute, it's all good in the end.
>
>If you get a product and can show proof it is less than
>"acceptable", with "a lot | excessive" errors I do not know
>any of the vendors I have experience with that would not
>make it right or refund your $'s if you approached them
>in a professional manner. Those who would not honor this
>I would not call vendors, but rather criminals.
>There is recourse for this as well.
>(Granted you don't fall for a wire transfer for "Real CCIE Lab!")
>
>I do value feedback, but sincere feedback is different
>than opinion - and we know about opinions, they are
>like... Everybody has one. I am just asking everyone to
>do their homework and stick to the facts.
>Then take the facts to a separate area on GS where
>those who need to offer feedback, positive or
>negative, can offer such AND the instructors and
>vendors can reply without being slammed for
>defending something they should not have to
>in the first place, in many cases, while those (few)
>who do release junk products or try to rip off
>candidates otherwise can be properly documented
>and not interrupt those of us who are trying to learn,
>tracking hundreds of "useful" messages per day without the distraction.
>
>This way, when inquiries are made those who need to
>be enlightened can spend all the time they want reading
>reviews and the smack that goes along with it.
>
>As I said:
>At the end of the day the labs, whatever the "quality",
>are only as valuable as the candidate who is doing
>the lab - you get from it what you put into it. If you can
>spot error and/or alternate solutions than good for you!
>(That's part of what it is all about)
>
>If I was writing these labs I would intentionally build errors
>into them. The way I see it if you cannot identify a few
>errors then you are not ready. When you get that good, that
>you can find ALL the errors, I am sure there is a vendor
>around who would be happy to have you onboard!
>
>Sorry for the long email, but I have a lot of respect for
>ALL who contribute, and most of what I have seen has
>been negative and for the most part unjustifiably so. The
>positive has been "quiet" and I think it's time we shout out
>some mad props to those who share with us day in, day out
>often in the middle of the night so we can awake to become
>a more knowledgeable being.
>
>~M
>
>
> >>> "Jens Petter" <jenseike@start.no> 09/28/06 1:56 PM >>>
>
>Not sure who you are writing this to, but have to come with a coment
>anyway...
>
>From what i can see here on GS the vendors get both positive and negative
>feedback... I think both are good. Bad feedback is good to keep the vendors
>making good products, good feedback is also good so that they get some
>positive boost for all that hard work they put down..
>
>I think that errors are a product of a hasty launch dates. Vendors is
>hasting to get their workbooks finish as fast as possible, then scarifying
>the testing of the labs they have written. If the labs are well tested
>after, then those errors would be spotted by the vendors.. I don't think
>that a wb full of errors are any good for practice and learning. If that
>was
>a good study method we would have had labs that had those errors put in
>from
>those who wrote them on purpose.. no, do extensive testing and keep the
>errors out, then we all can consentrate on what we should... solving the
>labs and knowing that when we look at the solution we can be confident that
>they are right and that we have the right solution our selfe...
>
>The thing is that some workbooks have been sent out on the marked with not
>a
>few errors, but a lot.. that is really not what people pay big money for
>and
>then they have they full right to tell that to the vendors... That is just
>bad buisniss in any busnniss to put out a product that are not finish..
>Just
>think of it if you by a car and suddenly your weels start coming of.. Of
>course you would lash out at who ever sold you that.. workboks are a
>product
>like any other product... they should be finish when they hit the marked...
>
>Of course they put down a hell of a job... I put down a hell of a job on
>every project I work in.. That does not mean that I can do a job that the
>customer are not happy with.. I have to make sure that everything is
>perfect.. That should the vendors also do, make sure the wbs are perfect...
>Customers should not be the ones that should spot errors but you who make
>it.. before you sell it...
>
>Thanks...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Mark
>Lasarko
>Sent: 28. september 2006 19:10
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: All CCIE Workbooks
>
>..and prep materials have errors.
>I should know as I have used many.
>
>I also know that every vendor I have used
>has made an effort to resolve the issues
>on their forums, in *free* updates, etc...
>They are all receptive and rely on those who
>use the materials for feedback.
>
>Do your homework before you claim the
>teacher fudged up the dittos and don't
>act as though like they don't listen!
>
>These vendors do an excellent job IMO.
>Anyone who is truly prepared for their lab
>should be able to decipher a few "errors"
>and get on with their studies.
>
>It is all relative - nothing is perfect,
>Especially on lab day.
>There is always *something*
>Please accept it and move on.
>
>Give these vendors some credit and communicate
>with them as opposed to bashing them on GS and
>wasting our collective bandwidth.
>
>If you disagree, maybe you should go write your own
>labs and show the rest of us how *perfect* you are!
>
>At the end of the day the labs, whatever the "quality",
>are only as valuable as the candidate who is doing
>the lab - you get from it what you put into it. If you can
>spot error and/or alternate solutions than good for you!
>(That's part of what it is all about)
>
>Think about that before you bash the rest of the best.
>
>~M
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:41 ART