From: Shawn Zandi (szmetal@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2008 - 03:00:17 ART
Group study without Scott is nothing... Paul is the owner, but who cares,
people respect professionals. if he's going to leave/ban please let us know
to decide.
Sincerely,
Shawn Zandi,
Routing, Switching and Security Consultant
CCIE - MCSE
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Jonny English <redkidneybeans@gmail.com>wrote:
> i have to agree with Gary here.
>
> I didn't even notice Scott's signature and can't see what the big deal is
> here.
>
> I just hope he hasn't been banned from groupstudy because it won't be the
> same. What happens is I post a question on groupstudy and Scott replies and
> if I'm having more issues with the problem, Scott is prepared to take
> things
> offline (I sometimes forget to reply-all) to the point I really understand
> the topic in question. Now, the ccie group is not copied into the extra
> emails so Scott has nothing to gain from helping me out. No one knows he's
> helping me out with all my stupid questions. Like a week ago I posted a
> question about InternetworkExperts mock lab 2, Scott replied, then to not
> spoil things for others, he took it offline. After several emails, Scott
> helped me understand the bit I was having a problem on. I'm sure he helps
> others as well in the same way, so group study without Scott wouldn't be
> the
> same.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Gary Duncanson <
> garyduncanson@btinternet.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Seems like a thermonuclear event has happened here. I don't know the ins
> > and outs but I have to say Im surprised at the way this is being handled.
> >
> > Paul it's your list but going public about your misgivings about all this
> > seems a little misguided and the personal stuff is uncalled for. Scott
> has
> > put a lot into the list over the years.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> > To: <jimsbait@gmail.com>; "'Paul Borghese'" <pborghese@groupstudy.com>;
> > "'Cisco certification'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Cc: "'Brian McGahan'" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>; "'Joseph
> > Brunner'" <joe@affirmedsystems.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:35 PM
> > Subject: FW: CCDE Practical (Or other blah, blah, blah)
> >
> >
> >
> > Now there's an interesting summation of it all, and needlessly, one I
> did
> >> not expect from you Paul to be aired publicly.
> >>
> >> So let's review a few things. First, GS has always been portrayed as a
> >> public list. Second, as you note, there have been rules against
> >> advertising.
> >>
> >> Now, we can go back, likely through the archives, and find examples of
> >> what
> >> has been blatant advertising by folks over the years. Or at least the
> >> ones
> >> you have chosen to view in that fashion (and you'll never find one
> >> authored
> >> by me). Signatures had been permitted until a few made them long and
> >> unbearable.
> >>
> >> You then had this long and glorified announcement about how GS was
> >> accepting
> >> advertising by method of the footers on all of the PUBLIC messages which
> >> GS
> >> had. I know a number of vendors were interested in this method of
> >> "legally"
> >> advertising and giving you money for your operations, as we all believe
> >> it's
> >> a valuable asset.
> >>
> >> Amazingly enough, there's a tremendous lack of response when things
> don't
> >> appear to be going your way. The "advertising capability only seems to
> be
> >> allowed for YOUR OWN companies. So you therefore are creating an unfair
> >> atmosphere in what you laid out to be a "positive" thing along the way.
> >> Over the past few months, I have tried NUMEROUS times in order to make
> >> things work nicely in all fair practice applications of the advertising
> >> rules that you have laid out.
> >>
> >> I also complied with removing th URLs, and subsequent TinyURLs from my
> >> signature. Now, granted, I replaced them with quippish notes, but they
> >> weren't advertising. It has caused you to e-mail me, and get as far as
> >> letting me know you had no demographic information. So I voluteered to
> >> help
> >> assess this. Then you said you had to talk with one of the owners of
> the
> >> company as I may not have any monetary authority. I made that happen.
> >> What's the next response? To be ignored.
> >>
> >> There weren't any silly demands other than to have a fair conversation
> >> about
> >> making GS a place for fair advertising and fair compensation for you.
> Now,
> >> if you view it as a little kid attitude, I'm sorry about that. GS is
> >> indeed
> >> private property, although portraying as a public list automatically
> >> changes
> >> rules (much like a shopping mall's physical property is "private" but
> >> access
> >> is "public").
> >>
> >> "Spoiled little kid attitude", "repugnant", and other adjectives are
> >> actually ones I would have used, although I was nice enough not to
> decide
> >> to
> >> publicly air them to folks who (IMHO) did not need to be involved in the
> >> conversation.
> >>
> >> Now, interstingly enough, I did not see this message originally, which
> >> means
> >> I have likely been removed from the GS list without any message
> >> announcement. That's a very mature way to end the conversation. Yes,
> >> it's
> >> your sandbox. However, YOU set up all the rules, which I (and I'm not
> the
> >> only vendor person who has) have been TRYING to comply with, and get in
> on
> >> in order to get you compensation for the advertising, yet it's magically
> >> not
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> In fact, the last message I sent you last night showed a signature that
> >> was
> >> asking for your approval as to whether it was in-line with your exact
> >> rules/requests or not. My "silly demand" was simply a note of removing
> >> the
> >> obstacle to ongoing discussions so that again, we could comply with the
> >> nice
> >> long e-mail that YOU sent to the list about it "accepting advertising"
> >> which
> >> it clearly is not. That's not a demand, it's meeting another obstacle
> or
> >> rule on your side in order to move to that next level of figuring out
> what
> >> the next obstacle is for a company not owned by Paul Borghese to be able
> >> to
> >> follow the "advertising" rules set forth months ago.
> >>
> >> So, while I'm sure this is somehow entirely my fault and due to the
> >> simple,
> >> yet immature attitude that I must have towards everything in life...
> I'm
> >> amazingly appalled at the method in which this was displayed to the
> >> public,
> >> and the reaction that you took with it. It is what it is. While I
> expect
> >> no special treatment, I do expect fair and professional treatment. Way
> to
> >> go Paul.
> >>
> >> Have you ever wondered why some of the heavy posters of yester-year are
> no
> >> longer around on the list? I can very confidently say it's not because
> of
> >> me. ;)
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
> >> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
> >> Senior CCIE Instructor
> >>
> >> smorris@internetworkexpert.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Knowledge is power.
> >> Power corrupts.
> >> Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Paul Borghese" <pborghese@groupstudy.com>
> >> To: "'Jimmy Palmer'" <jimsbait@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:46 AM
> >> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow, that sums it up nicely. Dealing with Scott Morris is like dealing
> >>> with
> >>> a little snitty third grader.
> >>>
> >>> For ten years now GroupStudy has had in existence a rule with which
> every
> >>> vendor has happily agreed to comply.
> >>>
> >>> Scott comes along and blatantly disregards numerous requests I have
> made
> >>> asking him to comply with the same rules as everyone else.
> >>>
> >>> So I am really between a rock and a hard place. For ten years vendors
> >>> have
> >>> been complying. Scott believes he is above the rules and flat out
> >>> disregards numerous requests to stop. My inbox is filling with
> >>> complaints
> >>> from vendors who have been happily complying with the rules asking why
> >>> Scott
> >>> is getting "special" treatment.
> >>>
> >>> I am dismayed by his spoiled little kid attitude. I thought he was
> >>> better
> >>> then this. GroupStudy is private property, yet Scott Morris seems to
> >>> think
> >>> he is above the wishes of the owner. Frankly his behavior on the list
> is
> >>> repugnant. If you are using someone's property, you should simply
> >>> respect
> >>> the wishes of the owner.
> >>>
> >>> His last e-mail to me was riddled with silly demands in exchange for
> his
> >>> cooperation with a simple request virtually every other person on the
> >>> list
> >>> follows without issue. Needless to say, I will not be complying with
> the
> >>> demands.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Jimmy Palmer
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 3:54 PM
> >>> To: 'Joseph Brunner'; 'Scott Morris'; 'Tony Varriale';
> >>> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> Joe I appreciate your feedback but you are missing the point. Here is
> >>> what
> >>>
> >>
> >> I
> >>> am referring to:
> >>>
> >>> " There are a few postings on our blog site about it. (I'd post a
> link,
> >>> but
> >>> no sense irritating Paul today)"
> >>>
> >>> Mate take a look at that statement. Also if you look at how Scott is
> >>> posting
> >>> his signature:
> >>>
> >>> Online Community: The party waiting to happen.
> >>> CCIE Blog: Ahhhh... But to know it.
> >>>
> >>> He's doing all of the above to screw with the list owner and I think
> that
> >>> is
> >>> crap. He needs to knock this kind of thing off as he's just being an
> ass.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Joseph Brunner
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:04 PM
> >>> To: 'Jacob Armitage'; 'Scott Morris'; 'Tony Varriale';
> >>> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> So you're saying Scott and the other IE staff should post here for free
> >>> just
> >>> because you are some how "offended" by their signatures???
> >>>
> >>> They are trading time (their own time) for answering people's
> >>> questions...
> >>> Therefore they are EARNING interest in their valuable training classes
> &
> >>> materials.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see you answering many people's questions Jacob...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joseph Brunner
> >>> President
> >>> Affirmed Systems LLC
> >>> CCIE #19366, CCDP, MCSE 2003
> >>> Expert IT consulting services to enterprise clients in NYC, Boston and
> >>> San
> >>> Francisco Bay area.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Jacob Armitage
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:06 PM
> >>> To: 'Scott Morris'; 'Tony Varriale'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> Listen buddy you and all of the other vendors post on here because it
> >>> makes
> >>> you money! So don't try and come off as some good Samaritan. You are
> not!
> >>> Why don't ALL the vendors stop with the crazy signatures? In fact, no
> >>> more
> >>> links to vendor websites in signatures. How about that? How helpful
> would
> >>> you be then? You use every post to the list as an advertisement for
> your
> >>> products and services with your signature. You do it along with every
> >>> other
> >>> vendor. You use this list to make money and become rich. Then you have
> >>> the
> >>> audacity to f* over the list owner and not play by his rules. You
> should
> >>> be
> >>> ashamed of yourself.
> >>>
> >>> p.s. I had you as my ASE instructor. I thought you were an okay guy in
> >>> class, but my opinion of you has now completely changed.
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Scott Morris
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 5:17 AM
> >>> To: jimsbait@gmail.com; 'Tony Varriale'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> An interesting message for the first time... Welcome to the list, and
> I
> >>> hope you can come to make some wonderful contributions as well that are
> >>> actually worth reading.
> >>>
> >>> While I'm sure you are aware of the addage that "there are two sides to
> >>> every story", it seems that you have made a fairly bold opinion without
> >>> knowing any of the sides to a story. So without bothering to share
> >>> things
> >>> that don't have much of a need to be shared here at this point in time,
> >>> I'll
> >>> share with you another addage for your perusal... "it's often better
> to
> >>> keep your mouth shut and have people think you aren't very bright than
> to
> >>> open it and prove them right".
> >>>
> >>> Take it as you will. Since you already have a pre-formed opinion
> anyway,
> >>> I'm sure the application will be the worst possible anyway! But if you
> >>> actually make it a point to know me you will find that I am not at all
> >>> arrogant. Keep in mind that terms like "disrespectful" or "smartass"
> >>> very
> >>> often get shaded depending on what "side" of a discussion you are on or
> >>> how
> >>> much knowledge of the details you do or do not have. So I'll grant you
> >>> the
> >>> benefit of the doubt that you don't know enough to truly form a
> >>> knowledgable
> >>> opinion in this matter.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jimmy Palmer [mailto:jimsbait@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:39 PM
> >>> To: 'Scott Morris'; 'Tony Varriale'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> Glad to hear it was interesting.
> >>>
> >>> If posting a link would irritate Paul, why would you even mention it?
> You
> >>> are an arrogant SOB and completely disrespectful. You need to step down
> >>> off
> >>> your high horse and join the rest of us Mr. CCIE4. Why do you do that
> >>> crap
> >>> in your signature as well? Come on mate! I sincerely hope Paul bans
> you.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Scott Morris
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:45 PM
> >>> To: 'Tony Varriale'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>> Subject: RE: CCDE Practical
> >>>
> >>> It was a long day. ;) And a very interesting exam. There are a few
> >>> postings on our blog site about it. (I'd post a link, but no sense
> >>> irritating Paul today)
> >>>
> >>> Nobody knows about "passing" or not yet, as it was a beta. Sometime in
> >>> 6+
> >>> weeks, we'll find out just how horribly....er... Well we actually did.
> >>>
> >>> Brian M. will be happy as long as he gets one more point than I do!
> >>> (smirk)
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 15:35:19 ARST