From: Hashiru Aminu (hashng@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2008 - 05:57:24 ART
Yes Shawn, you are right, if my car air conditioner cannot make my car cold
then what the heck is its use. If people like Scott will be banned from the
list, then GS is taking another turn, for real.
Looking at the other side of the coin, we all have to abide by the rules,
but this does not give anybody an opportunity to start calling Scott names.
This is one person that can go to an extra mile helping others even unpaid.
IMHO that signature "CCIE4" is a form of motivation to a lot of people on
the list. Since GS has gone public then rules have to be made by the people
for the people using the list.
Hash
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Shawn Zandi
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 9:00 AM
To: Jonny English
Cc: Gary Duncanson; swm@emanon.com; Paul Borghese; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: CCDE Practical (Or other blah, blah, blah)
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