From: Hobbs (deadheadblues@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2008 - 18:41:11 ART
If it's one thing I have learned studying for the CCIE, it is you MUST
swallow your pride.
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Narbik Kocharians <narbikk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> I hope he is not banned, but you have to agree and abide by the rules of
> the
> house. No one is above that, why would you put yourself in that situation.
> GS is not GS because of Scott, Narbik or Brians, it was there before all of
> us and it will be there many many years after we have gone.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Shawn Zandi <szmetal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Narbik Kocharians
> CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> www.MicronicsTraining
> www.Net-Workbooks.com
> Sr. Technical Instructor
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
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