alt.certification.cisco - Flaming someone for asking for cheet sheets

Author

Flaming someone for asking for cheet sheets

lifeson@mindspring.com

2002-12-28, 2:24 pm

As I understand it - a cheet sheet is comprised of "actual questions"
and answers from previous tests. This means these people have the
gall to want to learn the answers to the questions !!!

Now, even if they were answered in a friendly, normal way and given
some "real" questions and answers to actual test questions, the test
they take will undoubtedly be different. If it was the same test
every time I can see why the concern, but it isn't.

What do these flamers do to prepare? It can only be through books and
simulators. Because if they take any sample tests, they would need to
first make sure that not one questions will ever appear on the Cisco
exam.

Since it is wrong to review actual previous test questions, then all
sample tests must be policed to make sure they have no questions that
ever appear on Cisco cert tests.

That would make all sample tests a non-representation of the Cisco
exam. Is that what we want here, useless sample tests and making it a
crime to learn the info that is needed for passing?

This attitude is only found on this newsgroup. If you talk to
friends, people at work, etc - they all trade stories of questions
that they had on their test and compare notes.
lifeson@mindspring.com
Website: www.infocellar.com

2002-12-28, 3:24 pm

i agree ive been thru the ccna eacadamy and have used books to study, but i
cant see whats wrong with using questions and answers as your still learning
either way when u look at teh questions you begin to learn the answer
thefore learning something, most of the stuff for ccna is rubbish most of it
is a case of memorising its the pratical stuff which is of importance not
knwoing how many pins are on a connector

<lifeson@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0kvr0v0rtde7dhdkfuf4h4gp1
4u6khmv3b@4ax.com...
> As I understand it - a cheet sheet is comprised of "actual questions"
> and answers from previous tests. This means these people have the
> gall to want to learn the answers to the questions !!!
>
> Now, even if they were answered in a friendly, normal way and given
> some "real" questions and answers to actual test questions, the test
> they take will undoubtedly be different. If it was the same test
> every time I can see why the concern, but it isn't.
>
> What do these flamers do to prepare? It can only be through books and
> simulators. Because if they take any sample tests, they would need to
> first make sure that not one questions will ever appear on the Cisco
> exam.
>
> Since it is wrong to review actual previous test questions, then all
> sample tests must be policed to make sure they have no questions that
> ever appear on Cisco cert tests.
>
> That would make all sample tests a non-representation of the Cisco
> exam. Is that what we want here, useless sample tests and making it a
> crime to learn the info that is needed for passing?
>
> This attitude is only found on this newsgroup. If you talk to
> friends, people at work, etc - they all trade stories of questions
> that they had on their test and compare notes.
> lifeson@mindspring.com
> Website: www.infocellar.com

Bernie

2002-12-28, 4:24 pm

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:58:20 -0500, lifeson@mindspring.com wrote:

>As I understand it - a cheet sheet is comprised of "actual questions"
>and answers from previous tests. This means these people have the
>gall to want to learn the answers to the questions !!!
>
>Now, even if they were answered in a friendly, normal way and given
>some "real" questions and answers to actual test questions, the test
>they take will undoubtedly be different. If it was the same test
>every time I can see why the concern, but it isn't.

It is the same test. You are living in a dream world if you think
they constantly change out the questions. They are updated rarely
(and even then it is usually only a couple of questions changed) and
there are maybe at most two exams, an A and a B exam, so the pool of
questions is limited too. This is a fact, not speculation. The myth
of the huge question pool and constantly changing questions has been
circulated by those that seek to justify the fact that they are
cheating. It makes it seem not so bad if you think you are studying
last weeks questions, right?

>What do these flamers do to prepare? It can only be through books and
>simulators.

Or, dare I say "real experience." Real routers?

>Because if they take any sample tests, they would need to
>first make sure that not one questions will ever appear on the Cisco
>exam.

Nothing wrong with sample tests as long as it is not the real test or
the real questions. As for preparation, the books and hands-on with
routers are more than sufficient to prepare. Shocking, but I have
taken many, many exams (including all the CCNP ones) without using any
sample exams of any sort, and not failed one. How many times in high
school or college did you have sample exams to practice before taking
a real exam. Not many times I bet. So how did you prepare for those
classes? You don't *have* to have a practice test to prepare for any
exam. Studying the material is more than sufficient--if you know the
material, you don't need as much practice (if any) taking sample
exams.

I don't buy the clueless act many people use: "Well, I have to
practice before hand, so I am just using the real questions to do so!"
because for centuries people have managed to pass exams without the
need to sit and practice either sample or the real questions. It is a
silly, silly excuse that amounts to little more than justification for
the act of cheating. Sample (but not real) questions are okay to use
(it can't be considered cheating), but I still don't believe anyone
that says they require them in order to prepare.

>Since it is wrong to review actual previous test questions, then all
>sample tests must be policed to make sure they have no questions that
>ever appear on Cisco cert tests.

No. First, if these people were making them up from their own head,
not having taken the actual exam, what are the odds that they will
create an identical question? Zero. Second, if they have taken the
real exam (which the practice test companies do), then they can be
assured that they don't create a copy of the same question. It is not
that difficult. This is just another silly excuse that people use to
justify their own cheating. Is it really of concern to you how Boson
ensures that they don't sell you the real questions? No. You know
what? It takes constant policing by college professors to ensure
their students don't cheat, but I don't hear anyone using that as an
excuse to justify cheating on a college exam. (Boy those poor
overworked professors...)

As for you, your job is simple...don't buy practice exams that
advertise "up to X% of the real exam!!!" Boson has always tried to
make sure they don't break the NDA. braindumps are also code for
"real questions." It is rather easy to avoid real exam questions if
you make half an effort. You don't have to police it yourself, just
go with the reputable sample question vendors.

>That would make all sample tests a non-representation of the Cisco
>exam. Is that what we want here, useless sample tests and making it a
>crime to learn the info that is needed for passing?

Gee, I have taken some college classes where a professor gave out
sample exams. Funny how those sample exams helped me prepare for the
real exam without giving me the exact same questions isn't it.
Bizarre how that works...(shakes head).

>This attitude is only found on this newsgroup. If you talk to
>friends, people at work, etc - they all trade stories of questions
>that they had on their test and compare notes.

Oh, I see. The inner compass is directed by what the crowd is doing
is it? Hey, if everyone over at the water cooler cheats, then why
not? Its no big deal if you don't earn it as long as you get the
paper. It is one thing for two people who have both taken and passed
an exam to discuss the exam between themselves (though that is
probably still prohibited under the NDA), and entirely another for
someone who has not passed yet to be receiving such "stories" about
the exam (which clearly is cheating).

And even if you don't care much for the ethics of the situation, do
you not care that you signed and agreed to a legal document stating
that you will not share the actual questions or that you did not
receive help on the actual questions? Your word is your bond, but if
that doesn't mean anything to you then that becomes everyone's
problem. At a university, you don't even have to sign an NDA because
it is assumed that you are aware of what constitutes cheating because
it is such a self-evident and simple principle. But with
certification exams we have to treat everyone like they are three year
olds and define cheating for them and make them agree to not cheat.

[As an aside, now do people see why the CCNA/NP has almost zero value
today?--everybody cheats and sees that nothing is wrong with it. How
can that have any real value anymore with this state of affairs?]

--Bernie

crazIvan

2002-12-28, 5:24 pm

>Shocking, but I have
> taken many, many exams (including all the CCNP ones) without using any
> sample exams of any sort, and not failed one. How many times in high
> school or college did you have sample exams to practice before taking
> a real exam. Not many times I bet. So how did you prepare for those
> classes? You don't *have* to have a practice test to prepare for any
> exam. Studying the material is more than sufficient--if you know the
> material, you don't need as much practice (if any) taking sample
> exams.

I agree that it is wrong to cheat (big surprise

, and that you don't
really need practice exams to pass the CCNA, but in a situation where you
are competing for marks (not just pass/fail like Cisco tests), going over
the previous years exam really does help you learn the nature of the
questions. ie: In Australia, for VCE (Years 11/12, last years of high
school) every teacher handed out copies of the previous years exams (which
are also available from the Department of Education), as for VCE you are
ranked against every other student in the state (your score is the
percentage of people you performed better than). In a situation like this,
where the exam writers are trying to make you lose marks, you really need to
review the previous years exam. But not for cisco.
Very sorry about the extended rant

Bernie

2002-12-28, 6:24 pm

On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:54:13 +1100, "crazIvan"
<crazIvan@barrysworld.com> wrote:

>>Shocking, but I have
>> taken many, many exams (including all the CCNP ones) without using any
>> sample exams of any sort, and not failed one. How many times in high
>> school or college did you have sample exams to practice before taking
>> a real exam. Not many times I bet. So how did you prepare for those
>> classes? You don't *have* to have a practice test to prepare for any
>> exam. Studying the material is more than sufficient--if you know the
>> material, you don't need as much practice (if any) taking sample
>> exams.
>
>I agree that it is wrong to cheat (big surprise

, and that you don't
>really need practice exams to pass the CCNA, but in a situation where you
>are competing for marks (not just pass/fail like Cisco tests), going over
>the previous years exam really does help you learn the nature of the
>questions. ie: In Australia, for VCE (Years 11/12, last years of high
>school) every teacher handed out copies of the previous years exams (which
>are also available from the Department of Education), as for VCE you are
>ranked against every other student in the state (your score is the
>percentage of people you performed better than). In a situation like this,
>where the exam writers are trying to make you lose marks, you really need to
>review the previous years exam.

It all depends on the nature and purpose of the exam. Ethically
speaking, there is nothing wrong with going over the previous years
exam, as long as this year's exam truly is different. [With Cisco,
there is no such thing as a yearly exam; they change it when they get
around to it].

I don't know anything about the VCE, but I'll use the SAT as an
example for my point to follow. The SAT is an aptitude test which
people typically prepare for by taking previous year's exams.
Ethically, that is not a problem. However, it is an aptitude test to
rank people (as you describe the VCE). Now it is not exactly fair to
rank people if a certain class of the population (i.e. the wealthy)
has access to 20 previous exams and courses that teach various tricks
to raising your score a few points while another class of the
population (i.e. the poor) doesn't. The results are legitimate when
the playing field is level, but when some have greater access to
preparation materials than others, the system starts to weaken. If
you also add to that a system (as in the SAT) where you can take it
limitless times and choose your best score for release to colleges,
then the system further allows economics to enter into aptitude
testing. The rich can take it as many times as it takes and the poor
get one or two shots at it. Not exactly a good system under which to
rank the aptitude of individuals, IMO.

At any rate, testing the aptitude of a population in order to rank
them is eminently *more* fair if no one has access to previous years
exams and if you can only take it once than if you allow unequal
access to previous exams and limitless exam seatings (to those who can
afford it). No it isn't perfect to only allow one shot at the
aptitude test (maybe someone is sick that day), but that is certainly
*better* as a whole than allowing people to take it however many times
they want.

That is why I say it all depends on the purpose and nature of the exam
as to whether it is useful or beneficial to use previous years exams.
But this is *waaaay* off topic...

>But not for cisco.
>Very sorry about the extended rant

>

--Bernie

crazIvan

2002-12-28, 9:24 pm

>Now it is not exactly fair to
> rank people if a certain class of the population (i.e. the wealthy)
> has access to 20 previous exams and courses that teach various tricks
> to raising your score a few points while another class of the
> population (i.e. the poor) doesn't. The results are legitimate when
> the playing field is level, but when some have greater access to
> preparation materials than others, the system starts to weaken. If
> you also add to that a system (as in the SAT) where you can take it
> limitless times and choose your best score for release to colleges,
> then the system further allows economics to enter into aptitude
> testing. The rich can take it as many times as it takes and the poor
> get one or two shots at it. Not exactly a good system under which to
> rank the aptitude of individuals, IMO.

In an ideal world, everyone would have an equal advantage. In the real
world, unfortunatley, it's just not going to happen.

> At any rate, testing the aptitude of a population in order to rank
> them is eminently *more* fair if no one has access to previous years
> exams and if you can only take it once than if you allow unequal
> access to previous exams and limitless exam seatings (to those who can
> afford it). No it isn't perfect to only allow one shot at the
> aptitude test (maybe someone is sick that day), but that is certainly
> *better* as a whole than allowing people to take it however many times
> they want.
>
> That is why I say it all depends on the purpose and nature of the exam
> as to whether it is useful or beneficial to use previous years exams.
> But this is *waaaay* off topic...

And the moral of the story, boys and girls, is don't cheat

Bernie

2002-12-28, 10:24 pm

On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:09:06 +1100, "crazIvan"
<crazIvan@barrysworld.com> wrote:

>
>>Now it is not exactly fair to
>> rank people if a certain class of the population (i.e. the wealthy)
>> has access to 20 previous exams and courses that teach various tricks
>> to raising your score a few points while another class of the
>> population (i.e. the poor) doesn't. The results are legitimate when
>> the playing field is level, but when some have greater access to
>> preparation materials than others, the system starts to weaken. If
>> you also add to that a system (as in the SAT) where you can take it
>> limitless times and choose your best score for release to colleges,
>> then the system further allows economics to enter into aptitude
>> testing. The rich can take it as many times as it takes and the poor
>> get one or two shots at it. Not exactly a good system under which to
>> rank the aptitude of individuals, IMO.
>
>In an ideal world, everyone would have an equal advantage. In the real
>world, unfortunatley, it's just not going to happen.

True, there will never truly be an equal advantage, but that shouldn't
stop us from trying to even the tables as much as possible. In fact
with the SAT, options are being explored that will do just that.
Supposedly, they are going to make it so that you cannot hide any of
your scores from colleges, so if you took it ten times they will get
to see all ten scores. This negates much of the gamesmanship that
currently takes place. Now that is far more fair than the current
system, so I would be totally in favor of it. Interestingly enough I
read an editorial column in my alma mater's newsletter whining about
how unfair it is to not be able to hide ten out of your eleven test
scores, wah, wah. The person neglected to note that it is also unfair
that he gets to take it eleven times while another gets one chance.

I'm not the type that believes a perfect system can be crafted. I
just like to make improvements where it makes sense to make them.

--Bernie

crazIvan

2002-12-28, 11:24 pm

> True, there will never truly be an equal advantage, but that shouldn't
> stop us from trying to even the tables as much as possible. In fact
> with the SAT, options are being explored that will do just that.
> Supposedly, they are going to make it so that you cannot hide any of
> your scores from colleges, so if you took it ten times they will get
> to see all ten scores. This negates much of the gamesmanship that
> currently takes place. Now that is far more fair than the current
> system, so I would be totally in favor of it. Interestingly enough I
> read an editorial column in my alma mater's newsletter whining about
> how unfair it is to not be able to hide ten out of your eleven test
> scores, wah, wah. The person neglected to note that it is also unfair
> that he gets to take it eleven times while another gets one chance.
>
> I'm not the type that believes a perfect system can be crafted. I
> just like to make improvements where it makes sense to make them.
>
> --Bernie

My philosophy exactly: It'll never be perfect, but that's no reason not to
improve it.

(What? This is a Cisco cert group? Oops...

afropuff

2002-12-29, 2:24 am

Bernie,

Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the process
of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on most of
your posts, something my hands can't handle..

-fro

"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:B0410B70F50911A8.A3CE7AADB4807A1F.589FF887492CCB03@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:58:20 -0500, lifeson@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >As I understand it - a cheet sheet is comprised of "actual questions"
> >and answers from previous tests. This means these people have the
> >gall to want to learn the answers to the questions !!!
> >
> >Now, even if they were answered in a friendly, normal way and given
> >some "real" questions and answers to actual test questions, the test
> >they take will undoubtedly be different. If it was the same test
> >every time I can see why the concern, but it isn't.
>
> It is the same test. You are living in a dream world if you think
> they constantly change out the questions. They are updated rarely
> (and even then it is usually only a couple of questions changed) and
> there are maybe at most two exams, an A and a B exam, so the pool of
> questions is limited too. This is a fact, not speculation. The myth
> of the huge question pool and constantly changing questions has been
> circulated by those that seek to justify the fact that they are
> cheating. It makes it seem not so bad if you think you are studying
> last weeks questions, right?
>
> >What do these flamers do to prepare? It can only be through books and
> >simulators.
>
> Or, dare I say "real experience." Real routers?
>
> >Because if they take any sample tests, they would need to
> >first make sure that not one questions will ever appear on the Cisco
> >exam.
>
> Nothing wrong with sample tests as long as it is not the real test or
> the real questions. As for preparation, the books and hands-on with
> routers are more than sufficient to prepare. Shocking, but I have
> taken many, many exams (including all the CCNP ones) without using any
> sample exams of any sort, and not failed one. How many times in high
> school or college did you have sample exams to practice before taking
> a real exam. Not many times I bet. So how did you prepare for those
> classes? You don't *have* to have a practice test to prepare for any
> exam. Studying the material is more than sufficient--if you know the
> material, you don't need as much practice (if any) taking sample
> exams.
>
> I don't buy the clueless act many people use: "Well, I have to
> practice before hand, so I am just using the real questions to do so!"
> because for centuries people have managed to pass exams without the
> need to sit and practice either sample or the real questions. It is a
> silly, silly excuse that amounts to little more than justification for
> the act of cheating. Sample (but not real) questions are okay to use
> (it can't be considered cheating), but I still don't believe anyone
> that says they require them in order to prepare.
>
> >Since it is wrong to review actual previous test questions, then all
> >sample tests must be policed to make sure they have no questions that
> >ever appear on Cisco cert tests.
>
> No. First, if these people were making them up from their own head,
> not having taken the actual exam, what are the odds that they will
> create an identical question? Zero. Second, if they have taken the
> real exam (which the practice test companies do), then they can be
> assured that they don't create a copy of the same question. It is not
> that difficult. This is just another silly excuse that people use to
> justify their own cheating. Is it really of concern to you how Boson
> ensures that they don't sell you the real questions? No. You know
> what? It takes constant policing by college professors to ensure
> their students don't cheat, but I don't hear anyone using that as an
> excuse to justify cheating on a college exam. (Boy those poor
> overworked professors...)
>
> As for you, your job is simple...don't buy practice exams that
> advertise "up to X% of the real exam!!!" Boson has always tried to
> make sure they don't break the NDA. braindumps are also code for
> "real questions." It is rather easy to avoid real exam questions if
> you make half an effort. You don't have to police it yourself, just
> go with the reputable sample question vendors.
>
> >That would make all sample tests a non-representation of the Cisco
> >exam. Is that what we want here, useless sample tests and making it a
> >crime to learn the info that is needed for passing?
>
> Gee, I have taken some college classes where a professor gave out
> sample exams. Funny how those sample exams helped me prepare for the
> real exam without giving me the exact same questions isn't it.
> Bizarre how that works...(shakes head).
>
> >This attitude is only found on this newsgroup. If you talk to
> >friends, people at work, etc - they all trade stories of questions
> >that they had on their test and compare notes.
>
> Oh, I see. The inner compass is directed by what the crowd is doing
> is it? Hey, if everyone over at the water cooler cheats, then why
> not? Its no big deal if you don't earn it as long as you get the
> paper. It is one thing for two people who have both taken and passed
> an exam to discuss the exam between themselves (though that is
> probably still prohibited under the NDA), and entirely another for
> someone who has not passed yet to be receiving such "stories" about
> the exam (which clearly is cheating).
>
> And even if you don't care much for the ethics of the situation, do
> you not care that you signed and agreed to a legal document stating
> that you will not share the actual questions or that you did not
> receive help on the actual questions? Your word is your bond, but if
> that doesn't mean anything to you then that becomes everyone's
> problem. At a university, you don't even have to sign an NDA because
> it is assumed that you are aware of what constitutes cheating because
> it is such a self-evident and simple principle. But with
> certification exams we have to treat everyone like they are three year
> olds and define cheating for them and make them agree to not cheat.
>
> [As an aside, now do people see why the CCNA/NP has almost zero value
> today?--everybody cheats and sees that nothing is wrong with it. How
> can that have any real value anymore with this state of affairs?]
>
>
> --Bernie

Bernie

2002-12-29, 1:24 pm

On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
wrote:

>Bernie,
>
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the process
>of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on most of
>your posts, something my hands can't handle..

I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.

I write long replies for a number of reasons:
1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
entire day.

2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
all sharpened through the process.

3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
clarified and stated up front.

--Bernie

afropuff

2002-12-29, 6:24 pm

"I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?"

lol I knew it!!

-fro

"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news

E2D990C9C85ABBF.CE8CA08BAF16F324.16F165AC107E5E4A@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bernie,
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the
process
> >of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on most
of
> >your posts, something my hands can't handle..
>
> I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?
>

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.
>
> I write long replies for a number of reasons:
> 1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
> Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
> entire day.
>
> 2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
> just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
> like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
> that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
> written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
> all sharpened through the process.
>
> 3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
> clarified and stated up front.
>
> --Bernie

vladimir

2002-12-30, 1:24 pm

thing is if you write long posts, you may have time for it, but I and
presume anybody that doesn't have a lot time on their hands doesn't have
time to read it , let alone digest it. I would think general rule is get to
the point sharply and not burden with side issues

"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news

MikeS

2002-12-30, 1:24 pm

With practice, it is just as easy to write a well crafted *long* post with a
well thought out answer then to write a short but vulgar post full of
misspellings and that nasty *shorthand* that some like to use. So far as the
side issues go, it's been my experience that if you do not cover all the
issues directly, you will end up in the writing it all out anyways as the
conversation goes along. So you might as well get it all out the first time
around.

Bernie might have a different take on this but I've read enough of his posts
to see quality writing which is saying something given the nature of a
newsgroup.

MikeS

--
Tutorials - Whitepapers - Security - Wireless- News
Find me at www-dot-packetattack-dot-com

"vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AL%P9.120909$F2h1.58020@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> thing is if you write long posts, you may have time for it, but I and
> presume anybody that doesn't have a lot time on their hands doesn't have
> time to read it , let alone digest it. I would think general rule is get
to
> the point sharply and not burden with side issues
>
> "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news

E2D990C9C85ABBF.CE8CA08BAF16F324.16F165AC107E5E4A@lp.airnews.net...
> > On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Bernie,
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the
> process
> > >of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on
most
> of

> > >your posts, something my hands can't handle..
> >
> > I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?
> >

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.
> >
> > I write long replies for a number of reasons:
> > 1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
> > Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
> > entire day.
> >
> > 2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
> > just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
> > like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
> > that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
> > written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
> > all sharpened through the process.
> >
> > 3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
> > clarified and stated up front.
> >
> > --Bernie
>
>

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

vladimir

2002-12-30, 2:24 pm

let me ask you in how many words can you say that cheating is wrong or that
everybody does certification out of greed and not to actually learn
something. It's as bad as spam when you repeat the same over and over. Mind
you long posts are okay to explain complicated mostly technical issues, but
why bother with such clear ethical issues
"MikeS" <wybnormal@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3e1097d4$1_5@goliath2.newsgroups.com...
> With practice, it is just as easy to write a well crafted *long* post with
a
> well thought out answer then to write a short but vulgar post full of
> misspellings and that nasty *shorthand* that some like to use. So far as
the
> side issues go, it's been my experience that if you do not cover all the
> issues directly, you will end up in the writing it all out anyways as the
> conversation goes along. So you might as well get it all out the first
time
> around.
>
> Bernie might have a different take on this but I've read enough of his
posts
> to see quality writing which is saying something given the nature of a
> newsgroup.
>
> MikeS
>
> --
> Tutorials - Whitepapers - Security - Wireless- News
> Find me at www-dot-packetattack-dot-com
>
>
> "vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:AL%P9.120909$F2h1.58020@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > thing is if you write long posts, you may have time for it, but I and
> > presume anybody that doesn't have a lot time on their hands doesn't have
> > time to read it , let alone digest it. I would think general rule is get
> to
> > the point sharply and not burden with side issues
> >
> > "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >
news

E2D990C9C85ABBF.CE8CA08BAF16F324.16F165AC107E5E4A@lp.airnews.net... [colo
r=darkred]
> > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bernie,
> > > >
> > > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the
> > process
> > > >of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on
> most
> > of
> > > >your posts, something my hands can't handle..
> > >
> > > I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?
> > >

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.
> > >
> > > I write long replies for a number of reasons:
> > > 1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
> > > Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
> > > entire day.
> > >
> > > 2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
> > > just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
> > > like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
> > > that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
> > > written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
> > > all sharpened through the process.
> > >
> > > 3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
> > > clarified and stated up front.
> > >
> > > --Bernie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News[/color]
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----

Bernie

2002-12-30, 3:24 pm

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:54:40 GMT, "vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>thing is if you write long posts, you may have time for it, but I and
>presume anybody that doesn't have a lot time on their hands doesn't have
>time to read it , let alone digest it. I would think general rule is get to
>the point sharply and not burden with side issues

Then you have the choice of reading the first sentence of each
paragraph to get the sharp points. If you like you can skip the rest,
but it is there for those that want to read a little more. I don't
pretend to try to please everybody, and I know that people who are in
a rush probably have learned not to even open most of my posts. That
is fine with me, it is their choice. I choose to give more than is
necessary and you can take what little of it you choose is necessary.

I find that sharp points are prone to quick misunderstandings, and
that is why I avoid them. But to each his own.

>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news

E2D990C9C85ABBF.CE8CA08BAF16F324.16F165AC107E5E4A@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bernie,
>> >
>> > Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the
> process
>> >of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on most
> of

>> >your posts, something my hands can't handle..
>>
>> I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?
>>

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.
>>
>> I write long replies for a number of reasons:
>> 1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
>> Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
>> entire day.
>>
>> 2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
>> just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
>> like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
>> that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
>> written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
>> all sharpened through the process.
>>
>> 3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
>> clarified and stated up front.
>>
>> --Bernie
>

--Bernie

Bernie

2002-12-30, 3:24 pm

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:55:42 -0800, "MikeS" <wybnormal@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>So far as the
>side issues go, it's been my experience that if you do not cover all the
>issues directly, you will end up in the writing it all out anyways as the
>conversation goes along. So you might as well get it all out the first time
>around.

And that is exactly what I was getting at with point #3--you end up
covering that ground anyway. Thanks for stating it much better than I
was able to <g>.

--Bernie

Hansang Bae

2002-12-30, 3:24 pm

In article <tE1Q9.91445$yW.73790@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
> let me ask you in how many words can you say that cheating is wrong or that
> everybody does certification out of greed and not to actually learn
> something. It's as bad as spam when you repeat the same over and over. Mind
> you long posts are okay to explain complicated mostly technical issues, but
> why bother with such clear ethical issues

But look at the longevity of this thread (or threads of this genre). It
strikes a nerve and people post as they see fit. And often times, it
takes a winding road that covers other topics (like HR, hiring, exp vs
cert debates etc.etc.etc.etc.)

--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********

X -Eliminator

2002-12-30, 4:24 pm

Long is NOT EQUAL to "quality" (necessarily)

What ever happend to "short & succinct" ?

==============================
====================
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:55:42 -0800, "MikeS" <wybnormal@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Bernie might have a different take on this but I've read enough of his posts
>to see quality writing which is saying something given the nature of a
>newsgroup.
>
>MikeS

Tom MacIntyre

2002-12-30, 4:24 pm

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:35:05 -0600, X -Eliminator
<blalblalbla@aohell.com> wrote:

>Long is NOT EQUAL to "quality" (necessarily)
>
>What ever happend to "short & succinct" ?

My wife finally got tired of it, at least...

Tom

>
> ==============================
====================
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:55:42 -0800, "MikeS" <wybnormal@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Bernie might have a different take on this but I've read enough of his posts
>>to see quality writing which is saying something given the nature of a
>>newsgroup.
>>
>>MikeS

Bernie

2002-12-30, 5:24 pm

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:03:37 GMT, "vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>let me ask you in how many words can you say that cheating is wrong

Which inevitably leads to debate because A) not everyone that cheats
admits that is what they are doing, and B) not everyone agrees that
cheating is wrong. So some words are required.

>or that
>everybody does certification out of greed and not to actually learn
>something. It's as bad as spam when you repeat the same over and over.

Kind of like you are repeating over and over that you don't like long
posts. Ok, don't read them. Problem solved. The only person
responsible for the time you waste reading long posts is yourself.
I'm not holding a gun to your head am I?

>Mind
>you long posts are okay to explain complicated mostly technical issues, but
>why bother with such clear ethical issues

So you seem to imply that there is a right and wrong aspect to the
length of a post. Even seemingly clear ethical issues are often made
very complicated by those that would deny that they are so clear.
Debate ensues. It has happened many, many times in this group since
the beginning of the group.

>"MikeS" <wybnormal@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:3e1097d4$1_5@goliath2.newsgroups.com...
>> With practice, it is just as easy to write a well crafted *long* post with
>a
>> well thought out answer then to write a short but vulgar post full of
>> misspellings and that nasty *shorthand* that some like to use. So far as
>the
>> side issues go, it's been my experience that if you do not cover all the
>> issues directly, you will end up in the writing it all out anyways as the
>> conversation goes along. So you might as well get it all out the first
>time
>> around.
>>
>> Bernie might have a different take on this but I've read enough of his
>posts
>> to see quality writing which is saying something given the nature of a
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> MikeS
>>
>> --
>> Tutorials - Whitepapers - Security - Wireless- News
>> Find me at www-dot-packetattack-dot-com
>>
>>
>> "vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:AL%P9.120909$F2h1.58020@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > thing is if you write long posts, you may have time for it, but I and
>> > presume anybody that doesn't have a lot time on their hands doesn't have
>> > time to read it , let alone digest it. I would think general rule is get
>> to
>> > the point sharply and not burden with side issues
>> >
>> > "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>> >
>news

E2D990C9C85ABBF.CE8CA08BAF16F324.16F165AC107E5E4A@lp.airnews.net...
>> > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:31:18 -0600, "afropuff" <bdtobey@charter.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Bernie,
>> > > >
>> > > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever written or is in the
>> > process
>> > > >of writing a book?? Because you type rather lengthy explanations on
>> most
>> > of
>> > > >your posts, something my hands can't handle..
>> > >
>> > > I've written technical documentation for products...does that count?
>> > >

Actually, I dislike that type of writing; it's too bland.
>> > >
>> > > I write long replies for a number of reasons:
>> > > 1) I love the written word. I love reading and I like writing.
>> > > Typing reasonable well allows me to type long posts without wasting an
>> > > entire day.
>> > >
>> > > 2) I have been trained all my life to substantiate my claims, not to
>> > > just throw out a point or counterpoint and see if it is accepted. I
>> > > like to share the context of my point of view as well as any evidence
>> > > that leads me to my conclusion. The only thing I like more than the
>> > > written word is reason. I love to reason with people because we are
>> > > all sharpened through the process.
>> > >
>> > > 3) I believe much time is saved in the long run if things are
>> > > clarified and stated up front.
>> > >
>> > > --Bernie
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
>==----------
>> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
>=-----
>

--Bernie

crazIvan

2002-12-30, 7:24 pm

"vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tE1Q9.91445$yW.73790@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> let me ask you in how many words can you say that cheating is wrong or
that
> everybody does certification out of greed and not to actually learn
> something. It's as bad as spam when you repeat the same over and over.
Mind
> you long posts are okay to explain complicated mostly technical issues,
but
> why bother with such clear ethical issues

At least it keeps people coming back in the absence of actual networking or
certification questions. If there was no activity on this NG for a few
days, would
you keep coming back as often?

crazIvan

2002-12-30, 7:24 pm

"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:8B94374C0D6448AF.ADB9D1EF819D52B8.086256891806F3F6@lp.airnews.net...
> Then you have the choice of reading the first sentence of each
> paragraph to get the sharp points. If you like you can skip the rest,
> but it is there for those that want to read a little more. I don't
> pretend to try to please everybody, and I know that people who are in
> a rush probably have learned not to even open most of my posts. That
> is fine with me, it is their choice. I choose to give more than is
> necessary and you can take what little of it you choose is necessary.
>
> I find that sharp points are prone to quick misunderstandings, and
> that is why I avoid them. But to each his own.

I personally prefer the longer, more in-depth explanations. It helps
people to understand the larger issue, rather than just the single point
they wanted clarified. If you need an answer to a question, and
someone who knows the answer gives it to you, do you really have
the right to complain about the length or detail?

Sponsored Links