From: Zamberlan, Diego (dzamberlan@verisign.com)
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 16:56:44 GMT-3
Before anything else, Congratulations to Eric, CCIE #13843
Second, Please, If you want to continue arguing, please do so in a new
topic, I don't think Eric is very happy of seeing all this discussion under
his number. And John, trust me on this, you don't want to continue
arguing...
Finally, as Matt says, this is the second time John generates this kind of
dispute... This is really unfortunate, and I believe the only thing that
John gets for doing this is a good beating... and you deserve it, John...
I hope you are writing from bitterness for failing five times, and not from
malice...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Matt
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 3:40 PM
To: Wayne Lawson; john matijevic; 'Joseph D. Phillips'; 'Eric Hoffman'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: CCIE # 13843
... I think I recall having a similiar thread of
emails with John not too long ago. Maybe after he
gets 5 people to tell him to cut it out, it will sink
in??
Also- I find it interesting that someone that claims
to be so good, couldn't get a job? Go Figure.
-Matt
--- Wayne Lawson <groupstudy@ipexpert.net> wrote:
> Wow John, nothing like earning your CCIE number
> (after 5 attempts) and then jumping
> right into the market like you're the king of the
> hill - all of this while passively cutting
> down established (and successful) vendors and CCIE's
> with lower numbers...
>
> Regarding your comments on our (IPexpert) products
> - I'd like you to try to explain to me
> how our workbook is outdated or irrelevant - as you
> seem to claim below. In case you
> weren't aware - the CCIE Lab did contain ISDN, Frame
> Relay, RIP and OSPF several years
> ago...(Actually you're probably aware....when did
> you begin your IE prep - and take your 1st
> attempt?). Some technologies and protocols remain
> the same while some change. There isn't
> and wasn't a need for us to rewrite our product - as
> you claim. People are using it today,
> and they're still successful - as you saw below -
> from this original post.
>
> Also, when and if you ever get more than a few
> students who attend your course - you'll
> realize that it becomes nearly impossible to track
> students. We have several hundred
> students who have attended our classes over the past
> year - and less than 15% of them
> report back to us, so the fact that you're trying to
> use a "success rate" formula just won't
> provide the needed feedback.
>
> Be careful who and where you run your mouth....a
> guy just starting out as a CCIE instructor,
> (again - after taking 5 attempts to pass) really
> doesn't rate enough to begin bashing
> established vendors with IE's on staff who are
> triple or quad certified. If you want to run
> and establish a successful business - do it with
> character and ethics. Don't cut down your
> competition on public newsgroups or mailing lists
> like some of these vendors do - earn your
> respect and keep your mouth shut - your work,
> products or services will speak for themselves.
> Spend the time, money and effort to establish a
> sales and marketing plan - quit using a public
> mailing list as your means of reaching customers.
> it's cheap and overdone on this newslist!
>
> Wayne Lawson
> President - IPexpert, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: "john matijevic" matijevi@bellsouth.net
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:56:56 -0400
> To: "'Joseph D. Phillips'"
> josephdphillips@fastmail.us
> Subject: RE: CCIE # 13843
>
> > Hello Eric,
> > Congratulations for passing the exam even though
> it took you 6 times. I
> > had to take the exam 5 times to pass. I had a
> similar experience to you
> > I had purchased several workbooks, but I attended
> more than 1 boot camp.
> > I attended Netmaster and Internetworkexpert mock
> lab workshop as well as
> > the IPexpert audio boot camp. Even though I did
> not attend Cyscoexpert,
> > I did research them and felt that they were really
> overcharging. And
> > that they gave some students different prices than
> others, I don't think
> > that is fair to do to customers. Also the big
> problem is with the boot
> > camps, is that they don't tell you what there
> passing rate is. This to
> > me is very important factor, I want to know how
> many people pass after
> > attending the boot camp. It is a shame that you
> have to fail so many
> > times in order to pass like I did. I really can
> sympathize, the problem
> > with many of the boot camps out there and the
> workbook vendors is that
> > they made there boot camp courses or workbooks
> years ago, and they got
> > their ccie years ago(look at their CCIE numbers),
> so they try and update
> > their workbooks but the problem is that the
> original topologies, tasks
> > etc, are still left over. Yes I purchased IPexpert
> as well, again my
> > feelings are that those labs were originated years
> ago, and they did not
> > completely rewrite the entire book, even though
> they have now proctor
> > guide and have several new labs. I am very proud
> to start my course,
> > because I have very current CCIE only 3 months,
> and I took exam so many
> > times, that I have very good idea of what exam is
> about. I don't waste
> > your time studying material that won't be tested
> on, and more
> > importantly I am not going to overcharge you, like
> some of the other
> > boot camps. Good Luck in your career endeavors as
> well!!!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > John Matijevic, CCIE #13254, MCSE, CNE, CCEA
> > CEO
> > IgorTek Inc.
> > 151 Crandon Blvd. #402
> > Key Biscayne, FL 33149
> > Hablo Espanol
> > 305-321-6232
> > http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-CCIE
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Joseph D. Phillips
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:49 AM
> > To: Eric Hoffman
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: CCIE # 13843
> >
> > Very good. Congratulations, from a boob that's
> flunked 4x. :)
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:35 GMT-3