On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 16:15 -0500, Greg London wrote: > Ben Tilly said: > > I think responses are more along the lines of, "certification > > introduces a lot of problems, and we don't see how you'll > > make a certification become accepted." > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible.
I don't see the "so it must be possible," but rather a simple statement that there's something lacking here. That's a fair observation. > > I think responses are more along the lines of, "we don't think > > that the business world pays as much attention as you think. > > If you think that it does, then please explain the success, > > past and present, of C, C++, PHP and Perl." > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. You're repeating yourself, and in this case you're way off base. In fact, there's 4 good examples presented for SUCCESS, just not down the path that you suggest. It's a valid concern: why execute plan a, when plan b (already being executed) has many observed successful outcomes? It's a question you might answer many ways, but it's a valid question. > > I think that several have mentioned the cheap (used to be free) > > web-based certification at http://www.brainbench.com/. You > > have not explained why we should expect another one to > > have significantly better uptake than that one. > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. Now you're getting quasi-religious with this mantra, and it's WAY off base. Re-read the statement. This has been tried. It's still out there. What's DIFFERENT about your model? If you say nothing, an obvious response is: why not throw your lot in with those already doing this? > > But you don't seem to be trying to understand why, > > you're just frustrated that we are not acting on it. > > No, see, that exactly is were you are wrong. > I'm not frustrated that you aren't acting on it. > It's like a walkie talkie with a bunch of people on > the same frequency. Every time I say "Anyone out there > want to talk about certification/advocacy/insert idea here?" > a bunch of people hit the push-to-talk button with an air-horn > by their microphone. You see, it's like you sent mail to a mailing list saying, "hey, want to talk about certification?" and lots of people did. You, as it turns out, didn't actually want to talk about certification. You wanted to talk about how to make Perl more popular via certification and you interpreted any other discussion of certification (especially if it contradicted any assumption you held), as -- and I use this grotesque tool of cheap rhetoric only because you insisted on over using it -- HOOONNNKKK! This is an OLD conversation, and to jump in with no plan, and only a "hey we could do this and it would be cool," is like posting to a physics list, "hey we could invent time travel, and it would be cool." If you are likely to be upset when someone says, "time travel almost certainly is not possible, unless you're talking about moving very discrete, possibly highly restricted packets of information," then you might as well just skip the post because that's just a standard reply. Either cope and continue with your thought or don't bother. Check google, you'll see that there's even been a Perl Certification Wiki which was created solely to divert certification-related arguments. It's a hot-button topic, and to say that someone doesn't have a right to reply to it the way they feel is reasonable seems just as unfair as your airhorn metaphor. > HOONNNNKKK!!! The words you were looking for were "cogent reply". _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
