No one needs a suit of armor to join a discussion. They just need to join it intelligently. That's why it's recommended in the faq to lurk for awhile when you're a newbie before jumping in.
If someone posts a questions saying... hey... I searched on Cisco and here and there and I just don't get this... help me understand... no one anywhere would bash them for trying and not understanding. Now if someone posts a question such as how do I recover a password on a 2500, it's obvious they made no effort as this can be found on Cisco's site in less time than it took to ask the question. But perhaps this is the type of "intelligent" discussion you are referring to and would like to see more of in this group. Well I would argue that by promoting that you are devaluing this group, it's users, and the truely "intelligent" discussions that go on here. That's just what we all need is to sort through 30 messages a day of how do I turn on my router, what is this ethernet thingy on my rooter, what does ram stand for? Too many people treat this group as the free consulting group and the first place to look for answers and I do not think that should be encouraged. One's own research should be the first place and the knowledgeable people of this group (which I do NOT claim to be one) should asked when that fails. -- -=Repy to group only... no personal=- ""Jim McDowell"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You have my vote on that. I think there would be many more thoughtful > discussions if most average folks didn't feel like they need to put on a > suit of armor just to join the discussion. But alas...it seems to be that > way in every discussion group. > > > > >Carrol,. I agree with you that some would learn slower or not at all, but I > >think you are incorrect on your devaluation of respect. It's easy to say > >that medicine tastes bad but is necessary. But I propose to the group that > >the damage is more than the help. There are many lurkers that would surely > >participate more and in turn learn more through being active rather than > >just lurking if indeed they could trust that they would not be humiliated > if > >one of their questions was not up to par. So, although a demeaning message > >may be given to one of the few deserving participants, it will cause many > >participants not to grow as fast as they would if they were actively > >conversing. > >I really don't think you're argument holds water because of that. Besides > >the same finite resource you refer to are wasted with the rant as with the > >question. If the resources are the reason for the rant, then the rant is > >self defeating. > > > >Larry Puckette > >Network Analyst CCNA,MCP,LANCP > >Temple Inland > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >512/434-1838 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=26636&t=25805 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
