"Dennis" pretty well expressed my position on answering questions. The questions I'm most likely to answer on the group are ones that deal with interpretation of protocol or design nuances -- frankly, when there may or may not be an exact answer even among experts. Another kind that I'll tend to comment on are things where there are subtle things (especially the interaction of some subtle things) like the current thread on OSPF load balancing.
When the question, in my opinion, can fairly easily be answered with a search on CCO or in the Groupstudy archives, I may or may not comment. I'm most likely to comment, in a non-confrontational way, that I've already answered this question in the archives. There are a couple of categories where I'm quite unlikely to answer, but I do sometimes grit my teeth not to say something sarcastic. One is where the question starts out "my customer wants...", which is often just the sort of thing that consultants are paid for. Even worse are some of the discussions where the customer wants multihoming, complex BGP (_not_ the same thing), etc., where someone who doesn't have experience can disrupt significant parts of the Internet. Long ago and far away, the University of Maryland had a locally developed programming language called RALPH (Re-entrant Algorithmic Language Processor H*--a footnote explained the H was there to be cute). In the RALPH documentation, there was a single-paragraph description of a particular feature, which included the warning "if you don't understand, from this paragraph alone, why using this feature is dangerous, don't use it. Get expert help." Same sort of thing. I may give a couple of paragraphs about how, in the real world, you deal with some global routing issue, but if the questioner doesn't get it from those answers, there's too much background needed to solve it quickly. Don't get me wrong -- I am quite willing to _ask_ questions in the appropriate forum, and also have my quality checked by others. But I've paid my dues and shown the attitude that I can ask Sue Hares, Yakov Rekhter, or Tony Li a BGP question, Dave Katz or Tony an ISIS question, John Moy an OSPF question, etc. But it took me years to get to a point where I "earned my bones" and could do that. I have a moral obligation to answer technical questions on RFCs and Internet Drafts I've written or coauthored -- they are called Requests for Comments for (an admittedly historic) reason! I've just finished a book "Building Service Provider Networks," which deals with the design of networks using BGP, MPLS, L2TP, etc., rather than how to configure them (it should be out early next year). Annlee Hines was my principal reviewer, and believe me, I listened carefully when she said something wasn't clear. But I didn't ask her to do my work for me. Howard >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=26642&t=25805 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
