I'm not sure judging "I'm going to be..." qualifies someone for jerkhood. My pointing out this pedantic piece here probably is.
However, we should probably stifle our sniping. -sc makes a valid, if acerbic, point. I do understand Daniel's position as I have attempted to provide aid when his queries of this nature pop-up, and I agree whole-heartedly that education once you realize a deficit in something that you've become responsible for is crucial once it's pointed out/you realize it. I feel everyone here is happy to help out when asked, but none of us are real tolerant of actually *doing* the research for someone that can/should be done by the requester. (As demonstrated by the now departed employee of a carpet company) And as my favorite ASB article cites more information is required. :) - WJR 🙈🙉🙊 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to be straightforward: > > You might not "design" them to be smug, but lots of your replies are > smug. This seems to have become worse over the 10+ years I've known you > online, and is part of the reason why I quit your private email list. You > usually keep your smugness there, but it does overflow into the other lists > occasionally. > > If management doesn't support you being a pleasant person, that doesn't > obviate > the fact that you would be best served in being pleasant regardless, even > if that means practicing on your own, assuming keeping cordial > communications with people is important to you. It took me the first 4 > words in your email to realize you were about to be a jerk to someone. > > -- > Espi > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm going to be straightforward: >> >> You have a bit of a history of wanting mailing lists (more than one prior >> to this one) to simply provide the specific solution to a rather >> ill-defined problem involving enterprise environments. Those environments >> often have widely varying configurations and/or levels of complexity >> depending on their specific implementation. You can refer back to the >> archives on the *other* (list which we don't discuss here) regarding your >> Exchange Server dilemma of some time back as a reminder. >> >> In addition, there's some indication of your not understanding some basic >> premises of some products (see: "Device Drivers are not the HAL" on this >> list), along with a reticence in accepting correction on matters where you >> appear to have an incorrect understanding (see: "perpetual motion" on the >> *other* list). >> >> So, given the possible career-limiting implications of dealing with >> enterprise environments that you know nothing about, my suggestion was not >> designed to be a smug suggestion. It was a reality check that you need some >> basic understanding of the product architecture. But given the apparent >> lack of knowledge about what capabilities are included with what products, >> it appears that you don't. By your own admission below, you are "fumbling >> around". >> >> If your management doesn't support your gaining that education, that >> doesn't obviate the fact that you would be best served in getting educated >> regardless, even if that means spending your own time reading the online >> docs MS (or affiliates) provide, assuming keeping the job is important to >> you. This took me 4 seconds to google: >> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35405 >> >> If you feel you already done that, then it would be helpful to state at >> the outset what you have already covered, what your grasp of the issue is, >> what germane environmental configuration you are aware of, etc.. as failing >> to do so and expecting the folks her to "divine it" is a poor support >> request. >> >> Hence my suggestion below. If you are going to be put in the position of >> dealing with this environment administratively, you would be well served to >> get a much larger breadth of understanding. >> >> -sc >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Chenault >> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:33 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Lync Group Chat >> >> That might be nice. To analogize: >> I'm a mechanic. I'm very skilled on a certain class of cars and can >> usually extend that information to other cars. But I've been asked to work >> on a boat. There are some similarities but so much is different. And >> everything I find regarding working on boats assumes the reader is starting >> from the position of being a sailor. I'm okay with learning some sailing >> basics but the best I get when asking for help is "learn some sailing >> basics." >> Meanwhile my boss does not understand why I'm having such a hard time; >> cars and boats both use the same kind of engine. What's the delay? >> It's not that I don't appreciate the help. But so far I'm just getting a >> finger pointed into a completely dark room and told to take a look in >> there. Somewhere. Maybe on the shelf on the right. Or is it the left? Or >> does this room even have a shelf? >> I'm running across some postings leading me to believe that it's not just >> a separate client but a separate app. Or maybe it isn't. I'm in the control >> panel (after fumbling around found it is not installed on edge servers) and >> see not. One. Single. Mention. of chatrooms persistent or otherwise. >> I'm sorry Steven but vague "learn some basic" without a single pointer of >> any kind isn't 'helping, it's adding to the frustration. >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Lync Group Chat >> > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:39:54 -0400 >> > From: [email protected] >> > To: [email protected] >> > >> > Perhaps getting up to speed on Lync administration basics might be a >> good idea if you are going to be poking around on the server? >> > >> > -sc >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Chenault >> > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 12:43 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Lync Group Chat >> > >> > Downloaded and installed on my machine. Logged-in and connected >> successfully. Try to create a chat room and get "Your connection to the >> chat room server was lost." Googling THAT gets me more webpages with >> instructions that aren't making sense because I have not one clue about >> Lync; they may as well be in Greek. >> > >> > ________________________________ >> >> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:30:45 -0500 >> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Lync Group Chat >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Group chat in Lync 2010 is a separate DL, and requires a separate >> client. >> >> >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2651 >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=12480 >> >> >> >> >> >> - WJR >> >> 🙈🙉🙊 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Chenault >> >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Apologies for off-topic but I'm guessing there may be one or two Lync >> >> folks here. We're on Lync 2010. I've never touched Lync before and >> >> the person who set this up is long gone. As the Exchange guy it falls >> >> in my backyard. >> >> >> >> I've been looking for how to enable/setup persistent chat rooms in >> >> Lync. So far every webpage I hit is either "ZOMG it's great! It's >> >> wonderful! It does this... <blah blah" which helps not one bit or "in >> >> the client click Group Chat..." (there is no button in my Lync button >> >> for such) or "here's a screen shot. Do blah blah..." and the shot >> >> looks nothing like what I'm seeing. When I log on one of our Lync >> >> servers I don't see any UI; there's Deployment, Logging and the PS >> >> shell and that's it. The best info I've been able to find is that >> >> users have to be given the right to create such a room. >> >> >> >> *sigh* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
