«

Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
discussions with the powers that be.

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom

The one thing that I find truly amazing is the people that take the tests,
to wit they've agreed to the NDA, but then try to find a way around the NDA.
It's kind of like the college football player that signs a 5 year deal for
$X, and then has a somewhat good 2nd year and thinks they need to
re-negotiate their contract. Wait a minute, you already agreed to this, how
have things changed since you clicked 'I Agree'? Personally, if people
can't live up to their promises for even a short time, what makes anyone
think they are willing to live up to anything? Technical wording aside,
everyone knows what Microsoft is asking in the NDA. Is it really that hard
to live up to?

Again, just my take.

John

"Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
> discussions with the powers that be.
>
> --
> Michael D. Alligood
> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
> CIW Certified Instructor
>
> http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom
>
>

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some very helpful information on the NDA and other topics .............. you
really make things understandable.....thanks for THE CLASSROOM
..................Michael

"Michael D. Alligood" wrote:

> Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
> discussions with the powers that be.
>
> --
> Michael D. Alligood
> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
> CIW Certified Instructor
>
> http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom
>
>
>

"Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
> discussions with the powers that be.
>
I, for one, would definitely be interested in the results of your conversation.
As you may (or may not) know, CertGuard has been supporting the NDA since day
one.

Here is an argument that you may want to bring up about those questions that
were posed in your blog. I believe that anything that can be considered a
'variable' (AND is not made readily available by Microsoft) should not be
disclosed. And that the NDA includes anything that is not made 'public
information' by Microsoft. If you can point us to a page on the Microsoft
website that states the number of questions and/or the time allotted per exam,
then I would gladly provide that information to people that ask for it. Until
then, I feel that the NDA includes (but is not limited to) the following
information:

1. exam questions
2. simulations
3. number of questions
4. number of simulations
5. Time of exam


As for the NDA itself:
"You are expressly prohibited from disclosing, publishing, reproducing, or
transmitting this exam, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, verbal
or written, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the prior express
written permission of Microsoft Corporation."

In your argument, you focus on 'this exam', but what about focusing on 'in whole
or in part'? I don't see that statement as just meaning 'you can't disclose
*part* of a question', I see that as 'the entire exam or any part of the
exam'...which again, I feel includes 1-5 above.

Just curious, did you deliberately not include the MCSE newsgroups on this
discussion? The MCSE NG is the group that gets the most potential violators, and
could probably use this information more than some of the other groups you have
added.

--
CertGuard

> In your argument, you focus on 'this exam', but what about focusing on
'in whole
> or in part'? I don't see that statement as just meaning 'you can't disclose
> *part* of a question', I see that as 'the entire exam or any part of the
> exam'...which again, I feel includes 1-5 above.

I focused on "this exam" because that is the argument I hear the most in
discussions concerning the NDA. You can see in my post that I also
defended my stance by not divulging the answers to the listed questions
by defending the sentence, "... in whole or in part." Being a advocate
of the NDA, I tell my students and those interested that it does not
matter how many questions there are on the exam, or how long Microsoft
gives you to take it if you know the material listed by Microsoft in ALL
their Preparation Guides.

Thanks for your comments. BTW, I thought I included the MCSE newsgroup
as well. It was late, or early! Thanks for including the remarks in that
newsgroup as well.

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom



"CertGuard" <CertGuard> wrote in message
news::

> "Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
> news:#...
> > Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
> > discussions with the powers that be.
> >
> I, for one, would definitely be interested in the results of your conversation.
> As you may (or may not) know, CertGuard has been supporting the NDA since day
> one.
>
> Here is an argument that you may want to bring up about those questions that
> were posed in your blog. I believe that anything that can be considered a
> 'variable' (AND is not made readily available by Microsoft) should not be
> disclosed. And that the NDA includes anything that is not made 'public
> information' by Microsoft. If you can point us to a page on the Microsoft
> website that states the number of questions and/or the time allotted per exam,
> then I would gladly provide that information to people that ask for it. Until
> then, I feel that the NDA includes (but is not limited to) the following
> information:
>
> 1. exam questions
> 2. simulations
> 3. number of questions
> 4. number of simulations
> 5. Time of exam
>
>
> As for the NDA itself:
> "You are expressly prohibited from disclosing, publishing, reproducing, or
> transmitting this exam, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, verbal
> or written, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the prior express
> written permission of Microsoft Corporation."
>
> In your argument, you focus on 'this exam', but what about focusing on 'in whole
> or in part'? I don't see that statement as just meaning 'you can't disclose
> *part* of a question', I see that as 'the entire exam or any part of the
> exam'...which again, I feel includes 1-5 above.
>
> Just curious, did you deliberately not include the MCSE newsgroups on this
> discussion? The MCSE NG is the group that gets the most potential violators, and
> could probably use this information more than some of the other groups you have
> added.
>
> --
> CertGuard

"Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> In your argument, you focus on 'this exam', but what about focusing on
> 'in whole
>> or in part'? I don't see that statement as just meaning 'you can't disclose
>> *part* of a question', I see that as 'the entire exam or any part of the
>> exam'...which again, I feel includes 1-5 above.
>
> I focused on "this exam" because that is the argument I hear the most in
> discussions concerning the NDA. You can see in my post that I also defended my
> stance by not divulging the answers to the listed questions by defending the
> sentence, "... in whole or in part."
>
>
Ok, that helps me understand the reasoning behind why you focused on it. I
suppose I still need clarification on why other people focus on it though. I
guess I just take for granted already knowing that "this exam" will apply to
'every exam' I take. I guess I'm just looking at it from a different angle than
you are.

Your definition of "this exam" seems to include only the items presented
directly to the user in the form of questions and possible answers. My
definition, however, is a broader definition of the term and includes anything
related to "this exam" that was not made 'public information' by Microsoft
themselves.

Then again, I suppose that's what you're trying to clarify in your talks with
M$. Keep us updated.


> Being an advocate of the NDA, I tell my students and those interested that it
> does not matter how many questions there are on the exam, or how long
> Microsoft gives you to take it if you know the material listed by Microsoft in
> ALL their Preparation Guides.
>
>
Precisely



> Thanks for your comments. BTW, I thought I included the MCSE newsgroup as
> well. It was late, or early! Thanks for including the remarks in that
> newsgroup as well.
>
>
NP

--
CertGuard

--
Some useful links:

CertGuard: http://www.CertGuard.com
CertGuard Forums: http://www.CertGuard.com/forums/

Braindumps: http://www.CertGuard.com/braindumps.asp
Practice Test Providers: http://www.CertGuard.com/reviews.asp
Study Materials and Books: http://www.CertGuard.com/store.asp
Vendor Links and Emails: http://www.CertGuard.com/links.asp
--

I definitely look at "... this exam" as a whole; including exact
questions, content, number of anything, etc... But I have to also take a
look at the other side to see if their points are valid to keep my
understanding honest. Which is why I described both sides of the
argument. Hopefully there will be some clarification from the powers
that be during our conversations.

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom



"CertGuard" <CertGuard> wrote in message
news::

> "Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >> In your argument, you focus on 'this exam', but what about focusing on
> > 'in whole
> >> or in part'? I don't see that statement as just meaning 'you can't disclose
> >> *part* of a question', I see that as 'the entire exam or any part of the
> >> exam'...which again, I feel includes 1-5 above.
> >
> > I focused on "this exam" because that is the argument I hear the most in
> > discussions concerning the NDA. You can see in my post that I also defended my
> > stance by not divulging the answers to the listed questions by defending the
> > sentence, "... in whole or in part."
> >
> >
> Ok, that helps me understand the reasoning behind why you focused on it. I
> suppose I still need clarification on why other people focus on it though. I
> guess I just take for granted already knowing that "this exam" will apply to
> 'every exam' I take. I guess I'm just looking at it from a different angle than
> you are.
>
> Your definition of "this exam" seems to include only the items presented
> directly to the user in the form of questions and possible answers. My
> definition, however, is a broader definition of the term and includes anything
> related to "this exam" that was not made 'public information' by Microsoft
> themselves.
>
> Then again, I suppose that's what you're trying to clarify in your talks with
> M$. Keep us updated.
>
>
> > Being an advocate of the NDA, I tell my students and those interested that it
> > does not matter how many questions there are on the exam, or how long
> > Microsoft gives you to take it if you know the material listed by Microsoft in
> > ALL their Preparation Guides.
> >
> >
> Precisely
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your comments. BTW, I thought I included the MCSE newsgroup as
> > well. It was late, or early! Thanks for including the remarks in that
> > newsgroup as well.
> >
> >
> NP
>
> --
> CertGuard
>
> --
> Some useful links:
>
> CertGuard: http://www.CertGuard.com
> CertGuard Forums: http://www.CertGuard.com/forums/
>
> Braindumps: http://www.CertGuard.com/braindumps.asp
> Practice Test Providers: http://www.CertGuard.com/reviews.asp
> Study Materials and Books: http://www.CertGuard.com/store.asp
> Vendor Links and Emails: http://www.CertGuard.com/links.asp
> --

"Michael D. Alligood" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Visit my blog below and add your comments. I will include them in my
> discussions with the powers that be.
>
> --
> Michael D. Alligood
> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
> CIW Certified Instructor
>
> http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom
>
>

I believe that it is very important that the holder of any professional
certification or qualification doesn't ever talk the qualification down.
There is a real danger of making the qualification appear to be of less
value to the unqualified by revealing every single aspect of it.

"M" <> wrote in message
news:#...
>
> I believe that it is very important that the holder of any professional
> certification or qualification doesn't ever talk the qualification down. There
> is a real danger of making the qualification appear to be of less value to the
> unqualified by revealing every single aspect of it.
Very true, but what are the odds of that happening? People brag all the time and
people love to make themselves sound smarter than they are by talking down stuff
like, certifications. How many times have you heard "Ah, it was a piece of cake"
or "it was the easiest exam I ever took"? It's just the nature of people.



A great philosopher once said "To appear thinner, fatten up those around
you"...the same notion could apply to branes.


--
BD
# 0011 ^ 2

BD[MCNGP] piffled away vaguely:

>
>
> "M" <> wrote in message
> news:#...
>>
>> I believe that it is very important that the holder of any professional
>> certification or qualification doesn't ever talk the qualification down. There
>> is a real danger of making the qualification appear to be of less value to the
>> unqualified by revealing every single aspect of it.
> Very true, but what are the odds of that happening? People brag all the time and
> people love to make themselves sound smarter than they are by talking down stuff
> like, certifications. How many times have you heard "Ah, it was a piece of cake"
> or "it was the easiest exam I ever took"? It's just the nature of people.
>
>
>
> A great philosopher once said "To appear thinner, fatten up those around
> you"...the same notion could apply to branes.
>
>

Speaking of B-R-A-I-N-S . . . .

<sigh>
--

Catwalker
aka Pu$$y Feet
BS, MCSA, MCSE
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
"Definitely not wearing any underwear."