|
Posted by Dave on August 24, 2006, 2:28 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Warren, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. More time
explaining and less time criticizing is a lot more productive in my opinion.
> BR wrote:
>> Oren wrote:
>>> I did mention previously that I was "sure" a spliter was in the junction
>>> box/house. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, yes there is a splitter. I do
>>> mention this in another post, with a little more detail.
>>
>> *smile*
>> Not at the time I asked the question. Basically Warren is saying that the
>> splitter isn't eliminated as a suspect. And until it is, anything else we
>> try could be a waste of time. Process of elemination, and all that.
>>
>
> While it's true that as long as the splitter is there, it can't be
> eliminated as a cause, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if
> it takes multiple exchanges before someone admits that yes, there actually
> is a splitter there after first saying there wasn't, how can you trust
> that you're getting accurate responses to any further questions.
>
> When I did troubleshooting over the phone, we'd run into problems that had
> symptoms of a loose cable, so we'd ask people to check the cable. It
> wasn't unusual for people to only pretend to check the cable. Maybe it was
> inconvenient. Maybe they were insulted that we'd suggest something so
> simple to them, of all people. Maybe they were so invested in a theory
> that it was something more complex than a simple cable. But they tell us
> the cable was okay. Then we'd spend a great deal of time and effort
> troubleshooting more unusual possibilities, but it was all a waste of
> time. Eventually it would become obvious that they weren't really
> following along anytime we suggested.
>
> So when you suggest a splitter, get told there are no splitters because
> the person didn't want to check for splitters until it became obvious that
> everyone else knew that there really is a splitter, then everything else
> is a waste of time. The person isn't really interested in a solution.
> They're interested in affirmation, and anytime you suggest something they
> don't want the issue to be, it's as likely they're going to ignore your
> troubleshooting suggestions because they don't affirm what they want the
> issue to be, and true troubleshooting becomes a waste of time.
>
> The other possibility is that if the person is so unskilled that they
> can't recognize what a splitter is, then any real troubleshooting is going
> to be too far over their head. It's like talking someone through surgery
> when they don't even recognize what a scalpel is.
>
> Either way, whether the person is only interested in troubleshooting that
> affirms his preconceived theory, or if he just isn't smart enough to know
> the answer to a simple question, further troubleshooting is just wasting
> time. The likelihood of reaching a solution is about the same as the
> likelihood of Tony Snow giving a direct answer to a direct question.
>
> Save the effort to people who can answer a simple question honestly and
> correctly without needing to be backed into a corner first.
>
> And yes, it still could be the splitter that didn't initially exist.
>
> --
> Warren H.
>
> ==========
> Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
> employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
> Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
> coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
> response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
> to go outside now.
>
> Power Lawncare Tools for Spring Clean-up:
> http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/
>
>
>
| 
NewsGroups 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map