Good. Hopefully, potential candidates will see this and feedback on other forums regarding the fraud being perpetrated onto consumers by ISC2. Most "normal" people not associated with this organization agree with me as they've seen the evidence. You haven't so you have no standing.
You don't own the board and you have no legitimacy here. I can and will post as I choose. If you don't like it, don't use this board. One thing's for sure: You're not going to tell me what I can and can't do. Save your trolling for those who give a hoot!
If you want to make a point, you'd be better off creating a new post instead of tainting existing threads just to get attention. While you certainly have the right to post here, you shouldn't abuse it...
"I won't be doing business with anyone who holds a credential from this fraudulent organization."
I think you're right. In fact, I hope you're right.
"You've shown that you condone fraud and the good-ol-boy system."
I don't know how you reach that conclusion that from my comments, and I don't know what a "good-ol-boy system" is.
@notetaker- yes, I am an "insider". I am a Chapter president, a CISSP and a CCSP, and even a CLTF member. That's about as much of an insider one can be. That's exactly why I was responding to your post: because I know, from experience, that you do not have to pass on trade secrets to get your accreditation, nor that you have to take an (ISC)² course to pass the exam. Also, I know from experience that the vetting process is exactly as it is advertised by (ISC)². I could hardly have known that from the outside..
Given the long standing excellent reputation of (ISC)² and my personal experience with them, I choose to believe them over you, especially as I find the tone and content of your postings quite bitter and offensive. If you are repulsed by the idea of a professional group that has a vetting process like ours, then don't join. You are still very welcome to exchange ideas and ask for advice, or give it, freely, here, as we all do. If you would like to join, than by all means, do so - fulfill the requirements, if need be contact staff, issue a complaint. But - excuse my French - pissing in the jar you intent to drink from is not really a good idea, methinks.
Sheesh. I go away for one day to meetings, and you guys decide to revive the ethical principles discussion without me. Thanks a bunch.
Oh, by the way, it also revives the censorship debate, in a rather hilarious way, because the admins decided to take out/archive/hide @notetaker's first post (as far as I can tell) (which makes it really hard to figure out what has upset him/her/it), although they have left in subsequent posts. His first wasn't that inflammatory (albeit non-specific), and it's odd that they've left in stuff like
And that's why you're a slave to others. You create nothing original and come from the same lot of group think.
which is a lot more insulting, in general.
@notetaker I suspect that I am also an insider. Have been certified by (ISC)2 for 20 some years now......I hold five different certifications, and I did not attend training for any of them. My first certification took six months to come through.....the testing service was slow and then I had to go through the vetting process in which I had to show my five years experience to become a CISSP.
In your notes, we have only one side of the story (yours), and fortunately a wise man taught me that there are three sides to every story/argument/etc......yours, mine and somewhere in between the truth. I do not wish to see this found in a public forum.
WIth over 130K people certified worldwide it is not in (ISC)2 interest to scam anyone especially you.
A number of years ago, a rule was put in place that if you did not know a certified person that could vouch for your experience, then you could ask the organization to vet your qualifications....which I believe is more than fair, however, that means that you (the candidate) need to prove to them that you have the experience. In your notes, you mention sending sales receipts.....I am not sure how that proves your experience but then I have not seen them (NOR DO I WANT TO).
As to phone calls, hmmmm how many times have you called? Are you being a nuisance? Are you being realistic in your asks? Are you allowing sufficient time for them to vet your experience? All these questions and more come to mind when I read your notes.
I am sure that Member Services are working on your file and trying to come to some form of conclusion. And as Samantha has stated, Member Services are aware of your case, are working it, so please stop hijacking conversations that folks are having and post to one conversation......some of us are here and other spots to learn from each other and share like experiences.
BTW the consolidation of your thoughts, comments, etc. is not censorship....