Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:51:16 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1828557@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.146.254.20; envelope-from=Kevin@arilabs.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Collaborating on checklists
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Thread-Topic: Collaborating on checklists
Thread-Index: AcdLxdzsv2eyyveqRJOym5ZAoOdpvQAlX0aQ
From: "Kevin Stallard" <Kevin@arilabs.net>

"I would be interested in collaborating on a Legacy Check list."

Guys,

If I may be so bold.  Collaboration isn't necessarily a good thing.  If
you want sources of information that you can bet your life on, the only
collaboration you should consider is collaborating with experts, not
just users.  I would be dubious of information put together based on
consensus.  It's the perfect the Blind Leading the Blind scenario (Just
so there is no misunderstanding, I'm in the Blind category too when it
comes to the understanding of the safe operation of a Legacy, I'm still
learning).

I am personally uncomfortable collaborating with anyone else than those
I look up to and consider to have consistently have proven to be
competent.  These currently include Pete Zaccagnino and his band of
merry men.  I would give ear to Tim Ong as well.  But I can't think of
anyone else with regards to the safe operation of a Legacy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is; don't collaborate with us here on
LML.  Collaborate with competent, informed individuals that you have to
pay to get training/advice.  And please, don't undermine/water down what
Pete and his trainers do for you by publishing something they give you
and that is wholly incomplete without their training and perspective.=20

Best Regards,
Kevin
L2K-291