In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I knew you couldn't back up your ridiculous statement. Put up or shut up.

As I have already said, I have explained, in detail, elsewhere in this thread, why the points you have made are wrong.

If that were true, it wouldn't be too hard for you to repeat them in a single post. Would it?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

If that were true, it wouldn't be too hard for you to repeat them in a single post. Would it?

No, but that is not the point. You are asking me to dispute the indisputable. I cannot argue that you do not disagree with me, as you clearly do disagree with me. Give me a reason why you disagree with me and I can dispute that reason. If you want me to repeat my counter points then repeat the statement that they were counter points too. That shouldn't be too hard to do should it?

But as they have already been shown, from multiple angles, to be wrong, it would result in a circular argument.

If you want education on networking theories and practises then telling someone who is trying to offer help and advise to a third party that they are wrong is at best rude and counter productive.

A debate requires fresh points to be raised, otherwise it's just an unproductive argument.

Repeating myself for no good reason would make me the one turning it into an unproductive argument. I'd much rather steer the conversation towards a productive debate, even if I'm not very good at it at times.

So tell me why you think I'm wrong, and I shall enter into a debate, that hopefully will educate one or both of us, but otherwise I'm afraid I shall have to leave you non the wiser.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

If that were true, it wouldn't be too hard for you to repeat them in a single post. Would it?

No, but that is not the point. You are asking me to dispute the indisputable. I cannot argue that you do not disagree with me, as you clearly do disagree with me. Give me a reason why you disagree with me and I can dispute that reason. If you want me to repeat my counter points then repeat the statement that they were counter points too. That shouldn't be too hard to do should it?

But as they have already been shown, from multiple angles, to be wrong, it would result in a circular argument.

If you want education on networking theories and practises then telling someone who is trying to offer help and advise to a third party that they are wrong is at best rude and counter productive.

A debate requires fresh points to be raised, otherwise it's just an unproductive argument.

Repeating myself for no good reason would make me the one turning it into an unproductive argument. I'd much rather steer the conversation towards a productive debate, even if I'm not very good at it at times.

So tell me why you think I'm wrong, and I shall enter into a debate, that hopefully will educate one or both of us, but otherwise I'm afraid I shall have to leave you non the wiser.

Ok, you're obviously not going to put up, and I'm not surprised, so you know what to do...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

you're obviously not going to put up

And you never shut up, but it's a course of action that you should seriously consider.

For someone who has the text "attack the post not the poster" in their sig you are doing a very good job of making straw man arguments.

So lets see who is not "putting up" shall we.

the last reposte you made against me was

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

No, I mean the FON router which manages this trick which, according to you, the Linksys router cannot - even though it is designed to do this and is manufactured by Cisco, the networking experts.

To which I responded

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

You assume the cisco is designed to exist in a multi-subnetted private network. I find this hard to believe. It has too many features to be targeted at the people who would have large enough networks to require separate WAPs, and not enough features to be targeted at businesses that have complex multi-subnetted, multi-firewalled networks.

I believe strongly that it is designed to exist as the sole router on a small network. As such why would it have the features you describe? Particularly as this would tread on the toes of Cisco's much more expensive equipment aimed at big businesses.

The FON is designed to exist within an existing network. As I say however I am not sure if it is safe, and would not trust it myself. But it is conceivable that it could protect the parent network.

It is a matter of designed purpose. Now I also did not say that the linksys could not be made to be safe! However I did say that I doubt doing so would be easy or straightforward.

To which you have yet to make a counter point.

Make a counter point that I can dispute, and I shall dispute it. Tell me I'm wrong without justifying why and I shall just have to shrug my shoulders.

Your posts in this thread have been less than helpful.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

For someone who has the text "attack the post not the poster" in their sig you are doing a very good job of making straw man arguments.

So lets see who is not "putting up" shall we.

the last reposte you made against me was

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

No, I mean the FON router which manages this trick which, according to you, the Linksys router cannot - even though it is designed to do this and is manufactured by Cisco, the networking experts.

To which I responded

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

You assume the cisco is designed to exist in a multi-subnetted private network. I find this hard to believe. It has too many features to be targeted at the people who would have large enough networks to require separate WAPs, and not enough features to be targeted at businesses that have complex multi-subnetted, multi-firewalled networks.

I believe strongly that it is designed to exist as the sole router on a small network. As such why would it have the features you describe? Particularly as this would tread on the toes of Cisco's much more expensive equipment aimed at big businesses.

The FON is designed to exist within an existing network. As I say however I am not sure if it is safe, and would not trust it myself. But it is conceivable that it could protect the parent network.

It is a matter of designed purpose. Now I also did not say that the linksys could not be made to be safe! However I did say that I doubt doing so would be easy or straightforward.

To which you have yet to make a counter point.

Make a counter point that I can dispute, and I shall dispute it. Tell me I'm wrong without justifying why and I shall just have to shrug my shoulders.

I made no such claim that the router would exist in a multi-subnetted environment. Why would I? Why would it?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I made no such claim that the router would exist in a multi-subnetted environment. Why would I? Why would it?

The suggestion in the OP was to place the Linksys in just such a network. You said this was safe, and defended this view based on the fact that it is a Cisco router. You then questioned my ability to assess the relative functionality of various networking devices by comparing the capability of a router (the linksys router) to a public wifi hotspot device (the FON router).

I explained that they function differently because they are designed to perform different functions.

You have only responded to this point when it has been taken entirely out of context because you accused me of being unable to "put up" and I refused to allow such a statement to remain uncontested.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I made no such claim that the router would exist in a multi-subnetted environment. Why would I? Why would it?

The suggestion in the OP was to place the Linksys in just such a network. You said this was safe, and defended this view based on the fact that it is a Cisco router. You then questioned my ability to assess the relative functionality of various networking devices by comparing the capability of a router (the linksys router) to a public wifi hotspot device (the FON router).

I explained that they function differently because they are designed to perform different functions.

You have only responded to this point when it has been taken entirely out of context because you accused me of being unable to "put up" and I refused to allow such a statement to remain uncontested.

This is what I am querying:

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

I simply wanted to warn off the idea that the simple solution from the op would work flawlessly and be eminently secure as you were stating.

Yes it would.

Your advice in this thread has been incorrect from a technical standpoint, irrelevant and distracting when trying to defend your view of networking, and as a consequence of these dangerous for the op.

In what way "dangerous"?

Fortunately the OP appears to have picked up on the advice of the "naysayers" and is heading for a simple, cheap, and secure solution for his problem.

Oh really, where does he say that?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

This is what I am querying:

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

I simply wanted to warn off the idea that the simple solution from the op would work flawlessly and be eminently secure as you were stating.

Yes it would.

No it would not. The shop network would exist on the WAN side of the linksys router, as such it would not, by design, offer any protection, of any sort, to the shop network. This is not a secure solution.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Your advice in this thread has been incorrect from a technical standpoint, irrelevant and distracting when trying to defend your view of networking, and as a consequence of these dangerous for the op.

In what way "dangerous"?

Had the op taken your advice he would have been left with an insecure network set up, and the belief that such a network was secure. A false sense of security is very dangerous.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Fortunately the OP appears to have picked up on the advice of the "naysayers" and is heading for a simple, cheap, and secure solution for his problem.

Oh really, where does he say that?

He doesn't say that directly, but he has made it clear that he has decided against the solution that he originally asked about, and that he was looking at an alternative, more secure solution. Although it is worth pointing out that he has not yet said that he has settled on a final solution, and has asked further questions, that have as yet gone unanswered. Probably due to the noise being generated elsewhere within the thread.