Rob > At the very least you should apologize.
At the very most there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this world for which I need to apologise - unless it's for causing so many supposedly intelligent people to let their bigotry overcome them to the extent that their inability to read posts is exposed! I'd decided I'd better get my responses in - although it is a Saturday afternoon which I had actually assigned to dealing with the clean-up of a real problem - before any others shoot themselves in the foot over this topic. Perhaps I should solicit some apologies - but, as the saying goes, I'll keep filling and emptying my lungs in the meantime. > I have to admit that when I first saw this post, I assumed it was a tongue- n-cheek post and promptly deleted it. You should stick with your instincts. Actually, on review before posting I debated with myself over whether the odd exclamation mark was warranted but I decided that it was so obvious that my tongue was not held centrally within my mouth that surely none were needed. It is after all an extremely trivial correction to have reminded Dick Bond that he really meant to key "System" but his fingers managed to stray to "Session" and the length to which I spun out this screed should have been ample indication of an untamed tongue. > After reading it again... I can only apologize to the originator of this > thread for the mean-spirited and completely unhelpful nature of your response. You've lost me! - an exclamation mark is unavoidable in this case. Please read my response to Linda Mooney and follow up on the references and you will understand why I am lost. It's actually at times like this when I imagine - alongside an irony failure - that the bile which inexplicably seems to well up whenever anything remotely connected (get it?) to SNA appears utterly to cloud judgement in so very many of the IBM-MAIN subscribers. I can only assume something like that sort of event has happened here. Ask yourself this question: to whom was my response directed? Then ask yourself, given the jokey nature of the response - to the intended person: was it correct? Then ask yourself: "am I completely off the rails?" > It is well documented that you have an unbelievable pet-peeve regarding the USS acronym. I have provided a reference in my response to Peter Hunkeler to a thread where there are a number of my contributions concerning this topic, which only the bile circulating in your bloodstream can be describing as a "pet- peeve". > I think you have made your position abundantly clear. I'm not sure I have. Essentially - I accept the use of "USS" in its original, "official" VTAM/SNA context in which context it should not be necessary to have to apply any qualifications but because I am a very kind person - do you need any sort of exclamation mark? - I anyhow usually make sure that the context is understood. - I accept the use of "USS" in its incorrect z/OS - doffing my hat to Peter Hunkeler's sensibilities - UNIX System Services context reluctantly if it is explained properly in the form of "UNIX System Services (USS)" on its first use in a post or, slightly more reluctantly, - back to where we came in - at least somewhere in the thread. - I bite my tongue - assuming it has returned from my cheek - when "USS" is used *within the body* of a post without further explanation as long as the incorrect use is evident. I even accept a certain ambiguity in the concept of "incorrectness" in that, if all reading the thread understand what "USS" in the context of the thread means, it must be deemed "correct" at that level. - Fortunately, I have a low blood pressure so I can tolerate the use of "USS" in the incorrect context in a "Subject" line when it is quite possible that insufficient context is provided to be sure which "USS" applies. - Much the same as above applies to any transient document, presentations, APARs, redbooks, but *not* to "official" IBM manuals such as those found on the z/OS UNIX System Services "bookshelf" since the authors should, and actually by and large do, know better. - What I do not tolerate is the pretence, so evident in this little batch of posts, that "USS" is correctly used for other than the VTAM/SNA context - as long as we are in the more global context of IBM systems - just to head off some of the less than intelligent contributions from some quarters ... > Perhaps you feel it has been too long since your last reasoned rant regarding the USS subject. Please take the trouble to read through my earlier post for how I managed to get involved in this thread. It was to correct a mistake in the explanation of what "USS" means in its correct form. It was *not* in order to raise the topic of its incorrect use; Dick Bond had already done that! It wasn't me m'lud, it was that other fella! That I am now obliged to defend this position yet again is because of the "incoming". > In which case, please feel free to start a thread restating your opinion. You have already obliged that! Nor did I anticipate that the bigots would come out of the woodwork in such numbers. Otherwise I guess a spin-off thread would have been appropriate. Unfortunately it's a bit late now. Also don't you sometimes - as I do - look into a thread that is, by the Subject, ostensibly boring but which has somehow persisted as far as 20 or 30 posts? Usually this long life means that a stimulating tangent has been found. However no one has thought to revise the Subject. > BUT... It is just not ok to hijack a post and effectively belittle a poster. I'm afraid you've lost me again. Perhaps a few deep breaths are necessary. Regarding "hijacking threads", my previous comment applies. > I shouldn't even have to post anything about etiquette to long time members. I can't argue with that. Chris Mason On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:13:49 -0500, Rob Schramm <rob.schr...@gmail.com> wrote: >Chris, > >I have to admit that when I first saw this post, I assumed it was a >tongue-n-cheek post and promptly deleted it. After reading it again... I >can only apologize to the originator of this thread for the mean-spirited >and completely unhelpful nature of your response. It is well documented >that you have an unbelievable pet-peeve regarding the USS acronym. I think >you have made your position abundantly clear. Perhaps you feel it has been >too long since your last reasoned rant regarding the USS subject. In which >case, please feel free to start a thread restating your opinion. BUT... It >is just not ok to hijack a post and effectively belittle a poster. I >shouldn't even have to post anything about etiquette to long time members. >At the very least you should apologize. > >Rob Schramm > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf >Of Chris Mason >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 12:00 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Subject: Re: HFS file questions > >Dick > >> "USS" - meaning Unix System Services, not the VTAM term Unformatted >Session Services :-))[1] > >Well, I thought I knew just about all that really mattered about VTAM but I >was puzzled by "Unformatted Session Services" about which I could not recall > >previously having heard. > >Checking the manuals - z/OS V1R12 just to make sure they were the latest - I > >found - to my relief - that "USS" still meant "Unformatted *System* >Services" >as I remembered it and had not been transformed to "Unformatted *Session* >Services" however plausible a sequence of words that might conceivably be in > >the context of VTAM and SNA. > >Perhaps there is a consideration that can be taken into account before >sentencing in that there *are* two flavours of USS table, a "*session*-level > >USS table" and an "operation-level USS table". I suppose it's easy to get >confused in this complex world of VTAM and so a caution can be handed down. > >Incidentally, earlier in the thread Stephen Mednick quoted a manual >where "USS" in this unofficial context was introduced as "UNIX System >Services (USS)" so I guess, because it is part of the same thread, "her" >thread, of course, that Linda Mooney has an albeit tenuous excuse for the >misappropriation! > >Chris Mason > >[1] I caught this travesty only because I have a digest from Google Groups >every day as a way of making sure I don't miss the one in 10 or 20 or so >threads within which I may have something to say. The reference to USS just >happened to appear in the sample text offered with this digest system. >Otherwise I would have passed all of this by in blissful ignorance of the >malapropism. > >The Google Groups digest can also pick up threads from poor deluded >individuals who imagine that they have posted a query or provided an answer >only to be totally ignored because the post appears neither in subscribers' >inboxes nor the archives. > >On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:44:47 +0000, Bond, Dick (DIS) <di...@dis.wa.gov> >wrote: > >>Hi Linda, >> >>"USS" - meaning Unix System Services, not the VTAM term Unformatted >Session Services :-)) >> ... >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On >>> Behalf Of Linda Mooney >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:40 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >>> Subject: Re: HFS file questions >>> >>> Hi Dick, >>> >>> Nobody here, me included, has ever used copytree. None of us know >>> much about USS at all, although I am determined to learn - if it kills >me! >>> ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
