Sam - and John McKown > ... some of the responses to the OP's post were funny in a way.
Checking the archives and as I recall, I was the only person who responded to the OP's OP. All the response did - since supposedly it was calling on "IMS experts" - was to mention that the IMS-L list was the place to find the greatest concentration of IMS experts - I expect. I assume you didn't mean this solitary post was funny - or maybe you did! John In an earlier post or two you mentioned that "post recall" was a lost cause. What your list of reasons did *not* cover was the possibility that there had already been responses here in the IBM-MAIN list with the OP quoted in full as in fact there was one where it was - in all its shameful glory - whatever that was! - As others have noted, I wouldn't have bothered with this thread at all except that it seems to have been spinning along for such a long time. Of course, now that I am paying attention, I was able to see a reason to participate and spin it out even further: Does the question of the morality of removing posts extend to removing the responses to a removed post in which the removed post is quoted in full? Chris Mason On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:56:05 -0700, Sam Siegel <s...@pscsi.net> wrote: >Agree ... some of the responses to the OP's post were funny in a way. > >On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > >> Fair enough. >> >> Not directly relevant to the morality issue but FWIW it occurs to me that >> the OP would have been in much better shape if he had written Darren >> privately. I was not even aware of the post until this brouhaha erupted, >> and >> then out of curiosity I went back and read it. Others are probably in the >> same boat. >> >> Charles >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On >> Behalf >> Of Sam Siegel >> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:56 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >> Subject: Re: Deleting post >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: >> >> > No, John said "no action that is *a fortiori ineffectual* can be >> immoral." >> > (Emphasis added.) In other words, if the action has little or no >> > effect, what's the harm? Darren has not erased the post from history, >> > only from a single archive. >> > >> > Charles >> > >> >> As a general statement (which is what John seems to be making) it does not >> take into account magnitude and nature of action. In the specific case of >> Darren deleting the post the magnitude is low is and it is also of an >> uneventful nature. One can make the argument an fortiori ineffectual >> attempt to rob someone (mild example here) is still immoral even if it was >> ineffectual. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
