Paul > ... if he'd simply STFU.
Would that Ted MacNeil had followed your rather rude advice! Incidentally, you'll find very few occurrences of the words "UNIX System Services" in the neighbourhood of the dread initialism in my posts - but I don't suppose you had the wit to check! I suppose you'll say it's those "behind bars" who mainly generate the traffic and of course those - I'd better not say - are out of control. > More likely, they have a nest of spiders that crawl the Web, ... Which makes the self-styled http://www.acronymfinder.com/USS.html highly suspect. There's truths, damn truths and what you can find on the "web"![1] > When I want to understand an acronym, I rarely RTFM; ... If it's in an IBM context, you will succeed more effectively by using the following page: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/ What's important in the case of IBM-MAIN - and possibly other lists where z/OS Communications Server can be involved - is that by paying attention, list subscribers can discover correct usage not by random Googling but by reading accurate posts - and judging the worth of contributors - especially those who persist in not caring whether they produce accurate information or not. - [1] I know this is a family list but some quotations - a deliberate misquotation in this case - need to be (mis)quoted accurately! - Chris Mason On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:11:56 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote - redactions imposed!: > ... >It's interesting that the link Kirk Wolf posted: > > http://www.acronymfinder.com/***.html > >rates the incorrect *** (Unix System Services) number six, and >*** (Unix Systems Services) number fourteen respectively. The >usage correct according to the IBM Glossary doesn't even make the >list. And when I filter by Information Technology, *** (Unix >System Services) becomes number one, and *** (Unix Systems Services) >becomes number two. Now, I suspect that AcronymFinder hasn't an >army of gnomes researching and consulting authorities to verify that >*** (Unix System Services) or *** (Unix Systems Services) is >technically correct. More likely, they have a nest of spiders that >crawl the Web, and whenever they find constructs such as *** (Unix >System Services) or *** (Unix Systems Services) they add weight >to the ranking of that interpretation. > >When I want to understand an acronym, I rarely RTFM; more often >I simply type the acronym in a Google search box, and take >whatever appears in the first page of hits as conventional, >although possibly technically incorrect. So Chris Mason's >polemics are likely counterproductive of his end: the more >stridently he denies that *** stands for Unix System Services, or >that *** stands for Unix Systems Services, provoking followups >that sometimes quote him, the higher he boosts the construct he >detests in AcronymFinder's ratings. > >He'd more effectively further his cause of eliminating use of >*** (Unix System Services) and *** (Unix Systems Services) if >he'd simply STFU. (AcronymFinder gets that one almost right.) > >-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
