Kirk Before I address this ridiculous post directly, let me remind you how we got here.
Ted MacNeil decided to make the claim that something that was wrong was right. Unchallenged your to be nurtured "newbies" might get the impression that he was indeed right and so they might continue in all innocence with the error. As I have indicated many times before, it does matter since it can cause ambiguity. The discussion has actually established what is right and what is wrong and Ted MacNeil has been obliged to depart - we hope - admitting that he is wrong but sticking to his wrongness out of spite. In trying to get that cleared up I deliberately created a new thread containing the words "unnecessary controversy" so that any who needed to stay away could and only the recalcitrants and recusants need participate - along with a few who have seen the light and helped out, as it were. Unfortunately, yet another thread was started with rather poor "list-craft" since it was not linked to the "unnecessary controversy" thread. Here the errors persisted in the shape of some saying what was wrong was right but maybe it shouldn't be. Again some cleaning up was required and, because the connection was not made, a certain amount of repetition was needed to be sure the correct message got through. This was and continues to be a technical exchange about proper words. Unlike with a rose, we don't have smell to guide us. Nevertheless, this second thread had a peculiar thread title, sufficiently peculiar for there to be no need for those not thinking they needed to be involved to participate. So, given the thread titles, I don't see why you're making this fuss. It is not obligatory actually to read each post which crops up on IBM-MAIN. I don't. It was only the month change that - some, including myself, might say unfortunately - somehow prompted me to look into something involving "ported tools". Chris Mason On Wed, 4 May 2011 18:11:02 -0500, Kirk Wolf <k...@dovetail.com> wrote: >Maybe its time to have two lists - one for "Pedantic or Historical >Discussions" (POHD) , and one for "Useful Technical Exchange" (UTE) >(sorry if these acronyms are taken, I fully expect this thread to >blossom to discuss improper usage :-) > >A rough count of recent traffic on the "USS" TLA yields well over a >hundred posts, whereas only a handful of UTE on z/OS UNIX. > >Discussing two lists will likely turn pedantic, and since it has >probably been discussed before, historical. > >Unfortunately, many folks (and poor newbies) interested in UTE will >just tune out, since a few on list seem to think that POHD == UTE. > >Kirk Wolf >Dovetailed Technologies >http://dovetail.com > >PS> Here's a mildly aggressive idea: prefix your new UTE threads with >"UTE:" and as the OP be diligent and respond to any posts on your >thread that vector to pedantic or historical discussions with an >altered subject line prefixed "RE: POHD:" Note that I have >preemptively tagged this thread "POHD:" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
