THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Tony Harminc wrote, in part:
>These days it's almost impossible to get any mainstream search engine
>to do exactly what you want.
Though Google Verbatim mode is pretty close.
I laughed a few years ago when there was a story about some p
https://mashable.com/2016/09/06/balls-stuck-ikea-chair/#7anJiUc2Bqqn
Trapped in just the right size hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOcXcGaFHzs Stuck between magnets.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5531987/Hotel-guest-gets-testicles-trapped-plastic-chair-Spain.html
Caught in sla
Tony Harminc wrote, in part:
>These days it's almost impossible to get any mainstream search engine to do
>exactly what you want.
Though Google Verbatim mode is pretty close.
I laughed a few years ago when there was a story about some poor guy who sat in
a defective chair that crushed his
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:40, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I hope not; some of gargles false hits have been absolutely ludicrous.
> When it comes to search engines, I prefer Do What I Said, Not What You
> Incorrectly Guessed I Meant. If you documentthat + means the term must be
> present and I type a
: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
I do often enough) and the system will ask me "Did you mean DSN?"
Just today I typed "sstar trek insurrection"
Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 7:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Tom Brennan wrote, in part:
>Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
>I
Or ask you if you meant "Disneyland"/
Jim
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Tom Brennan
wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 4:06 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> > Tom Brennan wrote, in part:
> >
> >> Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
> >> I do often enough) and the system wil
On 11/22/2018 4:06 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
Tom Brennan wrote, in part:
Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
I do often enough) and the system will ask me "Did you mean DSN?"
30+ years ago, a friend wrote a CMS ENDCMD NUCEXT (a routine that got control
at
Tom Brennan wrote, in part:
>Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
>I do often enough) and the system will ask me "Did you mean DSN?"
30+ years ago, a friend wrote a CMS ENDCMD NUCEXT (a routine that got control
at the end of a console command) called DWIM -
On 11/21/2018 6:41 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
A half-century ago, I saw a magazine article suggesting that FORTRAN
(*the* language then) should treat '0' and 'O' as interchangable. OK.
I can write "C0NTINUE" instead of "CONTINUE". But it restricts the name
space for variables. (And I wondered
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:29:41 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>
>Just today I typed "sstar trek insurrection" into Google and I didn't
>bother to fix the double ss or worry if I spelled that big word
>correctly, because I knew Google would fix it for me.
>
A half-century ago, I saw a magazine article sug
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:02:31 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>Yeah, that's bad too. It's always seemed to me that a well-designed system
>would take input, uppercase the parts that don't need
>case sensitivity (the non-USS bits, in z/OS, due to the historical UNIX
>mistake-oops, there I go again!)
Maybe someday everything will be like Google, so I can type DNS= (which
I do often enough) and the system will ask me "Did you mean DSN?"
Just today I typed "sstar trek insurrection" into Google and I didn't
bother to fix the double ss or worry if I spelled that big word
correctly, because I k
Gil wrote, in part:
>"Right/wrong" and "broken/fixed" are highly subjective.
True. I was being a bit provocative, deliberately.
To the folks who mention other languages: I disbelieve that anyone was worried
about those when UNIX was created. Happy to hear
evidence to the contrary, but a r
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 4:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Me
o: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:07:24 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>>>
>>Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte
>It does do that.
>
>>and set all other zone bits to 0 regardless of
lf of
Edward Finnell <000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 6:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Non-IBM computers using EBCDIC was Re: So much for THAT excuse |
Computerworld SHARK TANK
We had an 1108 and an 1100 as "scientific
, November 21, 2018 11:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
My takeaway from the Shark Tank story is that sometimes you CANNOT guess what
the person at other end of the line is actually typing. I've had a few similar
conversations
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:13:33 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:07:24 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote about UNPK:
>>It sets the zone bits to F when in EBCDIC mode and to 5 when in ASCII mode.
>>
>5? I would have expected 3:
Yes, in retrospect, I would have expected 3 too. Remember
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On 2018-11-20, at 11:26:22, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> I’ve also always been surprised that
I think he was typing 0 and not ZERO.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:28 AM Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-20, at 11:26:22, Phil Smith III wrote:
> >
> > I’ve also always been surprised that no *ix implementation ever bit the
> > bullet and tried to
On 2018-11-20, at 11:26:22, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> I’ve also always been surprised that no *ix implementation ever bit the
> bullet and tried to fix case sensitivity. Windows, of course, got it right;
> alas, given the historical antipathy *ix folks have for Windoze, I fear
> that’s all the
Calligraphic styles in Arabic (and other languages using the Arabic script) are
more akin to fonts in western scripts. Letters do change shapes based on the
context i.e. standing alone, at the beginning, middle or end of a word but
that's nothing like upper / lower case. Shape of a letter does n
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:19:09 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I don't happen to know of any language whose orthography has complex
>upper-lower case correlations, but it's an intriguing idea.
>
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calligraphy
>Meanwhile--aside from making students miserabl
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:30:39 +1100, Andrew Rowley wrote:
>On 21/11/2018 5:26 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
>> The funny part about case sensitivity is that if you ask a *ix person why
>> it’s good, they almost universally assert that it is, but cannot come up
>> with a reason why, OR a case where yo
On 21/11/2018 10:19 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
I don't happen to know of any language whose orthography has complex
upper-lower case correlations, but it's an intriguing idea.
I have been searching for the reference where I read about it. This is
the most general I have found:
https://www.w
We had an 1108 and an 1100 as "scientific machines". They were 36 bit words and
did the 8 in 9 for EBCDIC and ASCII. I got pretty good with their FORTRAN and
the advent of Data Space early on(mid 70's). I think the 7090's had an EBCDIC
option for tapes, but it had an extra bit somewhere and we h
ssion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Andrew Rowley
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On 21/11/2018 5:26 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> The funny part about case sensit
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:07:24 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>>>
>>Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte
>It does do that.
>
>>and set all other zone bits to 0 regardless of character set?
>No. It never sets the zone bits to 0.
>It sets the zone bits to F when in EBCDIC mode and to 5 whe
[Default] On 20 Nov 2018 10:26:36 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
li...@akphs.com (Phil Smith III) wrote:
>The whole ASCII-EBCDIC thing certainly has been a huge costprobably, as Gil
>suggests, as large as the other two combined. But Id argue that it wasnt
>necessarily either EBCDIC or ASCII
On 21/11/2018 5:26 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
The funny part about case sensitivity is that if you ask a *ix person why it’s
good, they almost universally assert that it is, but cannot come up with a
reason why, OR a case where you would deliberately mix two files or commands
with the same lett
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:02:19 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
>>The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, including
>>UNPK.
>>
>Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte
It does do that.
>and set all ot
I think the ASCII machines converted punched tape to ASCII.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:02 PM Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> >The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, incl
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:13:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>The ASCII bit in the PSW affected only the decimal instructions, including
>UNPK.
>
Doesn't UNPK just swap nybbles of the rightmost byte and set all other
zone bits to 0 regardless of character set?
>It did not affect how the card read
of
Edward Finnell <000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
I don't remember the terminal # but it had APL support with the IBM Selectric
APL
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:52:44 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
>> >
>> >Case sensi
@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Two things. Not all mainframes were EBCDIC based. Some were field data based
yet handled the translation to/from ASCII and to/from EBCDIC. Burroughs used
EBCDIC but sign bits were on the opposite end of a word as I recall.
S
metz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 5:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 8:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:54:58 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>On 11/19/2018 2:39 PM, Pew, Curti
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
I ran into that type of debugging on a shared IBM 3278 with that switch
set to show all caps. It probably took me 15 minutes to figure out why
JES2 was telling me "DSN=" was invalid in the JCL I just modified. It
looked f
metz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 9:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon,
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
The whole ASCII-EBCDIC thing certainly has been a huge cost—probably, as Gil
suggests, as large as the othe
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:39:08 +, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>
>>S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set
>>them in ASCII mode.
>>
>
>Right. The expectation was that routines would check the bit
>and generate output in the appro
The whole ASCII-EBCDIC thing certainly has been a huge costprobably, as Gil
suggests, as large as the other two combined. But Id argue that it wasnt
necessarily either EBCDIC or ASCIIs fault, just that they evolved in parallel
and neither truly won [insert another debate about what winnin
DU
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:52:44 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
>> >
>> >Case sensitivity and null-terminated strings: two historical Unix mistakes
>> >that have cost untold billions.
>> >
>>
-Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>> Behalf Of Pew, Curtis G
>> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:39 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: (External):Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHAR
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:05:42 +, David Spiegel wrote:
>CDC ... Txed?
>
Don't remember.
>(i did CDC way back in '80. I had a lot of fun with their unusual JCL
>and Negative Zeroes.)
>
IBM 70[49]* had negative zeroes. Both IBM and CDC FORTRANs read
in a blank field as "-0". There was signifi
CDC ... Txed?
(i did CDC way back in '80. I had a lot of fun with their unusual JCL
and Negative Zeroes.)
On 2018-11-19 21:02, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:46:43 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>
>> I ran into that type of debugging on a shared IBM 3278 with that switch
>> set to sho
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:46:43 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>I ran into that type of debugging on a shared IBM 3278 with that switch
>set to show all caps. It probably took me 15 minutes to figure out why
>JES2 was telling me "DSN=" was invalid in the JCL I just modified. It
>looked fine on the scree
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 17:39, Pew, Curtis G
wrote:
> Right. The expectation was that routines would check the bit and generate
output in the appropriate codeset, and eventually everyone would be using
ASCII. Instead, everyone ignored the bit and generated EBCDIC, so the bit
was reused for somethi
ist [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
S/360 machines I worked on had a switc
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:54:58 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>On 11/19/2018 2:39 PM, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
>
>> Right. The expectation was that routines would check the bit and generate
>> output in the appropriate codeset, and eventually everyone would be using
>> ASCII. Instead, everyone ignored the
On 11/19/2018 2:39 PM, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
Right. The expectation was that routines would check the bit and generate
output in the appropriate codeset, and eventually everyone would be using
ASCII. Instead, everyone ignored the bit and generated EBCDIC, so the bit was
reused for something el
Bit 12 was repurposed on S/370 came out, to indicate 370 BC/EC PSW mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360#Notes
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:39 PM Pew, Curtis G
wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >
> > S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set
urtis G
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set them in ASCII mode.
On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:26 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set them in ASCII mode.
> I don’t remember or know of any software that made use of this. So that bit
> was eventually required to be ON to force DAT or XA. I have forgotten what
> that
Two things. Not all mainframes were EBCDIC based. Some were field data based
yet handled the translation to/from ASCII and to/from EBCDIC. Burroughs used
EBCDIC but sign bits were on the opposite end of a word as I recall.
S/360 machines I worked on had a switch in the PSW to set them in ASCII
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:52:44 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
>> >
>> >Case sensitivity and null-terminated strings: two historical Unix mistakes
>> >that have cost untold billions.
>> >
>> And EBCDIC tops them both. Just count the problems discussed on these lists.
>
>I'd say it's an "EBCDIC in an ASC
2741
On 2018-11-19 16:04, Edward Finnell wrote:
> I don't remember the terminal # but it had APL support with the IBM Selectric
> APL ball(circa '69). Cold winter day with mittens and scarfs the APL prof
> fumbled the ball onto the linoleum floor and it shattered. We ordered three
> for backup
On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:52 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
>
> I'd say it's an "EBCDIC in an ASCII world" problem; not anything
> fundamentally wrong with EBCDIC. Imagine if the original IBM PC had
> been an EBCDIC machine. OS/2 and Windows would surely have followed,
> Unicode would've been EBCDIC-based,
I don't remember the terminal # but it had APL support with the IBM Selectric
APL ball(circa '69). Cold winter day with mittens and scarfs the APL prof
fumbled the ball onto the linoleum floor and it shattered. We ordered three for
backup and found the last one during remodeling in '03.
In a me
Discussion List on behalf of
> David Spiegel
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:52 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
>
> If they had APL support, yes. Otherwise, no.
>
> On 2018-11-19 13:59,
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 14:39, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:13:25 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote:
> >
> >Case sensitivity and null-terminated strings: two historical Unix mistakes
> >that have cost untold billions.
> >
> And EBCDIC t
behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:13:25 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>Case sensitiv
018 2:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
If they had APL support, yes. Otherwise, no.
On 2018-11-19 13:59, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> We had lower case on *our* 3277 displays. YMMV.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) M
iegel
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:48 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
>
> Chuck: 3277?
>
> On 2018-11-19 13:32, Chuck Kreiter wrote:
>> First OS/390 install I did kept failing on the Unix Sys
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:13:25 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>Case sensitivity and null-terminated strings: two historical Unix mistakes
>that have cost untold billions.
>
And EBCDIC tops them both. Just count the problems discussed on these lists.
-- gil
---
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 2:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:59:28 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>We had lower case on *our* 3277 displ
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:59:28 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>We had lower case on *our* 3277 displays. YMMV.
>
I remember using a clone 327x that transmitted either case depending
on use of the shift key, but folded all to majuscule for display. Ouch!
And no caps lock, but a shift lock that mechan
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:23:50 -0500, Mark Regan wrote:
>https://www.computerworld.com/article/3322124/data-center/so-much-for-that-excuse.html
>
(I went to Google translate.) It may be pronounced the same, but spelled
differently.
And even spelled aloud it may sound the same. Did he try "Zulu E
my head on the desk for a
> couple of days on that one.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Phil Smith III
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:13 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Chuck: 3277?
On 2018-11-19 13:32, Chuck Kreiter wrote:
> First OS/390 install I did kept failing on the Unix System Services steps.
> The terminal I had only did uppercase. Once I swapped it out with one that
> did both cases, it wo
> days on that one.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Phil Smith III
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:13 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse |
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: So much for THAT excuse | Computerworld SHARK TANK
Nice.
I once got on a plane to go to a customer site because they could NOT get an
SNMP
Nice.
I once got on a plane to go to a customer site because they could NOT get an
SNMP common string accepted. As I had at least half suspected, they were
entering it in uppercase, despite multiple explicit attempts to get them to
enter it in lowercase. (Yes, I'd suggested WebEx or equivale
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3322124/data-center/so-much-for-that-excuse.html
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
76 matches
Mail list logo
