John > ... <he> appears to believe that if he continues to be "bothersome" about the > "misuse" of the term USS, ...
Did you not notice the extreme provocation which led to last month's post? One of the redbook authors actually had the temerity to claim that the misuse was official! Since my riposte referred to some IBM-MAIN traffic - in addition to the consolidation of the reasons why it was so wrong - it seemed only polite to pass on the text to the subscribers. > IMO, in most cases the meaning of USS is easily recognizable from the context. "Most" is not "all". And it is in the difference between "most" and "all" that the *immediate* ambiguity/confusion can arise. In these cases, as in this thread, TELNET will be involved. For novices, the problem is a "delayed" ambiguity. As I'm sure I've said recently, probably more than once, a novice will become bamboozled with the repeated misuse and will suffer when and if presented with the genuine article in an easily imagined scenario. Howard Rifkind - bless him - is the living - I hope - proof! It is, of course, so totally unnecessary since IBM in its wisdom back when it was decided to change OpenEdition to UNIX System Services so thoughtfully provided the abbreviation OS/390 UNIX - which naturally needed to morph into z/OS UNIX - which incidentally, even under provocation, you adopt. > If it is not, then the email is likely so vague or poorly written that trying > to understand what is needed is a waste of my time, and I ignore it. It's also not too easy what you are trying to say here. It has the aura of a bit of a wriggle! Finally, if I have reason to participate in a thread and the post to which I am replying contains the misuse, I reserve the right - against all the rants of the spittle-flecked[2] - to insert a correction, if only to maintain credibility! - Anyhow I'm pleased that your efforts and mine and Mark Zelden's probably provided Chokalingam Thangavelu with all he needed to know. - [1] I hope he forgives the reference but it so precisely illustrates my point and he was brave enough to express his confusion. I expect many another has suffered - and will suffer - in silence. Thread: Mainframe hacking Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:36:28 -0700 [2] If there's any "ranting" going on, it is inevitably the spittle-flecked who start it and I feel obliged to respond in kind in order to give no possibility of credence to the falsehoods expressed. In the case you quoted, it was the Gilmartin character - and I didn't even get round to rubbishing the total lack of logic in his final comment. - Chris Mason On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:09:53 -0500, McKown, John <[email protected]> wrote: >I appreciate Chris' knowledge of most things, especially VTAM. But apparently >he has a "thing" about USS. And also appears to believe that if he continues >to be "bothersome" about the "misuse" of the term USS, that either: (a) people >will be educated and will voluntarily change or (b) will become tired of >hearing the rants and so change their usage just to shut him up. I doubt that >either will occur. IMO, in most cases the meaning of USS is easily >recognizable from the context. If it is not, then the email is likely so vague >or poorly written that trying to understand what is needed is a waste of my >time, and I ignore it. > >-- >John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
