Sure, a primary source can be bogus, but if you were writing an article on, e.g., the Chevrolet Volt, would you put more credence on an article in the National Enquirer than in the Volt Owners' manual?
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Charles Mills [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 4:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Secondary sources for DFP and DFSMS I understand the issue with primary sources. Mills Computer Company could announce a perpetual motion machine and publish documentation for it. That would be a primary source, yet for an obviously fictitious thing. You would have trouble, however, finding a press article or a SHARE presentation that confirmed our product's existence. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Secondary sources for DFP and DFSMS CW and Datamation articles on IBM announcements should satisfy wiki's Mickey Mouse requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
