We should not necessarily associate malice with the word "ignorance".  I am 
ignorant of many things, in fact, probably most things, but I am not stupid or 
a bad person.  I have not yet had an opportunity to learn about the myriad 
things of which I am still ignorant.  I am definitely ignorant of many things 
documented in IBM books which I have had available to me for several years but 
have not yet found it necessary to read or research.  I am very ignorant of 
probably one half of all the currently documented z/OS instructions, mainly 
because it has been well over 20 years since I last read every word of a new 
edition of the Principles of Operation. 



This does not mean that there are no other words in anyone's post that contain 
malice, but being labeled as ignorant does not bother me.  It does not 
necessarily imply being stupid in general .  I have probably seen the TRTE 
instruction discussed before, but since I have never tried to use it or read 
any details of its operation I consider myself still ignorant with respect to 
TRTE.  I am neither proud of nor sensitive to my ignornance of TRTE. 

Bill Fairchild 
Franklin, TN 

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder 
acceptable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” [George 
Orwell] 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Perryman" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:50:42 PM 
Subject: Re: Happy Gilmore (was Length question) 

I took his comments as a personal attack because he is naming me specifically 
as 
doing something out of ignorance. Then his next Email says that he knew it was 
a 
lie when he sent it. See the 3 Emails snippets below. Is this being uppity or 
self righteous? Is this wording what a normal person would use? Why wouldn't he 
simply say the TRTE instruction should have been used. He always chooses his 
wording carefully and hides the malice. Everyone interpreted my Email as a 
personal attack but did it actually contain anything more direct than in his 
response? 

Thanks Jon Perryman. 

> From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 6:50:40 PM 
> John Perryman's post seems to have been written in ignorance of the TRTE, 

> From: Jon Perryman <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Sat, April 13, 2013 10:17:36 AM 
> It's not ignorance. TRTE is a newer instruction that might not exist on all 
> supported hardware. I don't try to remember instructions I can't use anyways. 
> It's not in the POP's I use so I can't consider it. 

> From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Sat, April 13, 2013 11:44:32 AM 
> I of course expected this response. 


----- Original Message ---- 
> From: Gerhard Postpischil <[email protected]> 
> To: [email protected] 
> Sent: Sun, April 14, 2013 11:25:08 AM 
> Subject: Re: Happy Gilmore (was Length question) 
> 
> On 4/14/2013 8:26 AM, John Gilmore wrote: 
> > Mr Perryman saw fit to convert  a technical disagreement into a 
> > personal one.  I have no wish  contribute to this second discussion 
> > except to note that ad hominem  arguments are the usual resort of those 
> > who have no substantive ones to  make. 
> 
> Unfortunately your "technical disagreements" tend to be worded in  such a 
> snide and supercilious fashion that the majority of readers here  take 
> them as ad hominem attacks. 
> 
> Gerhard Postpischil 
> Bradford,  Vermont 
> 

Reply via email to