I agree totally except with his posts. He is articulate and always chooses his wording carefully. He has many years of experience and knows why I don't use TRTE but he chose not to say that and use his specific wording. Clearly he has intent but he tries to keep it subtle. He needed to be called on it.
I want to assure everyone, this won't happen again. No one here (and in other groups where I participate) tries to antagonize. I enjoy provocative discussions and understand that others have a very different point of view. I have no problem with criticism. However, I won't tolerate those with an intent to antagonize or with malice. Jon Perryman. ----- Original Message ---- > From: DASDBILL2 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, April 15, 2013 9:59:40 AM > Subject: Re: Happy Gilmore (was Length question) > > 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 > > >
