Rob Note that I am keeping to the principle of trying to apply an appropriate Subject since we are now one hopes - moving away from the "etiquette" issue.
First I'd like to apologise for a "word" error. I used "principle" rather than "principal" as a kind gentleman pointed out privately. Never let it be said I doo not apologise when an apology is due! > I would only recommend to the others on the list that non-engagement is probably the only successful strategy. I would imagine each and every person subscribing to the list can speak for himself or herself needing no assistance whatsoever in any sort of strategy for whatever aim he or she may happen to have. > And to leave you to your opinion of USS. You are having a hard time separating two topics here: 1. I don't have an opinion regarding "USS", I merely state facts. 2. By misunderstanding my initial contribution in this thread, you have manoeuvred me into categorising the circumstances in which the misuse of "USS" could be considered acceptable. That's where my opinion backed by cogent - I would hope - argument comes in. > I would additionally ask that when you experience any outrage about USS uses, that you would channel the outrage into a new post. You are still suffering the "red mist". I don't want to have to provide a commentary on that initial contribution that leaves no room for the misunderstandings that you particularly have heaped upon it. Please just read it again with your initial instinct that it was designed to be humorous and principally to correct the miniscule error of "session" having been substituted for "system" with an afterthought that it wasn't all that necessary since the misuse aspect was already tacitly covered earlier in the thread. If I am prompted for whatever reason to contribute a response and that even marginally involves the misuse of "USS" according to the facts I have repeated a number of times now which you seem incapable of checking out, I will do so even if, as in this case, it reduces to a single adjective and a single noun upon which you have constructed opprobrium. The same applies to another "pet-peeve" which is the pernicious use of "issue", typically "issues", when those responsible for maintaining euphemistically neutral language would more accurately use the word "problem" - but that would be yet another tangent! It occurs to me that you mentally transferred the words "travesty" and "malapropism" to a supposed reference to the *use* of "USS" and not to its incorrect *expansion* in the correct VTAM context to include the word "session" rather than "system". If you had taken the trouble properly to digest my response to Mary Anne Matyaz you would have realised that the latter applied rather than the former - not quite 100% in the case of "malapropism" which is a very mild word for criticism. And, by the way, the tongue was undecided over whether it was in the left or the right cheek when the words "travesty" and "malapropism" popped out. So the only "outrage" was the outrage you imagined. > I do appreciate you finally starting your own thread. Actually I took needing to reply to Ted MacNeil's rudeness as an opportunity to take a dig at your relentless use of "USS" and "nonsense" in reference to the tangent the thread had taken regarding the existence of the MVS-OE list. I guess you haven't put your irony antennae back up yet! > I can only say that you have not dissuaded me one bit from my current use of USS. If you use it according to the considerations I mentioned before, you should be safe but, if you have any respect for your fellow contributors - especially those from China and India we are seeing more and more in these discussion groups, you will strive to remove all possibility of ambiguity and that means using a term such as z/OS UNIX. > I have the following "take aways": > ... > 2) ... So a campaign to have the "official" use changed! What did they do with "claim-jumpers" in the "Old West"? I seem to remember the good citizens upholding the law found some rope and looked for the one remaining tree - or something like that! And what about a Mary X when she refers to an "USS screen" in a story about some security exposure and an Howard Y jumps in and asks what it has to do with UNIX System Services and the Mary is obliged to point out that the story dates from before Rob Schramm's successful campaign to have the initials formally changed from the VTAM use to the UNIX use so that any reference to USS which isn't current needs a date to be affixed to be sure to which era it belongs? All a bit ridiculous don't you think? - when compared to the lack of complexities and ambiguities of z/OS UNIX or, let's be adventurous, zUNIX, that we can use today without needing to bother the IBM "immortals" to hold a conference. Chris Mason [1] I should take this to the protest I am organising with Ed! On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:26:55 -0500, Rob Schramm <[email protected]> wrote: >Chris, > >I would only recommend to the others on the list that non-engagement is >probably the only successful strategy. And to leave you to your opinion of >USS. I would additionally ask that when you experience any outrage about >USS uses, that you would channel the outrage into a new post. > >I do appreciate you finally starting your own thread. I have gone out to >read some of your posts regarding a variety of subjects. While being a bit >brittle at times, your posts did seem to indicate that you do possess a good >handle on Communication Server issues. I can only say that you have not >dissuaded me one bit from my current use of USS. > >I have the following "take aways": > >1) Information regarding a "dirty look" from a person deeply ensconced in >VTAM-speak when I use USS for Unix System Services. > >2) You have inspired me to act rather than just disagree with you ad nauseum >and to take a page from Dilbert. I encourage everyone that considers USS to >be Unix System Services to write [email protected] requesting the >modification of the USS acronym definition. I have sent my first e-mail >requesting the change, and I plan to encourage all System Programmers that >USS should be changed in the official IBM Terminology page. > >Cheers, >Rob Schramm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
