[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You still have not gotten the point. The problem I have is not with my > browser or any of your fine articles that you have posted. My problem is > that > you keep ignoring or missing my one and only question. So here it is again > in > slow motion: > > If IBM had never invented the 2321, why would we have ever needed the bb > part of the bbcchh seek address? > > Please do not answer this question by pointing me to urls. Please summarize > the answer in a very few words.
reference posts: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#64 FBA rant http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#0 FBA rant http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#2 FBA rant i don't know. as implied in this post ... where i raised the question about a number of code names http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#38 FBA rant including 2321 ... somebody then posted an answer providing what they thot to have been the 2321 original project code name. that answer as to the 2321 code name then appeared to initiate some additional topic drift with respect to 2321. I then subsequently posted that the univ. where i was undergraduate had obtained a 2321 as part of an ONR library automation grant and needed to make sure it ran with both CICS and cp67 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#51 FBA rant I also happened to mention here http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#63 FBA rant that i happened to run into an engineer many years later that claimed to have been part of the original 2321 development team. i apologize that i've not done what you have instructed me to do. maybe you should also try ordering some number of other people to also answer your questions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
