>Don't bust my gonads Ted! I'm not busting anything. You didn't answer the question.
>Your original response was a timeline, not an answer. My resonse was intended to state that hyper PAVs were not needed. Since it wasn't a problem when -27's first came out, why is it a problem now? >Why do you find it so hard to accept another opinion on a topic? I accepted your opinion. You just didn't answer the question. You stated some sort of PAV was required. This, I agreed with. >I agree with the IBM presenter - that is the fact of the matter. Fine. You've now stated that. Your original response didn't state that. I never disputed PAV's were required. Just hyper PAVs. >I think HyperPAV is the best, most dynamic of the three methods that should be >used when placing CRITICAL data on 3390-27. I don't find anything in your >response changes that. Maybe. I wasn't trying to change your mind. But, your original post did not state that you agreed with the IBM'r. All it said was that any sort of PAV was required. It DID NOT say that you agreed that hyper PAV's were required. That's all I was trying to say. If you took offence, sorry. PS: I don't necessarily agree with the blanket statement that hyper PAV's are required in this situation. That was all I was trying to say, since they weren't required before. They have only seemed to be a requirement since they came out. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
