In
<CAE1XxDF9t6E8=wACU8yPzkUkPpytNAkbeMWGri=tzxvyj1o...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 12/07/2012
at 11:05 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>In my original post I distinguished what Peter recommended and what I
>recommend sharply, and I gave my reasons for my preference.
FSVO "original". In Message-ID:
<CAE1XxDFVXUrY=wjsvapdkhklvzsdhwwqrodfs0gj+kh51yu...@mail.gmail.com>
you quoted Peter and a few paragraphs later you tried to fob off a
totally unrelated statement as a paraphrase.
I would rephrase Peter's formulation,
"(it better not have any 4-byte relocatable adcon's)",
slightly, changing it to
"it better be AMODE(64)".
For once be honest and admit that you messed up.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
