Cobol's File System Vs. RDBMs...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL: Don`t Call It a Comeback
Next: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
From: Anonymous on 26 Jul 2008 19:33 In article <6f1nptF9fs99U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6f9vl$3co$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <6eva6bF8sm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >>>news:0lkj84pn1grm75p6ufq1otp5cq66d84hr5(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:26:13 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" >>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>I understand there is an element of seriousness in what you're saying, >>>>>but >>>>>if you go down that route it ends in tears. >>>>> >>>>>IT does NOT own the data and IT should not have exclusive access to it. >>>>> >>>>>People who OWN the data should be able to manipulate it if they want to. >>>> >>>> Sometimes there are directives from on high limiting ownership >>>> privileges. These may be legal issues, or policies within a >>>> company. Maybe sales "owns" the sales data - but the salesmen >>>> can't manipulate them however they want. >>>> >>>> Obviously, neither should IT. But IT needs to enforce the guidelines >>>> that the enterprise and society demand. >>> >>>OK, so you see IT as being the "Data Police"? >>> >>>I don't. >>> >>>It would appear that both you and Doc have pushed my argument beyond where >>>I >>>wanted it to go. >>> >>>What about companies that don't have an IT department? >> >> [snip] >> >>>That's it, no more from me on this :-) >> >> Mr Dashwood, with all appropriate respect and courtesy due... > >Yeah, right...:-) Exactly right. > >> to ask >> questions > >I asked no question. If you are asserting that you did not post 'OK, so you see IT as being the "Data Police"?' or 'What about companies that don't have an IT department?' then someone seems to be posting under your ID. If you are asserting that those are not questions then your understanding of English appears to be a bit different than mine. > > >> and then say 'I'll not address the replies in the same forum in >> which I asked the question' is, to my mind, equally as honorable as the >> 'chastise in public, apologise in private' that I've seen come from many a >> Manager. > >I don't do that, and I haven't done it here. See above, Mr Dashwood... two interrogative sentences, posted by you, which you say are not questions. [snip] >> This kind of behavior, I would say, is more than discourteous; I would say >> it lacks a certain kind of moral integrity, kindness and goodwill... in a >> word, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decent , 4. >> > >Clearly, you don't know me. Throwing a petulant little hissy fit because I >won't play your game any more, says much more about you than it does about >me. Mr Dashwood, if you believe pointing out the facts of your behavior and stating my opinion is 'throwing a petulant little hissy fit' then our ideas about such things are very, *very* different. If you believe that posting 'I did no such thing' when there is clear evidence indicating you did... then you're most Managerial. [snip] >You obviously need to get out a bit more and understand the differences >between discourtesy, and simply having nothing more to say on an issue. Mr Dashwood, instead of addressing the facts of the matter you try to turn discourse towards my pointing them out... have you heard the one about the Manager in a balloon? DD
From: Anonymous on 26 Jul 2008 19:47 In article <6f1ohgF9fdocU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6fa4o$btd$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <751l8494ejaho69uiv503vvqsvk89llncq(a)4ax.com>, >> Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:25:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> >>>wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>So I guess I'm missing your point here. Do you mean we should spend >>>>as much testing a new program design as GM spends testing a new car >>>>design? >>> >>>If GM changed only the ash tray, would it re-test every other system to >>>insure the ash >>>tray didn't inadvertantly affect something else? >> >> Mr Wagner, answering a question with a question is no answer at all... and >> I believe that every year's New Model, no matter what the changes on the >> preceding year's might be, gets crash-tested and evaluated. >> > >Despite your constant repetition of the "answering a question with a >question is no answer at all" mantra, it simply isn't true. Nothing is true at all times in all places, Mr Dashwood... including this statement. >Trotting out >cliched boilerplate as if it is Holy Writ, with the only basis for it's >validity being constant repetition, is unworthy of you. Mr Dashwood, my memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall addressing a posting to you and getting a response from you in this forum about this very matter. You might want to take a look at <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/fd7a4badfe33496c?dmode=source> and the repetition of it posted in <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/c5ffed30915f7f6b?dmode=source> and a variant of it posted nearly a decade back in <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/34b3233328d534e1?dmode=source&hl=en> DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 27 Jul 2008 06:03 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6gc8a$du4$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > In article <6f1nptF9fs99U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:g6f9vl$3co$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>> In article <6eva6bF8sm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >>>>news:0lkj84pn1grm75p6ufq1otp5cq66d84hr5(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:26:13 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I understand there is an element of seriousness in what you're saying, >>>>>>but >>>>>>if you go down that route it ends in tears. >>>>>> >>>>>>IT does NOT own the data and IT should not have exclusive access to >>>>>>it. >>>>>> >>>>>>People who OWN the data should be able to manipulate it if they want >>>>>>to. >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes there are directives from on high limiting ownership >>>>> privileges. These may be legal issues, or policies within a >>>>> company. Maybe sales "owns" the sales data - but the salesmen >>>>> can't manipulate them however they want. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, neither should IT. But IT needs to enforce the guidelines >>>>> that the enterprise and society demand. >>>> >>>>OK, so you see IT as being the "Data Police"? >>>> >>>>I don't. >>>> >>>>It would appear that both you and Doc have pushed my argument beyond >>>>where >>>>I >>>>wanted it to go. >>>> >>>>What about companies that don't have an IT department? >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>That's it, no more from me on this :-) >>> >>> Mr Dashwood, with all appropriate respect and courtesy due... >> >>Yeah, right...:-) > > Exactly right. > >> >>> to ask >>> questions >> >>I asked no question. > > If you are asserting that you did not post 'OK, so you see IT as being the > "Data Police"?' or 'What about companies that don't have an IT > department?' then someone seems to be posting under your ID. If you are > asserting that those are not questions then your understanding of English > appears to be a bit different than mine. Fair enough. These are, technically, questions. However, they are of a certain class which does not require an answer; it is called "rhetorical". I answered them myself but you strategically snipped what I said (and then you accuse me of a lack of "moral integrity, kindness and good will"). > >> >> >>> and then say 'I'll not address the replies in the same forum in >>> which I asked the question' is, to my mind, equally as honorable as the >>> 'chastise in public, apologise in private' that I've seen come from many >>> a >>> Manager. >> >>I don't do that, and I haven't done it here. > > See above, Mr Dashwood... two interrogative sentences, posted by you, > which you say are not questions. As they didn't require answers, and I really was tired of having my position pushed beyond where I wanted it to go, I saw no need for further communication. > > [snip] > >>> This kind of behavior, I would say, is more than discourteous; I would >>> say >>> it lacks a certain kind of moral integrity, kindness and goodwill... in >>> a >>> word, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decent , 4. >>> >> >>Clearly, you don't know me. Throwing a petulant little hissy fit because I >>won't play your game any more, says much more about you than it does about >>me. > > Mr Dashwood, if you believe pointing out the facts of your behavior and > stating my opinion is 'throwing a petulant little hissy fit' then our > ideas about such things are very, *very* different. > > If you believe that posting 'I did no such thing' when there is clear > evidence indicating you did... then you're most Managerial. Get a life. > > [snip] > >>You obviously need to get out a bit more and understand the differences >>between discourtesy, and simply having nothing more to say on an issue. > > Mr Dashwood, instead of addressing the facts of the matter you try to turn > discourse towards my pointing them out... have you heard the one about the > Manager in a balloon? I really have nothing more to say on this matter (and haven't had for some time now). I therefore won't be responding further. If, in your opinion, that makes me morally bankrupt, well, I'll just have to live with that. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 27 Jul 2008 06:32 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6gd22$pel$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > In article <6f1ohgF9fdocU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:g6fa4o$btd$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>> In article <751l8494ejaho69uiv503vvqsvk89llncq(a)4ax.com>, >>> Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:25:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> >>>>wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>So I guess I'm missing your point here. Do you mean we should spend >>>>>as much testing a new program design as GM spends testing a new car >>>>>design? >>>> >>>>If GM changed only the ash tray, would it re-test every other system to >>>>insure the ash >>>>tray didn't inadvertantly affect something else? >>> >>> Mr Wagner, answering a question with a question is no answer at all... >>> and >>> I believe that every year's New Model, no matter what the changes on the >>> preceding year's might be, gets crash-tested and evaluated. >>> >> >>Despite your constant repetition of the "answering a question with a >>question is no answer at all" mantra, it simply isn't true. > > Nothing is true at all times in all places, Mr Dashwood... including this > statement. > >>Trotting out >>cliched boilerplate as if it is Holy Writ, with the only basis for it's >>validity being constant repetition, is unworthy of you. > > Mr Dashwood, my memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall addressing a > posting to you and getting a response from you in this forum about this > very matter. You might want to take a look at > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/fd7a4badfe33496c?dmode=source> > and the repetition of it posted in > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/c5ffed30915f7f6b?dmode=source> > and a variant of it posted nearly a decade back in > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/34b3233328d534e1?dmode=source&hl=en> > Sure, I remember those posts and they demonstrate the difference between what you said then and what you actually do now. At that time you correctly pointed out that answering a question with a question CAN be employed as a dodge or prevarication ... you gave some examples and finished with the statement: "... and such a situation, at time, might just possibly be avoided by the judicious invoking of 'Answering a question with a question is no answer at all' ..." But, in practice, you DON'T do it "judiciously" you simply trot it out parrot fashion (as if it were deep wisdom), whenever anyone responds to your questions, with a question. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps you can provide a reference from within this forum where a question was asked, someone responded to it with another question, and you then responded WITHOUT using this cliche. I believe you'll be hard pressed to find such a reference. Fortunately, like most cliches, overuse simply devalues it and instead of having any useful meaning, it just becomes boring. There ARE times when answering a question with a question is no answer, but there are also times when it is useful. You seem to have lost sight of this, although you once recognised it. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 27 Jul 2008 09:20
In article <6f2vfkF9jg3nU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6gc8a$du4$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <6f1nptF9fs99U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>>I asked no question. >> >> If you are asserting that you did not post 'OK, so you see IT as being the >> "Data Police"?' or 'What about companies that don't have an IT >> department?' then someone seems to be posting under your ID. If you are >> asserting that those are not questions then your understanding of English >> appears to be a bit different than mine. > >Fair enough. These are, technically, questions. However, they are of a >certain class which does not require an answer; it is called "rhetorical". I am not sure whence you derive your definitions, Mr Dashwood, but you seem to be disagreeing with the one used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question . >I >answered them myself but you strategically snipped what I said (and then you >accuse me of a lack of "moral integrity, kindness and good will"). That you answered them with responses *you* wanted to see, Mr Dashwood, in no wise invalidate the soundness of view that others might bring to them. [snip] >> See above, Mr Dashwood... two interrogative sentences, posted by you, >> which you say are not questions. > >As they didn't require answers, and I really was tired of having my position >pushed beyond where I wanted it to go, I saw no need for further >communication. That may be exactly the reason I labelled them as 'Managerial', Mr Dashwood... I, and a few others here, have encountered situations where a Manager will say 'This is how I see it, things needs be examinined no more, go back and start cranking code'... ane the core of the situation is far from having been addressed. The tactic ranks right up there with 'I'm a very busy man, you know' and is almost as useful when it comes to exploring technical matters. [snip] >> If you believe that posting 'I did no such thing' when there is clear >> evidence indicating you did... then you're most Managerial. > >Get a life. I have one, Mr Dashwood, and a rather pleasant one I find it to be... but it does not, for the most part, include participating in discussions and asserting 'I didn't want to go there so I'll deny what I said, fling insults and sashay off in a huff.' This is neithe your office nor your project, Mr Dashwood, you've no say over anyone's paycheck and your 'I don't want to talk about it any more' doesn't stop anyone from pointing out simple, readily available facts to demonstrate the contraries of your assertions. You might want to keep that in mind the next time you offer the equivalent of 'I didn't say that and I'll cut off conversation before it can be shown that I did'. DD |