f



Treeviews #3

Really just to advise Kellie and Michael. I've solved it, (how to 
indicate what has been actioned or not actioned). Like all things GUI 
not difficult once you can see a coded solution - it's finding the 
solution, (from the plethora of methods), which can sometimes be 
frustrating.

As images I create an Array (collection) containing two icons, Greenball 
and RedBall, identified respectively as 1 and 2. First showing of the 
Treeview you want all to appear as 'Unactioned' = Redball. After intimal 
display any Adds, Changes or Deletes affect the display. For Add and 
Change, select Greenball. Delete - well the label disappears from your 
Treeview and the record is deleted from File/DB

As you create/revise the displayable Label you select the icon value 1 
or 2 which gets 'attached' to your label. (Interesting point - setting 
the size for your icons to 16 x 16, when creating the icon Array above, 
  controls how the rest of the Treeview displays; use 48 x 48 and the 
whole Treeview picture EXPANDS, automatically throwing in an Horizontal 
Scrollbar which you will need to use to see the 'clipped' or right side 
of the Treeview).

You might recall I was experimenting with Buttons/NoButtons, 
LinesAtRoot/NoLinesAtRoot, Lines/NoLines. I 'discovered' if I code 
'noButtons' and use icons - then you can click on icons to expand or 
contract the Treeview. The only time it appears to come 'unstuck' is if 
the user contracts the Treeview to show just the Root Level. (When I do 
my initial display I expand the Root to show the list of Level 1's).

The only outstanding feature I have to resolve, not GUIs but program 
logic, is how to indicate the Level above should appear as a GreenBall 
when all its 'children' have Greenballs.

(1) - invoke ThisLevelObject "getAncestor" returning ParentLevelObject

(2) - invoke ParentLevelObject "getID" returning IconID - if it shows
already Greenball - no further action; otherwise :-

(3) - invoke ParentLevelObject "children" returning		 
ParentLevelOrderedCollection 		

(4) - do a callback/iterator against the ParentLevelOrderedCollection 
testing each element (Child Label), for its IconID - if they all show
Greenball then the Parent Level label can be changed to show a Greenball

(5) - depending upon how many Levels you have, will need to work upwards 
through the hierarchy to see if any other ParentLevels have to be 
changed to Greenball. (e.g. this Level 2 has now be changed to a 
Greenball and Level 1 has a RedBall - check the Level 1 to see if it 
should be changed to a Greenball - this is a repeat of Steps 1 through 4 
above).

(6) Deletes - well they are 'destroyed' - but they *might* affect the 
outcome. Assume five Level 3 labels - four are Greenballs and the fifth, 
which  you are deleting, is a Redball. Got to use the routines above to 
see if the Level 2 can now be changed to a Greenball.

Not at all difficult using the methods provided - just have to get my 
logic correct.

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
2/22/2005 6:59:15 PM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

247 Replies
4060 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 43

Hi Jimmy,

it looks like the TreeView window you have created will show your true
colour. ;--))

well, I must remind you though, Sophisticated cobol programmers like
Kellie Fitton
do not use the so-called OO. Why?  I am glad you asked ---  Its
verbose, bloated,
wordy, not a practical programming model, have a major problem with
prolixity, and
no clear or identifiable benefits whatsoever when compared to practical
Cobol.
for me though, using direct win32 API's is a result oriented approach,
without the
unnecessary and superfluous steps.   Hope your TreeView bear some
fruits.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/22/2005 8:26:25 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
> 
> it looks like the TreeView window you have created will show your true
> colour. ;--))
> 
> well, I must remind you though, Sophisticated cobol programmers like
> Kellie Fitton
> do not use the so-called OO. Why?  I am glad you asked ---  Its
> verbose, bloated,
> wordy, not a practical programming model, have a major problem with
> prolixity, and
> no clear or identifiable benefits whatsoever when compared to practical
> Cobol.
> for me though, using direct win32 API's is a result oriented approach,
> without the
> unnecessary and superfluous steps.   Hope your TreeView bear some
> fruits.
> 
> Regards, Kellie.
> 
Kellie,

Glad you wrote that because I was itching to ask what made you take the 
API approach. 'Prolixity' WOW ! Verbose, bloated, wordy or prolixity - 
according to my Thesaurus - all kinda the same. Now who is being verbose 
? :-)

Feisty little Californian aren't you :-)

Absolutely no harm in you taking your approach, using APIs; same sort of 
thinking as Michael. Not knowing them, (APIs) have you had a dabble at 
doing stuff for the Web - I'm not even aware - Can you do it with APIs ?

But caution - you are young enough to be flexible. So even having 
decided on the API route always keep your mind open. Now here's a 
thought - there are primarily three of us here that have done any OO 
COBOL promoting - it just so happens all three of us each have 40 years 
plus in this racket. Pete and Donald in programming and yours truly as a 
systems analyst, switching to COBOL in 1980. Now ask yourself the 
question, 'Why would three old farts favour OO COBOL ?' Just to add to 
that, Richard (also an old fart, but some 10-15 years younger than me), 
has recently posted some OO code, but I haven't had time to assimilate 
it - concentrating on my Treeview thinggy.

Now how did you arrive at your conclusion about OO COBOL. Was it looking 
at the Micro Focus examples ? Remember, remember, those are demos 
illustrating features - virtually impossible to cover every feature and 
to 'newbies' it wouldn't have helped if they had taken shortcuts - would 
have generated just further confusion. Starting with VISOC, the 
predecessor to Net Express, I was 'the newbie' and so frustrated and 
miserable working it out on my own that I came very close to throwing in 
the towel on two occasions. (But the stubborn 'Irish' in me persisted).

As a plug, I'm guessing you have missed the significance of one very 
important element of OO - Instances. Richard made comment on it in his 
latest messages. That is an extremely POWERFUL feature allowing for 
umpteen uses of code - REUSE.

Not immediately because I'm still fine tuning - I could send you a copy 
of my Cheese Treeview application. It is a self-contained application 
(1) Business Logic (2) Classes for handling COBOL files (3) A template 
class for creating the five dialogs as five instances. (Haven't used it 
in this 'test run' but I could have substituted some of my SQL 
techniques to replace COBOL files). Compile it and run it through the 
Animator - you might get some surprises, although it wont necessarily 
make you a convert to OO - that's because you Scots are also bloody 
stubborn !

Let me know if you would be interested in getting a copy. I'm using N/E 
3.1 - so there should be no problems at your end.

You are young, stay fresh, and particularly so, ENJOY the career you 
have chosen. Be on the lookout for new techniques - and every success in 
your future career.

Jimmy
0
2/22/2005 9:27:17 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:VsNSd.474145$6l.428752@pd7tw2no...
> Absolutely no harm in you taking your approach, using APIs; same sort of
> thinking as Michael.

Yeah, but Michael uses API's not because of any prejudices against O-O... he
does it because that was the sum total of his "choices" using his current
compiler....(Which is a BASIC language compiler.. but of course, all that
API knowledge can be applied transparently to any other language compiler.)


MCM







0
2/22/2005 9:55:16 PM
Michael Mattias wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:VsNSd.474145$6l.428752@pd7tw2no...
> 
>>Absolutely no harm in you taking your approach, using APIs; same sort of
>>thinking as Michael.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Michael uses API's not because of any prejudices against O-O... he
> does it because that was the sum total of his "choices" using his current
> compiler....(Which is a BASIC language compiler.. but of course, all that
> API knowledge can be applied transparently to any other language compiler.)
> 

True - but it is accumulating that knowledge. It would have helped if 
Microsoft had produced a 'Dick and Jane' book on Windows.

Why you would want to do it I don't know, but latest I've found is that 
you can hang a Combo DropDownList on a Treeview. Next one I'm waiting 
for is an article/screenshot on hanging a Treeview, on a Treeview, on a 
Treeview......ad nauseum.

Jimmy
0
2/22/2005 10:37:57 PM
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1109103985.346115.91420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> it looks like the TreeView window you have created will show your true
> colour. ;--))
>
> well, I must remind you though, Sophisticated cobol programmers like
> Kellie Fitton
> do not use the so-called OO. Why?  I am glad you asked ---  Its
> verbose, bloated,
> wordy, not a practical programming model, have a major problem with
> prolixity, and
> no clear or identifiable benefits whatsoever when compared to practical
> Cobol.

And I thought only the old had fixed ideas on things they don't
understand... <g>.

OO programming is the single most successful paradigm (for everyone EXCEPT
COBOL) in the history of computer programming.

Saying it is not a practical programming model is like saying that
electronics should never replace steam.

There are implications in the use of OO which you haven't even considered.
It opens up the world of components, for a start...

Jimmy has written an excellent response to you Kellie and his advice is
good. Keep your mind open. Your best position is: "OO programming does not
appeal to me at this time."

I understand your fascination with the windows API; you are right, it is
immediate and direct. BUT you seem to have ignored all the points made in
this thread about it locking you in to a single OS.

And to answer Jimmy's question, NO, you would not use APIs in web
programming. (Unless you want to limit your application to running on MS
servers, and that kind of limits the field and defeats the object of using
the web in the first place.) Besides, there is no need to use the API; all
the classes you will need on the web are available through JavaScript or
Java applets and servlets. Scripting languages like ASP and JSP utilise OO
classes and components to glue the whole thing together. I can connect to a
remote database, run SQL against it, and get back a result set in three
lines of code. This is possible because under the covers it is using ActiveX
components to do the work. In this environment it is unthinkable NOT to use
OO.
Most of the stuff I am doing currently is web based, I'm using ASP (looking
at PHP) and Javascript. It would be pointless without OO and components.

So, what you are saying, Kellie, is that you will never use the web or need
to write smart web pages. (any one can write static HTML pages that get
served up like cold fish and chips; smart pages are generated on the fly,
based on events and database responses. Not only is it fun, it is
commercially rewarding as well...) That is a very short sighted view for one
at the beginning of their career.

> for me though, using direct win32 API's is a result oriented approach,
> without the
> unnecessary and superfluous steps.   Hope your TreeView bear some
> fruits.
>

Fair enough. But realise you may grow...

> Regards, Kellie.
>
>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/22/2005 10:47:16 PM
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:381r3qF5ffkamU1@individual.net...
>
> OO programming is the single most successful paradigm (for everyone EXCEPT
> COBOL) in the history of computer programming....

Real Men Don't Need No Stinkin' Objects.

MCM




0
2/22/2005 11:25:43 PM
Hello Again,

Thanks for offering a copy of your ThreeView
program --- I prefer to create my own TreeView
version with win32 API's though. Its more
streamlined and easier to read and navigate thru
out the source code anyway. That said.

now regarding the web question, Yes. you can
use the win32 API's to create all kinds of
applications for the web, including TCP/IP
protocols, RAS services and very cool web
animations as well. Currently I am learning to
develop cobol programs with 3D graphics by
using the win32 API's. I bought some nices
books from amazon.com to show me all the
tricks that I need to know about graphics.

lately I been de-bunking and "cobolizing" lots of
C, C++ examples form the web and from the
MSDN website, and I can tell it is much easier
and more practical to only use the win32 API's
functions rather than using OO programming.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/22/2005 11:37:55 PM
> It would have helped if Microsoft had produced a 'Dick and Jane' book
on Windows.

They left it for Petzold to do.  Leastways that's how I learned Windows
3.0 (after using Townsend for 2.0).

0
riplin (4127)
2/23/2005 3:33:57 AM
> Most of the stuff I am doing currently is web based, I'm using ASP
(looking
> at PHP)

It seems to me that the server side web stuff is divided into two
groups.  On one side there is ASP, PHP, JSP.  On the other side there
is Java srvlets, CGI, Perl and other scripts.

The first group is 'code in page': the html web pages incorporate
server side code that executes to extract data base stuff.  The second
group is 'page in code': the program runs and builds the data then
writes out the html for the web page.

In many cases both of these approaches mingle the program code and the
html in ways that make then inseparable.  I hate that.

> It would be pointless without OO and components.

Ah, now here is the crux of the matter.  When using ASP or JSP etc the
code is buried in the web page and this means that it may need to be
duplicated if the same result is required in a different page.  The
'solution' is to extract the code and make it into a component so that
it can be accessed from two or more pages.

Leastways this is how JSP solves the problem, though I think that JSP
is just a means for Java to have a 'me too' workalike for ASP and
wouldn't otherwise be used at all.

It still seems to me to be a backwards solution to a problem that
shouldn't exist in the first place.

ASP, JSP and PHP (and mod-Perl if you prefer that) are 'web page
writers' languages.  The users want to design the pages and then fixup
the issue of 'how do I get the data in here'.  OTOH Servlets, Perl and
so on tend to be 'programmers' languages where they extract the data
and then kludge up something to get the html out to the user.

I use templating (I may have mentioned this). To me that fits into the
middle between ASP/JSP and the usual scripting/Perl/servlets approach
(though Perl does have templating).  While it runs as a typical script
it completely separates the presentation from the code.  This has some
advantages.  For example if you wnat that table of invoices in a usable
format then just get the program to use a different template that
outputs csv instead of html.

> and Javascript.

Javascript is client side, though it is just built into the html page
just as ASP/JSP/PHP is.

0
riplin (4127)
2/23/2005 4:08:51 AM
Hi Pete,

Thanks for the valuable advise.  Of course I like the web, its fun and
exciting.  However,
the OO classes and the scripting languages that you have mentioned
above, donot really
do any thing that would be considered an impossible feat, in fact,
these classes are
sitting on top of the windows API's system or some low-level assembly
code, which is
exactly the same as the win32 API's functions.  I would like to show
you an example of
C++ code for "WMI Components", which is OO programming from the MSDN
website,
it will demonstrates that this programming paradigm is inefficient with
a high overhead.
Why?, this little program is Only doing three simple things, that you
can do with cobol
and some win32 API's functions, with much less programming code.
Regards.

*>-------------------------------------------------------------------------*>
Platform SDK: Windows Management Instrumentation
*> Example: Creating a WMI Application
*> The following code example describes a complete WMI client
*> application that performs COM initialization, connects to WMI
*> on the local computer, reads some data, and cleans up.

#define _WIN32_DCOM
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <comdef.h>
#include <Wbemidl.h>
# pragma comment(lib, "wbemuuid.lib")

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    HRESULT hres;

    // Initialize COM.
    hres =  CoInitializeEx(0, COINIT_MULTITHREADED);
    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Failed to initialize COM library. "
            << "Error code = 0x"
            << hex << hres << endl;
        return 1;              // Program has failed.
    }

    // Initialize
    hres =  CoInitializeSecurity(
        NULL,
        -1,      // COM negotiates service
        NULL,    // Authentication services
        NULL,    // Reserved
        RPC_C_AUTHN_LEVEL_DEFAULT,    // authentication
        RPC_C_IMP_LEVEL_IMPERSONATE,  // Impersonation
        NULL,             // Authentication info
        EOAC_NONE,        // Additional capabilities
        NULL              // Reserved
        );

    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Failed to initialize security. "
            << "Error code = 0x"
            << hex << hres << endl;
        CoUninitialize();
        return 1;          // Program has failed.
    }

    // Obtain the initial locator to Windows Management
    // on a particular host computer.
    IWbemLocator *pLoc = 0;

    hres = CoCreateInstance(
        CLSID_WbemLocator,
        0,
        CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER,
        IID_IWbemLocator, (LPVOID *) &pLoc);

    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Failed to create IWbemLocator object. "
            << "Error code = 0x"
            << hex << hres << endl;
        CoUninitialize();
        return 1;       // Program has failed.
    }

    IWbemServices *pSvc = 0;

    // Connect to the root\cimv2 namespace with the
    // current user and obtain pointer pSvc
    // to make IWbemServices calls.

    hres = pLoc->ConnectServer(

        _bstr_t(L"ROOT\\CIMV2"), // WMI namespace
        NULL,                    // User name
        NULL,                    // User password
        0,                       // Locale
        NULL,                    // Security flags
        0,                       // Authority
        0,                       // Context object
        &pSvc                    // IWbemServices proxy
        );

    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Could not connect. Error code = 0x"
            << hex << hres << endl;
        pLoc->Release();
        CoUninitialize();
        return 1;                // Program has failed.
    }

    cout << "Connected to ROOT\\CIMV2 WMI namespace" << endl;

    // Set the IWbemServices proxy so that impersonation
    // of the user (client) occurs.
    hres = CoSetProxyBlanket(

       pSvc,                         // the proxy to set
       RPC_C_AUTHN_WINNT,            // authentication service
       RPC_C_AUTHZ_NONE,             // authorization service
       NULL,                         // Server principal name
       RPC_C_AUTHN_LEVEL_CALL,       // authentication level
       RPC_C_IMP_LEVEL_IMPERSONATE,  // impersonation level
       NULL,                         // client identity
       EOAC_NONE                     // proxy capabilities
    );

    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Could not set proxy blanket. Error code = 0x"
             << hex << hres << endl;
        pSvc->Release();
        pLoc->Release();
        CoUninitialize();
        return 1;               // Program has failed.
    }

    // Use the IWbemServices pointer to make requests of WMI.
    // Make requests here:
    // For example, query for print queues that
    // have more than 10 jobs
    IEnumWbemClassObject* pEnumerator = NULL;
    hres = pSvc->ExecQuery(
        bstr_t("WQL"),
        bstr_t("SELECT * Win32_PerfFormattedData_Spooler_PrintQueue "
        "Where Name <> '_Total'"),
        WBEM_FLAG_FORWARD_ONLY | WBEM_FLAG_RETURN_IMMEDIATELY,
        NULL,
        &pEnumerator);

    if (FAILED(hres))
    {
        cout << "Query for print queues failed. "
             << "Error code = 0x"
             << hex << hres << endl;
        pSvc->Release();
        pLoc->Release();
        CoUninitialize();
        return 1;               // Program has failed.
    }
    else
    {
        do
        {
            IWbemClassObject* pInstance = NULL;
            ULONG dwCount = NULL;

            hres = pEnumerator->Next(
                WBEM_INFINITE,
                1,
                &pInstance,
                &dwCount);

        } while (hres == WBEM_S_NO_ERROR);

    }

    // Cleanup
    // ========
    pSvc->Release();
    pLoc->Release();
    CoUninitialize();

    return 0;   // Program successfully completed.
}

*>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*>

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/23/2005 4:12:47 AM
Richard wrote:
>>It would have helped if Microsoft had produced a 'Dick and Jane' book
> 
> on Windows.
> 
> They left it for Petzold to do.  Leastways that's how I learned Windows
> 3.0 (after using Townsend for 2.0).
> 
Richard,

I know your reference to Petzold - I have an early copy. I should have 
been a bit more expansive. I really detest looking through MSDN - just 
as I dislike on-line help files - you pick a word get some hits and then 
easily get diverted to ancillary topics, and finish up with stuff 
totally unrelated to your previous search.

In the case of the MSDN search engine, dependent upon the use of the 
word 'Treeview' and any other search words you associate with it, you 
get zillions of hits on dozens of articles - and it just never seems to 
hit the right one.

As you are well aware our COBOL vendors have gotten into on-line books; 
same I'm sure applies to other languages. Take GUI-ing which is, what, a 
subset of APIs. Say from MS - a broad outline, then even chapters or 
subsidiary books that cover one control in exhaustive detail - it's 
already there but they have it spread all over the place in Knowledge 
Base articles. I shouldn't have to 'discover' the significance of 
changing the size of Treeview Node labels and what impact is has on what 
you display - it should be there in bold black and white in a 
comprehensive text on Treeviews. Same sort of thing applies to hanging 
checkboxes, colouring or droplists on the Treeviews.

I like the book approach. M/F started OO with just on-line help. Now I'm 
reasonably comfortable on the topic they now have an on-line book in N/E 
V 4.0. ;-)

Still you can always learn more and the book is a pretty good starting 
point.

Jimmy
0
2/23/2005 6:26:36 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hi Pete,
> 
> Thanks for the valuable advise.  Of course I like the web, its fun and
> exciting.  However,
> the OO classes and the scripting languages that you have mentioned
> above, donot really
> do any thing that would be considered an impossible feat, in fact,
> these classes are
> sitting on top of the windows API's system or some low-level assembly
> code, which is
> exactly the same as the win32 API's functions. 


Perfectly true - anything I do in OO COBOL, plus the GUIs of course, 
EVENTUALLY references an API. But recall Richard said, avoid the grubby 
details.

I look at your code and mumble, "Gibberish, gibberish.....". No it's 
not, I'm sure it is close to doing the job. :-)

#1 - Let's backtrack on verbosity, randomly taking one of your API 
entries  :-


 >
 >         _bstr_t(L"ROOT\\CIMV2"), // WMI namespace
 >         NULL,                    // User name
 >         NULL,                    // User password
 >         0,                       // Locale
 >         NULL,                    // Security flags
 >         0,                       // Authority
 >         0,                       // Context object
 >         &pSvc                    // IWbemServices proxy
 >         );
 >

Now let's backtrack on my previous message where I showed methods being 
invoked to check out the colouring - this is not the whole story, but 
just the ones I quoted :-

 > (1) - invoke ThisLevelObject "getAncestor" returning ParentLevelObject
 >
 > (2) - invoke ParentLevelObject "getID" returning IconID
 >
 > (3) - invoke ParentLevelObject "children" returning
 > ParentLevelOrderedCollection
 >

OO COBOL is verbose - do a count on the above - how many sending 
parameters do you see ?

I'm not going to try and blind-side you. Of course there are situations 
where I supply sending parameters, not often, but some of the M/F 
methods require more than one parameter,  - but those three above, a 
support service from M/F contain it all in the method-name.

As yet I'm not into Webbing. Are you up to a small challenge, at your 
leisure. The Treeview Demo I've written has five dialogs. Just keep it 
simple to one. We want to edit a cheese so it contains :-

1) Top right the 'x' for close dialog
2) An entry field for the File or DB ID - I'm using pic 9(06)
3) Entry field - 20 characters for a cheese name
4) A combo dropdown list for countries, Australia, New Zealand, England, 
France etc. I identify them as pic 9(03) in file/DB
5) Two pushbuttons - OK and Cancel

Let's see your API code and then mine. (That's kinda - You show me yours 
and I'll show you mine :-) ).

Now here's the 'catcher' - I will ONLY show you the code required to 
generate the Cheese Dialog, display it and send events back to my Driver 
program. My code will make umpteen references to pre-written code that 
you wont see ! (Naturally a lot is invokes to M/F support but there are 
also a lot of invokes to my own support classes).

REUSE !

Just to finish off, and back to your quoted example. Sure, if it works, 
and I understood what it was doing - I'd use it, wrapping the code in an 
OO method. Actually, rather like Young Kim has his API routines in 
chapters, I would look for commonality, creating my own classes, say 
representing his Chapter 1, Chapter 2 etc... But Webbing, not my baby, 
has so many tools, scripting and Java etc., which I'm guessing are 
considerably more flexible than dabbling with raw API calls. Richard has 
just recently blown me away with his latest message on that topic - and 
the approaches you can take.

As a point of interest - M/F's Answer Exchange, (which has a cross 
section from North and some from South America, Europe, S.Africa, Asian 
(India and Philippines) etc.) - quite a bit of clarification asked on 
'How to' using Dialog System and 'How to' using Web features. I can't 
recall the last time I saw something specifically quizzing about APIs.

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
2/23/2005 7:26:13 PM
Richard,

I don't take issue with your observations, but there are a few points of
fact that may have been overlooked... see below.

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109131731.753197.196380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Most of the stuff I am doing currently is web based, I'm using ASP
> (looking
> > at PHP)
>
> It seems to me that the server side web stuff is divided into two
> groups.  On one side there is ASP, PHP, JSP.  On the other side there
> is Java srvlets, CGI, Perl and other scripts.
>
That is a fair comment, but it isn't quite as rigid as that. (see below).

> The first group is 'code in page': the html web pages incorporate
> server side code that executes to extract data base stuff.  The second
> group is 'page in code': the program runs and builds the data then
> writes out the html for the web page.

Hmmm... certainly ASP runs on the server, but so do the items in your second
group.
>
> In many cases both of these approaches mingle the program code and the
> html in ways that make then inseparable.  I hate that.
>
Me too. But it doesn't HAVE to be like that. You CAN intermingle client side
HTML and JavaScript with ASP code but it is not a REQUIREMENT.

I have found through experience that completely separating ASP code to
BEFORE the <HTML> tag helps immensely. (It also allows  non-persisting
(session duration only) cookies to be served in the Browser header, so that
state can be easily maintained without reliance on Session or Application
scope. Of course, some people don't allow cookies, but I am prepared to
'lose' those people. The cookies I am talking about are NOT stored on the
Client hard drive)

My smart pages have their ASP procedures at the start. These procedures are
written in JavaScript (within ASP delimiters, simply using JavaScript as the
language. The default is VBScript, but I have more affinity with Java than I
do with VB.)

> > It would be pointless without OO and components.
>
> Ah, now here is the crux of the matter.  When using ASP or JSP etc the
> code is buried in the web page and this means that it may need to be
> duplicated if the same result is required in a different page.  The
> 'solution' is to extract the code and make it into a component so that
> it can be accessed from two or more pages.

Well, Richard, that is ONE solution. You can also use SSI from ASP and
simply include your (single copy of) source where you want it.
>
> Leastways this is how JSP solves the problem, though I think that JSP
> is just a means for Java to have a 'me too' workalike for ASP and
> wouldn't otherwise be used at all.
>
<G> You could be right...

> It still seems to me to be a backwards solution to a problem that
> shouldn't exist in the first place.
>
> ASP, JSP and PHP (and mod-Perl if you prefer that) are 'web page
> writers' languages.  The users want to design the pages and then fixup
> the issue of 'how do I get the data in here'.

Yes, that is a fair description. Realise though that you can write ASP in
either VBScript or JavaScript or any other language you like - Perl, PHP,
whatever...(I'm currently experimenting with COBOL as script, just for the
Hell of it...), PROVIDED you make the appropriate Registry Script Engine
entries, ensure your language is COM compliant, and ensure the code uses
'RUNAT = server' attribute of the <SCRIPT> tag. This is possible because of
components (In this case ActiveX - impossible without OO...).

OTOH Servlets, Perl and
> so on tend to be 'programmers' languages where they extract the data
> and then kludge up something to get the html out to the user.
>
Some people do. Not me... <g>

> I use templating (I may have mentioned this). To me that fits into the
> middle between ASP/JSP and the usual scripting/Perl/servlets approach
> (though Perl does have templating).  While it runs as a typical script
> it completely separates the presentation from the code.  This has some
> advantages.  For example if you wnat that table of invoices in a usable
> format then just get the program to use a different template that
> outputs csv instead of html.
>
Yes, I agree with that approach, Richard, and use something very similar for
CGI code. My CGI code invariably uses templates. So far, I haven't found the
need for it with ASP but it is very simple to include a template then modify
it, under ASP.

In fact, I believe ASP, properly designed, can replace CGI code completely.

> > and Javascript.
>
> Javascript is client side, though it is just built into the html page

No, as I tried to describe above, it can be client or server side, depending
on where and how you write it.

> just as ASP/JSP/PHP is.

All of my ASP is server side. (I didn't know it could run client side; are
you sure about that?)The Active Server Pages engine resides on the server
and 'scans' each page before it is served up. This enables dynamic HTML to
be generated on the page or existing HTML on the page to be modified. HTML
(client side) scripts on the page can utilise ASP to replace variables, get
query strings, and so on, BEFORE the page ever reaches the client.

Half the fun of designing in this environment is working out what needs to
be server side and what needs to be client side. Avoiding 'round trips' is
very satisfying.... for example, I realised yesterday that where (in ASP
server side code) I was using Response.Redirect() to switch pages (this
involves sending an HTTP header to the Browser) I could save this trip to
the client side by using Server.Transfer() which does it immediately. I
noticed a response improvement in several pages...

I find it a very flexible and powerful solution.(Sadly, it is far removed
from COBOL and the procedural paradigm.)

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/23/2005 11:35:44 PM
>> Javascript is client side,

> No, as I tried to describe above, it can be client or server side,
depending
> on where and how you write it.

Quite right. I associate JavaScript more with being client side, either
generating the page at the client end, and/or running while the page is
being viewed, or especially while forms are being entered.

I associate VBScript with ASP, but as you say, it can be any scripting
language there is a suitable engine for.

>> Javascript is client side, though it is just built into the html
page
>> just as ASP/JSP/PHP is.

> (I didn't know it could run client side; are you sure about that?)

... it is just built into the html page just as ASP/JSP/PHP is built
into the html page.

No, I didn't say that ASP/JSP/PHP could be client side.

0
riplin (4127)
2/23/2005 11:57:04 PM
So, we can both agree that C++ can be a nightmare? <G>

Your faith in the windows API is misplaced, Kellie. I used it with Windows
3.1. When 95 was released many calls had changed. I used it occasionally
with Win 98, some of those programs failed under XP.

And you seem totally blind to the fact that Windows is not the only option
in the world.

The more separation you have from the lower levels, the more chance you have
of extending the life of your code.

But it isn't worth arguing.

I totally respect your right to do things however you want to (that doesn't
mean I don't have an opinion about it <g>)

You are doing fine and at least enjoying yourself. <G>

Pete.

"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1109131967.480922.181770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Pete,
>
> Thanks for the valuable advise.  Of course I like the web, its fun and
> exciting.  However,
> the OO classes and the scripting languages that you have mentioned
> above, donot really
> do any thing that would be considered an impossible feat, in fact,
> these classes are
> sitting on top of the windows API's system or some low-level assembly
> code, which is
> exactly the same as the win32 API's functions.  I would like to show
> you an example of
> C++ code for "WMI Components", which is OO programming from the MSDN
> website,
> it will demonstrates that this programming paradigm is inefficient with
> a high overhead.
> Why?, this little program is Only doing three simple things, that you
> can do with cobol
> and some win32 API's functions, with much less programming code.
> Regards.
>
>
*>-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> Platform SDK: Windows Management Instrumentation
> *> Example: Creating a WMI Application
> *> The following code example describes a complete WMI client
> *> application that performs COM initialization, connects to WMI
> *> on the local computer, reads some data, and cleans up.
>
> #define _WIN32_DCOM
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std;
> #include <comdef.h>
> #include <Wbemidl.h>
> # pragma comment(lib, "wbemuuid.lib")
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>     HRESULT hres;
>
>     // Initialize COM.
>     hres =  CoInitializeEx(0, COINIT_MULTITHREADED);
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Failed to initialize COM library. "
>             << "Error code = 0x"
>             << hex << hres << endl;
>         return 1;              // Program has failed.
>     }
>
>     // Initialize
>     hres =  CoInitializeSecurity(
>         NULL,
>         -1,      // COM negotiates service
>         NULL,    // Authentication services
>         NULL,    // Reserved
>         RPC_C_AUTHN_LEVEL_DEFAULT,    // authentication
>         RPC_C_IMP_LEVEL_IMPERSONATE,  // Impersonation
>         NULL,             // Authentication info
>         EOAC_NONE,        // Additional capabilities
>         NULL              // Reserved
>         );
>
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Failed to initialize security. "
>             << "Error code = 0x"
>             << hex << hres << endl;
>         CoUninitialize();
>         return 1;          // Program has failed.
>     }
>
>     // Obtain the initial locator to Windows Management
>     // on a particular host computer.
>     IWbemLocator *pLoc = 0;
>
>     hres = CoCreateInstance(
>         CLSID_WbemLocator,
>         0,
>         CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER,
>         IID_IWbemLocator, (LPVOID *) &pLoc);
>
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Failed to create IWbemLocator object. "
>             << "Error code = 0x"
>             << hex << hres << endl;
>         CoUninitialize();
>         return 1;       // Program has failed.
>     }
>
>     IWbemServices *pSvc = 0;
>
>     // Connect to the root\cimv2 namespace with the
>     // current user and obtain pointer pSvc
>     // to make IWbemServices calls.
>
>     hres = pLoc->ConnectServer(
>
>         _bstr_t(L"ROOT\\CIMV2"), // WMI namespace
>         NULL,                    // User name
>         NULL,                    // User password
>         0,                       // Locale
>         NULL,                    // Security flags
>         0,                       // Authority
>         0,                       // Context object
>         &pSvc                    // IWbemServices proxy
>         );
>
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Could not connect. Error code = 0x"
>             << hex << hres << endl;
>         pLoc->Release();
>         CoUninitialize();
>         return 1;                // Program has failed.
>     }
>
>     cout << "Connected to ROOT\\CIMV2 WMI namespace" << endl;
>
>     // Set the IWbemServices proxy so that impersonation
>     // of the user (client) occurs.
>     hres = CoSetProxyBlanket(
>
>        pSvc,                         // the proxy to set
>        RPC_C_AUTHN_WINNT,            // authentication service
>        RPC_C_AUTHZ_NONE,             // authorization service
>        NULL,                         // Server principal name
>        RPC_C_AUTHN_LEVEL_CALL,       // authentication level
>        RPC_C_IMP_LEVEL_IMPERSONATE,  // impersonation level
>        NULL,                         // client identity
>        EOAC_NONE                     // proxy capabilities
>     );
>
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Could not set proxy blanket. Error code = 0x"
>              << hex << hres << endl;
>         pSvc->Release();
>         pLoc->Release();
>         CoUninitialize();
>         return 1;               // Program has failed.
>     }
>
>     // Use the IWbemServices pointer to make requests of WMI.
>     // Make requests here:
>     // For example, query for print queues that
>     // have more than 10 jobs
>     IEnumWbemClassObject* pEnumerator = NULL;
>     hres = pSvc->ExecQuery(
>         bstr_t("WQL"),
>         bstr_t("SELECT * Win32_PerfFormattedData_Spooler_PrintQueue "
>         "Where Name <> '_Total'"),
>         WBEM_FLAG_FORWARD_ONLY | WBEM_FLAG_RETURN_IMMEDIATELY,
>         NULL,
>         &pEnumerator);
>
>     if (FAILED(hres))
>     {
>         cout << "Query for print queues failed. "
>              << "Error code = 0x"
>              << hex << hres << endl;
>         pSvc->Release();
>         pLoc->Release();
>         CoUninitialize();
>         return 1;               // Program has failed.
>     }
>     else
>     {
>         do
>         {
>             IWbemClassObject* pInstance = NULL;
>             ULONG dwCount = NULL;
>
>             hres = pEnumerator->Next(
>                 WBEM_INFINITE,
>                 1,
>                 &pInstance,
>                 &dwCount);
>
>         } while (hres == WBEM_S_NO_ERROR);
>
>     }
>
>     // Cleanup
>     // ========
>     pSvc->Release();
>     pLoc->Release();
>     CoUninitialize();
>
>     return 0;   // Program successfully completed.
> }
>
>
*>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------*>
>
>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/24/2005 12:06:58 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Kellie Fitton wrote:
> 
>> 
> As yet I'm not into Webbing. Are you up to a small challenge, at your 
> leisure. The Treeview Demo I've written has five dialogs. Just keep it 
> simple to one. We want to edit a cheese so it contains :-
> 
> 1) Top right the 'x' for close dialog
> 2) An entry field for the File or DB ID - I'm using pic 9(06)
> 3) Entry field - 20 characters for a cheese name
> 4) A combo dropdown list for countries, Australia, New Zealand, England, 
> France etc. I identify them as pic 9(03) in file/DB
> 5) Two pushbuttons - OK and Cancel
> 
Kellie,

Oops. A follow-up, to make it complete. I don't have a pushbutton in the 
Dialog for 'DELETE'. When the user selects a Cheese with a double-click 
from the Treeview, there's a pop-up menu "Add, Change or Delete". 
Warning messagebox about deleting - if they respond "Yes" then it gets 
deleted from the DB and the Treeview.

Jimmy
0
2/24/2005 1:26:45 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> > Kellie Fitton wrote:
> >
> >>
> > As yet I'm not into Webbing. Are you up to a small challenge, at
your
> > leisure. The Treeview Demo I've written has five dialogs. Just keep
it
> > simple to one. We want to edit a cheese so it contains :-
> >
> > 1) Top right the 'x' for close dialog
> > 2) An entry field for the File or DB ID - I'm using pic 9(06)
> > 3) Entry field - 20 characters for a cheese name
> > 4) A combo dropdown list for countries, Australia, New Zealand,
England,
> > France etc. I identify them as pic 9(03) in file/DB
> > 5) Two pushbuttons - OK and Cancel
> >
> Kellie,
>
> Oops. A follow-up, to make it complete. I don't have a pushbutton in
the
> Dialog for 'DELETE'. When the user selects a Cheese with a
double-click
> from the Treeview, there's a pop-up menu "Add, Change or Delete".
> Warning messagebox about deleting - if they respond "Yes" then it
gets
> deleted from the DB and the Treeview.
>
> Jimmy



Kellie Wrote:

I think we should add a "Browse" button to the dialogue as well. If the
user
clicks the browse button, a ListView popup window should provide a
complete
listing of all the entries from the dataBase's masterFile. I don't like
to
use resource files when it comes to including a menu or a dialogue box
in the
graphical window, I prefer to hardCode my resources so I don't have the
needs
to include a .DLL file in my projects. Regards.

Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/24/2005 4:25:40 PM
> Kellie Wrote:
> 
> I think we should add a "Browse" button to the dialogue as well. If the
> user
> clicks the browse button, a ListView popup window should provide a
> complete
> listing of all the entries from the dataBase's masterFile. I don't like
> to
> use resource files when it comes to including a menu or a dialogue box
> in the
> graphical window, I prefer to hardCode my resources so I don't have the
> needs
> to include a .DLL file in my projects. Regards.
> 
> Kellie.
> 

You might add a Listview - but I'm not - read on !

DESIGN v PROGRAMMING

Your comment, (re Listview) is in the realm where you have put your 
'systems analyst' hat on to design so that you are communicating to the 
end user. Couldn't agree more.

In ye olden dayse using DOS, display a screen and prompt the user to 
enter a Chart of Accounts or Customer Number etc. They were supposed to 
remember them. Actually bean counters got very good at memorizing coding 
systems. It worked but wasn't terribly helpful.

So with VISOC (predecessor to Net Express), yours truly jumps into OO 
and Windowing. (Background - although Dialog System had a history in DOS 
days, starting with Panels, it wasn't included in VISOC - just Dialog 
Editor and GUI classes. I *think* Dialog System was re-introduced with 
one of the versions of N/E V 3.0. As I've indicated, world wide, lots of 
folks now using Dialog System as opposed to the Dialog Editor and GUI 
class approach).

So now I'm rummaging through books looking for tips and eventually hit 
on a paperback, 'Tips on APIs" or something. The author has a screenshot 
- simple record input on the left accompanied by a Listbox (not 
Listview) on the right. "That's it !", I sez to myself. "That's the 
approach I'll take". So using the templates I've dreamed up that's the 
route I went - record editing on the left and a Listbox on the right.

Now N/E OO-wise didn't initially mention Listviews but there are Dialog 
System demos. I haven't used them but I have a bit of an aversion to 
them - they seem to me, at least, to gobble up too much memory 
displaying quite a chunk, or even the whole record. (From comments in 
Answer Exchange, can be done but a little messy 'editing' individual 
columns. Not having gone that route, I can only observe).

Following on the theme 'don't gobble up memory' I keep my elements in a 
Listbox to a minimum - Name/Description Key and Other ("Other" depending 
upon the file/DB table might be something they want to sort on). Initial 
display of the Listbox sorted by default to show names alphabetically. 
Just in case - three pushbuttons above Listbox to allow user to see 
records sorted by one of the three I've mentioned above.

The logic to keeping Listbox entries to a minimum - why for each element 
display 100, 200, or 500 characters for each when the user might only 
access three of the records to edit. Click on the Listbox and I 
immediately retrieve the specific record from File/DB - the click gives 
me the index in the Listbox which is the identical index for the Sorted 
Collection where I retrieve the File/DB Key. (Could do the retrieving 
via the Listbox - but using Three Tier System approach - I retrieve from 
the Sorted Collection outside of the dialog display class).

Then I see one of my smart buddies in Answer Exchange using a Treeview 
as the Master Menu to his application. He still allows for traditional 
pop-ups and dropdown menus, but the emphasis is on the flexibility of 
viewing via the Treeview. Real neat.

Now what I have produced to test the Treeview is :-

Root "Cheese"
Level 1 - Continent
Level 2 - Country
Level 3 - Cheese name

Just to keep it simple. But what I'm really after is the above structure 
applied against an oil/gas plant. Expanding the Treeview I have the 
equivalent contents of a Listbox (not a Listview, as you suggested). 
Think on Listboxes/Listview - I don't think they can easily be an 
amalgam of different records (???). But my Treeview approach is - and 
from user selection I can edit one of three files/DB depending upon the 
Level selected.

Note I still use the Listbox approach for individual files - e.g. 
editing Oil Company/Gas Plant names.

DIALOG and RESOURCE

Something else you don't like :-). Come on, you surely must be using 
some designing tool to view what you want. If not and you are truly 
creating dynamically, then you really are using a pick and shovel 
approach - no your aren't - yours is a wheel with four straight sides.

Using the Dialog Editor to create/view my end result, I do have some 
dialogs with a lot of entry-fields all of the same nomenclature - so be 
damned if I'm gong to identify them as Value1, Value2, Value3 in the 
Dialog Editor. My approach - dynamically create them passing  x,y, w and 
h - but it's a bit of suck-it-and-see initially to get their correct 
placement. The x, y, cx, cy in the Dialog Editor can roughly be 
translated multiplying by 1.4 or 1.5. (Again one of those MS things - 
Horizontal Dialog Units).

Out of curiosity - confirm what you are actually doing to get your 
screen image.

DIALOG or DIALOGUE

Which is it. I see you using 'dialogue' which is what I instinctively 
use as an ex-Brit. Without thinking to put the spellchecker on 
'English-English' as opposed to "Colonial-English" :-) it always picks 
me up on my English spelling. Similarly as M/F markets in the former 
colonies I assiduously spell it DIALOG EDITOR, just as M/F do.

Jimmy
0
2/24/2005 6:42:03 PM
Hello,

Jimmy, my cobol teacher said:
"if you can't swim with sharks, stay in shallow
waters". ;--))

CHIC vs HAPHAZARD

adding a ListView to your application would
provide flexibility and lucidity --- the end-user
would be able to sort columns based on his or her
desired preference, unlike the listbox, ListView
comes with a neat header control that explains
each column with text labels.

I use the Dialogue Editor to mapOut the x, y, w, h
parameters for any dialogue created dynamically,
then when processing the WM-INITDIALOG
message, you can translate these parameters into
dialogue units, and repaint all controls into a new
position by using the win32 API's
"MapDialogRect", "AdjustWindowRect"
and "SetWindowPos".

DIALOGUE vs DIALOG

my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb since
the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with
the end-user. Also, dialogue came originally from
the old french dialogue and the greek dialogos.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/25/2005 4:40:41 PM
In article <1109349641.720458.133910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Kellie Fitton <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

[snip]

>DIALOGUE vs DIALOG
>
>my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb since
>the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with
>the end-user. Also, dialogue came originally from
>the old french dialogue and the greek dialogos.

And whence originally came 'dialog'... from the Portugese for 'day' and 
the English 'chunk of a tree'?  

According to http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dialog :

--begin quoted text:

Main Entry:  di�a�logue 
Variant(s): also di�a�log

--end quoted text

.... and likewise with monologue/monolog, homologue/homolog, 
catalogue/catalog, analogue/analog, etc.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/25/2005 5:04:46 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Jimmy, my cobol teacher said:
> "if you can't swim with sharks, stay in shallow
> waters". ;--))

LOL.  Sounds to me like you have a good teacher ... maybe a couple of them.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/25/2005 5:05:38 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb since
> the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with
> the end-user.

That reason sort of begs the question.   You spell it dialogue because you spell
it dialogue.

The reason software spells it dialog is because it is written in American.
0
howard (6283)
2/25/2005 5:22:58 PM
> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb

It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.

> Also, dialogue came originally from
> the old french dialogue and the greek dialogos.

di = two
logos = words or speech

It is irrelevant how the french spell, a computer interaction 'dialog'
is a technical term and may be spelt the way that the originator
decided.

0
riplin (4127)
2/25/2005 6:03:45 PM
Hi Howard,

"american" is not a language --- in america we
speak english, which came from the old latin,
french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/25/2005 6:06:02 PM
In article <1109354625.353288.324170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>
>It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.

I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should 
notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary 
about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.

>
>> Also, dialogue came originally from
>> the old french dialogue and the greek dialogos.
>
>di = two
>logos = words or speech

Source, please?  

(It has been a few years since I studied it but I recall the 'dia-' prefix 
to indicate 'through' (as in 'diameter'); the abovementioned MW and AHD 
show the derivation to have come from 'dialegesthai' ('dia-' = through, 
'legesthai' = form of legein, an infinitive for 'to speak'... granted that 
'logos', a word with many different uses - word, account and ratio are 
some - is the noun-form for 'that which is produced when 'legein''... I 
think I'd better stop now).)

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/25/2005 6:18:06 PM
In article <1109354762.140037.255760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Kellie Fitton <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Hi Howard,
>
>"american" is not a language --- in america we
>speak english, which came from the old latin,
>french and the greeks.

Well, I guess it is time to drop the 40% or so of the language that is 
derived from German/Scadanavian/Norse roots.

>The purpose of a dialogue
>box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
>end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.

According to commonly-accepted sources cited previously 'dialog' is a 
listed variant of 'dialogue'... some might say this removes it from the 
realm of 'incorect'.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/25/2005 6:21:50 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Jimmy, my cobol teacher said:
> "if you can't swim with sharks, stay in shallow
> waters". ;--))
> 
> CHIC vs HAPHAZARD
> 
> adding a ListView to your application would
> provide flexibility and lucidity --- the end-user
> would be able to sort columns based on his or her
> desired preference, unlike the listbox, ListView
> comes with a neat header control that explains
> each column with text labels.
> 
No it wouldn't ! Let's go through this one again. I am using a Treeview 
to give a user an hierarchial llibrary/catalogue view of getting at 
three different files or three different tables in a DB. Think of a true 
LIBRARY application based on the Dewey numbering system. That would have 
a treeview by topic :-

Art
History
Philosophy etc.

Art takes you to the next Level :-

Painting
Music
Modern Entertainment etc.

Next Level for Modern Entertainment

Movies
Musicals
Plays etc...

Under Movies you are going to get :-

Spartacus
Gone with the Wind
Streetcar Named Desire etc...

Logically, there would be another Level splitting those into Drama, 
Musicals, Historical or whatever

So all you need in the Labels is a meaningful description of the 
book/video/CD or whatever - then the user clicks on the one they want.

One demo I've seen that comes to mind - click on 'Continent' or 'Area', 
gives you say Western Europe. Select next on Germany, which brings up a 
map of Germany, with towns/locations highlighted - click on those in the 
map and you bring up a photograph of the town/location.

Now back to my Cheese - select the Level for Holland (Country) and it 
lists :-

Gouda
Edam etc...

Click on one of those - the Popup Menu has "Add, Change, Delete" - Add 
doesn't apply, because you can't add below the Cheese name. To actually 
"Add" Gouda Caraway, (that's a 'traditional' they have around Christmas 
time), you click on Holland. Delete prompts "Do you want to delete'. If 
you want to "Add" a new cheese or "Change" an existing cheese then 
that's when the Cheese Dialog comes into play. You already *know* the 
contents of your DB from the Treeview display, so a Listbox/Listview is 
irrelevant associated with the Cheese Dialog. I'm not disputing use of 
either Listbox or Listview - but with a Treeview it's not doing anything 
extra for you.

Now in the case of a Cheese Dialog - It's Mickey Mouse, (Code, 
Description and a Dropdown to select Country), just to get all the logic 
together. But the end application - editing a Vessel (tank) in an 
oil/gas plant. Old COBOL file style the record was very small. It has 
now changed considerably and using SQL/DB the info is being held in 
several different tables relating to Vessels. If I attempted to put all 
that in one line of a Listview I can assure you the line entry would 
occupy at least four screens. You would drive the user nuts having to 
continuously scroll horizontally backwards/forwards to view columns in 
the Listview for the particular record.

So thinking back to the simple Cheese Dialog I have a parent Dialog for 
Vessel which also brings up some 'child' dialogs, plus - YES - I include 
in that Listboxes, (created from other DB tables) to select other 
features which have to be added into the total Vessel record being edited.

Get it ? Still not disputing Listboxes/Listviews used in the appropriate 
circumstances, but at the first crack, showing the Treeview - for this 
particular problem Listbox/Listview are not appropriate - but as I've 
shown they can come into play once we get into the nitty-gritty for a 
specific Vessel.

> I use the Dialogue Editor to mapOut the x, y, w, h
> parameters for any dialogue created dynamically,
> then when processing the WM-INITDIALOG
> message, you can translate these parameters into
> dialogue units, and repaint all controls into a new
> position by using the win32 API's
> "MapDialogRect", "AdjustWindowRect"
> and "SetWindowPos".
> 

I kinda guessed that was what you were doing. Do you ever browse the 
on-line help ? Try the following :-

GUI --->
gui-building--->
comparisons--->

There are pluses to using APIs, referred to as coding at the lowest 
level. But as well as Advantages there are Disadvantages listed as well.
One Advantage is 'runs faster than others' - you'd never know it - the 
OO/GUI approach zips through the stuff as well !

BTW seeing as you made a reference to 'teacher'. Is it Miss Smarty Pants 
who decided on going the API route, or is this from your teacher 'cos he 
just LUVS APIs ? :-)

Don't expend effort on coding the Cheese Dialog - next one I'll send - 
just two programs that create/use the Cheese Dialog.

Jimmy
0
2/25/2005 6:37:08 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hi Howard,
> 
> "american" is not a language --- in america we
> speak english, which came from the old latin,
> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.
> 
> Regards, Kellie.
> 

Actually, english comes from high german more than the above.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/25/2005 6:40:27 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> "american" is not a language --- in america we
> speak english, which came from the old latin,
> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.

American English spelling is exactly as valid as English English spelling.   Or
do you want all English words to return to their non-English sources as well.

"Dialog" is spelled correctly.   So is "Dialogue".
0
howard (6283)
2/25/2005 6:42:04 PM
Ok Kellie, this is it :-

# 1 - This is invoked from a controlling class which I call CheeseDriver 
- It's the Cheesedriver that displays the Treeview and Popup Menu. This 
is handling all references to Cheese - COBOL files (which will be DB 
Tables in the 'real world' application), creation of the Dialog using # 
2 below, and at the bottom you see the events being returned from the 
Dialog. (I'm in the middle of testing the logic for my Red and GreenBall 
icons - so it's incomplete in that respect).

        *>-----------------dbichees.cbl ------------------------------- -

        Class-id.        CheeseDBI
                         inherits from DBIMain.

        Class-control.   CheeseDBI               is class "dbichees"
                         DBIMain                 is class "dbimain"
                         DialogParameters        is class "dlgchees"
                         DroplistDialog          is class "dlgdropl"
                         ErrorMessages           is class "errmessg"
                         MakeAstring             is class "makstrng"
                     *>  TabbedDialog            is class "dlgtabbd"

                         Callback                is class "callback"
                         .

        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        FACTORY.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        END FACTORY.
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        OBJECT.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        OBJECT-STORAGE SECTION.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        copy "p2cevent.cpy".
        copy "\copylib\RecordFlags.cpy".

        copy "\copylib\dlgParams.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==Dialog==.
        copy "dlgcheese.cpy".

        *> Note : "dlgxxxx.cpy" APPEARS AFTER "dlgParams.cpy"

        01 Cheese-Info.
        copy "\copylib\sqlResult.cpy"
                            replacing ==(tag)==  by ==05 Cheese==.
        copy "Cheese2.cpy"  replacing ==(tag1)== by ==05 Cheese==
                                      ==(tag)==  by ==Cheese==.

        01 ws-Response                  pic x(4) comp-5.
        78 TextLength                   value 30.
        01 ws-Length                    pic x(4) comp-5 value TextLength.

        01 ws-Text                      pic x(Textlength).

        01 ws-TextsB.
           05.
              10 ws-OldCheeseKey           pic 9(06).
              10 ws-OldCheeseName          pic x(20).

           05.
              10 ws-OldCountryKey          pic x(02).
              10 ws-OldCountryName         pic x(14).

           05.
              10 ws-ContinentKey           pic x(02).

        *> Flags...

        01 CheeseFlag                   pic 9 value 0.
           88 CheeseNameChanged         value 1.
           88 CheeseNameNotChanged      value 0.

        01 CountryFlag                  pic 9.
           88 CountryChanged            value 1.
           88 CountryNotChanged         value 0.

        01 ErrorCode                    pic x(4) comp-5.
          88 ValidationOK               value 0.
          88 Error-BlankName            value 1.
          88 Error-Exists               value 2.
          88 Error-Info                 value 1 thru 5.
          88 OKtoDelete                 value 6.
          88 Error-YesNo                value 6.
          88 ValidationError            value 1 thru 99.

        01 Icon-Flag                    pic x(4) comp-5.
           88 Level3-Add                value 1.
           88 Level3-Change             value 2.
           88 Level3-Delete             value 3.
           88 Level3-Move               value 4.

        01 LabelFlag                    pic x(4) comp-5.
           88 ContinentLabel            value 1.
           88 CountryLabel              value 2.
           88 CheeseLabel               value 3.

        01 ProgramFlag                  pic 9(03) value 0.
           88 ContinueProgram           value 0.
           88 CancelProgram             value 99.

        *> OBJECTS

        01 os-CheeseDBI                 object reference value null.
        01 os-CheeseFile                object reference value null.
        01 os-CountryDBI                object reference value null.
        01 os-CountryDropList           object reference value null.
        01 os-CurrentCheese             object reference value null.
        01 os-Dialog                    object reference value null.
        01 os-NewContinent              object reference value null.
        01 os-NewCountry                object reference value null.
        01 os-NewCheese                 object reference value null.
        01 os-OldContinent              object reference value null.
        01 os-OldCountry                object reference value null.
        01 os-Resource                  object reference value null.
        01 os-Treeview                  object reference value null.
        01 os-TvDialog                  object reference value null.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "begin".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-CheeseFile                 object reference.
        01 lnk-CountryDBI                 object reference.
        01 lnk-CountryDropList            object reference.
        01 lnk-Resource                   object reference.
        01 lnk-Treeview                   object reference.
        01 lnk-TvDialog                   object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-CheeseFile
                                 lnk-CountryDBI
                                 lnk-CountryDropList
                                 lnk-Resource
                                 lnk-Treeview
                                 lnk-TvDialog
                                 .

        set os-CheeseFile         to  lnk-CheeseFile
        set os-CountryDBI         to  lnk-CountryDBI
        set os-CountryDropList    to  lnk-CountryDropList
        set os-Resource           to  lnk-Resource
        set os-Treeview           to  lnk-Treeview
        set os-TvDialog           to  lnk-TvDialog

        End Method "begin".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "addRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-TvCountry                    object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-TvCountry.

         if os-Dialog = null
            invoke self "createDialog"
         End-if

         set os-OldCountry        to lnk-TvCountry
         set CountryLabel         to true
         invoke self "getTvLabel" using os-OldCountry

         set RecordNotFound      to true
         set RecordNotChanged    to true
         initialize Cheese-Info
         move ws-OldCountryKey   to Cheese-CountryCode
         invoke os-Dialog        "clear"
         invoke os-Dialog        "setRecordFlags" using
                                    RecordChangedFlag, RecordFoundFlag
         invoke self             "displayCountry"
         set Field-EF-CheeseCode to true
         invoke os-Dialog "setNextFocusEmpty" using Dialog-Params

        End Method "addRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "changeRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-TvCheese                     object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-TvCheese.

        if   os-Dialog = null
             invoke self "createDialog"
        End-if

        invoke lnk-TvCheese  "getAncestor" returning os-OldCountry
        invoke os-OldCountry "getAncestor" returning os-OldContinent
        set CountryLabel          to true
        invoke self "getTvLabel"  using os-OldCountry
        set CheeseLabel           to true
        invoke self "getTvLabel"  using lnk-TvCheese
        set os-CurrentCheese     to lnk-TvCheese
        set RecordNotFound       to true
        set RecordNotChanged     to true
        set CheeseNameNotChanged to true
        set CountryNotChanged    to true
        move ws-OldCheeseKey     to Cheese-PrimeKey
        invoke self "getRecord"

        Evaluate true

           when RecordFound
                invoke os-Dialog "setRecordFlags"
                    using RecordChangedFlag, RecordFoundFlag
                set Field-EF-CheeseCode to true
                invoke os-Dialog "setDisable" using Dialog-Params
                move length of Cheese-ProductCode1  to Dialog-Length
                move Cheese-ProductCode1            to Dialog-Text
                invoke os-Dialog "setEntryField" using Dialog-Params

                set Field-EF-CheeseNAME             to true
                move length of Cheese-Name          to Dialog-Length
                move Cheese-Name                    to Dialog-Text
                invoke os-Dialog "setEntryField" using Dialog-Params

                invoke self "displayCountry"
                invoke os-Dialog "setFocusDefault"

           when CancelProgram
                invoke self "PB-Exit"

           when other
                invoke self "PB-Cancel"

        End-Evaluate

        End Method "changeRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "createDialog".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-id                               pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-template                         object reference.

        *>  This dialog uses a Coloured ComboBox Droplist

             move Cheese-Dialog to ls-id
             invoke DropListDialog "start"
                    using os-TvDialog, os-Resource, ls-id,
                    returning os-Dialog
             invoke os-Dialog "begin" using self

             invoke DialogParameters "new" returning ls-template
             invoke ls-template "begin" using os-Dialog
             invoke ls-template "finalize" returning ls-template

++++++++++
***** ls-template - see #2 below -------->
++++++++++

        End Method "createDialog".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "deleteGroup".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        *> Invoked from CountryDBI when a Country record is
        *> to be deleted from the Treeview. Get collection of Cheeses
        *> subordinate to Country. Delete individual chesse File/Table
        *> records. Cheeses affected are removed from the Treeview when
        *> the Parent Country label is 'destroyed'.

        Local-storage section.
        01 ls-number                        pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-size                          pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-string                        object reference.

        01 ls-Callback                      object reference.
        01 ls-CheeseTvList                  object reference.

        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-TvCountry            object reference.
        copy "\copylib\sqlResult.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==01 Lnk==.

        Procedure Division using lnk-TvCountry
                           returning lnk-SqlResult.

        move zeroes to lnk-SqlResult
        invoke lnk-TvCountry "getItems" returning ls-CheeseTvList
        invoke Callback "new"
               using     self "deleteGroup2 " returning ls-Callback
        invoke ls-CheeseTvList "do" using ls-Callback
        invoke ls-Callback "finalize" returning ls-Callback

        End Method "deleteGroup".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "deleteGroup2".         *> Callback Method
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-CheeseElement             object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-CheeseElement.

        set CheeseLabel to true
        invoke self "getTvLabel" using lnk-CheeseElement
        move ws-OldCheeseKey to Cheese-PrimeKey
        invoke os-CheeseFile "deleteRecord"
               using Cheese-PrimeKey returning Cheese-SqlResult

        if   FileError
             invoke self "PB-Exit"
        End-If

        End Method "deleteGroup2".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "deleteRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-TvCheese                      object reference.
        Procedure Division using lnk-TvCheese.

        invoke lnk-TvCheese "getAncestor" returning os-OldCountry
        set CheeseLabel to true
        invoke self "getTvLabel" using lnk-TvCheese
        set os-CurrentCheese to lnk-TvCheese
        set OkToDelete to true
        invoke self "messagebox"

        if     ws-response <> mb-return-YES
               invoke self "showTheTreeview"
               EXIT METHOD
         End-if

         move ws-OldCheeseKey to Cheese-PrimeKey
         invoke os-CheeseFile "deleteRecord"
                using Cheese-PrimeKey returning Cheese-SqlResult

         if     FileError
                invoke self "PB-Exit"

         else   invoke lnk-TvCheese "destroy"
                set Level3-Delete to true
                invoke self "showTheTreeview"
         End-if

        End Method "deleteRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "displayCountry".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        01 n                    pic x(4) comp-5.

        copy "\copylib\lnkObjVal.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==ls==.

        *> Country Droplist via os-CountryDBI

         set Field-DL-CountryNAME to true

         if    RecordFound
               invoke os-Dialog "setEnable"  using Dialog-Params

         else  invoke os-Dialog "setDisable" using Dialog-Params
         End-if

         *> Display Coloured Droplist

         move 1 to n
         set Dialog-Object to os-CountryDropList
         invoke os-Dialog "SetDropListContents" using Dialog-Params, n

         *> Display current Country

         invoke os-CountryDBI "getObjectfromKey"
                using ws-OldCountryKey returning ls-ObjectValues
         set Dialog-object to ls-Object
         invoke os-Dialog "setComboBoxText" using Dialog-Params

        End Method "displayCountry".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "finalizeObjects".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        copy "\copylib\sqlResult.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==01 ls==.
        01 ls-object                         object reference.

        *>01 os-Callback                  object reference value null.
        *>01 os-CheeseDBI                 object reference value null.
        *>01 os-CheeseFile                object reference value null.
        *>01 os-CountryDBI                object reference value null.
        *>01 os-CountryDropList           object reference value null.
        *>01 os-CurrentCheese             object reference value null.
        *>01 os-Dialog                    object reference value null.
        *>01 os-Resource                  object reference value null.
        *>01 os-Treeview                  object reference value null.
        *>01 os-TvList                    object reference value null.
        *>01 os-TvDialog                  object reference value null.


        set ls-object to os-CurrentCheese
        perform FINALIZE-SINGLE
        set ls-object to os-Dialog
        perform FINALIZE-DIALOG

        invoke self "finalize" returning self

        EXIT METHOD.

        copy "\copylib\finalize.cpy".

        End Method "finalizeObjects".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "getRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
          invoke os-CheeseFile "readRecord"
             using Cheese-PrimeKey returning Cheese-Info

          Evaluate true
            when ResultOK  set RecordFound   to true
            when FileError set CancelProgram to true
          End-Evaluate

        End Method "getRecord".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "getTvLabel".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 ls-length             pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-string             object reference.
        01 ls-TempText           pic x(TextLength).
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-TvItem            object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-TvItem.

        invoke lnk-TvItem "getLabel" returning ls-string
        invoke ls-string "SizeInBytes" returning ls-length
        invoke ls-string "getValueWithSize"
               using ls-length returning ls-TempText
        *> This gets rid of the x"00"
        move ls-TempText(1:ls-length) to ws-Text

        Evaluate true
           when CheeseLabel
                move ws-text(1:06) to ws-OldCheeseKey
                move ws-text(8:20) to ws-OldCheeseName
           when CountryLabel
                move ws-text(1:02) to ws-OldCountryKey
                move ws-text(4:14) to ws-OldCountryName
           when ContinentLabel
                move ws-Text(1:02) to ws-ContinentKey
        End-Evaluate

        *>inspect ws-TextsB replacing all x"00" by x"20"

        End Method "getTvLabel".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "makeTvLabel".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-Length                pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-text                  pic x(textlength).
        01 ls-ReturnedLength        pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-Results.
           05 ls-ReturnLength       pic x(4) comp-5.
           05 ls-string             object reference.
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-object               object reference.
        Procedure Division returning lnk-object.

           move textlength to ls-length
           initialize ls-text
           move Cheese-ProductCode1 to ls-text(1:6)
           move Cheese-Name         to ls-text(8: )
           invoke MakeaString "objectWithX00"
                  using ls-length, ls-text
                  returning ls-Results

           if ls-ReturnLength <> zeroes
              set lnk-Object to ls-string
           End-if

        End Method "makeTvLabel".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "messageBox".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Working-storage section.
        78 MC                          value 1.
        78 ML                          value 40.
        01 wa.
          05 pic x(ML) value "Name can't be blank". *>  1
        01 wb redefines wa.
           05 ws-message occurs MC pic x(ML).

        copy "\copylib\MessageParams.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==ws==.
        01 ws-WindowTitle   pic x(20) value "Cheese Record".

         initialize ws-messageparams
         move ws-Windowtitle to MessageLabel
         initialize MessageText

         Evaluate true
           when Error-Info
                set TypeInformation to true
                set OK              to true
           when other
                set TypeWarning     to true
                set YesNo           to true
         End-evaluate

         Evaluate true
           when Error-BlankName

             string ws-message (ErrorCode) delimited by "  "
                    x"00"                  delimited by size
                    into MessageText
             End-string

           when Error-Exists

             string
                "This code is already in use for :- "
                x'0d0a'
                x'0d0a'
                "       "
                Cheese-ProductCode1
                "  "
                Cheese-Name
                x"00"
                into messagetext
             End-string

           when OKtoDelete
             string
               ws-OldCheeseKey
               "  "
               ws-OldCheesename
               x"0d0a"
               x"0d0a"
               "Are you sure you want to DELETE ? "
               x"00"
               into MessageText
             End-string

         End-Evaluate

         invoke ErrorMessages "showMessage"
            using os-TvDialog, ws-MessageParams
            returning ws-Response

        End Method "messageBox".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "moveOneElement".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        *> The simplest way to overcome the 'possible' problem below
        *> would be to re-populate the Treeview from Files/DBs - BUT -
        *> that is subject to volumes involved.

        *> This method "moves" a Cheese product to appear under
        *> os-NewCountry and destroys the reference to the
        *> Cheese under os-OldCountry

        *> Subject to Levels in the Treeview - assume 00035 - Colby was
        *> incorrectly setup as being a sub-Level of 43 - Turkey; it
        *> should have been coded under 23 - USA. Now we need to change
        *> by 'moving'; but 23 - Turkey is a sub-Level of 'Continent'
        *> ME - Middle East,  whereas 23 - U.S.A. is a sub-Level of
        *> 'Continent' NA - North America

        *>    ME - Middle East          NA - North America
        *>     [+]--- 43 - Turkey        [+]--- 23 - U.S.A.
        *>        --- 000035 Colby          ----> "new" 000035 Colby
        *>
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------

        01 ls-Keys.
           05 ls-OldContinentKey        pic x(02).
           05 ls-NewContinentKey        pic x(02).

        01 n                             pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-index                      pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-size                       pic x(4) comp-5.

        01 ls-ContinentElement           object reference.
        01 ls-ContinentTvList            object reference.
        01 ls-CountryElement             object reference.
        01 ls-CountryTvList              object reference.
        01 ls-NewContinent               object reference.
        01 ls-OldContinent              object reference.
        01 ls-Item                       object reference.
        01 ls-Root                       object reference.

        Procedure Division.

        invoke os-CountryDBI "getContinents"
          using ws-OldCountryKey, Cheese-CountryCode returning ls-Keys

        if    ls-OldContinentKey = ls-NewContinentKey
              invoke self "SameContinent"
              EXIT METHOD
        End-if

        invoke os-OldCountry "getAncestor" returning os-OldContinent
        move zeroes to ls-index
        move 1      to n
        invoke os-Treeview "itemAtIndex" using n returning ls-Root
        invoke ls-Root "children" returning ls-ContinentTvList
        invoke ls-ContinentTvList "size" returning ls-size

        perform varying n from 1 by 1 until n > ls-size

           invoke ls-ContinentTvList "at"
                  using n returning ls-ContinentElement
           set ContinentLabel to true
           invoke self "getTvLabel" using ls-ContinentElement

           if   ls-NewContinentKey = ws-ContinentKey
                set os-NewContinent to ls-ContinentElement
                move n to ls-index
                EXIT PERFORM
           End-if

        End-perform

        invoke os-NewContinent "children" returning ls-CountryTvList
        invoke ls-CountryTvList "size" returning ls-size

        perform varying n from 1 by 1 until n > ls-size

             invoke ls-CountryTvList "at"
                    using n returning ls-CountryElement
             set CountryLabel to true
             invoke self "getTvLabel"  using ls-CountryElement

             if   Cheese-CountryCode = ws-OldCountryKey
                  set os-NewCountry to ls-CountryElement
                  move n to ls-index
                  EXIT PERFORM
             End-if

        End-perform

        invoke self "moveGroup2" using os-CurrentCheese
        invoke os-CurrentCheese    "destroy"
        invoke os-NewContinent     "expand"
        invoke os-NewCountry       "expand"
        set os-OldCountry to os-NewCountry
        invoke self "showTheTreeview"

        End Method "moveOneElement".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "moveGroup".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-Callback                        object reference.
        01 ls-CheeseTvList                    object reference.

        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-OldCountry                     object reference.
        01 lnk-NewCountry                     object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-OldCountry, lnk-NewCountry.

        set os-NewCountry to lnk-NewCountry
        invoke lnk-OldCountry "children" returning ls-CheeseTvList
        invoke Callback "new"
               using     self "moveGroup2 " returning ls-Callback
        invoke ls-CheeseTvList "do" using ls-Callback

        End Method "moveGroup".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "moveGroup2".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-string                                 object reference.
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-Element                       object reference.
        Procedure Division using lnk-Element.

        if   CheeseNameNotChanged
             set CheeseLabel           to true
             invoke self "getTvLabel"  using lnk-Element
             move ws-OldCheeseKey      to Cheese-ProductCode1
             move ws-OldCheeseName     to Cheese-Name
        End-if

        invoke self "makeTvLabel" returning ls-string
        invoke os-Treeview "addItem"
          using os-NewCountry, ls-string, returning os-NewCheese

        End Method "moveGroup2".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "RewriteRecord".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-index                    pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-string                   object reference.

        *> 1 : update File/Table - CHANGED record

         move Cheese-ProductCode1 to Cheese-ProductCode2
         invoke os-CheeseFile "RewriteRecord"
                using Cheese-Record returning Cheese-SqlResult

        *>-------------------------------------------
        *> CountryChanged               y   y   n   n
        *> CheeseNameChanged            y   n   y   n
        *>-------------------------------------------
        *> Set Label                    -   -   x   -
        *> Move Cheese                  x   x   -   -
        *>--------------------------------------------

         Evaluate true also true
            when FileError also any
                 invoke self "PB-Exit"

            when CountryChanged also CheeseNameChanged
            when CountryChanged also CheeseNameNotChanged

++++ Ignore this - this is me dabbling trying to figure out a way using 
a generalised routine to check/change the values of the Icon displays 
from Red to Green

                 set Level3-Move to true

++++++
                 invoke self "moveOneElement"

            when CountryNotChanged also CheeseNameChanged

                 *> 2 - Change Cheese Label - only the name is being
                 *> changed; so we don't need to check prior level

                 invoke self "makeTvLabel" returning ls-string
                 invoke os-CurrentCheese "setLabel"
                               using ls-string

+++++ Ditto - ignore
                 set Level3-Change to true
+++++++++
                 move 2 to ls-Index
                 invoke os-CurrentCheese "SetNormalImage"
                        using ls-Index

         End-Evaluate

        End Method "RewriteRecord".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "sameContinent".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        01 n                            pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-size                      pic x(4) comp-5.

        01 ls-ContinentTvList           object reference.
        01 ls-CountryElement            object reference.
        01 ls-Item                      object reference.
        01 ls-string                    object reference.
        Procedure Division.

        *> The Continent is identical for both Countries so we need to
        *> get a handle for the new Country (os-NewCountry).
        *> (1) get parent Continent, then (2) a list of Countries
        *> for the parent

        invoke os-OldCountry "getAncestor" returning os-OldContinent
        invoke os-OldContinent "children" returning ls-ContinentTvList
        invoke ls-ContinentTvList "size" returning ls-size

        Perform Varying n from 1 by 1 until n > ls-size

          invoke ls-ContinentTvList "at" using n
                 returning ls-CountryElement
          set CountryLabel to true
          invoke self "getTvLabel" using   ls-CountryElement

          if   ws-OldCountryKey = Cheese-CountryCode
               set os-NewCountry to ls-CountryElement
               invoke self "makeTvLabel" returning ls-string
               invoke os-Treeview "addItem"
                 using os-NewCountry, ls-string returning ls-Item
               invoke os-NewCountry "expand"
               invoke os-CurrentCheese "destroy"
               set os-OldCountry to os-NewCountry
               *>invoke os-NewCountry "setSelected"
               invoke self "showTheTreeview"
               EXIT PERFORM
          End-if

        End-perform

        End Method "sameContinent".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "showTheTreeview".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        invoke os-OldCountry "setSelected"
        invoke os-Treeview "show"
        End Method "showTheTreeview".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "writeRecord".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        01 ls-Index                         pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 ls-Item                          object reference.
        01 ls-string                        object reference.

        *> 1 : update File/Table for NEW Record

         set Level3-Add             to true
         move   Cheese-ProductCode1 to Cheese-ProductCode2
         invoke os-CheeseFile "writeRecord"
                using Cheese-Record returning Cheese-SqlResult

        *> 2 : Add to Treeview

         Evaluate true

           when ResultOK
                invoke self "makeTvLabel" returning ls-string
                invoke os-Treeview "addItem"
                  using os-OldCountry, ls-string returning ls-item
                move 2 to ls-Index
                invoke ls-Item "SetNormalImage" using ls-Index
                invoke os-OldCountry "expand"

           when FileError
                invoke self "PB-Exit"

          End-Evaluate

        End Method "writeRecord".
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        *>
        *> Events returned from Dialog :-
        *>
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "DL-CountryNAME".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Linkage section.
        copy "\copylib\lnkObjVal.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==lnk==.
        Procedure Division using lnk-ObjectValues.

         set RecordChanged to true
         move lnk-record(29:2) to Cheese-CountryCode

         if   Cheese-CountryCode <> ws-OldCountryKey
              set CountryChanged to true
         End-if

        End Method "DL-CountryNAME".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "EF-CheeseCode".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 ls-code                       pic 9(06).
        Linkage section.
        copy "\copylib\dlgreturn.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==lnk==.

        Procedure Division using lnk-ReturnValues.

        compute ls-code = function numval (lnk-Text(1:6))

        Evaluate true

         when  ls-Code = zeroes
               invoke self "PB-Cancel"

         when  other
               move ls-code to Cheese-PrimeKey
               invoke self "getRecord"

               Evaluate true

                   when   RecordFound
                          set Error-Exists to true
                          invoke self "messagebox"
                          invoke self "addRecord"
                            using os-OldCountry

                   when   CancelProgram
                          invoke self "PB-Exit"

                   when   other
                          set Field-EF-CheeseCode to true
                          invoke os-Dialog "SetDisable"
                                 using Dialog-Params

               End-Evaluate

        End-Evaluate

        End Method "EF-CheeseCode".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "EF-CheeseName".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 ls-code                       pic x(02).
        Linkage section.
        copy "\copylib\dlgreturn.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==lnk==.

        Procedure Division using lnk-ReturnValues.

         set RecordChanged to true
         Evaluate true

           when lnk-Text <> spaces
                move lnk-Text to Cheese-Name

                if    Cheese-Name <> ws-OldCheeseName
                      set CheeseNameChanged to true
                End-if

           when other

                set Error-BlankName to true
                invoke self "messagebox"
                set Field-EF-CheeseName to true
                invoke os-Dialog "setNextFocusEmpty" using Dialog-Params

         End-Evaluate

        End Method "EF-CheeseName".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "PB-Cancel".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        invoke os-Dialog "hide"
        invoke self "showTheTreeview"
        End Method "PB-Cancel".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "PB-Exit".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        set CancelProgram to true

        if os-TvDialog <> null
           invoke os-TvDialog "hide"
        End-if

        invoke self "finalizeObjects"

        End Method "PB-Exit".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "PB-OK".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 n                                pic x(4) comp-5.
        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-Flag                         pic x(4) comp-5.
        Procedure Division using lnk-Flag.

        *> If individual entries have been returned before user clicks
        *> PB-OK, then RecordChanged will have alredy been set

        if   RecordNotChanged
             move lnk-Flag to RecordChangedFlag
        End-if

        if      RecordNotChanged
                invoke self "PB-Cancel"
                EXIT METHOD
        End-if

        set ValidationOK to true
        perform GET-FIELDS

        Evaluate true also true
           when ValidationOK also RecordFound
                invoke self "rewriteRecord"
           when ValidationOK also RecordNotFound
                invoke self "writeRecord"
        End-evaluate

        if ContinueProgram
           invoke os-Dialog "hide"
           invoke self "showTheTreeview"
        End-if

        EXIT METHOD.

        GET-FIELDS.

          set DoReturn to true
          perform varying n from 2 by 1 until n > 2
             invoke os-Dialog "returnEntryField"
                     using n, Dialog-ReturnType
          End-perform
          move 3 to n
          invoke os-Dialog "ReturnDropList"
                 using n, Dialog-ReturnType
        End Method "PB-OK".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------

        END OBJECT.
        END CLASS CheeseDBI.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------


#2 - I've taken the parameters from the Resourcefile cheese.rc and 
included them in a table here, plus some of the columns are specific 
things I have added for generality.

         *>-----------------dlgchees.cbl --------------------------------

        Class-id.        CheeseDialog
                         inherits from Base.

        Class-control.   CheeseDialog           is class "dlgchees"
                         .
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        FACTORY.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        END FACTORY.
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        OBJECT.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        copy "\copylib\dlgparams.cpy" replacing ==(tag)== by ==Dialog==.
        copy "dlgcheese.cpy".

        01 n                            pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.
        01 n1                           pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.
        01 n2                           pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.
        01 ColoredDroplistCount         pic 99 value 0.
        78 TL                                           value 28.
        78 ML                                           value 30.


        *> Resource Field  Field
        *> ID #     Seq #  Length    A D  R,C F P V    MethodName
        *> IIII     SSS      LLL     9,99,9,9,9,9,9,x-------30------------x
        *> ----     ---      ---     - -- - - - - - -----------------------

+++++++++
+++++++++ One thing to note here - I am passing to the Dialog the 
method-names to which events are to be returned to in # 1 above.
++++++++

        01 ws-a.

        *>  Entryfields         ID   Seq Len X DF R C F P V
        *>                      IIII,SSS,LLL,X,NN,N,N,N,N,N,
          05.
            10 pic x(TL) value '0301,001,006,0,00,2,0,0,0,0,'.
            10 pic x(ML) value 'EF-CheeseCode'.

          05.
            10 pic x(TL) value '0302,002,020,3,00,0,0,0,0,0,'.
            10 pic x(ML) value 'EF-CheeseName'.

        *> Coloured Droplist ----------------! (Note '4' below)

          05.                         *>     * **
            10 pic x(TL) value '0303,003,000,4,01,0,0,0,0,0,'.
            10 pic x(ML) value 'DL-CountryName'.

        *> Pushbuttons

          05.
            10 pic x(TL) value '0001,004,000,0,00,0,0,0,0,0,'.
            10 pic x(ML) value 'PB-OK'.

          05.
            10 pic x(TL) value '0002,005,000,0,00,0,0,0,0,0,'.
            10 pic x(ML) value 'PB-Cancel'.

        01 ws-B redefines ws-A.
           05 ws-C occurs MaxGadgets pic x(58).

        01 os-Dialog               object reference.

        *>--------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "begin".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------

         *> Note sequencing of entries below activates controls
         *> in the same sequence as their field numbers, so that field
         *> number = index position in the Dialog Control Collections

        Linkage section.
        01 lnk-Dialog        object reference.

        Procedure Division using lnk-Dialog.

         set os-Dialog to  lnk-Dialog
         invoke self       "ControlCollections"
         invoke self       "setXYcoords"

         *> Using coloured Droplists so need to tell DropListDialog
         *> how many DropLists

         move 1 to n
         invoke os-Dialog  "passDropListCount" using n

++++ Why the two counters n1 and n2 ? I can invoke to send static Fields 
1 through 5, then a separate method to create say dynamic entry fields 6 
through 14, then set another count to send static Fields 15 through 40. 
That gives me all my controls in a set ascending sequence, (held in an 
OrderedCollection), so that the Dialog can be tabbed through.
++++++

         move 1            to n1
         move MaxGadgets   to n2
         invoke self       "passToDialog"
         invoke self       "DropListColors"
         invoke self       "LastField"
         invoke os-Dialog  "zCloseEvent"

        End Method  "begin".
        *>-----------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "ControlCollections".
        *>------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 ls-GadgetSize                     pic x(4) comp-5.

        Procedure Division.

         move MaxGadgets  to ls-GadgetSize
         invoke os-Dialog "zDialogCollections" using ls-GadgetSize

        End Method "ControlCollections".
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "DropListColors".
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------
        Working-storage section.
        01 n3                        pic x(4) comp-5.

        01 ws-Foreground.           *> Black
           05 RedF                  pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.
           05 GreenF                pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.
           05 BlueF                 pic x(4) comp-5 value 0.

        01 ws-Background.         *> "Straw" (Yellow)
           05 RedB                  pic x(4) comp-5 value 245.
           05 GreenB                pic x(4) comp-5 value 231.
           05 BlueB                 pic x(4) comp-5 value 129.

         *> Colours the text area of a droplist

         set Field-DL-COUNTRYNAME to true
         invoke os-Dialog "setRGBcolors"
            using Dialog-Params, ws-foreground, ws-background

         move 1 to n3
         invoke os-Dialog "passDroplistRGB" using ws-background, n3

        End Method "DropListColors".
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "LastField".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        *> see method "CheckChangeFlag" in dlgTabbd - for 'new' Cheese
        *> Records, the country is automatic from selection - therefore
        *> the 'LastField' is the CheeseName = Field 2 - the dialog
        *> defaults to the PB-OK button and Country Code is only changed
        *> if user changes

          set Field-EF-CheeseName to true
          invoke os-Dialog "setLastField" using Dialog-Field
        End Method "LastField".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "passToDialog".
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------

         perform varying n from n1 by 1 until n > n2
           invoke os-Dialog "ZpassToDialog" using ws-C (n)
         End-perform

        End Method "passToDialog".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------
        Method-id. "setXYcoords".
        *>---------------------------------------------------------------
        Local-storage section.
        01 x                                 pic x(4) comp-5.
        01 y                                 pic x(4) comp-5.

        move 290 to x
        move 150 to y
        invoke os-Dialog "zSetXY" using x, y

        End Method "setXYcoords".
        *>-------------------------------------------------------------

        END OBJECT.
        END CLASS CheeseDialog.
        *>--------------------------------------------------------------

# 3 - WHERE'S THE REST ? - that's the whole point, using OO there isn't 
a 'REST' that applies to Cheese - I'm using common support classes that 
are used with this Cheese Dialog or umpteen other dialogs that I want to 
create. Same principle applies with accessing files/DB tables - in the 
case of files I use templates for ISAM and for SQL a separate class per 
table.

So in the case of Continent or Country you would see a duplication of #1 
and #2 above - worded of course to represent Continent or Country. And 
an identical approach when I get around to using the Treeview with 
oil/gas plant Vessels and Items. As I remarked the Vessel has a series 
of Dialogs, so it is just a repeat of # 2 above, with the W/S table 
applicable to a particular dialog.

# 4 - I'm not claiming the above is 'The be all and end all". There are 
obviously other approaches, and others using N/E who might have an 
interest in my approach could probably fine-tune it to make it even easier.

Jimmy
0
2/25/2005 7:41:37 PM
Jimmy,

for my level of experience with cobol language,
which is totally academic and "fun", I don't have
the Leverage that I would like to have without
using or calling the win32 API's system.

standard cobol is perfect for coding the main logic
and the alogrithm to deal with the business rules
and achieve the bottomline.  However, nowadays,
this is not enough  ----  you need more information
about the target environment that the application
is running on, such as memory size, disk space
available, internet connection, networking access
and business graphics (chart & animations)....etc.

So, I have no choice but to use the win32 API's.
it's fun, it produces the result that I am after, and
I have learned quite a lot from comparing between
C, C++ and cobol the magnificent. Regards.

Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/25/2005 7:46:49 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Hi Howard,
> 
> "american" is not a language --- in america we
> speak english, which came from the old latin,
> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.
> 
> Regards, Kellie.
> 
Just in case you didn't know young lady, Howard is a Yank too :-)
0
2/25/2005 7:48:25 PM
Donald,
   I haven't checked this (and Chuck or someone else probably will) but isn't 
English derived (or at least in the same branch as) "low German" - not HIGH?

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:viKTd.51695$Am3.1595227@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Kellie Fitton wrote:
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> "american" is not a language --- in america we
>> speak english, which came from the old latin,
>> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
>> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
>> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.
>>
>> Regards, Kellie.
>>
>
> Actually, english comes from high german more than the above.
>
> Donald 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/25/2005 7:58:08 PM
>> It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.

> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone
should
> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
Dictionary
> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.

I didn't know they programmed for Windows, perhaps PARC had been
working on the Alto for longer than any realised.

As used here 'dialog' is a technical term or jargon.  The spelling,
meaning and part is defined by its technical usage, not by an
dictionary of english.  For example in 'a dialog box' where it may be
considered to be adjectival.

In other words the word 'dialog' can be spelt, defined and used any way
that the developers of the UI wish.

> 'dia-' prefix to indicate 'through' (as in 'diameter');

You are correct, but di and dia appears to derive from the same root
which variously mean apart (as in two things apart), across, separated,
these all have the connotation of two things.  Dialog(ue) is different
from monologue by number.

0
riplin (4127)
2/25/2005 8:01:19 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> As used here 'dialog' is a technical term or jargon.  The spelling,
> meaning and part is defined by its technical usage, not by an
> dictionary of english.  For example in 'a dialog box' where it may be
> considered to be adjectival.

The word used here is the same as the word "dialog" is in that subset of English
used by the people who used it to describe a computer dialog.   The word isn't
an accident.   It wasn't an intentional misspelling.


> In other words the word 'dialog' can be spelt, defined and used any way
> that the developers of the UI wish.

And they used it, spelled it, and defined it to match the word "dialog".

Englishmen would have been perfectly consistent to translate this technical term
when it crossed the Atlantic.
0
howard (6283)
2/25/2005 8:18:00 PM
> However, nowadays, this is not enough  ----  you need more
information
> about the target environment that the application is running on,
> such as memory size, disk space available,

Interestingly, I did have code that monitored memory size and disk
space available 20 years ago.  This was when running multi-user systems
on 20 and 50 _Mega_byte disk drives.  In my view, 'nowadays' (as in the
last dozen years) there is no longer any need to do this.

> internet connection, networking access

I have systems using internet (as both server and client) and
networking on various diverse platforms and my code only trivially
cares about the environment.

> and business graphics (chart & animations)....etc.

While I have hand coded the Windows API in Cobol to draw graphs and
animations*, I doubt that I would bother to do so in future.  Just get
a library or component to do it.


* One program drew a perspective 'helm view' of a container ship
showing the containers in their exact place including relative to the
waterline.  ie it took into account the displacement, trim and heel (if
any) to show the view over the bow.  A modification allowed the
position of the 'helm' to be changed, an undocumented feature was that
a sequence of  positions could be specified, eg starting with the
'helm' at -500m and 200m to port, and then it would display a 'fly by'.
 On a 486 the frame rate wasn't high.

0
riplin (4127)
2/25/2005 8:23:07 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Jimmy,
> 
> for my level of experience with cobol language,
> which is totally academic and "fun", I don't have
> the Leverage that I would like to have without
> using or calling the win32 API's system.
> 
> standard cobol is perfect for coding the main logic
> and the alogrithm to deal with the business rules
> and achieve the bottomline.  However, nowadays,
> this is not enough  ----  you need more information
> about the target environment that the application
> is running on, such as memory size, disk space
> available, internet connection, networking access
> and business graphics (chart & animations)....etc.
> 
> So, I have no choice but to use the win32 API's.
> it's fun, it produces the result that I am after, and
> I have learned quite a lot from comparing between
> C, C++ and cobol the magnificent. Regards.
> 
> Kellie.
> 
Don't' disagree with that Kellie, but here's the rub - APIs are MS 
Windows-centric. From info I received useless with Unix. Linux, 
something else again.

Where are you going career wise.

Mainframe - Uggh. Not a criticism of mainframe, for which there is still 
a market, but to my mind, I would hate being just another numbered 
employee in a big set up. Worked as an analyst with mainframes, small 
teams at first, we grew and I was one of the bosses - but oh my gawd the 
internal company politics to get things approved and then done. Note 
there's an awful lot of outsourcing being applied to mainframes. IBM 
(their own software teams) have just grabbed a juicy contract up here to 
run the federal Wheat Board applications. And that's not the first one 
that IBM have grabbed up here.

PCs - Windows/Unix/Linux whatever - seems to me that's more likely where 
your career will take you - something like a 6-10 person software house 
where you could have real fun. Your API knowledge may be beneficial to 
some employers but others are going to quiz, "Do you know C++, Java, 
scripting, dotNet, ASP or whatever....?". In one way or another these 
all point at OO.

I'm talking basic OO - then you get into the nuances of how the 
different tools/languages are applied - when you have that understanding 
of general OO principles. N/E is a a good comprehensive tool - totally 
ignoring GUI-ing, given time, try things in OO and think how you can 
apply, to me at least, the most important word in OO - REUSE.

I know absolutely NOTHING about webbing, but N/E has a module called 
FORMS - from looking at Answer Exchange, could be wrong, but get the 
impression there aren't too many using it. It does produce Web pages - 
but of course there are alternatives. I wouldn't kind betting that if I 
plugged away with REUSE - I could add flexibility and probably get the 
Forms module to do what I want. Haven't tried it - but that Forms module 
lets you play just on your own machine using a feature called SOLO.

Note also I said, I think the majority of M/F developers are using 
Dialog System. Why ? My best guess, and not unnaturally, a reticence to 
get into OO - although to fine tune Dialog System they can use OO and 
invoke existing classes or write their own.

Hopefully the source I've just posted, not the nitty-gritty, but the 
concept of REUSE comes across.

Jimmy
0
2/25/2005 8:28:58 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Mainframe - Uggh. Not a criticism of mainframe, for which there is still
> a market, but to my mind, I would hate being just another numbered
> employee in a big set up. Worked as an analyst with mainframes, small
> teams at first, we grew and I was one of the bosses - but oh my gawd the
> internal company politics to get things approved and then done. Note
> there's an awful lot of outsourcing being applied to mainframes. IBM
> (their own software teams) have just grabbed a juicy contract up here to
> run the federal Wheat Board applications. And that's not the first one
> that IBM have grabbed up here.
>
> PCs - Windows/Unix/Linux whatever - seems to me that's more likely where
> your career will take you - something like a 6-10 person software house
> where you could have real fun.

There still are significant numbers of 6-10 programmer mainframe shops.
0
howard (6283)
2/25/2005 8:30:43 PM
William M. Klein wrote:
> Donald,
>    I haven't checked this (and Chuck or someone else probably will) but isn't 
> English derived (or at least in the same branch as) "low German" - not HIGH?
> 

I just checked my source, Bill, and it says:
"germanic-->west germanic
"west germanic-->old english-->middle english-->english",  then in 
another column
"west germanic-->old low german-->middle low german-->low german" and in 
a third
"west germanic-->old high german-->middle high german-->high german and 
yiddish"

So it looks like we are both wrong ... west germanic was the root of 
both high and low german, and english.

There are also, according to this reference, a north germanic and an 
east germanic.  The north germanic evolved into icelandic, norwegian, 
swedish and danish, while the east germanic evolved into gothic.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/25/2005 8:39:29 PM
Yes.  The closest structural relatives to English are Frisian and Dutch, I'd
say.  Relationship to Plattdeutsch depends on how you define the latter
term.  Basic consonant patterns are the most obvious characteristic of "High
German", reflecting an eighth-century shift in that particular language.
From Wikipedia:

      Low German (North Saxon): Ik segg et/dat up
Nedderd��tsch/Platt(d��tsch).
      Low German (Mennonite Plautdietsch): Ekj/Etj saje et op
Nadadietsch/Plautdietsch.
      Standard Dutch: Ik zeg het in het Nederduits/Platduits.
      High (Standard) German: Ich sage es auf Niederdeutsch/Platt(deutsch).
      English: I say it in Low German.


Pity no example from Frisian.  At home I've got a citation that reads the
same in both English and Frisian; don't have it handy here, though.  They're
amazingly close.

    -Chuck Stevens

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:krLTd.3384565$f47.608498@news.easynews.com...
> Donald,
>    I haven't checked this (and Chuck or someone else probably will) but
isn't
> English derived (or at least in the same branch as) "low German" - not
HIGH?
>
> -- 
> Bill Klein
>  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:viKTd.51695$Am3.1595227@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Kellie Fitton wrote:
> >> Hi Howard,
> >>
> >> "american" is not a language --- in america we
> >> speak english, which came from the old latin,
> >> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
> >> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
> >> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.
> >>
> >> Regards, Kellie.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, english comes from high german more than the above.
> >
> > Donald
>
>


0
2/25/2005 8:47:41 PM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> Yes.  The closest structural relatives to English are Frisian and Dutch, I'd
> say.  Relationship to Plattdeutsch depends on how you define the latter
> term.  Basic consonant patterns are the most obvious characteristic of "High
> German", reflecting an eighth-century shift in that particular language.
> From Wikipedia:
> 
>       Low German (North Saxon): Ik segg et/dat up
> Nedderd��tsch/Platt(d��tsch).
>       Low German (Mennonite Plautdietsch): Ekj/Etj saje et op
> Nadadietsch/Plautdietsch.
>       Standard Dutch: Ik zeg het in het Nederduits/Platduits.
>       High (Standard) German: Ich sage es auf Niederdeutsch/Platt(deutsch).
>       English: I say it in Low German.
> 
> 
> Pity no example from Frisian.  At home I've got a citation that reads the
> same in both English and Frisian; don't have it handy here, though.  They're
> amazingly close.
> 

I knew, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned dialog/dialogue to Kellie - 
yet another thread takes off on its own tangent :-). I knew the 
'Language Man' would jump in :-)

Now regarding the Frisian - do you recall either the TV show (PBS) or 
follow-up book, 'The Story of English', by Robert McNeil from the 
McNeil-Lehrer Report days ? (An ex-Canuck who took US citizenship about 
a year ago).

There's a scene where they go up to Friesland (if that's the correct 
name) and get a local farmer to speak. Two I recall distinctly 'cow' and 
'butter' - first came out "kowooo" and second 'buddr' - really 
fascinating.  Then of course there's 'kerk' and the Scottish 'kirk'.

Back to Dialog - can't remember who pointed it out; Richard or Howard I 
think. Their/His observation makes sense. It's a technical term so a 
computer DIALOG is perfectly kosher.

Jimmy
0
2/25/2005 9:24:10 PM
In article <1109361297.008867.304890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>> It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.
>
>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>
>I didn't know they programmed for Windows, perhaps PARC had been
>working on the Alto for longer than any realised.

Learn something new every day, aye.

>
>As used here 'dialog' is a technical term or jargon.  The spelling,
>meaning and part is defined by its technical usage, not by an
>dictionary of english.  For example in 'a dialog box' where it may be
>considered to be adjectival.

The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb 
since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the end-user.'; 
the noun and the verb appear to be clearly differentiated.  The box may be 
a 'dialog box' but it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.

>
>In other words the word 'dialog' can be spelt, defined and used any way
>that the developers of the UI wish.
>
>> 'dia-' prefix to indicate 'through' (as in 'diameter');
>
>You are correct, but di and dia appears to derive from the same root
>which variously mean apart (as in two things apart), across, separated,
>these all have the connotation of two things.  Dialog(ue) is different
>from monologue by number.

Whence it came, Mr Plinston, and whence it wound up might just possibly 
not be the same; diaphanous and diabolical seem to have little sense of 
'two-ness'.  The difference between dialogue and monologue seems that one 
is a speaking-through and the other is a talking-alone... or are you 
saying that dialogue should really be dilogue and the 'a' was just kept 
for... some reason or another?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/25/2005 9:33:54 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_HMTd.505784$Xk.226092@pd7tw3no...

> Now regarding the Frisian - do you recall either the TV show (PBS) or
> follow-up book, 'The Story of English', by Robert McNeil from the
> McNeil-Lehrer Report days ? (An ex-Canuck who took US citizenship about
> a year ago).
>
> There's a scene where they go up to Friesland (if that's the correct
> name) and get a local farmer to speak. Two I recall distinctly 'cow' and
> 'butter' - first came out "kowooo" and second 'buddr' - really
> fascinating.  Then of course there's 'kerk' and the Scottish 'kirk'.

Missed it.

There's a fascinating (to me, anyway) Old Norse influence through the
Vikings, where we end up with two variants of the same Germanic root:
shirt/skirt and ship/skiff being two such pairs that come to mind offhand.

One time I heard a group of people on the plane speaking what sounded a
whole lot like somewhat-accented English, except that I couldn't make out a
single word.  When I got to the airport, I asked one of them what it was;
turned out to be Icelandic, which is from what I've heard pretty much Old
Norse preserved largely intact.  While Frisian and Dutch are like siblings
of English, I'd say  Icelandic is like an uncle.  The other modern
Scandinavian languages, along with High German, are cousins.

The distinction between two dialects of the same language and two languages
in the same family is often a fine, and arbitrary, one, and I don't think
the distinction between, say, the West Germanic language of the Angles,
Jutes, Saxons and Frisians at the time they invaded the British Isles and
the North Germanic language of southern Scandinavia at the same time was all
that great (Iceland was settled a couple of centuries later).

    -Chuck Stevens.


0
2/25/2005 10:05:32 PM
Jimmy,

the so-called "ObjectOriented" methodologies are over 25
years old. However, object-oriented Technology has not been
the "Magic Bullet". You are referring to the term "Reuse" more
loosely, as though it is the Net-Result of using OO
programming --- this is NOT TRUE. This is the fallacy in their
salesmanship approach, when they are pitching their OO
ideas. In the real IS world with real-world business
applications, Reuse doesn't work. it's just a fancy term used
by the OO proponents to justify their inEfficient and
unPractical programming paradigm. Their is a major difference
between claiming you have achieved "Reusability" and proving
it.

Standard cobol have been "Reusable" for more than 25
years, How? simply by programming the cobol code as a
standalone functions and callable sub-routines, that can be
shared among applications, as a copybook or a library file.
So, the term "Reuse" is NOT new to cobol the magnificent.

don't be fooled by the fancy terminology the OO pushers
uses, these are just some marketing devices to lure the
innocent into their traps. Why, its called money or making a
living. Just remember, OO paradigm is just an idea, NOT a
solution to save the ozone layer from the CFC gases.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/25/2005 10:10:27 PM
> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct
verb
> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the
end-user.';

It also had:

>> I use the Dialogue Editor to

Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
adjectivally.

> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.

While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.  It would be more
common to say that it interacts.

Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
than I can imagine.

0
riplin (4127)
2/25/2005 10:16:57 PM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Jimmy,
> 
> the so-called "ObjectOriented" methodologies are over 25
> years old. However, object-oriented Technology has not been
> the "Magic Bullet". You are referring to the term "Reuse" more
> loosely, as though it is the Net-Result of using OO
> programming --- this is NOT TRUE. This is the fallacy in their
> salesmanship approach, when they are pitching their OO
> ideas. In the real IS world with real-world business
> applications, Reuse doesn't work. it's just a fancy term used
> by the OO proponents to justify their inEfficient and
> unPractical programming paradigm. Their is a major difference
> between claiming you have achieved "Reusability" and proving
> it.
> 
> Standard cobol have been "Reusable" for more than 25
> years, How? simply by programming the cobol code as a
> standalone functions and callable sub-routines, that can be
> shared among applications, as a copybook or a library file.
> So, the term "Reuse" is NOT new to cobol the magnificent.
> 
> don't be fooled by the fancy terminology the OO pushers
> uses, these are just some marketing devices to lure the
> innocent into their traps. Why, its called money or making a
> living. Just remember, OO paradigm is just an idea, NOT a
> solution to save the ozone layer from the CFC gases.
> 
> Regards, Kellie.
> 
I hope to God you wrote this BEFORE looking at my second message showing 
code. If you still persist in the above statement HAVING studied what 
that code is doing - then you are incorrigible.

Where are you picking this anti-OO crap up from. Is your 'teacher' 
anti-COBOL, anti-OO or what. I'll take a guess you are below 25 years of 
age - you do appear to have a very closed mind on this topic.

Over and out - no more discussion.

Jimmy
0
2/25/2005 10:46:41 PM
> the so-called "ObjectOriented" methodologies are over 25
> years old.

Developed in Simula the standard for which was 1967, nearly 40 years
ago.

> However, object-oriented Technology has not been the "Magic Bullet".

Actually it does solve problems more easily than other mechanism do.

> Standard cobol have been "Reusable" for more than 25
> years, How? simply by programming the cobol code as a
> standalone functions and callable sub-routines, that can be
> shared among applications, as a copybook or a library file.
> So, the term "Reuse" is NOT new to cobol the magnificent.

That is true.  And many languages have had reusability, mainly via
libraries, for as long as Cobol.  The advantage that Cobol has had has
been the dynamic loading which could be done in other languages but was
not usual at the time that C++ was developed.

As I have said many times, OO is mainly solutions to problems that
Cobol did not have.

However, OO Cobol does have some advantages, as I pointed out in
another thread. Reusability is more than just from one program to the
next, with OO you can reuse in the _same_ program.

My example was a raw print output.  The OO version catered for multiple
simultaneous streams from one program whereas with the subroutine
version this would have had to rely on sequential reuse.

In the case of a GUI application this may be divided into many modules
or subroutines, for example each catering for a different dialog.  This
means that each can only be used once at one time in a run-unit.  If,
for example, you have a 'message box' subroutine then if it is
activated from two parts of the program (ie it is active and another
routine calls it) then the program may crash.  If the code is in a
class then multiple instances can be created without crashing.

You are hand coding each dialog.  This has several problems, mainly you
will be rewriting much of the same code over and over again.
Inheretance is another feature of OO.  The ability to say: just like
that but with these changes.  This reuses code in quite a different
way.

0
riplin (4127)
2/25/2005 11:15:01 PM
Richard,

standard cobol can Reuse code in the same
program as well, its called:
local entry-point function,
global entry-point function and
Recursive functions. Right?

Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/25/2005 11:35:24 PM
> standard cobol can Reuse code in the same program as well, its
called:
> local entry-point function, global entry-point function and
> Recursive functions. Right?

Yes, you can. The issue is that the program code needs to be aware that
this is occuring and to explicitly cater for it.  For example if one
routine was maintaining more than one copy of a dialog it would need to
keep the persistent data (such a sthe handle(s)) in an array or some
other structure to retain this and it would need to manage this
explicitly.  Local-storage  is created afresh at each activation.

0
riplin (4127)
2/26/2005 12:14:45 AM
Up until the '02 Standard (and - to the best of my knowledge - there is no 
"fully conforming" '02 compiler)

Recursion is not allowed
Local-Storage didn't exist

and ENTRY statements aren't in any current (recent, or foreseeable future) 
Standard.

   ...

so how does this fit with your statement,

"standard cobol can Reuse code in the same ..."

Have you tried compiling any of your programs with "standard flagging" turned on 
to see exactly what IS and is NOT "standard" (and, thereby, portable to any 
"standard conforming" compiler)?

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109374524.736063.195070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Richard,
>
> standard cobol can Reuse code in the same
> program as well, its called:
> local entry-point function,
> global entry-point function and
> Recursive functions. Right?
>
> Kellie.
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/26/2005 12:15:02 AM
Bill,

Recursion:
if you have a Micro Focus cobol compiler, Recursion (or recursive
routines) is allowed,
supported and its well documented in their language reference manual.
However, you
must declare a Local-Storage Section in your program to be able to use
a recursive
function. Here is an example from micro focus's help manual:

identification division.

 program-id. family.

 working-storage section.

 01  family-tree.
     03  individual  occurs 50.
         05  ind-name           pic x(30).
         05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
         05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).

 local-storage section.
 01  tree-pointer      pic 9(2).

 linkage section.
 01  parent-pointer    pic 9(2).

 procedure division.
 0001-main.
     move 1 to tree-pointer
     call "children" using tree-pointer
     stop run.

  entry "children" using parent-pointer
  move eldest-pointer(parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
  if tree-pointer = 99
     display ind-name(parent-pointer)
  else
     perform until tree-pointer = 99
     call "children" using tree-pointer
     move sibling-pointer(tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
     end-perform
  end-if.

Entry-Point:
like wise, entry points are allowed, supported and well documented. In
fact, the compiler
has two directives to handle entry points function, they are:
"STICKY-LINKAGE" and
"LITLINK". Here is an entry example from their help manual:

The ENTRY statement establishes an alternate entry-point into a called
COBOL program.

ENTRY literal-1
     USING [BY REFERENCE] {data-name-1}
           [BY VALUE    ] {data-name-2}


Flagging:
I used flagging directives when I compiled my program that have an
entry-points and
recursive functions or routines, no error messages were displayed. Here
is some
directives from their help manual:

FLAGAS, FLAGCD, FLAGSTD, FLAGQ, FLAGSINEDIT

Makes the Compiler produce language-level certification flags when it
finds syntax that is
not part of a specified level of the ANSI'85 Standard.
Copyright (C) 2000 MERANT International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 2:48:55 AM
Richard wrote:
> 
> Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
> than I can imagine.

It's a gift...  :)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
2/26/2005 3:06:03 AM
> if you have a Micro Focus cobol compiler, Recursion (or recursive
routines) is allowed,

Your claim was that "STANDARD Cobol can ..."

Bill pointed out that recusrion and local-storage are extensions in '85
compilers and ENTRY is not standard at all.

If you are using the directives and not getting flagged for these then
you should review how your compiler is running.

0
riplin (4127)
2/26/2005 3:15:12 AM
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:1109386135.116637.12970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> Recursion:
> if you have a Micro Focus cobol compiler, Recursion (or recursive
> routines) is allowed,
> supported and its well documented in their language reference manual.
[snip]
> FLAGAS, FLAGCD, FLAGSTD, FLAGQ, FLAGSINEDIT
>
> Makes the Compiler produce language-level certification flags when it
> finds syntax that is
> not part of a specified level of the ANSI'85 Standard.
> Copyright (C) 2000 MERANT International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Here is the listing for the sample program with checking for
ANSI 85 conformance.

* Micro Focus COBOL Version 3.2.24   L2.5 revision 000 25-Feb-05 22:32 Page
1
*                                   C:\CBL-CHAL\TREE.cbl
* Options: anim ensuite(2) wb errq editor(mf) noosvs nodosvs novsc2
nocobol370 a
     1$set nomf ans85 flag"ans85" flagas"S"
     2 identification division.
     3
     4 program-id. family.
     5
     6 working-storage section.
* 135-S***************                                                 (
0)**
**    DATA DIVISION missing
     7
     8 01  family-tree.
     9     03  individual  occurs 50.
    10         05  ind-name           pic x(30).
    11         05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
    12         05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).
    13
    14 local-storage section.
*  71-S*************                                                   (
1)**
**    PROCEDURE DIVISION missing or unknown statement
*  10-S*************                                                   (
1)**
**    Word starts or is continued in wrong area of source line
    15 01  tree-pointer      pic 9(2).
    16
    17 linkage section.
    18 01  parent-pointer    pic 9(2).
    19
    20 procedure division.
    21 0001-main.
    22     move 1 to tree-pointer
    23     call "children" using tree-pointer
    24     stop run.
    25
    26     entry "children" using parent-pointer
*  10-S*********                                                       (
1)**
**    Word starts or is continued in wrong area of source line
*   9-S*********                                                       (
1)**
**    '.' missing
*  10-S********************                                            (
1)**
**    Word starts or is continued in wrong area of source line
*   3-S********************                                            (
1)**
**    Illegal format : Literal
    27     move eldest-pointer(parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
    28     if tree-pointer = 99
    29         display ind-name(parent-pointer)
    30     else
    31         perform until tree-pointer = 99
    32             call "children" using tree-pointer
    33             move sibling-pointer(tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
    34         end-perform
    35     end-if.
* Micro Focus COBOL Version 3.2.24   L2.5 revision 000
* Last message on page: 1
*
* Total Messages:     7
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     7
* Errors        :     0                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2196     Code:         161



0
ricksmith (875)
2/26/2005 4:14:03 AM
If you want them to be "error" messages, then compile the same program with

  FLAGAS(E),FLAGSTD(H)

and see what happens

Alternatively, try

FLAGAS(E),FLAG(ANSI)

Yes, MF supports Recursion, local-storage, and MANY other extensions (so marked 
in their LRM) - but that does NOT make it "standard" - which is what I objected 
to in your original post.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109386135.116637.12970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> Recursion:
> if you have a Micro Focus cobol compiler, Recursion (or recursive
> routines) is allowed,
> supported and its well documented in their language reference manual.
> However, you
> must declare a Local-Storage Section in your program to be able to use
> a recursive
> function. Here is an example from micro focus's help manual:
>
> identification division.
>
> program-id. family.
>
> working-storage section.
>
> 01  family-tree.
>     03  individual  occurs 50.
>         05  ind-name           pic x(30).
>         05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
>         05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
> local-storage section.
> 01  tree-pointer      pic 9(2).
>
> linkage section.
> 01  parent-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
> procedure division.
> 0001-main.
>     move 1 to tree-pointer
>     call "children" using tree-pointer
>     stop run.
>
>  entry "children" using parent-pointer
>  move eldest-pointer(parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
>  if tree-pointer = 99
>     display ind-name(parent-pointer)
>  else
>     perform until tree-pointer = 99
>     call "children" using tree-pointer
>     move sibling-pointer(tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
>     end-perform
>  end-if.
>
> Entry-Point:
> like wise, entry points are allowed, supported and well documented. In
> fact, the compiler
> has two directives to handle entry points function, they are:
> "STICKY-LINKAGE" and
> "LITLINK". Here is an entry example from their help manual:
>
> The ENTRY statement establishes an alternate entry-point into a called
> COBOL program.
>
> ENTRY literal-1
>     USING [BY REFERENCE] {data-name-1}
>           [BY VALUE    ] {data-name-2}
>
>
> Flagging:
> I used flagging directives when I compiled my program that have an
> entry-points and
> recursive functions or routines, no error messages were displayed. Here
> is some
> directives from their help manual:
>
> FLAGAS, FLAGCD, FLAGSTD, FLAGQ, FLAGSINEDIT
>
> Makes the Compiler produce language-level certification flags when it
> finds syntax that is
> not part of a specified level of the ANSI'85 Standard.
> Copyright (C) 2000 MERANT International Ltd. All rights reserved.
>
> Regards, Kellie.
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/26/2005 5:42:25 AM
Bill,

I guess what you meant by standard is no extensions, but what I meant
by standard is
no Object-Oriented programming. To me, standard is characterBase
applications or
some GUI code, but no OO classes or methods to support the invoke
clause. When I
replied to richard's comment regarding the Reuse, my posting and the
thread was about
OO programming and the Reuse of the same code in the same program,
that's why we
mentioned the Entry-points and Recursions.

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 9:03:00 AM
Rick,

here is how I coded the sample program with Net Express:
1). Code must start on position 8 and 12.
2). Terminate each line with a period.
3). Terminate entry-point with exit program.

Regards, Kellie.

      $set FLAGAS(S) FLAGAS(E) FLAGSTD(H) FLAG"ANS85"

       identification division.
       program-id. family.

       Environment Division.
       CONFIGURATION SECTION.

       DATA DIVISION.
       FILE SECTION.

       working-storage section.
       01 family-tree.
          03 individual occurs 50.
             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).

       local-storage section.
       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).

       linkage section.
       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).

       procedure division.
       0001-MAIN.
           move 1 to tree-pointer.
           call "children" using
               by reference tree-pointer
           end-call.
           stop run.


           entry "children" using
           by reference parent-pointer.
           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
           if  tree-pointer = 99
               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
           else
               perform until tree-pointer = 99
                  call "children" using tree-pointer
                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
               end-perform
           end-if.
           exit program.

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
*          ENSUITE(3)
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(23,38): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 10:59:52 AM
Richard, Bill,

I compiled the sample code with the ALL Flag directives, I got an error
that is pointing at
a position that has no Data or any Cobol Code, the compiler referring
to line # 23 column
# 38 which is positioned after the declared variable "01 parent-pointer
   pic 9(2)." in the
linkage section. However, the entry-point and the recursive function
was not flagged.
Below is the code and the compiler message.

Regards, Kellie.

   $set FLAGAS(S) FLAGAS(E) FLAGSTD(H) FLAG"ANS85"

       identification division.
       program-id. family.

       Environment Division.
       CONFIGURATION SECTION.

       DATA DIVISION.
       FILE SECTION.

       working-storage section.
       01 family-tree.
          03 individual occurs 50.
             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).

       local-storage section.
       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).

       linkage section.
       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).

       procedure division.
       0001-MAIN.
           move 1 to tree-pointer.
           call "children" using
               by reference tree-pointer
           end-call.
           stop run.


           entry "children" using
           by reference parent-pointer.
           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
           if  tree-pointer = 99
               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
           else
               perform until tree-pointer = 99
                  call "children" using tree-pointer
                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
               end-perform
           end-if.
           exit program.

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
*          ENSUITE(3)
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(23,38): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 11:03:14 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <1109354625.353288.324170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>>
>>It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.
>
>I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should 
>notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary 
>about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.

According to the OED, it's only a noun (with both spellings detailed).

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
2/26/2005 11:47:43 AM
..    On  25.02.05
  wrote  riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard)
     on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  1109373301.700645.160540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
  about  Re: Treeviews


r> In the case of a GUI application this may be divided into many modules
r> or subroutines, for example each catering for a different dialog.
r> This means that each can only be used once at one time in a run-unit.
r> If, for example, you have a 'message box' subroutine then if it is
r> activated from two parts of the program (ie it is active and another
r> routine calls it) then the program may crash.  If the code is in a
r> class then multiple instances can be created without crashing.


    But that has nothing to do with OO, but with reentrancy.

    One can have reentrant programs, i.e. programs which are loaded  
once to memory, and quasi-simulatenously executed by many different  
users without Object-Orientation.

    This is particularly for DLL or similar libraries and for  
transaction programs.


Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Er urteilt nach dem jedesmaligen Aggregatzustand seiner Empfindungen. -G.C.Lichtenberg
0
l.willms1 (637)
2/26/2005 12:09:00 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
news:cvo21u$2js$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> There still are significant numbers of 6-10 programmer mainframe shops.

Soon to be replaced by 6-10 IBMers on an outsource deal from reading an 
earlier post  ;-)

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
2/26/2005 12:12:35 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...

> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.

If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:

"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or 
bureaucratese" .

 Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics have 
charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with 
representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
2/26/2005 12:20:39 PM
In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the end-user.';
>
>It also had:
>
>>> I use the Dialogue Editor to
>
>Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
>it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
>adjectivally.

How does citing a properly-capitalised Product Name (International 
Business Machines and all that) change the cite I provided, Mr Plinston?

>
>> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.
>
>While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
>that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.

Mr Plinston, I have cited Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage 
Dictionary as both definine 'dialog' as a variant of 'dialogue' and both 
as a verb.  Are you able to generate a cite to the contrary of this?

>It would be more
>common to say that it interacts.
>
>Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
>than I can imagine.

Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open and 
public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford 
English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column 1, 
and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after 
'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might 
consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/26/2005 1:13:16 PM
In article <g7n021dcl6aablohuto3pa7bsbpk59re1n@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <1109354625.353288.324170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>>>
>>>It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.
>>
>>I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should 
>>notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary 
>>about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>
>According to the OED, it's only a noun (with both spellings detailed).

Might you be so kind, Mr York, as to provide the details of the edition 
you are using?  As noted in a separate post, in my copy of The Compact 
Edition of the Oxford Endlish Dictionary, c.1971, 20th printing 1981, I 
find on p715, sub-page 312, col 1, first complete entry:

Dialogue, v. [f. prec. sb. ; cf. F. dialoguer (1717 in Htaz.-Darm.).]  
Hence also Dialogued ppl. a., Dialoguing vbl. sb.

1. intr.  To hold a dialogue or conversation.

.... with citings from Shakespeare, Coldridge and Carlyle (as noted in the 
AHD... which, in my experience, relies heavily on the OED).

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/26/2005 1:22:00 PM
In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>
>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
>
>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or 
>bureaucratese" .
>
> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics have 
>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with 
>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "

It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is 
still defined as such.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/26/2005 1:23:12 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
>>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
>>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>>
>>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
>>
>>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or
>>bureaucratese" .
>>
>> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics 
>> have
>>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with
>>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "
>
> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
> still defined as such.

In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed the 
recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it 
makes sense to let go....

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
2/26/2005 3:24:33 PM
A better (IMHO) opinion term would be "procedural" code as opposed to "OO".  Or 
possibly (depending on what exactly you are talking about) would be "modular" 
(with CALLs to subprograms) or even (although I like this less) "traditional".

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109408580.520602.300840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> I guess what you meant by standard is no extensions, but what I meant
> by standard is
> no Object-Oriented programming. To me, standard is characterBase
> applications or
> some GUI code, but no OO classes or methods to support the invoke
> clause. When I
> replied to richard's comment regarding the Reuse, my posting and the
> thread was about
> OO programming and the Reuse of the same code in the same program,
> that's why we
> mentioned the Entry-points and Recursions.
>
> Regards, Kellie.
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/26/2005 3:44:39 PM
do NOT try and "mix and match" flagging directives,  rather than

 $set FLAGAS(S) FLAGAS(E) FLAGSTD(H) FLAG"ANS85"

try

$set FLAGAS(S),FLAGSTD(H)
  or
$set FLAGAS(E),FLAG"ANS85"

The message that you are receiving (I think) is at the end of the Data 
Division - indicating that your including of a Local-Storage section is 
"non-Standard".  (I see you have made other changes to make your code "more 
standard").

I would be interested in seeing your LISTING output (with a SETTINGS directive 
as well) *if* the ENTRY statement doesn't get flagged with FLAGSTD(H) specified.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109415794.075512.203490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Richard, Bill,
>
> I compiled the sample code with the ALL Flag directives, I got an error
> that is pointing at
> a position that has no Data or any Cobol Code, the compiler referring
> to line # 23 column
> # 38 which is positioned after the declared variable "01 parent-pointer
>   pic 9(2)." in the
> linkage section. However, the entry-point and the recursive function
> was not flagged.
> Below is the code and the compiler message.
>
> Regards, Kellie.
>
>   $set FLAGAS(S) FLAGAS(E) FLAGSTD(H) FLAG"ANS85"
>
>       identification division.
>       program-id. family.
>
>       Environment Division.
>       CONFIGURATION SECTION.
>
>       DATA DIVISION.
>       FILE SECTION.
>
>       working-storage section.
>       01 family-tree.
>          03 individual occurs 50.
>             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
>             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
>             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
>       local-storage section.
>       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).
>
>       linkage section.
>       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
>       procedure division.
>       0001-MAIN.
>           move 1 to tree-pointer.
>           call "children" using
>               by reference tree-pointer
>           end-call.
>           stop run.
>
>
>           entry "children" using
>           by reference parent-pointer.
>           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
>           if  tree-pointer = 99
>               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
>           else
>               perform until tree-pointer = 99
>                  call "children" using tree-pointer
>                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
>               end-perform
>           end-if.
>           exit program.
>
> MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
> Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
> URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
> * MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
> Compiler
> * Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
> AXCGG/AA0/00000
> *          ENSUITE(3)
> C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(23,38): * 634-E Feature not
> supported in selected dialect
> * Total Messages:     1
> * Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
> * Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
> * Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
> * Data:        2168     Code:         154
> * Checking complete with no serious errors
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/26/2005 3:54:36 PM
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:47:41 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:

>Yes.  The closest structural relatives to English are Frisian and Dutch, I'd
>say.  Relationship to Plattdeutsch depends on how you define the latter
>term.  Basic consonant patterns are the most obvious characteristic of "High
>German", reflecting an eighth-century shift in that particular language.
>From Wikipedia:
>
>      Low German (North Saxon): Ik segg et/dat up
>Nedderd��tsch/Platt(d��tsch).
>      Low German (Mennonite Plautdietsch): Ekj/Etj saje et op
>Nadadietsch/Plautdietsch.
>      Standard Dutch: Ik zeg het in het Nederduits/Platduits.
>      High (Standard) German: Ich sage es auf Niederdeutsch/Platt(deutsch).
>      English: I say it in Low German.
>
>
>Pity no example from Frisian.  At home I've got a citation that reads the
>same in both English and Frisian; don't have it handy here, though.  They're
>amazingly close.
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>

It is amazing the things you can learn in this newsgroup that have
nothing to do with Cobol and I say that in a good way.  Case in point,
while I shared other posters view that English was derived from Latin
and German with some Greek and other languages thrown in, I had never
heard of Frisian.  So I looked it up.  A nice informative web site
about this language which is still in use, can be found at
http://www.eurolang.net/Languages/Frisian.htm


>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:krLTd.3384565$f47.608498@news.easynews.com...
>> Donald,
>>    I haven't checked this (and Chuck or someone else probably will) but
>isn't
>> English derived (or at least in the same branch as) "low German" - not
>HIGH?
>>
>> -- 
>> Bill Klein
>>  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:viKTd.51695$Am3.1595227@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > Kellie Fitton wrote:
>> >> Hi Howard,
>> >>
>> >> "american" is not a language --- in america we
>> >> speak english, which came from the old latin,
>> >> french and the greeks. The purpose of a dialogue
>> >> box is to have a "Visual Conversation" with the
>> >> end-user. Thus, it should be spelled correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Kellie.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, english comes from high german more than the above.
>> >
>> > Donald
>>
>>
>

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"The only time my wife and I had a simultaneous
orgasm was when the judge signed the divorce papers."
 - Woody Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
2/26/2005 4:40:27 PM
On 25 Feb 2005 14:10:27 -0800, "Kellie Fitton"
<KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>Standard cobol have been "Reusable" for more than 25
>years, How? simply by programming the cobol code as a
>standalone functions and callable sub-routines, that can be
>shared among applications, as a copybook or a library file.
>So, the term "Reuse" is NOT new to cobol the magnificent.

Yes, Cobol has reusable code, but the technique favored by REAL Cobol
programmers is not callable subroutines nor copybooks, it is
copy-and-paste. 

Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
Way.

Fade out, fade in. Five years later there are twenty sets of files,
twenty job streams and twenty slightly different copies of the same
programs. Adding to the programming humor, the artists who created the
situation had failed to keep source code for all programs. When a
change was required, they patched machine code. So, even when there
was source, it didn't necessarily agree with the executable. 

The comedians defended it by saying 'We believe in The KISS
Principle.' Remember that next time you hear the phrase. It's an
inside joke meaning job security due to obfuscation by the use of
large-scale redundancy.
0
2/26/2005 5:14:14 PM
jce wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
> 
> 
>>I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
>>notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
>>about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
> 
> 
> If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
> 
> "this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or 
> bureaucratese" .
> 
>  Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics have 
> charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with 
> representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "

I can see from your quote why it would be considered as 'bureaucratese'.

I would have worded it either :-

  ".......department was remiss in not having a dialogue with 
representatives......".

OR

  ".......department was remiss in not trying to have a dialogue with 
representatives......".


The original quote is a crippled structure - at least so far as I'm 
concerned. Perhaps substitution of the word 'discussion' for 'dialogue', 
might be preferred. But again, when you think of N. American usage of 
turning nouns into verbs - e.g. winterize your car ????


Jimmy
0
2/26/2005 5:44:11 PM
In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
>process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
>another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
>minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
>cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
>tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
>name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
>has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
>original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
>Way.

Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to 
gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/26/2005 5:53:54 PM
> However, the entry-point and the recursive function was not flagged,


This does not mean that these are ANS'85 features, but that only that
you probably need to NOERRLIST COPYLIST to see the flagging.

0
riplin (4127)
2/26/2005 5:55:04 PM
In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>>
>>>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should
>>>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary
>>>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>>>
>>>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
>>>
>>>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or
>>>bureaucratese" .
>>>
>>> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics 
>>> have
>>>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with
>>>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "
>>
>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
>> still defined as such.
>
>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed the 
>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it 
>makes sense to let go....

I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation 
between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a 
medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/26/2005 5:55:21 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
> Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system
to
> >process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
> >another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
> >minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given
for
> >cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
> >tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to
another
> >name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the
shop
> >has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
> >original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
> >Way.
>
> Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope
to
> gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?
>
> DD


Whether or not it is desirable to generalise a solution depends upon
circumstances.  It is often much hard to generalise a solution, though
that can be a great asset.  However, a few minor changes to create a
new set of programs  can be a lot cheaper initially and can provide
greater flexibility if the needs  of the two requirements subsequently
diverge significantly.  The use of common subroutines could be a more
flexible way to handle the situation.  A real analyst or programmer (of
any language) would consider the particular requirements of the
specific case and proceed appropriately according to his/her judgement
and ability after discussion with the users, colleagues, manager, etc.
Robert

Robert

0
rjones0 (206)
2/26/2005 7:32:57 PM
..    On  26.02.05
  wrote  spamblocker-robert@wagner.net (Robert Wagner)
     on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com
  about  Re: Treeviews


RW> Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system
RW> to process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs
RW> up another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
RW> minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given
RW> for cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider
RW> rules tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to
RW> another name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program.

   This is not special to COBOL programmers. I have seen similar  
things being done by Pascal programmers.

   The only difference might be, that a COBOL programmer would defend  
this as a matter of personal style, and not a question of good or bad  
programming.



Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Eine ganze Milchstra�e von Einf�llen. -G.C.Lichtenberg
0
l.willms1 (637)
2/26/2005 7:35:00 PM
Robert,

you have said:
"A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider
rules tables"
can you please tell me what is "Rules Tables"??

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 8:08:51 PM
Bill,

no changes was made to make the code more standard, I had
to add the needed labels so I can compile the program, the
Compiler was saying: missing Environment Division, missing
Data Divison, missing Procedure Division.

with directives  $set FLAGAS(S),FLAGSTD(H)
I got this message:

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
*          ENSUITE(3)
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(23,38): * 634-S Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     1
* Errors        :     0                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2062     Code:           0
* Checking complete - errors found


and with directives $set FLAGAS(E),FLAG"ANS85"
I got this message:

Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
    34     entry "children" using
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 8:11:14 PM
Richard,

the COPYLIST makes the Compiler list the contents of
files named in the COPY statements, the sample code
does not have a copy statement, and my compiler does
not have the NOERRLIST directive, I guess you are
thinking of the SETTINGS directive that bill mentioned
above. Here is the compiler message with the
SETTINGS directive.

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
    34     entry "children" using
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

Regards, Kellie.

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/26/2005 8:14:04 PM
> but the technique favored by REAL Cobol programmers is not callable
subroutines
> nor copybooks, it is copy-and-paste.

> Here is an example from real life.

Once again you take _one_ example and apply that to _all_, in this
case, all 'REAL Cobol programmers', whatever that is supposed to mean.
Does it distinguish them from artificial Cobol programmers or Integer
Cobol programmers ?

It seems that you want to say 'all Cobol programmers except Robert'.

> A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules tables;

It seems to me that you are being "Dogmatic and Intollerant".
Programmers must follow The Robert Wagner Way into his brilliance.

Personally, I much prefer to have one more-complicated program that
will handle a variety of similar tasks rather than several different
programs.  That does not mean that there are not reasons to have
programs that do much the same but for different clients.  For example
it may be that the contract _requires_ that each customer have a
separate system so that the data and programs are actually owned by
them.

> It's an inside joke meaning job security

You are just bitter because you don't have any.

0
riplin (4127)
2/26/2005 10:22:28 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpslc$5r0$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> >> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
> >> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the
end-user.';
> >
> >It also had:
> >
> >>> I use the Dialogue Editor to
> >
> >Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
> >it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
> >adjectivally.
>
> How does citing a properly-capitalised Product Name (International
> Business Machines and all that) change the cite I provided, Mr Plinston?
>
> >
> >> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.
> >
> >While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
> >that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.
>
> Mr Plinston, I have cited Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
> Dictionary as both definine 'dialog' as a variant of 'dialogue' and both
> as a verb.  Are you able to generate a cite to the contrary of this?
>
> >It would be more
> >common to say that it interacts.
> >
> >Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
> >than I can imagine.
>
> Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open and
> public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford
> English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column 1,
> and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after
> 'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might
> consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.
>
> DD
>

I watched this exchange with some amusement.  As usual the Doc has an
impeccable argument backed up by good authorities.

There is no doubt you are correct, Doc.

However, my sympathies here lie with Richard.

See, those of us who love the ENGLISH language (and this is not to decry or
diminish the AMERICAN dialect of it...which is perfectly valid, (especially
if you live in America)), ...we do find it discordant to hear words we
normally expect to be nouns, used as verbs.

I would have taken Richard's position myself, because I have never, until
this discussion, heard 'dialogue' used as a verb. But, in America, it has
been common practice for around 50 years now, to push nouns into use as
verbs.

It isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

To an English English speaker, it grates. But so what?

The fact that the OED now recognises it (and did in 1971), simply shows that
the scholars at Oxford are resigned to the changing nature of language and
see no reason not to make it official. (I do not dispute your authorities
here, Doc - I couldn't <G> - but I would be extremely surprised if an OLDER
edition of the OED - say, prior to 1930 gave the same definition...)

The fact of the matter is that language is an evolving and changing thing.
Local mores with regard to language do not necessarily constitute abuse.
American English is just as valid as English English, but some of us (self
included) need to remember that it is NOT English English and should not be
subject to the same judgements we make about our own speech.

I have adopted 'Americanisms' unconsciously into my own speech that would
make my English-born father turn in his grave, but I think I could justify
their use to the old boy, were he still with us... <g>.

On a long plane flight once, a fellow-traveller asked politely what my
accent was. Before I could reply, my English-born wife interjected with
heavy cynicism: "It's mid-Atlantic Antipodean..."  We laughed, but I knew
what she meant. She was resentful that my frequent sojourns in the US had
influenced my speech.  (Kiwi she would accommodate as "refeshing and
quaint", but Americanisms? no way...) Stating that now, I see how totally
irrational it was.

Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
great countries divided by a common language"

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/27/2005 1:08:49 AM
On 26 Feb 2005 12:53:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
>>process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
>>another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
>>minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
>>cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
>>tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
>>name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
>>has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
>>original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
>>Way.
>
>Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to 
>gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?

It's not an isolated example. Most poorly managed shops use
copy-and-paste. My reason for posting is to alert others who see it
happening so they'll know they're working in a dead-head shop.
0
2/27/2005 2:30:56 AM
On 26 Feb 2005 12:08:51 -0800, "Kellie Fitton"
<KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>you have said:
>"A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider
>rules tables"
>can you please tell me what is "Rules Tables"??

A file or table that defines decision parameters (limits, rules) as a
function of client or marketing program. They are used routinely by
companies with multiple marketing efforts. They move decisions from
hard-coded software to interpreted 'flaccid-ware'. 
0
2/27/2005 2:52:07 AM
On 26 Feb 2005 14:22:28 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>> but the technique favored by REAL Cobol programmers is not callable
>subroutines
>> nor copybooks, it is copy-and-paste.
>
>> Here is an example from real life.
>
>Once again you take _one_ example and apply that to _all_, in this
>case, all 'REAL Cobol programmers', whatever that is supposed to mean.
>Does it distinguish them from artificial Cobol programmers or Integer
>Cobol programmers ?
>
>It seems that you want to say 'all Cobol programmers except Robert'.

I didn't mean all Cobol programmers, just the bad ones. They know who
they are and resist tooth and nail being exposed. 

>> A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules tables;
>
>It seems to me that you are being "Dogmatic and Intollerant".
>Programmers must follow The Robert Wagner Way into his brilliance.

MANY systems use rules tables. I didn't claim to invent them.

>Personally, I much prefer to have one more-complicated program that
>will handle a variety of similar tasks rather than several different
>programs.  That does not mean that there are not reasons to have
>programs that do much the same but for different clients.  For example
>it may be that the contract _requires_ that each customer have a
>separate system so that the data and programs are actually owned by
>them.

I've never seen such a contractual requirement. 

>> It's an inside joke meaning job security
>
>You are just bitter because you don't have any.

My security lies in the vibrancy of the IS industry rather than the
goodwill of one employer.
0
2/27/2005 3:13:35 AM
In article <1109446377.120385.263750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Jones <rjones0@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
>> Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system
>to
>> >process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
>> >another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
>> >minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
>> >cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
>> >tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
>> >name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
>> >has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
>> >original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
>> >Way.
>>
>> Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to
>> gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?
>>
>
>Whether or not it is desirable to generalise a solution depends upon
>circumstances.  It is often much hard to generalise a solution, though
>that can be a great asset.  However, a few minor changes to create a
>new set of programs  can be a lot cheaper initially and can provide
>greater flexibility if the needs  of the two requirements subsequently
>diverge significantly.  The use of common subroutines could be a more
>flexible way to handle the situation.  A real analyst or programmer (of
>any language) would consider the particular requirements of the
>specific case and proceed appropriately according to his/her judgement
>and ability after discussion with the users, colleagues, manager, etc.

Mr Wagner, my eyes aren't what they used to be... in the above I cannot 
see a sentence which begins with 'By labelling the practises of 
one shop in this manner I hope to gain... '

In short, there does not appear to be an aswer to my question.  Second
request, Mr Wagner: what do you hope to gain by labelling the 
practises of one shop in this manner?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 3:23:44 AM
In article <1rb221l9s16r6i1pdu3bin6go8i66ikcl7@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2005 12:53:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
>>>process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
>>>another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
>>>minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
>>>cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
>>>tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
>>>name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
>>>has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
>>>original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
>>>Way.
>>
>>Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to 
>>gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?
>
>It's not an isolated example. Most poorly managed shops use
>copy-and-paste.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in 
'(m)ost poorly managed shops.'

>My reason for posting is to alert others who see it
>happening so they'll know they're working in a dead-head shop.

I see... so you are saying that such 'dead-head shops' are 
practioners of 'the Cobol Way'?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 3:27:05 AM
In article <38cktfF5l4mtrU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpslc$5r0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>> >> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the end-user.';
>> >
>> >It also had:
>> >
>> >>> I use the Dialogue Editor to
>> >
>> >Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
>> >it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
>> >adjectivally.
>>
>> How does citing a properly-capitalised Product Name (International
>> Business Machines and all that) change the cite I provided, Mr Plinston?
>>
>> >
>> >> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.
>> >
>> >While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
>> >that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.
>>
>> Mr Plinston, I have cited Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
>> Dictionary as both definine 'dialog' as a variant of 'dialogue' and both
>> as a verb.  Are you able to generate a cite to the contrary of this?
>>
>> >It would be more
>> >common to say that it interacts.
>> >
>> >Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
>> >than I can imagine.
>>
>> Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open and
>> public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford
>> English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column 1,
>> and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after
>> 'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might
>> consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.
>
>I watched this exchange with some amusement.  As usual the Doc has an
>impeccable argument backed up by good authorities.
>
>There is no doubt you are correct, Doc.

Shucks, you'se jes' easily impressed.

>
>However, my sympathies here lie with Richard.
>
>See, those of us who love the ENGLISH language (and this is not to decry or
>diminish the AMERICAN dialect of it...which is perfectly valid, (especially
>if you live in America)), ...we do find it discordant to hear words we
>normally expect to be nouns, used as verbs.

Mr Dashwood, in the case at hand the OED cites uses of 'dialogue' as a verb
by Shakespeare.  Are you trying to say that the Bard of Avon was in the
habit of using the AMERICAN (caps original) dialect of English?

>
>I would have taken Richard's position myself, because I have never, until
>this discussion, heard 'dialogue' used as a verb. But, in America, it has
>been common practice for around 50 years now, to push nouns into use as
>verbs.

According to the OED, Mr Dashwood, Coleridge and Carlyle also used 
'dialogue' as a verb... had they spent so much time in America that
their dialects had shifted?

>
>It isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.
>
>To an English English speaker, it grates. But so what?
>
>The fact that the OED now recognises it (and did in 1971), simply shows that
>the scholars at Oxford are resigned to the changing nature of language and
>see no reason not to make it official. (I do not dispute your authorities
>here, Doc - I couldn't <G> - but I would be extremely surprised if an OLDER
>edition of the OED - say, prior to 1930 gave the same definition...)

Mr Dashwood, Shakespeare died in 1616.  Coleridge died in 1834.  Carlyle died
in 1881.  Assuming their use of 'dialogue' as a verb predated their deaths
one might conclude that, OED citing or not, their uses still stand.

[snip]

>Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
>great countries divided by a common language"

This might just be why no uses by American writers were cited.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 3:42:24 AM
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:1rb221l9s16r6i1pdu3bin6go8i66ikcl7@4ax.com...
> On 26 Feb 2005 12:53:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> >In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
> >Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
> >>process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
> >>another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
> >>minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
> >>cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
> >>tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
> >>name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
> >>has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
> >>original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
> >>Way.
> >
> >Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to
> >gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?
>
> It's not an isolated example. Most poorly managed shops use
> copy-and-paste. My reason for posting is to alert others who see it
> happening so they'll know they're working in a dead-head shop.
>

Man, that should encourage the troops <g>... Not just bad coding practice
but an all round no hoper programming shop as well... Why get out of bed?
<g>

Surely it would be more effective to alert people to bad practice so they
could possibly change it, rather than to rub their noses in it and shout
"HA! HA!" like Nelson in the Simpsons?

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/27/2005 3:53:23 AM
Robert Wagner wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 12:53:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <889121ppm9jcnu6tii0glcuetkvi1vnf4g@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>Here is an example from real life. A computer company has a system  to
>>>process subscriptions for one magazine.  Then the salesman signs up
>>>another magazine, which requires very similar processing but a few
>>>minor differences in logic, for instance the way credits are given for
>>>cancellations. A REAL Cobol programmer wouldn't even consider rules
>>>tables; the answer would be obvious -- copy the program(s) to another
>>>name and change a few lines of code in the 'new' program. Now the shop
>>>has two sets of files and two batch job streams, one running the
>>>original program and another running the new program. It's the Cobol
>>>Way.
>>
>>Mr Wagner, you're getting tedious again... do tell, what do you hope to 
>>gain by labelling the practises of one shop in this manner?
> 
> 
> It's not an isolated example. Most poorly managed shops use
> copy-and-paste. My reason for posting is to alert others who see it
> happening so they'll know they're working in a dead-head shop.

Right.  One should never re-use code, nor should one ever refer to a 
library. Could it be that it is only *you* that have never written 
anything in 30 years worth pasting into another program?

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/27/2005 4:00:38 AM
Robert Wagner wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 14:22:28 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> My security lies in the vibrancy of the IS industry rather than the
> goodwill of one employer.

That's true.  There are dozens you have not worked for yet. As long as 
the one you do work for go bankrupt, and new ones form, you could go on 
for years.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/27/2005 4:03:29 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <38cktfF5l4mtrU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvpslc$5r0$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >> In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct
verb
> >> >> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the
end-user.';
> >> >
> >> >It also had:
> >> >
> >> >>> I use the Dialogue Editor to
> >> >
> >> >Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
> >> >it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
> >> >adjectivally.
> >>
> >> How does citing a properly-capitalised Product Name (International
> >> Business Machines and all that) change the cite I provided, Mr
Plinston?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.
> >> >
> >> >While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
> >> >that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.
> >>
> >> Mr Plinston, I have cited Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
> >> Dictionary as both definine 'dialog' as a variant of 'dialogue' and
both
> >> as a verb.  Are you able to generate a cite to the contrary of this?
> >>
> >> >It would be more
> >> >common to say that it interacts.
> >> >
> >> >Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
> >> >than I can imagine.
> >>
> >> Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open
and
> >> public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford
> >> English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column
1,
> >> and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after
> >> 'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might
> >> consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.
> >
> >I watched this exchange with some amusement.  As usual the Doc has an
> >impeccable argument backed up by good authorities.
> >
> >There is no doubt you are correct, Doc.
>
> Shucks, you'se jes' easily impressed.
>
> >
> >However, my sympathies here lie with Richard.
> >
> >See, those of us who love the ENGLISH language (and this is not to decry
or
> >diminish the AMERICAN dialect of it...which is perfectly valid,
(especially
> >if you live in America)), ...we do find it discordant to hear words we
> >normally expect to be nouns, used as verbs.
>
> Mr Dashwood, in the case at hand the OED cites uses of 'dialogue' as a
verb
> by Shakespeare.  Are you trying to say that the Bard of Avon was in the
> habit of using the AMERICAN (caps original) dialect of English?
>
> >
> >I would have taken Richard's position myself, because I have never, until
> >this discussion, heard 'dialogue' used as a verb. But, in America, it has
> >been common practice for around 50 years now, to push nouns into use as
> >verbs.
>
> According to the OED, Mr Dashwood, Coleridge and Carlyle also used
> 'dialogue' as a verb... had they spent so much time in America that
> their dialects had shifted?
>
> >
> >It isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.
> >
> >To an English English speaker, it grates. But so what?
> >
> >The fact that the OED now recognises it (and did in 1971), simply shows
that
> >the scholars at Oxford are resigned to the changing nature of language
and
> >see no reason not to make it official. (I do not dispute your authorities
> >here, Doc - I couldn't <G> - but I would be extremely surprised if an
OLDER
> >edition of the OED - say, prior to 1930 gave the same definition...)
>
> Mr Dashwood, Shakespeare died in 1616.  Coleridge died in 1834.  Carlyle
died
> in 1881.  Assuming their use of 'dialogue' as a verb predated their deaths
> one might conclude that, OED citing or not, their uses still stand.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
> >great countries divided by a common language"
>
> This might just be why no uses by American writers were cited.
>
> DD
>
OK. Having read all of the authors you cited, and quite extensively, my
memory does not tell me any of them used 'dialogue' as a verb. I believe it
would, because it sounds just as hideous on my ear as it apparently did on
Richard's <g>.

I therefore have to conclude any or all of the following:

a: My reading has not been extensive enough, despite a lifetime of pusuing
it <g>
b: My memory of what I have read is not accurate. (Very possible, but a
truly fightening thought, for me... <g>)
c: The Doc is making it up to wind us up... (No, never... <g>)
d: The OED is mistaken.(Unimaginable, but not impossible...)

As I'm sure you can imagine, I find none of these a particulary attractive
conclusion. To help me out of this, and allow me to decide where my
education is lacking, I must ask you on this occasion to show the actual
quotes from Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle, where the word 'dialogue'
is used as a verb.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/27/2005 4:06:42 AM
Kellie,
  You have turned SOMETHING off - or you would be seeing all your directives 
when you compile with SETTINGS.  I don't know which "turn off the listing" you 
are using, but something has happened.  What you posted yesterday at least 
showed the source code.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109448844.606198.88470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Richard,
>
> the COPYLIST makes the Compiler list the contents of
> files named in the COPY statements, the sample code
> does not have a copy statement, and my compiler does
> not have the NOERRLIST directive, I guess you are
> thinking of the SETTINGS directive that bill mentioned
> above. Here is the compiler message with the
> SETTINGS directive.
>
> MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
> Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
> URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
> * MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
> Compiler
> * Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
> AXCGG/AA0/00000
>    34     entry "children" using
> C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
> supported in selected dialect
> * Total Messages:     1
> * Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
> * Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
> * Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
> * Data:        2168     Code:         154
> * Checking complete with no serious errors
>
> Regards, Kellie.
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/27/2005 4:43:47 AM
> my compiler does not have the NOERRLIST directive,

Look at the ERRLIST directive which is negated by NOERRLIST.

If your site directives include ERRLIST then you will only get a
listing of the errors and the a summary.  You got a listing only of the
errors and the summary. I concluded that you had an ERRLIST somewhere.
Putting in a NOERRLIST overrides the prior ERRLIST and thus you should
get a listing of the source and of the warnings.

0
riplin (4127)
2/27/2005 6:20:15 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
>>
>>>Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
>>>great countries divided by a common language"
>>
Above keeps popping up as this thread extends. Chop out the repeats.

WSC said above - can't be sure but I think it was the quirky Irishman 
GBS. From memory although germane to the quip, I think the quote wording 
is a bit paraphrased. ?????

Jimmy
0
2/27/2005 7:04:35 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
> 
> OK. Having read all of the authors you cited, and quite extensively, my
> memory does not tell me any of them used 'dialogue' as a verb. I believe it
> would, because it sounds just as hideous on my ear as it apparently did on
> Richard's <g>.
> 
> I therefore have to conclude any or all of the following:
> 
> a: My reading has not been extensive enough, despite a lifetime of pusuing
> it <g>
> b: My memory of what I have read is not accurate. (Very possible, but a
> truly fightening thought, for me... <g>)
> c: The Doc is making it up to wind us up... (No, never... <g>)
> d: The OED is mistaken.(Unimaginable, but not impossible...)
> 
> As I'm sure you can imagine, I find none of these a particulary attractive
> conclusion. To help me out of this, and allow me to decide where my
> education is lacking, I must ask you on this occasion to show the actual
> quotes from Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle, where the word 'dialogue'
> is used as a verb.
> 
> Pete.
> 
I'm sure Doc can dialog(ue) them to you over the internet. God, it 
sounds horrible to my ear as well, correct or not.  Maybe it is an early 
example of overloading?

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
2/27/2005 1:40:58 PM
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpslc$5r0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> The original post states 'my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>> >> since the purpose of the "dialog" box is to converse with the
>end-user.';
>> >
>> >It also had:
>> >
>> >>> I use the Dialogue Editor to
>> >
>> >Which I would say is a) incorrect because it is a product name, b) if
>> >it wasn't a trade name, is using 'dialogue' as a noun, possibly
>> >adjectivally.
>>
>> How does citing a properly-capitalised Product Name (International
>> Business Machines and all that) change the cite I provided, Mr Plinston?
>>
>> >
>> >> it is used to dialogue (or dialog) with the user.
>> >
>> >While you may be contriving to use the word as a verb I would suggest
>> >that is unusal usage, especially in recent times.
>>
>> Mr Plinston, I have cited Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
>> Dictionary as both definine 'dialog' as a variant of 'dialogue' and both
>> as a verb.  Are you able to generate a cite to the contrary of this?
>>
>> >It would be more
>> >common to say that it interacts.
>> >
>> >Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
>> >than I can imagine.
>>
>> Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open and
>> public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford
>> English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column 1,
>> and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after
>> 'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might
>> consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.
>>
>> DD
>>
>
>I watched this exchange with some amusement.  As usual the Doc has an
>impeccable argument backed up by good authorities.
>
>There is no doubt you are correct, Doc.
>
>However, my sympathies here lie with Richard.
>
>See, those of us who love the ENGLISH language (and this is not to decry or
>diminish the AMERICAN dialect of it...which is perfectly valid, (especially
>if you live in America)), ...we do find it discordant to hear words we
>normally expect to be nouns, used as verbs.
>
>I would have taken Richard's position myself, because I have never, until
>this discussion, heard 'dialogue' used as a verb. But, in America, it has
>been common practice for around 50 years now, to push nouns into use as
>verbs.
>
>It isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.
>
>To an English English speaker, it grates. But so what?
>
>The fact that the OED now recognises it (and did in 1971), simply shows that
>the scholars at Oxford are resigned to the changing nature of language and
>see no reason not to make it official. (I do not dispute your authorities
>here, Doc - I couldn't <G> - but I would be extremely surprised if an OLDER
>edition of the OED - say, prior to 1930 gave the same definition...)

Interestingly, the 1973 "Shorter OED" (2 large volumes) has "dialogue"
as noun and verb, both in use by Wm Shakespear.  The 1983 "Concise
OED" (1 volume, which I quoted) has the noun form only (and doesn't
quote etymology)..

>The fact of the matter is that language is an evolving and changing thing.

Sure is..  :-)

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
2/27/2005 1:45:46 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <g7n021dcl6aablohuto3pa7bsbpk59re1n@4ax.com>,
>Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1109354625.353288.324170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> my teacher said dialogue is the correct verb
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a verb, or at least shouldn't be.
>>>
>>>I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone should 
>>>notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary 
>>>about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>>
>>According to the OED, it's only a noun (with both spellings detailed).
>
>Might you be so kind, Mr York, as to provide the details of the edition 
>you are using? 

I've corrected myself in another part of the thread..  :-)

> As noted in a separate post, in my copy of The Compact 
>Edition of the Oxford Endlish Dictionary, c.1971, 20th printing 1981, I 
>find on p715, sub-page 312, col 1, first complete entry:
>
>Dialogue, v. [f. prec. sb. ; cf. F. dialoguer (1717 in Htaz.-Darm.).]  
>Hence also Dialogued ppl. a., Dialoguing vbl. sb.
>
>1. intr.  To hold a dialogue or conversation.
>
>... with citings from Shakespeare, Coldridge and Carlyle (as noted in the 
>AHD... which, in my experience, relies heavily on the OED).
>
Indeed..  :-)

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
2/27/2005 1:45:48 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
>>> still defined as such.
>>
>>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed the 
>>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it 
>>makes sense to let go....
>
>I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation 
>between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a 
>medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?

"Just take a leech twice a day and let it dissolve underneath your
tongue".  "Black Adder. Srs 2"

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
2/27/2005 1:45:49 PM
In article <38cvapF5mj2j4U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <38cktfF5l4mtrU1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpslc$5r0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> >> In article <1109369817.028632.317290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>> >> >Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
>> >> >than I can imagine.
>> >>
>> >> Most courageous, Mr Plinston, to admit to your limitations in so open and
>> >> public a manner... but this one American can use The Compact Oxford
>> >> English Dictionary, c.1971, to turn to page 715, sub-page 312, column 1,
>> >> and look at the first entry on the page.  This shows a 'v' after
>> >> 'Dialogue', indicating that it is defined as a verb... but some might
>> >> consider use according to OED definition as 'abuse', I guess.

[snip]

>> >The fact that the OED now recognises it (and did in 1971), simply shows that
>> >the scholars at Oxford are resigned to the changing nature of language and
>> >see no reason not to make it official. (I do not dispute your authorities
>> >here, Doc - I couldn't <G> - but I would be extremely surprised if an OLDER
>> >edition of the OED - say, prior to 1930 gave the same definition...)
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, Shakespeare died in 1616.  Coleridge died in 1834.  Carlyle died
>> in 1881.  Assuming their use of 'dialogue' as a verb predated their deaths
>> one might conclude that, OED citing or not, their uses still stand.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
>> >great countries divided by a common language"
>>
>> This might just be why no uses by American writers were cited.
>>
>OK. Having read all of the authors you cited, and quite extensively, my
>memory does not tell me any of them used 'dialogue' as a verb. I believe it
>would, because it sounds just as hideous on my ear as it apparently did on
>Richard's <g>.
>
>I therefore have to conclude any or all of the following:
>
>a: My reading has not been extensive enough, despite a lifetime of pusuing
>it <g>
>b: My memory of what I have read is not accurate. (Very possible, but a
>truly fightening thought, for me... <g>)
>c: The Doc is making it up to wind us up... (No, never... <g>)
>d: The OED is mistaken.(Unimaginable, but not impossible...)
>
>As I'm sure you can imagine, I find none of these a particulary attractive
>conclusion. To help me out of this, and allow me to decide where my
>education is lacking, I must ask you on this occasion to show the actual
>quotes from Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle, where the word 'dialogue'
>is used as a verb.

Odd as it might sound, Mr Dashwood, I am away from my books until Monday 
and I'll be unable to reproduce the OED cites until then.  If someone else 
is willing to undertake the research I believe that there are enough faint 
clues cited above - edition, printing, page, sub-page, column, etc. - that 
someone of Great Diligence just might possibly to approximate, if not 
duplicate, the results.

If not... Monday will arrive, as sure as the many calendar routines I've 
worked with and on will predict.  Patience is a virtue, some say.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 2:16:57 PM
In article <ubi321lba8on7g6hfni6pu71pvlik7125l@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Interestingly, the 1973 "Shorter OED" (2 large volumes) has "dialogue"
>as noun and verb, both in use by Wm Shakespear.  The 1983 "Concise
>OED" (1 volume, which I quoted) has the noun form only (and doesn't
>quote etymology)..

Bervity's been called 'the soul of wit', Mr York... not 'the soul of 
scholarship'.  Thanks for the details... and an indication of the reasons 
behind why some folks, instead of asserting 'the (reference-work) says', 
phrase it as 'in my copy of (work), (author), (publisher), (copyright), 
(printing), (page), (paragraph), (line), (word)'...

.... and others, of course, go into *real* detail.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 2:30:32 PM
In article <aqi3219u75tgi5nkfr6gck3jmuiub2i8a4@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
>>>> still defined as such.
>>>
>>>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed the 
>>>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it 
>>>makes sense to let go....
>>
>>I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation 
>>between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a 
>>medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?
>
>"Just take a leech twice a day and let it dissolve underneath your
>tongue".  "Black Adder. Srs 2"

Leaving aside that 'a leech' used to refer not only to the annelid but to 
the doctor who applied them...

.... should this be done before or after the mercury purge has been 
administered?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/27/2005 2:37:09 PM
Bill,

I have already mentioned to richard that, Net Express has an IDE
environment, which
gives me seperate windows for every thing I see, one window for the
source program, and
another for the error and warnings if any. In order to show you the
source program and the
error listing or warnings, I would need to copy these information from
two different
windows and paste it into anew file, so it can be combined together. I
didnot show the
source code with the message that I got when compiled with the SETTINGS
directive,
simply because I have already posted the program code, and did not make
any changes
to it. I really don't know why the compiler is not listing all the
directives in the program
when I used the SETTINGS directive. Also, my cobol reference manual
books does NOT
have any informations about the error # 634-E whatsoever, which makes
it an invalid error
message to begin with and should not be displayed at all. Here is how I
included that
directive in the source program during compilation:

Regards, Kellie.

      $set FLAGAS(E) FLAG"ANS85" SETTINGS

       identification division.
       program-id. family.

       Environment Division.
       CONFIGURATION SECTION.

       DATA DIVISION.
       FILE SECTION.

       working-storage section.
       01 family-tree.
          03 individual occurs 50.
             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).

       local-storage section.
       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).

       linkage section.
       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).

       procedure division.
       0001-MAIN.
           move 1 to tree-pointer.
           call "children" using
               by reference tree-pointer
           end-call.
           stop run.


           entry "children" using
           by reference parent-pointer.
           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
           if  tree-pointer = 99
               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
           else
               perform until tree-pointer = 99
                  call "children" using tree-pointer
                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
               end-perform
           end-if.
           exit program.

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
    34     entry "children" using
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/27/2005 10:10:16 PM
Richard,

by default, Net Express compiler uses ERRLIST"embed" directive, which
means: "The
list file contains a source listing that has error messages embedded
within it at the point
they occur". However, the compiler does not have the directive
NOERRLIST to negate the
default. Also, the compiler have an IDE environment, which gives me a
seperate window
for the source code program, and another one for errors and warnings.

Regards, Kellie.

     $set FLAGAS(E) FLAG"ANS85" SETTINGS

       identification division.
       program-id. family.

       Environment Division.
       CONFIGURATION SECTION.

       DATA DIVISION.
       FILE SECTION.

       working-storage section.
       01 family-tree.
          03 individual occurs 50.
             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).

       local-storage section.
       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).

       linkage section.
       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).

       procedure division.
       0001-MAIN.
           move 1 to tree-pointer.
           call "children" using
               by reference tree-pointer
           end-call.
           stop run.


           entry "children" using
           by reference parent-pointer.
           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
           if  tree-pointer = 99
               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
           else
               perform until tree-pointer = 99
                  call "children" using tree-pointer
                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
               end-perform
           end-if.
           exit program.

MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
* MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
Compiler
* Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
AXCGG/AA0/00000
    34     entry "children" using
C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
supported in selected dialect
* Total Messages:     1
* Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
* Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
* Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
* Data:        2168     Code:         154
* Checking complete with no serious errors

0
KELLIEFITTON (206)
2/27/2005 10:13:47 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7ieUd.518617$8l.41818@pd7tw1no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
> >>
> >>>Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
> >>>great countries divided by a common language"
> >>
> Above keeps popping up as this thread extends. Chop out the repeats.
>
> WSC said above - can't be sure but I think it was the quirky Irishman
> GBS. From memory although germane to the quip, I think the quote wording
> is a bit paraphrased. ?????
>
> Jimmy
>
It was actually said by many people, the first may have been Oscar Wilde.

Here's something from the "Quote Unquote" web site...

"Sometimes the inquirer asks, 'Was it Wilde or Shaw?' The answer appears to
be: both. In The Canterville Ghost (1887), Wilde wrote: 'We have really
everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language'.
However, the 1951 Treasury of Humorous Quotations (Esar & Bentley) quotes
Shaw as saying: 'England and America are two countries separated by the same
language', but without giving a source.  The quote had earlier been
attributed to Shaw in Reader's Digest (November 1942).
Much the same idea occurred to Bertrand Russell (Saturday Evening Post, 3
June 1944): 'It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two
countries are supposed to have a common language', and in a radio talk
prepared by Dylan Thomas shortly before his death (and published after it in
The Listener, April 1954) - European writers and scholars in America were,
he said, 'up against the barrier of a common language'.

Inevitably this sort of dubious attribution has also been seen: 'Winston
Churchill said our two countries were divided by a common language' (The
Times, 26 January 1987; The European, 22 November 1991.) "

I was quoting The Times.

If it's in the Thunderer, it's good enough for me... <G>

Pete.







0
dashwood1 (2140)
2/27/2005 11:00:42 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:7ieUd.518617$8l.41818@pd7tw1no...
> 
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> 
> news:cvrfj0$bqp$1@panix2.panix.com...
> 
>>>>>Churchill's famous quote summed it up nicely: "Britain and America: two
>>>>>great countries divided by a common language"
>>>>
>>Above keeps popping up as this thread extends. Chop out the repeats.
>>
>>WSC said above - can't be sure but I think it was the quirky Irishman
>>GBS. From memory although germane to the quip, I think the quote wording
>>is a bit paraphrased. ?????
>>
>>Jimmy
>>
> 
> It was actually said by many people, the first may have been Oscar Wilde.
> 
> Here's something from the "Quote Unquote" web site...
> 
> "Sometimes the inquirer asks, 'Was it Wilde or Shaw?' The answer appears to
> be: both. In The Canterville Ghost (1887), Wilde wrote: 'We have really
> everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language'.
> However, the 1951 Treasury of Humorous Quotations (Esar & Bentley) quotes
> Shaw as saying: 'England and America are two countries separated by the same
> language', but without giving a source.  The quote had earlier been
> attributed to Shaw in Reader's Digest (November 1942).
> Much the same idea occurred to Bertrand Russell (Saturday Evening Post, 3
> June 1944): 'It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two
> countries are supposed to have a common language', and in a radio talk
> prepared by Dylan Thomas shortly before his death (and published after it in
> The Listener, April 1954) - European writers and scholars in America were,
> he said, 'up against the barrier of a common language'.
> 
> Inevitably this sort of dubious attribution has also been seen: 'Winston
> Churchill said our two countries were divided by a common language' (The
> Times, 26 January 1987; The European, 22 November 1991.) "
> 
> I was quoting The Times.
> 
> If it's in the Thunderer, it's good enough for me... <G>
> 
> Pete.
> 
I remembered I had a Penguin Hardback on Quotations. It proved 
disappointing. Primarily quotes from Shaw's plays and the quotes for 
Winston were more historical, like references to 'The First of the Few" 
and "the Iron Curtain".

First site I googled on gave me Shaw. But no annotation like you spell 
out above. What disappointed me looking at the Penguin book, it 
completely missed some of Winston's gems.

Probably mid-Thirties in House of Commons. Violet Bonham-Carter I think :-

"Winston, you are drunk !". He turned and looked at her. "Madam, you are 
beautiful. But tomorrow I will be sobre !".

On appointment to the Admiralty back in '40s before becoming PM. (The 
Admiralty signaled the Fleet 'Winston is back !'), He had the senior 
admirals gathered together for a chat. One took exception to what he was 
saying.

"But that is contrary to Naval tradition sir".

"Naval tradition ! Rum, sodomy and the lash !".

Jimmy


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
0
2/27/2005 11:47:05 PM
So you ARE getting messages against BOTH
   "ENTRY"
and
   recursion

Both are extensions and the compiler is telling you that they are NOT Standard.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 
news:1109542216.333775.125810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> I have already mentioned to richard that, Net Express has an IDE
> environment, which
> gives me seperate windows for every thing I see, one window for the
> source program, and
> another for the error and warnings if any. In order to show you the
> source program and the
> error listing or warnings, I would need to copy these information from
> two different
> windows and paste it into anew file, so it can be combined together. I
> didnot show the
> source code with the message that I got when compiled with the SETTINGS
> directive,
> simply because I have already posted the program code, and did not make
> any changes
> to it. I really don't know why the compiler is not listing all the
> directives in the program
> when I used the SETTINGS directive. Also, my cobol reference manual
> books does NOT
> have any informations about the error # 634-E whatsoever, which makes
> it an invalid error
> message to begin with and should not be displayed at all. Here is how I
> included that
> directive in the source program during compilation:
>
> Regards, Kellie.
>
>      $set FLAGAS(E) FLAG"ANS85" SETTINGS
>
>       identification division.
>       program-id. family.
>
>       Environment Division.
>       CONFIGURATION SECTION.
>
>       DATA DIVISION.
>       FILE SECTION.
>
>       working-storage section.
>       01 family-tree.
>          03 individual occurs 50.
>             05  ind-name           pic x(30).
>             05  eldest-pointer     pic 9(2).
>             05  sibling-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
>       local-storage section.
>       01 tree-pointer      pic 9(2).
>
>       linkage section.
>       01 parent-pointer    pic 9(2).
>
>       procedure division.
>       0001-MAIN.
>           move 1 to tree-pointer.
>           call "children" using
>               by reference tree-pointer
>           end-call.
>           stop run.
>
>
>           entry "children" using
>           by reference parent-pointer.
>           move eldest-pointer (parent-pointer) to tree-pointer
>           if  tree-pointer = 99
>               display ind-name (parent-pointer)
>           else
>               perform until tree-pointer = 99
>                  call "children" using tree-pointer
>                  move sibling-pointer (tree-pointer) to tree-pointer
>               end-perform
>           end-if.
>           exit program.
>
> MERANT Micro Focus Net Express V3
> Version 3.1.11 Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd.
> URN AXCGG/AA0/00000
> * MERANT Micro Focus Net Express     V3.1 revision 255
> Compiler
> * Copyright (C) 1984-2001 Micro Focus International Ltd. URN
> AXCGG/AA0/00000
>    34     entry "children" using
> C:\Unzipped\Recursion\Recursion.cbl(34,18): * 634-E Feature not
> supported in selected dialect
> * Total Messages:     1
> * Unrecoverable :     0                    Severe  :     0
> * Errors        :     1                    Warnings:     0
> * Informational :     0                    Flags   :     0
> * Data:        2168     Code:         154
> * Checking complete with no serious errors
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
2/28/2005 12:02:10 AM
Kellie Fitton wrote:
> Bill,
> 
> I have already mentioned to richard that, Net Express has an IDE
> environment, which
> gives me seperate windows for every thing I see, one window for the
> source program, and
> another for the error and warnings if any. In order to show you the
> source program and the
> error listing or warnings, I would need to copy these information from
> two different
> windows and paste it into anew file, so it can be combined together. 

Kellie,

Just a suggestion because it's a feature I have never used with ANY 
compiler. Suck-it-and-see. If you use the LIST Directive or whatever it 
is - perhaps that might, at the bottom, list some of the stuff you are 
mentioning.

Jimmy
0
2/28/2005 2:39:55 AM
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:00:38 -0500, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:


>Right.  One should never re-use code, nor should one ever refer to a 
>library. Could it be that it is only *you* that have never written 
>anything in 30 years worth pasting into another program?

According to my critics, my code is worthless. You can't have it both
ways.
0
2/28/2005 3:26:35 AM
> According to my critics, my code is worthless. You can't have it both
> ways.

Once again you show your binary logic at work.

"If it isn't white it must be black".

No one said that your code is 'worthless', they have said that your
claims that it is 'standard' or 'general' or 'best' are faulty.

0
riplin (4127)
2/28/2005 4:04:23 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>First site I googled on gave me Shaw. But no annotation like you spell 
>out above. What disappointed me looking at the Penguin book, it 
>completely missed some of Winston's gems.
>
>Probably mid-Thirties in House of Commons. Violet Bonham-Carter I think :-
>
>"Winston, you are drunk !". He turned and looked at her. "Madam, you are 
>beautiful. But tomorrow I will be sobre !".

I think that the lady in question was Bessie Braddock, a Labour MP who
could at best be charitably described as "plain"..  The quote was, as
I remember,  "Winston, you're drunk, it's disgusting!" WSC who was, to
be fair, well in his cups, replied "Bessie, you are extremely ugly,
but in the morning, I will be sober.".

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
2/28/2005 2:24:28 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvqd69$an$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone 
>>>>> should
>>>>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage 
>>>>> Dictionary
>>>>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>>>>
>>>>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
>>>>
>>>>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or
>>>>bureaucratese" .
>>>>
>>>> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics
>>>> have
>>>>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with
>>>>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "
>>>
>>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
>>> still defined as such.
>>
>>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed 
>>the
>>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it
>>makes sense to let go....
>
> I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation
> between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a
> medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?

I know of people who still _use_ the enema to treat the cold.
It doesn't mean that I would stand up and _argue_ that it is "still in use" 
or "still defined".

The correlation, in my mind,  and you not being party to my mind was unable 
to infer the correlation, was that because it's not in common use we should 
perhaps agree that the word "shouldn't be" used in common practice....in the 
same way that an enema might not really be considered, in practice, as part 
of a cure for the common cold _even_ though the benefits _still_ apply..

Whilst (or while) it is _defined_ in some dictionaries, it is _not_ in 
common usage, it _should not_ be used as.  Next review cycle, your AHD 
dictionary can remove the word unless it scans google groups as part of its 
usage source..

Perhaps we should say that its use is deprecated.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
2/28/2005 4:35:35 PM
Jeff York wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>First site I googled on gave me Shaw. But no annotation like you spell 
>>out above. What disappointed me looking at the Penguin book, it 
>>completely missed some of Winston's gems.
>>
>>Probably mid-Thirties in House of Commons. Violet Bonham-Carter I think :-
>>
>>"Winston, you are drunk !". He turned and looked at her. "Madam, you are 
>>beautiful. But tomorrow I will be sobre !".
> 
> 
> I think that the lady in question was Bessie Braddock, a Labour MP who
> could at best be charitably described as "plain"..  The quote was, as
> I remember,  "Winston, you're drunk, it's disgusting!" WSC who was, to
> be fair, well in his cups, replied "Bessie, you are extremely ugly,
> but in the morning, I will be sober.".
> 
Just think if Bessie had been at the Oscars last night - she could have 
had Best Actress award. No make-up required for her to play the part :-)
0
2/28/2005 5:20:55 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> the so-called "ObjectOriented" methodologies are over 25
> years old. However, object-oriented Technology has not been
> the "Magic Bullet". You are referring to the term "Reuse" more
> loosely, as though it is the Net-Result of using OO
> programming --- this is NOT TRUE. This is the fallacy in their
> salesmanship approach, when they are pitching their OO
> ideas. In the real IS world with real-world business
> applications, Reuse doesn't work. it's just a fancy term used
> by the OO proponents to justify their inEfficient and
> unPractical programming paradigm. Their is a major difference
> between claiming you have achieved "Reusability" and proving
> it.

It works, in spots.    We re-use code to create GUI dialog boxes, for instance.
 I haven't seen it with business rules though.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:37:25 PM
On 26-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> Yes, Cobol has reusable code, but the technique favored by REAL Cobol
> programmers is not callable subroutines nor copybooks, it is
> copy-and-paste.

Skipping the insult, there is good reason to sometimes prefer this technique.

In most CoBOL shops, the standards of how complete the testing must be is that
everything that runs that code must be completely tested.   This just doesn't
work when that code is run by a wide variety of programs.    So a CoBOL shop has
a choice - either accept the standards used by the OO people, or duplicate code.
  Redundant systems are less vulnerable.

It appears that the future is with lowered standards.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:43:13 PM
On 26-Feb-2005, "Robert Jones" <rjones0@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Whether or not it is desirable to generalise a solution depends upon
> circumstances.  It is often much hard to generalise a solution, though
> that can be a great asset.

This was the logic that seduced MicroSoft.   Allowing all programs access to all
tools gives tremendous power to the user.   It also gives tremendous power to
the hacker, and allow bugs tremendous footprints.

Integrated systems are powerful.   And dangerous.    As with all choices, there
are tradeoffs.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:45:51 PM
On 26-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> It's not an isolated example. Most poorly managed shops use
> copy-and-paste. My reason for posting is to alert others who see it
> happening so they'll know they're working in a dead-head shop.

I just used it in this post.   Now I know.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:47:03 PM
On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'

Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
is intimately familiar with.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:48:26 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> Of course americans seem to be able to abuse the language in more ways
> than I can imagine.

But you can imagine all the ways the English have abused standards over the
years?
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:52:16 PM
On 26-Feb-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> On a long plane flight once, a fellow-traveller asked politely what my
> accent was. Before I could reply, my English-born wife interjected with
> heavy cynicism: "It's mid-Atlantic Antipodean..."

Like Cary Grant.
0
howard (6283)
2/28/2005 5:53:19 PM
In article <cvvllo$89f$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
>> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
>> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'
>
>Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
>is intimately familiar with.

I thought I had something to write in response to this... but then, as 
though by magic, a 15-lb (6.8Kg) pug-dog magically appeared in my lap, 
circled thrice, laid herself down and, with a sould-emptying 
ssssiiiggggghhhh... began to snore.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/28/2005 9:16:29 PM
In article <cvvllo$89f$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
>> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
>> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'
>
>Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
>is intimately familiar with.

I thought I had something to write in response to this... but then, as
though by magic, a 15-lb (6.8Kg) pug-dog magically appeared in my lap,
circled thrice, laid herself down and, with a soul-emptying
ssssiiiggggghhhh... began to snore.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/28/2005 9:18:11 PM
In article <rLHUd.120857$qB6.5874@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvqd69$an$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone 
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage 
>>>>>> Dictionary
>>>>>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
>>>>>
>>>>>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon or
>>>>>bureaucratese" .
>>>>>
>>>>> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence "Critics
>>>>> have
>>>>>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with
>>>>>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "
>>>>
>>>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it is
>>>> still defined as such.
>>>
>>>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed 
>>>the
>>>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps it
>>>makes sense to let go....
>>
>> I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation
>> between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a
>> medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?
>
>I know of people who still _use_ the enema to treat the cold.
>It doesn't mean that I would stand up and _argue_ that it is "still in use" 
>or "still defined".

It might be rather instersting to see the argument, standing or sitting, 
which demonstrates that that which some people 'still _use_' (emphasis 
original) is *not* 'still in use'.

>
>The correlation, in my mind,  and you not being party to my mind was unable 
>to infer the correlation, was that because it's not in common use we should 
>perhaps agree that the word "shouldn't be" used in common practice....in the 
>same way that an enema might not really be considered, in practice, as part 
>of a cure for the common cold _even_ though the benefits _still_ apply..

I think I see... but medical practises, for the most part, are 
prescriptive... rather literally so, Rx and all that... while dictionary 
definitions which cite use are, it appears, descriptive.

>
>Whilst (or while) it is _defined_ in some dictionaries, it is _not_ in 
>common usage, it _should not_ be used as.  Next review cycle, your AHD 
>dictionary can remove the word unless it scans google groups as part of its 
>usage source..
>
>Perhaps we should say that its use is deprecated.

Now I am *utterly* confused... weren't those in this forum who deprecated 
the use of 'dialogue' as a verb unfamiliar with its accepted definitions 
as given in the Merriam-Webster, AHD and OED?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
2/28/2005 9:28:56 PM
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:53:23 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Surely it would be more effective to alert people to bad practice so they
>could possibly change it, rather than to rub their noses in it and shout
>"HA! HA!" like Nelson in the Simpsons. 

There's the rub. The problem can be detected tecnically but can only
be solved politically. 
0
3/1/2005 1:51:52 AM
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:48:26 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
>> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
>> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'
>
>Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
>is intimately familiar with.

What they have in common is reliance on uneducated intuituion.
0
3/1/2005 2:42:26 AM
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:43:13 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 26-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Cobol has reusable code, but the technique favored by REAL Cobol
>> programmers is not callable subroutines nor copybooks, it is
>> copy-and-paste.
>
>Skipping the insult, there is good reason to sometimes prefer this technique.
>
>In most CoBOL shops, the standards of how complete the testing must be is that
>everything that runs that code must be completely tested.   This just doesn't
>work when that code is run by a wide variety of programs.    So a CoBOL shop has
>a choice - either accept the standards used by the OO people, or duplicate code.
>  Redundant systems are less vulnerable.
>
>It appears that the future is with lowered standards.

The future is with the most efficient. Mainframe  standards are highly
inefficient. 
0
3/1/2005 2:46:18 AM
On 28 Feb 2005 16:18:11 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <cvvllo$89f$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
>>> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
>>> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'
>>
>>Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
>>is intimately familiar with.
>
>I thought I had something to write in response to this... but then, as
>though by magic, a 15-lb (6.8Kg) pug-dog magically appeared in my lap,
>circled thrice, laid herself down and, with a soul-emptying
>ssssiiiggggghhhh... began to snore.

I hope it wasn't an American Staffordshire Terrier or Pit Bull. If so,
150 psi jaw pressure (vs. 40 psi for other breeds) can break bones.
0
3/1/2005 2:47:09 AM
In article <oil721lm79qpr2rbah335ene627j5p29jl@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2005 16:18:11 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <cvvllo$89f$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>On 26-Feb-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't recall anyone saying that it was an unique example,
>>>> Mr Wagner... nor do I recall anyone having experience in
>>>> '(m)ost poorly managed shops.'
>>>
>>>Most poorly managed shops have one thing in common - they're the ones Mr. Wagner
>>>is intimately familiar with.
>>
>>I thought I had something to write in response to this... but then, as
>>though by magic, a 15-lb (6.8Kg) pug-dog magically appeared in my lap,
>>circled thrice, laid herself down and, with a soul-emptying
>>ssssiiiggggghhhh... began to snore.
>
>I hope it wasn't an American Staffordshire Terrier or Pit Bull. If so,
>150 psi jaw pressure (vs. 40 psi for other breeds) can break bones.

It was neither, Mr Wagner... by 'pug-dog' I intended to convey the Pug 
breed of the Toy group; I was not aware that this apellation was often 
applied to the Pit Bull (of which breed Petey, of the 'Our Gang' comedies, 
was a member).  As mentioned in another posting, 
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bbrg35%24m1r%241%40panix1.panix.com&output=gplain> :

--begin quoted text:

No, not quite... the snoring, farting lump of fur in my lap is a 
*pug*-dog, sometimes called a 'Chinese Pug'... although there are those 
who say that the difference between a 'pug' and a 'Chinese Pug' is the 
same as the difference between 'ten cents' and a 'dime'.

I believe that bulldogs and pugs might have had a Common Ancestor... but 
this was a *long* time ago, sometime during the Latter Brachycephalic 
Period.

--end quoted text

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 3:09:29 AM
Jeff York wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>First site I googled on gave me Shaw. But no annotation like you spell 
>>out above. What disappointed me looking at the Penguin book, it 
>>completely missed some of Winston's gems.
>>
>>Probably mid-Thirties in House of Commons. Violet Bonham-Carter I think :-
>>
>>"Winston, you are drunk !". He turned and looked at her. "Madam, you are 
>>beautiful. But tomorrow I will be sobre !".
> 
> 
> I think that the lady in question was Bessie Braddock, a Labour MP who
> could at best be charitably described as "plain"..  The quote was, as
> I remember,  "Winston, you're drunk, it's disgusting!" WSC who was, to
> be fair, well in his cups, replied "Bessie, you are extremely ugly,
> but in the morning, I will be sober.".
> 

Jeff,

No more dispute your above statement than I do Pete's about three 
sources for the 'USA/English' thing. Doing a google "Churchill 
Quotations" I came up with the reference to Bessie.

But here's what troubles me. Anybody, but anybody can stick stuff on the 
Web. You might find sites on programming, history, politics or whatever. 
A theme catches your eye and you follow through reading the author's set 
of articles. 'Bullshit Baffles Brains' - he's probably got umpteen 
letters after his name, showing his academic background. OK be cautious 
on that stuff - not all geniuses went to a university - but 
nevertheless, at least as a sign, does indicate he/she has some credibility.

Now when we go looking up 'factual' stuff, geography, history, political 
history etc., we do expect them to be FACTUAL. No good somebody 
producing a geography site and giving me the square mileage of Texas, 
after they have dropped a couple of noughts off the end !

Certainly Quotations, at least I think so, fit into the category of FACTUAL.

1. USA/England - two countries separated by a common language.

Yes, one common theme covering Wilde, Shaw and Churchill - all three, 
witty, writers and belonged to the Edwardian era. Pete concluded, 
'Churchill shown as the source in the Times' - kind of negates a 
reference to the other two doesn't it. As witty as this trio was - is it 
just sheer COINCIDENCE each of them hit on the same phrase, or slight 
variation therof ?

Pete - I said I thought the quote was paraphrased - try a mix on the 
following, ticking away there in my memory cells, "The USA and Britain, 
/two of the world's great English speaking peoples/ two English speaking 
democracies/ two great democracies/.... are separated by a common language".

Perhaps I've blown a fuse and the ole memory cells have let me down - 
but........

2. Our Bessie and Drunk Winnie.

 From what I wrote, you'll see I had the impression it had to be during 
his 'Coventry period' while out of office. As told to me, not read as a 
source, the lady could be a Bonham-Carter or perhaps an Astor.

Now the Irish are of two sorts when mellow or pissed - Funny Ha Ha - 
that's my brother and myself - anyway at 6' plus we don't need to get 
into a fight. Then there's the Irish about 3' tall - give 'em a couple 
of jars and they become "Funny Peculiar" and want to fight every bugger 
in sight, regardless of height !

 From my readings on the man, Churchill, give him some tipple and with 
his cherubic smile he became Funny Ha Ha. I received third-hand he could 
be a miserable SOB when sober. A wealthy couple in Surrey had a chance 
to dine with him and in a morose mood, (probably no drink, or they 
rationed it), they couldn't get any conversation out of him at all.

With Montgomery he once visited the Canadian 3rd Division going up 
through Belgium into Holland. Of course Monty's edict, no booze or 
smoking. Churchill was pissed off before he even got there. One Canadian 
Lt. Col. took pity on the PM and offered to get him a mug of tea. 
Grudgingly he accepted. As soon as he tasted it, there was a cherubic 
smile on his chops - his tea was undiluted brandy - a mug full !

You were very diplomatic about Bessie suggesting she was 'plain' - let's 
tell it like it was - she was fat and bloody ugly, and represented 
constituents from oop North I think.

Now here's my problem; post WW2 - Churchill was either Conservative 
opposition or in power as PM. But whichever, he was sat on the opposite 
side of the Commons to Bessie who was a Labour MP. Had they been 
shouting across the chamber at one another then it should be possible to 
verify 100% from Hansard.

If it isn't recorded in Hansard then where the hell did these two get 
together. It's hardly likely they socialized. Now my quote indicates a 
'lady' sat in the same team as Winston either Conservative or Liberal.

He could be hard; got rid of Dowding and Kiwi Keith Park after they had 
won the Battle of Britain. Similarly he gave enough generals the boot 
over the Middle East fiasco until Monty turned it around at El Alemein.
However he was a Victorian/Edwardian gentleman, and even if pissed I 
find it hard to see him using a phrase like "you are extremely ugly";
more likely in Victorian romantic style, "Madam, you are beautiful", 
then follow that with the knife in the next sentence.

Either quote - doesn't really matter a tuppenny cuss - but would be 
satisfying to really know.

Read up the Web on evolution of man. My great favourite was the book 
'Lucy'. As you well know, on about a five year cycle, and sometimes 
less, we get updates on man's origins and dinosaurs and how the latter 
did/didn't or died this way or that way. Each move on these makes 
previous articles way out of date and nobody is cataloguing this stuff 
for deletion.

Couple of week's back saw that over a period of years Google will be 
digitizing some of the world's great libraries, can't remember list but 
did include Smithsonian and the British Museum I think. What a great 
opportunity for us all when it is available.

However, so now you want to read something written by Herodotus. My 
Greek isn't up to snuff - how is yours ? So we will be dependent upon 
qualified translators. 'Qualified' ? Without knowing specifics, we know 
that there are sometimes problems translating ancient texts and 
interpretation of certain words and focusing in on *exactly* the right 
word or phrase in English.

We accept the translator's text. He gets it wrong - only shows up some 5 
years later when another language expert disputes his translation.

Here's an interesting one, but not the Web. About three months back read 
about this kid 10-12 years of age, (in UK, USA or Canada), who is of 
Polish descent. His parents buy him the set of Encyclopedia Britannica 
plus paid updates. New volume arrives covering the "Ps" so he devours 
all there is written about Poland. He sends a 135 itemized list of 
factual errors to EB. The only one I recall, EB said there was/wasn't a 
particular species of bison in Poland. From other readings, and I think 
he may have seen the animals on a vacation back in Poland, he 
contradicts them saying there are/there are not. EB editors acknowledge 
his list of errors !

So can we ever believe the Internet ?

Jimmy
0
3/1/2005 4:06:01 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d002eo$slg$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <rLHUd.120857$qB6.5874@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>Whilst (or while) it is _defined_ in some dictionaries, it is _not_ in
>>common usage, it _should not_ be used as.  Next review cycle, your AHD
>>dictionary can remove the word unless it scans google groups as part of 
>>its
>>usage source..
>>
>>Perhaps we should say that its use is deprecated.
>
> Now I am *utterly* confused... weren't those in this forum who deprecated
> the use of 'dialogue' as a verb unfamiliar with its accepted definitions
> as given in the Merriam-Webster, AHD and OED?
>
> DD

Obviously, as the literal person you are, you avoided the definition of 
deprecated that is the dictionary due to the fact that the english language 
is not a program or feature of a program.
adj. Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the 
process of being phased out, usually in favor of a specified replacement.

Perhaps I also - and this is unfortunate considering the source of the 
dialogue/dialog discussion - am mixing programming idioms with real world 
language *sigh*.

JCE








0
defaultuser (532)
3/1/2005 6:12:58 AM
In article <JSRUd.530611$8l.59693@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>However he was a Victorian/Edwardian gentleman, and even if pissed I 
>find it hard to see him using a phrase like "you are extremely ugly";
>more likely in Victorian romantic style, "Madam, you are beautiful", 
>then follow that with the knife in the next sentence.
>
>Either quote - doesn't really matter a tuppenny cuss - but would be 
>satisfying to really know.

To add another bit:

http://www.bartleby.com/73/2004.html

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 10:16:24 AM
In article <KJTUd.96667$pc5.61703@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d002eo$slg$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <rLHUd.120857$qB6.5874@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Whilst (or while) it is _defined_ in some dictionaries, it is _not_ in
>>>common usage, it _should not_ be used as.  Next review cycle, your AHD
>>>dictionary can remove the word unless it scans google groups as part of 
>>>its
>>>usage source..
>>>
>>>Perhaps we should say that its use is deprecated.
>>
>> Now I am *utterly* confused... weren't those in this forum who deprecated
>> the use of 'dialogue' as a verb unfamiliar with its accepted definitions
>> as given in the Merriam-Webster, AHD and OED?
>>
>> DD
>
>Obviously, as the literal person you are, you avoided the definition of 
>deprecated that is the dictionary due to the fact that the english language 
>is not a program or feature of a program.
>adj. Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the 
>process of being phased out, usually in favor of a specified replacement.

Ahhhh, different use of 'deprecated'... my error and apologies.  That 
being the case I believe all three sources indicated have an 'Obs' label 
which might not be found for the use given.

>
>Perhaps I also - and this is unfortunate considering the source of the 
>dialogue/dialog discussion - am mixing programming idioms with real world 
>language *sigh*.

If it is the worst mistake of the day then some might consider it a rather 
decent day..

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 10:18:33 AM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cvvlgu$838$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 26-Feb-2005, "Robert Jones" <rjones0@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whether or not it is desirable to generalise a solution depends upon
> > circumstances.  It is often much hard to generalise a solution, though
> > that can be a great asset.
>
> This was the logic that seduced MicroSoft.   Allowing all programs access
to all
> tools gives tremendous power to the user.   It also gives tremendous power
to
> the hacker, and allow bugs tremendous footprints.
>
> Integrated systems are powerful.   And dangerous.    As with all choices,
there
> are tradeoffs.
>
This is a reasonable post and seeks to stike a reasoned balance.

Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with it.

I don't believe MicroSoft were seduced by anything (other than the desire to
make obscene amounts of money), I don't believe having a common interface
made life easier for hackers( that was a result of the specific software and
what it had to do), and, in my personal experience, a generalised (or
abstracted) solution has ALWAYS been superior to a specific one-off
solution.

I have had exactly this argument with managers (who want it NOW) and
programmers  (who want an easy life) , right throughout my programming
career, since I first started writing live applications in the mid 60s.

I have NEVER found it "much hard to generalise" a solution, and doing so has
ALWAYS been a great asset.

Extending a solution to its abstract conclusion has always paid off in not
having to revisit  it anything like as often as its one-off counterpart, not
having to keep amending it as processes change,and being able to implement
it with minor modifications into similar applications in the same company or
elsewhere.

One of the reasons I took to OO like a diuck to water is because it
encourages this abstraction and generalisation.

Give me a comprehensive solution over a specific one any day.

(If it takes a bit longer to develop or requires more thought and
investigation, I don't care. It is worth waiting for. Hurried solutions are
half arsed solutions that require constant attention and cost more in the
long run than doing it properly in the first place.)

Do it once; do it right.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/1/2005 11:21:01 AM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cvvlut$8dn$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 26-Feb-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On a long plane flight once, a fellow-traveller asked politely what my
> > accent was. Before I could reply, my English-born wife interjected with
> > heavy cynicism: "It's mid-Atlantic Antipodean..."
>
> Like Cary Grant.
>
Hey, I wish!

Was Cary grant Antipodean, then?

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/1/2005 11:34:13 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d002eo$slg$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <rLHUd.120857$qB6.5874@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvqd69$an$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >> In article <Rw0Ud.91122$pc5.30248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:cvpt80$16t$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >>>> In article <rQZTd.110504$qB6.88171@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >>>> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:cvnq4u$n5m$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't have my OED with me at the moment... but perhaps someone
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>> notify the folks at Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage
> >>>>>> Dictionary
> >>>>>> about this... oh, and Shakespeare, Coleridge and Carlyle, as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If  you had carried on reading, the AHD also said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"this usage [dialogue as a verb] today is widely regarded as jargon
or
> >>>>>bureaucratese" .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence
"Critics
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with
> >>>>>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers. "
> >>>>
> >>>> It may have fallen out of use, certainly... but that does not deny it
is
> >>>> still defined as such.
> >>>
> >>>In the pre antibiotic era doctors prescribed the use of enemas to speed
> >>>the
> >>>recovery from the common cold.  When something goes out of use, perhaps
it
> >>>makes sense to let go....
> >>
> >> I'm uncertain what is intended here... how do you see a correlation
> >> between a dictionary definition, relating to a use of language, with a
> >> medical practise, relating to a treatment of a physical syndrome?
> >
> >I know of people who still _use_ the enema to treat the cold.
> >It doesn't mean that I would stand up and _argue_ that it is "still in
use"
> >or "still defined".
>
> It might be rather instersting to see the argument, standing or sitting,
> which demonstrates that that which some people 'still _use_' (emphasis
> original) is *not* 'still in use'.
>
> >
> >The correlation, in my mind,  and you not being party to my mind was
unable
> >to infer the correlation, was that because it's not in common use we
should
> >perhaps agree that the word "shouldn't be" used in common practice....in
the
> >same way that an enema might not really be considered, in practice, as
part
> >of a cure for the common cold _even_ though the benefits _still_ apply..
>
> I think I see... but medical practises, for the most part, are
> prescriptive... rather literally so, Rx and all that... while dictionary
> definitions which cite use are, it appears, descriptive.
>
> >
> >Whilst (or while) it is _defined_ in some dictionaries, it is _not_ in
> >common usage, it _should not_ be used as.  Next review cycle, your AHD
> >dictionary can remove the word unless it scans google groups as part of
its
> >usage source..
> >
> >Perhaps we should say that its use is deprecated.
>
> Now I am *utterly* confused... weren't those in this forum who deprecated
> the use of 'dialogue' as a verb unfamiliar with its accepted definitions
> as given in the Merriam-Webster, AHD and OED?
>
There's nothng confusing about it as far as I'm concerned, Doc. The
references you cite are apparently contradicted or qualified by other
editions of the same references, and so far, I have yet to see a quote from
Shakespeare, Carlyle or Coleridge, using 'dialogue' as a verb. Your
affirmation is at best 'unsubstantiated'.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/1/2005 11:39:54 AM
In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Do it once; do it right.

Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.

Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'

Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this 
shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always 
Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 1:22:22 PM
In article <38j2kgF5mnetsU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>There's nothng confusing about it as far as I'm concerned, Doc. The
>references you cite are apparently contradicted or qualified by other
>editions of the same references, and so far, I have yet to see a quote from
>Shakespeare, Carlyle or Coleridge, using 'dialogue' as a verb. Your
>affirmation is at best 'unsubstantiated'.

Mr Dashwood, my apologies; I spent the weekend away from my books and left 
this forum with only the title, publisher, edition, printing, page, 
sub-page and column in which the entry I quoted might be found... I 
realise that's not much to go on but I'll do my best to flesh out the rest 
this evening.

If you've a bit of spare bandwidth, though... recently a URL was posted to 
the Complete Works of Shakespeare in a .zip file; I downloaded that and 
searched it for the partial string 'dialo' and found not only the OED 
citing but a second use of 'dialogue' as a verb.  I'll try to remember to 
post that, as well.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 1:28:17 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d01qlh$jks$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <38j2kgF5mnetsU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>There's nothng confusing about it as far as I'm concerned, Doc. The
>>references you cite are apparently contradicted or qualified by other
>>editions of the same references, and so far, I have yet to see a quote 
>>from
>>Shakespeare, Carlyle or Coleridge, using 'dialogue' as a verb. Your
>>affirmation is at best 'unsubstantiated'.
>
> Mr Dashwood, my apologies; I spent the weekend away from my books and left
> this forum with only the title, publisher, edition, printing, page,
> sub-page and column in which the entry I quoted might be found... I
> realise that's not much to go on but I'll do my best to flesh out the rest
> this evening.
>
> If you've a bit of spare bandwidth, though... recently a URL was posted to
> the Complete Works of Shakespeare in a .zip file; I downloaded that and
> searched it for the partial string 'dialo' and found not only the OED
> citing but a second use of 'dialogue' as a verb.  I'll try to remember to
> post that, as well.
>
> DD
So that covers 1/3 of the original sources.... =)

Of course, students reading literature of historical importance, are often 
given a class devoted purely to Shakespearean English -due in part because 
much of it has fallen out of common usage (but will still generally be in 
the OED b/c IT IS Shakespeare).
It is hard to remove words used by Shakespeare from dictionaries, but it 
might be time to move on... but as I said, this entire thread in clc may 
just have enough instances of the use dialogue as a verb that it gets to 
live when they scan for non technical usage.

Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have 
charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with 
representatives of the community before hiring the new officers.
I am presuming as it was in the section "dialogue" that the bureaucratise 
was the reason for the rejection, not that they really thought anyone was 
remiss.

Congratulations in standing up for the rights of the minority :-)

JCE
.. 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/1/2005 2:41:33 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> >I thought I had something to write in response to this... but then, as
> >though by magic, a 15-lb (6.8Kg) pug-dog magically appeared in my lap,
> >circled thrice, laid herself down and, with a soul-emptying
> >ssssiiiggggghhhh... began to snore.
>
> I hope it wasn't an American Staffordshire Terrier or Pit Bull. If so,
> 150 psi jaw pressure (vs. 40 psi for other breeds) can break bones.

Are Staffordshire Terriers and Pit Bulls versions of pugs?   (I'm not a dog
person, so this surprised me).
0
howard (6283)
3/1/2005 3:48:44 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> >It appears that the future is with lowered standards.
>
> The future is with the most efficient. Mainframe  standards are highly
> inefficient.

For various values of efficient.

For some people, efficiency is using binary instead of display.

For others, it is "measure twice, cut once".

Mainframe testing standards are designed around the high cost of being wrong.
Internet testing standards are designed around the high cost of being late.
0
howard (6283)
3/1/2005 3:52:18 PM
On  1-Mar-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> > > On a long plane flight once, a fellow-traveller asked politely what my
> > > accent was. Before I could reply, my English-born wife interjected with
> > > heavy cynicism: "It's mid-Atlantic Antipodean..."
> >
> > Like Cary Grant.
> >
> Hey, I wish!
>
> Was Cary grant Antipodean, then?

Another thread mentioned leeches.    Maybe you're a leech, and he's the arch
leach.
0
howard (6283)
3/1/2005 4:00:26 PM
In article <xa%Ud.122575$qB6.19815@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d01qlh$jks$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <38j2kgF5mnetsU1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>There's nothng confusing about it as far as I'm concerned, Doc. The
>>>references you cite are apparently contradicted or qualified by other
>>>editions of the same references, and so far, I have yet to see a quote 
>>>from
>>>Shakespeare, Carlyle or Coleridge, using 'dialogue' as a verb. Your
>>>affirmation is at best 'unsubstantiated'.
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, my apologies; I spent the weekend away from my books and left
>> this forum with only the title, publisher, edition, printing, page,
>> sub-page and column in which the entry I quoted might be found... I
>> realise that's not much to go on but I'll do my best to flesh out the rest
>> this evening.
>>
>> If you've a bit of spare bandwidth, though... recently a URL was posted to
>> the Complete Works of Shakespeare in a .zip file; I downloaded that and
>> searched it for the partial string 'dialo' and found not only the OED
>> citing but a second use of 'dialogue' as a verb.  I'll try to remember to
>> post that, as well.
>>
>So that covers 1/3 of the original sources.... =)

One down, two to go... patience is a virtue, some say.

>
>Of course, students reading literature of historical importance, are often 
>given a class devoted purely to Shakespearean English -due in part because 
>much of it has fallen out of common usage (but will still generally be in 
>the OED b/c IT IS Shakespeare).
>It is hard to remove words used by Shakespeare from dictionaries, but it 
>might be time to move on... but as I said, this entire thread in clc may 
>just have enough instances of the use dialogue as a verb that it gets to 
>live when they scan for non technical usage.

As I recall This All Began when Ms Fitton cited her instructor as saying 
that 'dialogue is the correct verb'; certain posters then asserted that 
'dialogue' was not a verb or if it was a verb then it was the result of 
the American habit of verbing nouns.  The cites I provided were to 
indicate that according to the Merriam-Webster, American Heritage and 
Oxford English dictionaries 'dialogue' is a verb and that the OED gave 
three cites from non-American authors to show this use.

>
>Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have 
>charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with 
>representatives of the community before hiring the new officers.
>I am presuming as it was in the section "dialogue" that the bureaucratise 
>was the reason for the rejection, not that they really thought anyone was 
>remiss.

Perhaps the Usage Panel might do well to read more Shakespeare, Coleridge 
and Carlyle... but whether the word is used as such is one thing, whether 
it is defined as such might be another.

>
>Congratulations in standing up for the rights of the minority :-)

I remember a seminar I had in college, we were reading one of Plato's 
Socratic dialogues and the talk turned to the nature of 'being right' in a 
democracy... I can't recall what generated it but the Senior Tutor (the 
college called them 'tutors', not 'professors', and the seminar consisted 
of eighteen students and two tutors, one Junior and one Senior) turned to 
me and said 'That's well and good but suppose we lived in a society of one 
hundred people; the other ninety-eight believed that Blacks were inferior 
to Whites but we believe the two were equal... we would be right, wouldn't 
we?'

I replied 'Not according to the other ninety-eight, no.'

With a bit more energy he repeated 'But we would be *right*, wouldn't we?'

'Not according to the other ninety-eight, no.'

'But *we* would be *right*, *wouldn't* we?'

'Not According To The Other Ninety-Eight, No.'

.... and he just... stopped, and stared at the text in front of him... in 
the uncomfortable silence a few other folks picked up some threads of the 
conversation and began to weave with them... but a moment or two later he 
looked at me and said 'That was well-handled, you did that quite 
properly.', to which I responded with a simple 'Thank you.'

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 4:32:18 PM
In article <d02382$num$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Mainframe testing standards are designed around the high cost of being wrong.
>Internet testing standards are designed around the high cost of being late.

Nicely put, Mr Brazee... I'll leave analysis of the 'rightness' or 
'wrongness' of it to others but to me it is nicely put.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 4:34:46 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <JSRUd.530611$8l.59693@pd7tw1no>,
> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>However he was a Victorian/Edwardian gentleman, and even if pissed I 
>>find it hard to see him using a phrase like "you are extremely ugly";
>>more likely in Victorian romantic style, "Madam, you are beautiful", 
>>then follow that with the knife in the next sentence.
>>
>>Either quote - doesn't really matter a tuppenny cuss - but would be 
>>satisfying to really know.
> 
> 
> To add another bit:
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/73/2004.html
> 
> DD

Good one Doc. So Astor not Bonham-Carter. Close but no cigar. Still, 
shows how spurious some of this Net stuff can be, if you take it at face 
value. If it was *false* for Astor, then also probably *false* for our 
Bessie !

Use of Web :-

1. Search for a quotation, text and who said it
2. Having got the quotation now find another site which rejects its 
accuracy or existence

Jimmy
0
3/1/2005 7:07:12 PM
In article <A33Vd.540536$8l.437917@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <JSRUd.530611$8l.59693@pd7tw1no>,
>> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>However he was a Victorian/Edwardian gentleman, and even if pissed I 
>>>find it hard to see him using a phrase like "you are extremely ugly";
>>>more likely in Victorian romantic style, "Madam, you are beautiful", 
>>>then follow that with the knife in the next sentence.
>>>
>>>Either quote - doesn't really matter a tuppenny cuss - but would be 
>>>satisfying to really know.
>> 
>> 
>> To add another bit:
>> 
>> http://www.bartleby.com/73/2004.html
>> 
>
>Good one Doc. So Astor not Bonham-Carter. Close but no cigar.

And what would a Churchill anecdote be without a cigar?

[snip]

>1. Search for a quotation, text and who said it
>2. Having got the quotation now find another site which rejects its 
>accuracy or existence

Glad you enjoyed, Mr Gavan... I've found that Bartleby.com is a good 
resource for quotations and the like.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/1/2005 7:21:55 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> 
> Give me a comprehensive solution over a specific one any day.
> 
> (If it takes a bit longer to develop or requires more thought and
> investigation, I don't care. It is worth waiting for. Hurried solutions are
> half arsed solutions that require constant attention and cost more in the
> long run than doing it properly in the first place.)
> 
> Do it once; do it right.

Couldn't agree more. And that is exactly why I took the time out to 
investigate templates for COBOL file handling, and a considerable amount 
of time to ensure my Dialog Template covered all points.

Although I've now switched to SQL and keep a separate class per Table, 
for quickness those COBOL file templates still come in handy - as I have 
used them with my Treeview investigation.

Jimmy
0
3/1/2005 7:38:59 PM
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:53:23 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Surely it would be more effective to alert people to bad practice so they
>could possibly change it, rather than to rub their noses in it and shout
>"HA! HA!" like Nelson in the Simpsons. 

My message was directed to management, as a caution against letting
'techies' make strategic decisions such as how to handle multiple
clients and multiple centuries. Their technically convenient solution
my be short-sighted and contrary to long-term welfare of the
organization.
0
3/2/2005 12:36:12 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d01qae$2he$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Do it once; do it right.
>
> Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.
>
> Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'
>
> Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
> shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always
> Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
>
> DD
>
Lol! I know what you are saying, Doc, having encountered exactly this on
numerous occasions.

Nevertheless, if professional programmers insisted on doing things properly
and refused to be pushed into 'band-aid' solutions, there would be no option
for management but to comply.

There are occasions when a band-aid can successfully be applied (the scratch
is trivial and is unlikely to need revisiting...) but putting band-aids on
gaping wounds that should be stitched, or in cases where a system limb is
hanging off...or needs amputation, is just asking for more trouble later.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/2/2005 3:23:42 AM
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:52:18 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>Mainframe testing standards are designed around the high cost of being wrong.

Mainframe testing standards are designed around the cost of covering
your ass if things go wrong. They have nothing to do with efficiency
or corporate benefit. It's all about the high cost of politics.

0
3/2/2005 3:28:34 AM
On 28 Feb 2005 22:09:29 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> by 'pug-dog' I intended to convey the Pug 
>breed of the Toy group; I was not aware that this apellation was often 
>applied to the Pit Bull (of which breed Petey, of the 'Our Gang' comedies, 
>was a member)

I'm partial to sight hounds. I had a champion Borzoi for ten years
(she loved me). a Saluki for three days (I loved her) and a
rambuctious Whippet for three months (he ate through fences). Now I
have a cavy (guinea pig).
0
3/2/2005 3:28:34 AM
On 1 Mar 2005 08:22:22 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Do it once; do it right.
>
>Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.
>
>Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'
>
>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this 
>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always 
>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'

They won't respond truthfully. You'll learn the answers after you've
been on the job two weeks. At this stage they're looking for questions
like 'will I have access to the Microsoft Plan schedule?' The answer
is of course, if you ask your team lead. We can't afford to license
you with a copy, but he'll at least give you a print out.
0
3/2/2005 3:28:34 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:nx3Vd.540924$8l.239854@pd7tw1no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Give me a comprehensive solution over a specific one any day.
> >
> > (If it takes a bit longer to develop or requires more thought and
> > investigation, I don't care. It is worth waiting for. Hurried solutions
are
> > half arsed solutions that require constant attention and cost more in
the
> > long run than doing it properly in the first place.)
> >
> > Do it once; do it right.
>
> Couldn't agree more. And that is exactly why I took the time out to
> investigate templates for COBOL file handling, and a considerable amount
> of time to ensure my Dialog Template covered all points.
>
> Although I've now switched to SQL and keep a separate class per Table,
> for quickness those COBOL file templates still come in handy - as I have
> used them with my Treeview investigation.
>
> Jimmy
>
I s'pose I should really 'fess up that "do it once; do it right" was an
official Government slogan in New Zealand back in the 70's.

There was concern in some circles that the  laid back Kiwi attitude of
"She'll be right..." was not helping our perceived efficiency in the foreign
markets we were seeking to penetrate. It is pretty hard to change a National
characteristic, but several million dollars of taxpayers money were
funnelled into intensive advertising and training campaigns.  I don't know
how effective it was (how would you measure it?), but it is certainly true
that today we are recognised as efficient and skilful in the things we
export (mainly movies... <g>), and we are managing to work our way back to
prosperity without dependence on sheep and cattle only.

It isn't always possible to 'do it once; do it right', but it is certainly
worth trying for, and there is no doubt in my mind that it beats the 'fix
what you can see and get it working until the next time it breaks down'
approach.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/2/2005 4:07:39 AM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d02382$num$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 28-Feb-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mainframe testing standards are designed around the high cost of being
wrong.
> Internet testing standards are designed around the high cost of being
late.
>

A very succinct,  though not entirely accurate, statement.

It is not entirely accurate because it includes two generalizations.

NOT ALL mainframe testing standards are designed around the high cost of
being wrong, and NOT ALL internet testing standards are designed around the
high cost of being late.

(nevertheless, it was a very nice turn of phrase, Howard... <g>)

In fact, some testing  standards in both camps are not concerned with the
costs of tardiness, inaccuracy , or any form of cost at all.

They simply want a standard. It makes them feel better, and when people ask,
they can say, "Well, of course, we're a professional shop so we have our
testing standards...". (Besides, everybody knows that standards are a Good
Thing, so better have some...).

That's why there are good and bad standards.

Often the testing standards are bypassed because there isn't time to do
comprehensive regression testing (when it is actually needed) and this
happens in mainframe shops just the same as it does with  web development.

The cost of being wrong in a web environment can be just as devastating as
it is in a mainframe environment (especially if it is credit card processing
that wasn't exhaustively tested.)

Good shops in both camps will consider all of the costs of failure (both in
terms of time and accuracy) and develop a proper testing plan accordingly;
it is not the prerogative of one type of shop to get it right (or wrong).

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/2/2005 4:29:19 AM
> Mainframe testing standards are designed around the cost
> of covering your ass if things go wrong. They have nothing
> to do with efficiency or corporate benefit. It's all about the
> high cost of politics.

If things do go wrong then there can be great losses, a large
disbenefit to the corpoarte and a high cost.

Ensuring that things don't go wrong seems to be an excellent objective.

The balance should be the total cost per year of _anything_ going wrong
including consequential losses, such as corporate confidence comapred
to the cost of maintaining high testing standards to ensure nothing
does go wrong (or as little as possible).

It seems that you don't care about that.  You simply like to denigrate
everything that you haven't personally done, the intent seems to be
that everyone except Robert is wrong.

0
riplin (4127)
3/2/2005 5:52:13 AM
In article <38kpu2F5q3kc4U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d01qae$2he$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Do it once; do it right.
>>
>> Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.
>>
>> Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'
>>
>> Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
>> shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always
>> Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
>>
>>
>Lol! I know what you are saying, Doc, having encountered exactly this on
>numerous occasions.
>
>Nevertheless, if professional programmers insisted on doing things properly
>and refused to be pushed into 'band-aid' solutions, there would be no option
>for management but to comply.

Really, Mr Dashwood... if professional programmers had wheels would they 
be trolley-cars?  An alternate conclusion might be 'if professional 
programmers insisted on doing things properly and refused to be pushed 
into 'band-aid' solutions, there would be no option for management but to 
hire amateurs'.

>
>There are occasions when a band-aid can successfully be applied (the scratch
>is trivial and is unlikely to need revisiting...) but putting band-aids on
>gaping wounds that should be stitched, or in cases where a system limb is
>hanging off...or needs amputation, is just asking for more trouble later.

And if that 'later' comes after a particular 'manager' has been promoted 
or moved to another assignment - after demonstrating value to executives 
by showing, among other things, cost savings - then the problem is, at 
times, seen as 'someone else's'.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/2/2005 10:33:46 AM
In article <2n8a21pfgjptafulue2578e1kop2oel5gc@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2005 08:22:22 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
>>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Do it once; do it right.
>>
>>Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.
>>
>>Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'
>>
>>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this 
>>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always 
>>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
>
>They won't respond truthfully.

I don't expect truthful words out of them, no... but what I want to see is 
how the eyes move and the corner of the mouth turns up in that rueful grin 
which often indicates 'whoops... got me!'  It is similar to 'The Classic 
'Dull Saw' Story one can find at 
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=3484C94A.699B%40erols.com&output=gplain> 
..

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/2/2005 12:45:00 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1109742733.926913.286230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Mainframe testing standards are designed around the cost
>> of covering your ass if things go wrong. They have nothing
>> to do with efficiency or corporate benefit. It's all about the
>> high cost of politics.
>
> If things do go wrong then there can be great losses, a large
> disbenefit to the corpoarte and a high cost.
>
> Ensuring that things don't go wrong seems to be an excellent objective.
>
> The balance should be the total cost per year of _anything_ going wrong
> including consequential losses, such as corporate confidence comapred
> to the cost of maintaining high testing standards to ensure nothing
> does go wrong (or as little as possible).
>
> It seems that you don't care about that.  You simply like to denigrate
> everything that you haven't personally done, the intent seems to be
> that everyone except Robert is wrong.

You're confusing the real world and the Utopia that people search for.

Requirements are not worked on until they are signed off.  In the Utopian 
world this is to "capture ownership of a quality document", in the real 
world it's "I captured your signature and you're are responsible"

It used to be that you worked stuff down and the upper levels signed off 
acceptace......
Now its stuff gets worked down once the lower levels have forced you to 
accept responsibility......

Same thing but different.

Why is it that a system that has been working fine for 40 years now has to 
make hundreds of changes for SOX?  How is that _NOT_ a cya statement.  That 
_IS_ precisely whas SOX is about.

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
3/2/2005 6:14:13 PM
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message 
news:2n8a21pfgjptafulue2578e1kop2oel5gc@4ax.com...
> On 1 Mar 2005 08:22:22 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <38j1h3F5ocqh7U1@individual.net>,
>>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Do it once; do it right.
>>
>>Hmmmmm... might be a curious exchange at my next client interview.
>>
>>Interviewer: 'All right... any questions you might have of us?'
>>
>>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
>>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always
>>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
>
> They won't respond truthfully. You'll learn the answers after you've
> been on the job two weeks. At this stage they're looking for questions
> like 'will I have access to the Microsoft Plan schedule?' The answer
> is of course, if you ask your team lead. We can't afford to license
> you with a copy, but he'll at least give you a print out.

We're web enabled...I get an HTML version...but only if I ask nicely.  I'm 
only _ON_ the plan, so my need to know is limited.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/2/2005 8:04:09 PM
In article <Z_oVd.98002$pc5.15438@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message 
>news:2n8a21pfgjptafulue2578e1kop2oel5gc@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> They won't respond truthfully. You'll learn the answers after you've
>> been on the job two weeks. At this stage they're looking for questions
>> like 'will I have access to the Microsoft Plan schedule?' The answer
>> is of course, if you ask your team lead. We can't afford to license
>> you with a copy, but he'll at least give you a print out.
>
>We're web enabled...I get an HTML version...but only if I ask nicely.  I'm 
>only _ON_ the plan, so my need to know is limited.

You get web access?  More than one shop I've consulted with - the most 
recent being in November of 2000 - did not allow 
consultants/contractors/hired guns web access.  This lead to an 
interchange of:

'Damnation... funky error here.  Where's the SYNCSORT manual?'

'We don't need manuals here, they're all out on the web.'

'I don't have web access, how do I check manuals?'

'Hey, that's why we pay you the Big Bucks.'

'You pay me the Big Bucks to have manuals memorised?  If that's all you 
need it'd be cheaper to buy the manuals and let me go... how do I check 
manuals?'

'Uhhhhhh... use someone else's computer.'

'I'd have to log on to their computer and my ID doesn't have web access.'

'So use their ID.'

'That's against the Security Agreement everyone signs here, someone could 
get fired if they let me do that.'

'Uhhhhh... wait until they go to lunch.'

'What if they eat at their desk?'

'*Somebody's* got to leave their desk and go to lunch!'

'You're right... so each day I should go around asking everyone on the 
floor if they're eating at their desk and if not when they'll be off to 
lunch?'

'Uhhhhhh... something like that, sure.'

'No prob... let's see, there are about a hundred people in this section, 
if it takes me about a minute each that's a hair over an hour and a 
half... to which project ID should I charge that time each day?'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/3/2005 2:18:17 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <JSRUd.530611$8l.59693@pd7tw1no>,
>> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>However he was a Victorian/Edwardian gentleman, and even if pissed I 
>>>find it hard to see him using a phrase like "you are extremely ugly";
>>>more likely in Victorian romantic style, "Madam, you are beautiful", 
>>>then follow that with the knife in the next sentence.
>>>
>>>Either quote - doesn't really matter a tuppenny cuss - but would be 
>>>satisfying to really know.
>> 
>> 
>> To add another bit:
>> 
>> http://www.bartleby.com/73/2004.html
>> 
>> DD
>
>Good one Doc. So Astor not Bonham-Carter. Close but no cigar. Still, 
>shows how spurious some of this Net stuff can be, if you take it at face 
>value. If it was *false* for Astor, then also probably *false* for our 
>Bessie !

Could be..  Might not be..  All I know is that the version that I
quoted (Bessie) is one that I've known for the better part of 40 years
- *long* before the internet was even a twinkle in anyone's eye..

As to your question in the first post of this thread regarding how WSC
(Con) and BB (Lab) could ever meet outside the debating chamber - you
must remember that the House of Commons (and Lords for that matter) is
also one of the best Clubs, if not *the* best, in London and it's not
unreasonable to assume that such an exchange would have taken place
somewhere like the Members' Dining Room, or, much more likely, in one
of the several bars (which never close) housed in the Palace of
Westminster..

>Use of Web :-
>
>1. Search for a quotation, text and who said it
>2. Having got the quotation now find another site which rejects its 
>accuracy or existence

The satirical magazine "Private Eye" used to run a column based round
quotes from the late Harold Wilson during his time as Prime Minister..
They would post a quotation from one of his speeches or exchanges in
the House - taken from Hansard - followed by another also from Hansard
where he had stated the exact opposite..  :)

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
3/3/2005 3:00:54 PM
On  2-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
> >>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always
> >>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
> >
> >They won't respond truthfully.
>
> I don't expect truthful words out of them, no... but what I want to see is
> how the eyes move and the corner of the mouth turns up in that rueful grin
> which often indicates 'whoops... got me!'

Except often (usually?) they believe they are doing things as stated.    It
isn't an either/or situation - one can always measure more, and avoidance of
doing over is never complete.
0
howard (6283)
3/3/2005 4:03:17 PM
In article <d07cko$6fq$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On  2-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
>> >>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's Always
>> >>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
>> >
>> >They won't respond truthfully.
>>
>> I don't expect truthful words out of them, no... but what I want to see is
>> how the eyes move and the corner of the mouth turns up in that rueful grin
>> which often indicates 'whoops... got me!'
>
>Except often (usually?) they believe they are doing things as stated.

That I cannot say, Mr Brazee; I barely know what *I* believe, let alone 
someone else.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/3/2005 4:15:39 PM
On  3-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >> >>Me: 'Hmmmm... when it comes to task methodology would you say that this
> >> >>shop embraces the standard of 'Measure Twice, Cut Once' or 'There's
> >> >>Always
> >> >>Enough Time to Do It Over but Never Enough Time to Do It Right'?'
> >> >
> >> >They won't respond truthfully.
> >>
> >> I don't expect truthful words out of them, no... but what I want to see is
> >> how the eyes move and the corner of the mouth turns up in that rueful grin
> >> which often indicates 'whoops... got me!'
> >
> >Except often (usually?) they believe they are doing things as stated.
>
> That I cannot say, Mr Brazee; I barely know what *I* believe, let alone
> someone else.

I know I think I believe in that homily.  (How's that for prevarication)   And I
know that it is possible to believe in it to greater or lesser extents.

I also see Mr. Wagner arguing simultaneously for tougher and more lax standards.
  Which really isn't the conflict it appears to be, as all standards don't fit
the same problem.
0
howard (6283)
3/3/2005 4:49:35 PM
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:49:35 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:


>I also see Mr. Wagner arguing simultaneously for tougher and more lax standards.
>  Which really isn't the conflict it appears to be, as all standards don't fit
>the same problem.

I want laxer standards for programming style; tougher standards for
management's quality control. Along the line, techies decided the way
to reduce errors is to tighten down on programming standards and
impose Change Control. Make everyone program in the style of the '70s
and review changes. That's not right. 

The right way is to compare results against business requirements. If
it works, don't sweat the details. 

0
3/4/2005 2:17:20 AM
On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <Z_oVd.98002$pc5.15438@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message 
>>news:2n8a21pfgjptafulue2578e1kop2oel5gc@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>>> They won't respond truthfully. You'll learn the answers after you've
>>> been on the job two weeks. At this stage they're looking for questions
>>> like 'will I have access to the Microsoft Plan schedule?' The answer
>>> is of course, if you ask your team lead. We can't afford to license
>>> you with a copy, but he'll at least give you a print out.
>>
>>We're web enabled...I get an HTML version...but only if I ask nicely.  I'm 
>>only _ON_ the plan, so my need to know is limited.
>
>You get web access?  More than one shop I've consulted with - the most 
>recent being in November of 2000 - did not allow 
>consultants/contractors/hired guns web access.  This lead to an 
>interchange of:
>
>'Damnation... funky error here.  Where's the SYNCSORT manual?'
>
>'We don't need manuals here, they're all out on the web.'
>
>'I don't have web access, how do I check manuals?'
>
>'Hey, that's why we pay you the Big Bucks.'
>
>'You pay me the Big Bucks to have manuals memorised?  If that's all you 
>need it'd be cheaper to buy the manuals and let me go... how do I check 
>manuals?'
>
>'Uhhhhhh... use someone else's computer.'
>
>'I'd have to log on to their computer and my ID doesn't have web access.'
>
>'So use their ID.'
>
>'That's against the Security Agreement everyone signs here, someone could 
>get fired if they let me do that.'
>
>'Uhhhhh... wait until they go to lunch.'
>
>'What if they eat at their desk?'
>
>'*Somebody's* got to leave their desk and go to lunch!'
>
>'You're right... so each day I should go around asking everyone on the 
>floor if they're eating at their desk and if not when they'll be off to 
>lunch?'
>
>'Uhhhhhh... something like that, sure.'
>
>'No prob... let's see, there are about a hundred people in this section, 
>if it takes me about a minute each that's a hair over an hour and a 
>half... to which project ID should I charge that time each day?'

You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER. In the world of contracting,
you're expected to click your heels and say Yes Sir. Look to your
Indian colleagues for guidence in meekness.

In 2000, denying Internet access to contractors was semi-common. I
haven't seen it since then. When I needed access to a manual back
then, I went home. I go home for lunch every day anyway. After 2000,
I've been able to access manuals from the office. 

Back then, support people REALLY NEEDED internet access to download
the current versions of device drivers. They got around company
restrictions by installing a modem and calling their personal ISP.
Talk about a security leak! They had a completely unprotected
connection that bypassed the corporate firewall and gave anyone in
internet-land access to the corporate network. In places that groked
security, that would have been grounds for firing. Most companies
didn't understand the risk. They mistakenly thought they were more
secure because support people couldn't waste time with internet porn
or Web browsing. It's another case of technically incompetent
management.

As I said, management gave internet access to everyone after 2000. If
your place doesn't, you're in a time warp.
0
3/4/2005 3:03:30 AM
In article <52if2117tg2ol332joj4ktvcmq8fgdld5s@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>>'You're right... so each day I should go around asking everyone on the 
>>floor if they're eating at their desk and if not when they'll be off to 
>>lunch?'
>>
>>'Uhhhhhh... something like that, sure.'
>>
>>'No prob... let's see, there are about a hundred people in this section, 
>>if it takes me about a minute each that's a hair over an hour and a 
>>half... to which project ID should I charge that time each day?'
>
>You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.

Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'... 
silly me!

>In the world of contracting,
>you're expected to click your heels and say Yes Sir.

Our experiences are different, Mr Wagner... from what I've seen of the 
world of contracting one is expected to do the unexpected.

>Look to your
>Indian colleagues for guidence in meekness.

Oh, I couldn't do *that*... that might invite them to look to me for 
guidance in what constitutes an acceptable hourly rate.

[snip]

>They got around company
>restrictions by installing a modem and calling their personal ISP.
>Talk about a security leak! They had a completely unprotected
>connection that bypassed the corporate firewall and gave anyone in
>internet-land access to the corporate network.

I did that... and I didn't; on some sites I'd modem out on my own laptop, 
no risk to the corporate net at all.

>In places that groked
>security, that would have been grounds for firing. Most companies
>didn't understand the risk. They mistakenly thought they were more
>secure because support people couldn't waste time with internet porn
>or Web browsing. It's another case of technically incompetent
>management.

Managers are supposed to manage, technicians are supposed to... tech, or 
whatever that verb might be.  It might be as valid to wish for technically 
competent managers as it would be to wish for managerially competent 
technicians.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/4/2005 12:48:06 PM
On  4-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >
> >You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.
>
> Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'...
> silly me!

Thinking outside the box is what Mr. Wagner does when he disagrees with the
establishment.    Troublemaking is what the rest of us do when we disagree with
Mr. Wagner.   
0
howard (6283)
3/4/2005 3:13:36 PM
On 4 Mar 2005 07:48:06 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <52if2117tg2ol332joj4ktvcmq8fgdld5s@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>>You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.
>
>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'... 
>silly me!

I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.

>>In the world of contracting,
>>you're expected to click your heels and say Yes Sir.
>
>Our experiences are different, Mr Wagner... from what I've seen of the 
>world of contracting one is expected to do the unexpected.

Not in my experience.

>>Look to your
>>Indian colleagues for guidence in meekness.
>
>Oh, I couldn't do *that*... that might invite them to look to me for 
>guidance in what constitutes an acceptable hourly rate.

<laughiing> Very good answer.

>>They got around company
>>restrictions by installing a modem and calling their personal ISP.
>>Talk about a security leak! They had a completely unprotected
>>connection that bypassed the corporate firewall and gave anyone in
>>internet-land access to the corporate network.
>
>I did that... and I didn't; on some sites I'd modem out on my own laptop, 
>no risk to the corporate net at all.

Wrong. At some point your laptop must be connected to the network.
Otherwise, there was no point to the download. A virus running on your
laptop could then do its damage.

>>In places that groked
>>security, that would have been grounds for firing. Most companies
>>didn't understand the risk. They mistakenly thought they were more
>>secure because support people couldn't waste time with internet porn
>>or Web browsing. It's another case of technically incompetent
>>management.
>
>Managers are supposed to manage, technicians are supposed to... tech, or 
>whatever that verb might be.  It might be as valid to wish for technically 
>competent managers as it would be to wish for managerially competent 
>technicians.

We and most CLC readers understand both tech and management. Skills
are not that scarce. Problem is, the selection process is screwed up.
0
3/5/2005 3:40:08 AM
Robert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>>You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.
>>
>>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'... 
>>silly me!
> 
> 
> I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.

You know, I was thinking about this kind of stuff earlier today - 
brought on by a discussion on why some folks who run Linux seem to 
change distributions so often.  One of the possible reasons put forth by 
someone was that perhaps these were fad distributions.

These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has 
one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being 
displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a 
servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to 
sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a 
sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it 
patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true 
heart belief.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/5/2005 3:59:39 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:6e3b2$42292eba$45491f85$22262@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Robert Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> You know, I was thinking about this kind of stuff earlier today - brought 
> on by a discussion on why some folks who run Linux seem to change 
> distributions so often.  One of the possible reasons put forth by someone 
> was that perhaps these were fad distributions.
Why reinvent the wheel when you can have fun repackaging it.  I think people 
do it for fun  Part of the issue that I see is a very unclear upgrade and 
maintenance path.  You know the age old case of wanting 3d support for your 
graphics card - you can either go down the path of downloading, compiling, 
finding dependencies, or you can read which distribution is the newest and 
upgrade.
Some distro's lose popularity as the companies realize they need to become 
commercial.
I think the "fad" is the greatest likelihood...most linux bigots (and they 
are more so than windows bigots) tend to play around a lot, try lots of 
things, and due to this they switch as what they are playing with changes.

 > These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has
> one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
> design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being displayed 
> sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a servicemember, I'm 
> grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to sound like I don't 
> appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a sudden *that* patriotic? 
> The cynical part of me wonders if it patriotism is becoming a fad, and not 
> something that's rooted in true heart belief.
Deep down you want it to believe it's the cynical part of you, but I think 
you know the answer
Unfortunately, after 9/11. to express any other opinion in the US got you 
the evil looks - it wasn't good enough to abstain from the issue.
The way I see it, America was not made special by 9/11, it just joined the 
rest of the world. Welcome.

I do think that in general, even with the fad, and even those with antiwar 
stickers generally "support the right to survive" of the military. 
Generally speaking people support the troops but they don't even know why. 
People are perpetuating this myth that the military is dying for "You and I" 
when it's clear they aren't - they are dying for something or someone else. 
It's not mine to judge whether that something or someone is/was worth it.

To quote a not so famous crusty band....about a different war...same 
sentiment

"Dead men in the South Atlantic, It's meant to warm our hearts.  They think 
that they died for you and me Oh God, what a farce"

Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.  No one likes being alone, 
so we do what is necessary to belong.  A fad is a good way to belong...it's 
why there's religion, it's why there are fraternities, it's why there is 
clc.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/5/2005 4:46:48 AM
LX-i wrote:
> Robert Wagner wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>> On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the 
>>> box'... silly me!
>>
>>
>>
>> I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.
> 
> 
> You know, I was thinking about this kind of stuff earlier today - 
> brought on by a discussion on why some folks who run Linux seem to 
> change distributions so often.  One of the possible reasons put forth by 
> someone was that perhaps these were fad distributions.
> 
> These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has 
> one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
> design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being 
> displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a 
> servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to 
> sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a 
> sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it 
> patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true 
> heart belief.
> 
Your last paragraph. An American being interviewed on one of those 
ladies talk shows in the morning, in Canada. Was editor for some 
magazine in Seattle area. Didn't see whole thing, but apparently, (could 
be wrong),  think he got fired from his editorial job. He received an 
equal number of e-mails supporting as opposed to criticisms. (Sound 
familiar - blue and red states).

He made a good point though. If we really want to support our guys - 
bring them home from Iraq. Can't really argue that one can you. 
Certainly reduces the body bag count. But having got into that gawdawful 
mess, and the Iraqi election, for which we have to wait to see the true 
results down the pike, how does the US get out honourably.

Jimmy
0
3/5/2005 6:37:21 AM
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:59:39 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:


>You know, I was thinking about this kind of stuff earlier today - 
>brought on by a discussion on why some folks who run Linux seem to 
>change distributions so often.  One of the possible reasons put forth by 
>someone was that perhaps these were fad distributions.
>
>These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has 
>one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
>design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being 
>displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a 
>servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to 
>sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a 
>sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it 
>patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true 
>heart belief.

There isn't a single answer.  Boomers, aged 40 to 60, are natural
hypocrites and synchophants (puritans) who insincerely support the
_country_, as you say. The 13ers, aged 20 to 39, think they got stuck
with a dirty job and might as well support each other, because no one
else will. Their sympathy is for their brothers and sisters -- the
_troops_ not the country. Some of them -- yuppies with SUVs -- think
like Boomers. The under-20 generation are sincere patriots. 

I support war in Iraq because, for the first time since WW II, we're
doing everything RIGHT. We removed the bad guy, helped them install an
indiginous (not puppet) government, are quietly building
infrastructure and are _trying_ to hand security back to locals. Other
than the initial decision to go in, we haven't made many mistakes. We
can't 'win' militarily, because there are more insurgents than we can
kill, but we can help the decent people of Iraq pevail politically and
morally. That will be a victory for mankind, not just George W's rich
friends. 

It's too bad Rwanda and Sudan don't have billions of barrels of oil.
If they did, we could have done right in those countries as well.

The people you should rag on are the cynical Europeans, who think
leadership means doing nothing while millions are being brutalized. 

0
3/5/2005 12:27:21 PM
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>I support war in Iraq because, for the first time since WW II, we're
>doing everything RIGHT. We removed the bad guy, helped them install an
>indiginous (not puppet) government, are quietly building
>infrastructure and are _trying_ to hand security back to locals. Other
>than the initial decision to go in, we haven't made many mistakes. We
>can't 'win' militarily, because there are more insurgents than we can
>kill, but we can help the decent people of Iraq pevail politically and
>morally. That will be a victory for mankind, not just George W's rich
>friends. 
>
>It's too bad Rwanda and Sudan don't have billions of barrels of oil.
>If they did, we could have done right in those countries as well.

I fear that this second paragraph totally destroys the argument made
in your first.

>The people you should rag on are the cynical Europeans, who think
>leadership means doing nothing while millions are being brutalized. 

No. Leadership in this case means trying to keep out of what is
increasingly looking like an armed robbery on a massive scale.

-- 
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
      than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
      known as afternoon tea.."

         Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
3/5/2005 12:30:51 PM
In article <6m9i21hb0sto5csvhs6blknijujuorjone@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2005 07:48:06 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <52if2117tg2ol332joj4ktvcmq8fgdld5s@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>>You are what's known as a TROUBLEMAKER.
>>
>>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'... 
>>silly me!
>
>I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.

I am not sure of it is most often used, Mr Wagner... but when I am 
presented with it I frequently respond with '... but not *too* far 
outside, right?'... and the response is, often, a vigorous and 
enthusiastic 'Yes!'.

>
>>>In the world of contracting,
>>>you're expected to click your heels and say Yes Sir.
>>
>>Our experiences are different, Mr Wagner... from what I've seen of the 
>>world of contracting one is expected to do the unexpected.
>
>Not in my experience.

Our experiences differ, then... and a Good Thing, too, since if I wanted 
only agreement I would speak only with my mirror.  But back to the point 
of contractors being expected to do the unexpected... there's a task that 
is too 'dirty'/ugly/intricate/whatever for anyone else in the shop to have 
accomplished and that is, quite often, the task that the contractor is 
expected to do.  Are you saying that the contractor is expected to fail, 
just like everyone else?

>
>>>Look to your
>>>Indian colleagues for guidence in meekness.
>>
>>Oh, I couldn't do *that*... that might invite them to look to me for 
>>guidance in what constitutes an acceptable hourly rate.
>
><laughiing> Very good answer.

Glad you enjoyed.

>
>>>They got around company
>>>restrictions by installing a modem and calling their personal ISP.
>>>Talk about a security leak! They had a completely unprotected
>>>connection that bypassed the corporate firewall and gave anyone in
>>>internet-land access to the corporate network.
>>
>>I did that... and I didn't; on some sites I'd modem out on my own laptop, 
>>no risk to the corporate net at all.
>
>Wrong.

Mr Wagner, my memory is, I admit, porous... but not so porous that I have 
misremembered what wires were hooked to what components.

>At some point your laptop must be connected to the network.
>Otherwise, there was no point to the download. A virus running on your
>laptop could then do its damage.

Mr Wagner, please read back and see where I mentioned that I downloaded... 
and then post it here.  The problem I was trying to address with my 
modemed-out access was one of *research*... this all started with mention 
of web-based manuals, remember?  I'd modem out to websites and read things 
or I'd research this group via DejaNews... errrrr, Google.  I did not need 
to download.

>
>>>In places that groked
>>>security, that would have been grounds for firing. Most companies
>>>didn't understand the risk. They mistakenly thought they were more
>>>secure because support people couldn't waste time with internet porn
>>>or Web browsing. It's another case of technically incompetent
>>>management.
>>
>>Managers are supposed to manage, technicians are supposed to... tech, or 
>>whatever that verb might be.  It might be as valid to wish for technically 
>>competent managers as it would be to wish for managerially competent 
>>technicians.
>
>We and most CLC readers understand both tech and management. Skills
>are not that scarce. Problem is, the selection process is screwed up.

Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner... though from what I've noticed most of 
the folks who post here differ from most of the folks I've worked with in 
meatspace; I've run across folks - more than once, if you can believe it! 
- who come into work at 8:am, turn away from the keyboard at precisely 
10:am to read the paper and drink coffee for 15 minutes, hit the cafeteria 
at exactly noon for an hour at the same table with the same crew to talk 
about sports or the stockmarket or house-remodelling, back to the desk at 
1:pm, more newspaper at 3:pm and at 5:01pm you could set fire to their 
seat and not singe a hair on their backs.

Granted I am not with them at times to verify it... but I'd be willing to 
wager that it is a rare day, indeed, that these folks come up with a new 
slant on a problem or a different, clear resolution of a difficulty as 
they shower... or that they sit up in bed, bolt upright, at 2:am and say 
'*THAT'S* how I deal with it!'... and, for whatever reasons, I think that 
readers here have more of those kinds of moments than the others I have 
described do.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/5/2005 3:32:32 PM
In article <YQaWd.128780$qB6.128402@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.

I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there to be 
gained by telling people that?'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/5/2005 3:35:22 PM
On 5 Mar 2005 10:32:32 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <6m9i21hb0sto5csvhs6blknijujuorjone@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>>>>In the world of contracting,
>>>>you're expected to click your heels and say Yes Sir.
>>>
>>>Our experiences are different, Mr Wagner... from what I've seen of the 
>>>world of contracting one is expected to do the unexpected.
>>
>>Not in my experience.
>
>Our experiences differ, then... and a Good Thing, too, since if I wanted 
>only agreement I would speak only with my mirror.  But back to the point 
>of contractors being expected to do the unexpected... there's a task that 
>is too 'dirty'/ugly/intricate/whatever for anyone else in the shop to have 
>accomplished and that is, quite often, the task that the contractor is 
>expected to do.

In most places where I worked as contractor, technical plans were
drawn up by SMEs, usually employees, before contractors were brought
in. Lacking a detailed plan, how would they know how many bodies and
what skills to bring in? Contractors then executed the plan. 

At a few places, when I had idle time, I solved technical problems
that others hadn't been able to, or had the time to, figure out. These
tasks weren't assigned, nor the results expected. 

> Are you saying that the contractor is expected to fail, 
>just like everyone else?

I haven't seen everyone, or hardly anyone, fail. Projects were
finished on-time and on-budget; results were as requested.

You must work in really screwed-up companies.

>>At some point your laptop must be connected to the network.
>>Otherwise, there was no point to the download. A virus running on your
>>laptop could then do its damage.
>
>Mr Wagner, please read back and see where I mentioned that I downloaded... 
>and then post it here.  The problem I was trying to address with my 
>modemed-out access was one of *research*... this all started with mention 
>of web-based manuals, remember?  I'd modem out to websites and read things 
>or I'd research this group via DejaNews... errrrr, Google.  I did not need 
>to download.

I described support people downloading device drivers and fix packs.

> from what I've noticed most of 
>the folks who post here differ from most of the folks I've worked with in 
>meatspace; I've run across folks - more than once, if you can believe it! 
>- who come into work at 8:am, turn away from the keyboard at precisely 
>10:am to read the paper and drink coffee for 15 minutes, hit the cafeteria 
>at exactly noon for an hour at the same table with the same crew to talk 
>about sports or the stockmarket or house-remodelling, back to the desk at 
>1:pm, more newspaper at 3:pm and at 5:01pm you could set fire to their 
>seat and not singe a hair on their backs.
>
>Granted I am not with them at times to verify it... but I'd be willing to 
>wager that it is a rare day, indeed, that these folks come up with a new 
>slant on a problem or a different, clear resolution of a difficulty as 
>they shower... or that they sit up in bed, bolt upright, at 2:am and say 
>'*THAT'S* how I deal with it!'... and, for whatever reasons, I think that 
>readers here have more of those kinds of moments than the others I have 
>described do.

I keep regular hours AND have off-duty flashes of insight. You didn't
show a connection between long/irregular hours at the office and ideas
that arrive at 2:am.
0
3/5/2005 8:37:34 PM
jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:6e3b2$42292eba$45491f85$22262@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Robert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 2 Mar 2005 21:18:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>You know, I was thinking about this kind of stuff earlier today - brought 
>>on by a discussion on why some folks who run Linux seem to change 
>>distributions so often.  One of the possible reasons put forth by someone 
>>was that perhaps these were fad distributions.
> 
> Why reinvent the wheel when you can have fun repackaging it.  I think people 
> do it for fun  Part of the issue that I see is a very unclear upgrade and 
> maintenance path.  You know the age old case of wanting 3d support for your 
> graphics card - you can either go down the path of downloading, compiling, 
> finding dependencies, or you can read which distribution is the newest and 
> upgrade.

That was a debate over on the White Box Enterprise Linux (WBEL) user's 
list (it's a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), over whether to make 
new CD images every other release (as has been the custom), or just let 
someone run a really long yum transaction once they got it installed. 
The decision was made to do a re-spin this time because the installer 
has much better SATA support.

And, of course, tracking Red Hat's solid commercial product for free is 
what pretty much drew me to WBEL.

> Some distro's lose popularity as the companies realize they need to become 
> commercial.
> I think the "fad" is the greatest likelihood...most linux bigots (and they 
> are more so than windows bigots) tend to play around a lot, try lots of 
> things, and due to this they switch as what they are playing with changes.

And, what some of the other folks said, they use Linux, but they don't 
really see anything to gain from learning the latest installers - 
they've moved on to other things.  (I'm in that crowd as well - I don't 
want to *try* this or that distro, I want to make my app *work* on the 
one I've chosen.)

>  > These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has
> 
>>one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
>>design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being displayed 
>>sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a servicemember, I'm 
>>grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to sound like I don't 
>>appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a sudden *that* patriotic? 
>>The cynical part of me wonders if it patriotism is becoming a fad, and not 
>>something that's rooted in true heart belief.
> 
> Deep down you want it to believe it's the cynical part of you, but I think 
> you know the answer

I don't want to believe it, but it's hard not to think about that...

> Unfortunately, after 9/11. to express any other opinion in the US got you 
> the evil looks - it wasn't good enough to abstain from the issue.

If you're here, why would you feel differently?  "We brought this on 
ourselves, so we should just sit back and let these Islamo-fascists nuke 
the Super Bowl - it's our fault anyway..."

> The way I see it, America was not made special by 9/11, it just joined the 
> rest of the world. Welcome.

??

> I do think that in general, even with the fad, and even those with antiwar 
> stickers generally "support the right to survive" of the military. 
> Generally speaking people support the troops but they don't even know why. 
> People are perpetuating this myth that the military is dying for "You and I" 
> when it's clear they aren't - they are dying for something or someone else. 
> It's not mine to judge whether that something or someone is/was worth it.

It's either an isolationist or a short-sighted person who can't see that 
what we are doing today will help make ours and future generations 
safer, as well as stopping the horrible atrocities committed by the 
leaders we've displaced.  Even if *every* single charge about Guantanamo 
Bay and Abu Ghraib is true, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 
what these men did to their own citizens.

> To quote a not so famous crusty band....about a different war...same 
> sentiment
> 
> "Dead men in the South Atlantic, It's meant to warm our hearts.  They think 
> that they died for you and me Oh God, what a farce"

And I thought *I* was cynical...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/6/2005 12:44:06 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
> 
>> These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has 
>> one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a 
>> flag design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being 
>> displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a 
>> servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want 
>> to sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a 
>> sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it 
>> patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true 
>> heart belief.
>>
> Your last paragraph. An American being interviewed on one of those 
> ladies talk shows in the morning, in Canada. Was editor for some 
> magazine in Seattle area. Didn't see whole thing, but apparently, (could 
> be wrong),  think he got fired from his editorial job. He received an 
> equal number of e-mails supporting as opposed to criticisms. (Sound 
> familiar - blue and red states).

Though Seattle is solidly blue...  ?

> He made a good point though. If we really want to support our guys - 
> bring them home from Iraq. Can't really argue that one can you. 

I sure can!  Should we leave before the job is done?  The 1,000+ plus 
dead of our folks, plus others from allies and the Iraqis themselves, 
certainly would want to see us stay the course and finish the job. 
That's what we didn't do in 1991, and it resulted in greater sacrifices 
for both our troops, as well as the Iraqi people.  I'd hate to see that 
happen again.

Bring 'em home?  Absolutely - but not until the job is done.

> Certainly reduces the body bag count. But having got into that gawdawful 
> mess, and the Iraqi election, for which we have to wait to see the true 
> results down the pike, how does the US get out honourably.

By training the Iraqi people to have their own army and police force, 
who enforce laws and defend their country according to a defined set of 
laws.  In our country (and yours), when the President or Prime Minister 
office changes parties, the military and police go on as usual.  (Of 
course, I know of at least 3 people who didn't get out of the military 
until #42's replacement had been sworn in...  They didn't want his 
signature on their retirement papers.)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/6/2005 1:14:46 AM
Robert Wagner wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:59:39 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has 
>>one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag 
>>design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being 
>>displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a 
>>servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to 
>>sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a 
>>sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it 
>>patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true 
>>heart belief.
> 
> There isn't a single answer.  Boomers, aged 40 to 60, are natural
> hypocrites and synchophants (puritans) who insincerely support the
> _country_, as you say. The 13ers, aged 20 to 39, think they got stuck
> with a dirty job and might as well support each other, because no one
> else will. Their sympathy is for their brothers and sisters -- the
> _troops_ not the country. Some of them -- yuppies with SUVs -- think
> like Boomers. The under-20 generation are sincere patriots. 

Well, I'll take support, even if it is not necessarily sincere, over the 
treatment my brothers-in-arms received when coming home from Vietnam. 
And, as Mr. Gavan's post (to which I replied earlier) shows, not 
everyone who says "support our troops" means the same thing.

> I support war in Iraq because, for the first time since WW II, we're
> doing everything RIGHT. We removed the bad guy, helped them install an
> indiginous (not puppet) government, are quietly building
> infrastructure and are _trying_ to hand security back to locals. Other
> than the initial decision to go in, we haven't made many mistakes.

I don't think that was a mistake either.  The man had thumbed his nose 
at 12 UN resolutions - doesn't act like an innocent person to me. 
(Besides, he shipped his nukes/bio stuff to Syria - we'll find it 
eventually...)

> We
> can't 'win' militarily, because there are more insurgents than we can
> kill,

Nope - just more than we *will* kill, being moral people and all, trying 
to avoid collateral damage.

> but we can help the decent people of Iraq pevail politically and
> morally. That will be a victory for mankind, not just George W's rich
> friends. 

So why is is painted so drearily by so many?  If everyone benefits, why 
do so many resist?

> It's too bad Rwanda and Sudan don't have billions of barrels of oil.
> If they did, we could have done right in those countries as well.

Dick Morris, #42's political adviser, was on a show I was listening to. 
  He was plugging his new book, but was talking about our lackluster 
performance in certain military efforts.  Now, I think #42 was 
weak-spined, but Morris made a good point - they didn't have the support 
of the American people to pursue a whole lot more than they did.  9/11 
certainly did make people more willing to see us go in and root out some 
evildoers.

> The people you should rag on are the cynical Europeans, who think
> leadership means doing nothing while millions are being brutalized. 

This is true - why did *we* need to go into Kosovo?  Why aren't they 
doing more in the Sudan?  I do have to give props to some European 
countries, though, who are starting to make progress and help us out in 
the war on terror.  While 9/11 made our people more willing to go, I 
think it made them more willing to go as well, just out of a sense of 
self-preservation.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/6/2005 1:26:03 AM
In article <ls4k21hspil5l4de23trplsidrq4ird6n0@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 5 Mar 2005 10:32:32 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <6m9i21hb0sto5csvhs6blknijujuorjone@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
>You must work in really screwed-up companies.

I've worked in a few places here and there, Mr Wagner; all I can report is 
what I have seen.

>
>>>At some point your laptop must be connected to the network.
>>>Otherwise, there was no point to the download. A virus running on your
>>>laptop could then do its damage.
>>
>>Mr Wagner, please read back and see where I mentioned that I downloaded... 
>>and then post it here.  The problem I was trying to address with my 
>>modemed-out access was one of *research*... this all started with mention 
>>of web-based manuals, remember?  I'd modem out to websites and read things 
>>or I'd research this group via DejaNews... errrrr, Google.  I did not need 
>>to download.
>
>I described support people downloading device drivers and fix packs.

And I described what *I* did, Mr Wagner, and you told me I was wrong about 
it.  As quote above, you stated, clearly and unambiguously, that 'At some 
point your laptop must be connected to the network (etc)' and that was not 
what I did not how I described what I did.

>
>> from what I've noticed most of 
>>the folks who post here differ from most of the folks I've worked with in 
>>meatspace; I've run across folks - more than once, if you can believe it! 
>>- who come into work at 8:am, turn away from the keyboard at precisely 
>>10:am to read the paper and drink coffee for 15 minutes, hit the cafeteria 
>>at exactly noon for an hour at the same table with the same crew to talk 
>>about sports or the stockmarket or house-remodelling, back to the desk at 
>>1:pm, more newspaper at 3:pm and at 5:01pm you could set fire to their 
>>seat and not singe a hair on their backs.
>>
>>Granted I am not with them at times to verify it... but I'd be willing to 
>>wager that it is a rare day, indeed, that these folks come up with a new 
>>slant on a problem or a different, clear resolution of a difficulty as 
>>they shower... or that they sit up in bed, bolt upright, at 2:am and say 
>>'*THAT'S* how I deal with it!'... and, for whatever reasons, I think that 
>>readers here have more of those kinds of moments than the others I have 
>>described do.
>
>I keep regular hours AND have off-duty flashes of insight. You didn't
>show a connection between long/irregular hours at the office and ideas
>that arrive at 2:am.

I didn't state such a connection existed, Mr Wagner... just like I didn't 
say I was downloading anything.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/6/2005 3:11:23 AM
> Boomers, aged 40 to 60, are natural hypocrites and
> synchophants (puritans) who insincerely support the
> _country_, as you say.

That has just insulted a quarter of the population.

> Some of them -- yuppies with SUVs -- think
> like Boomers.

Another few percent.

> The under-20 generation are sincere patriots.

Well there yer go.  All you need is to be under 20 and that guarantees
sincerity.

> for the first time since WW II, we're doing everything RIGHT.

What was wrong with Korea ? Not finishing the job and nuking China ????

0
riplin (4127)
3/6/2005 4:41:53 AM
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:26:03 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:59:39 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Well, I'll take support, even if it is not necessarily sincere, over the 
>treatment my brothers-in-arms received when coming home from Vietnam. 

Yes, Vietnam was a management disaster.

>> I support war in Iraq because, for the first time since WW II, we're
>> doing everything RIGHT. We removed the bad guy, helped them install an
>> indiginous (not puppet) government, are quietly building
>> infrastructure and are _trying_ to hand security back to locals. Other
>> than the initial decision to go in, we haven't made many mistakes.
>
>I don't think that was a mistake either.  The man had thumbed his nose 
>at 12 UN resolutions - doesn't act like an innocent person to me. 
>(Besides, he shipped his nukes/bio stuff to Syria - we'll find it 
>eventually..

We had a large unit (regiment? battalion?) dedicated to do nothing but
find them. It came up empty. I assume we had Special Ops in Syria.
Those who say 'you can't prove a negative' are wrong. When a huge
investigation finds nothing, it really doesn't exist.

>> We
>> can't 'win' militarily, because there are more insurgents than we can
>> kill,
>
>Nope - just more than we *will* kill, being moral people and all, trying 
>to avoid collateral damage.

There are some 200K insurgents. It would take 800K American troops to
root them out.

>> but we can help the decent people of Iraq pevail politically and
>> morally. That will be a victory for mankind, not just George W's rich
>> friends. 
>
>So why is it painted so drearily by so many?  If everyone benefits, why 
>do so many resist?

They're peace-niks, a holdover from the '70s, and Democrats who oppose
anything Bush does. It's just politics solving yesterday's problems
rather than looking to the future.

>> It's too bad Rwanda and Sudan don't have billions of barrels of oil.
>> If they did, we could have done right in those countries as well.
>
>Dick Morris, #42's political adviser, was on a show I was listening to. 
>  He was plugging his new book, but was talking about our lackluster 
>performance in certain military efforts.  Now, I think #42 was 
>weak-spined, but Morris made a good point - they didn't have the support 
>of the American people to pursue a whole lot more than they did.  9/11 
>certainly did make people more willing to see us go in and root out some 
>evildoers.

You're right about that, even if it was staged and not at all what it
appeared to be.The illusion has become reality. Maybe that's a good
thing in this case. I'm worried that 'they' will be tempted to repeat
the performance.

What's the deal with #42? Give President Clinton some respect. His
philandering was mild compared to most politicians, including
Republicans. It's also mild compared to Army personnel. 

>> The people you should rag on are the cynical Europeans, who think
>> leadership means doing nothing while millions are being brutalized. 
>
>This is true - why did *we* need to go into Kosovo?  Why aren't they 
>doing more in the Sudan?  I do have to give props to some European 
>countries, though, who are starting to make progress and help us out in 
>the war on terror.  While 9/11 made our people more willing to go, I 
>think it made them more willing to go as well, just out of a sense of 
>self-preservation.

Collaberation based on fear rests on a weak foundation. I'd rather
have colleagues than fair weather 'friends' who are likely to bolt on
the next threat.

Genocide in Western Sudan is going on now; it's just getting started,
really. So far, about 50K people have been exterminated. If we do
nothing, the toll might go to 1M. We wring our hands over 1K Americans
killed in Iraq (plus 25K maimed in 'non-combat' accidents) while
ignoring a thousand times as many Africans  'in harm's way'. They're
not freedom fighters or insurgents, they're innocent women and
children being brutalized by a system they have no control over.
0
3/6/2005 6:26:30 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1110084113.380707.86700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Boomers, aged 40 to 60, are natural hypocrites and
>> synchophants (puritans) who insincerely support the
>> _country_, as you say.
>
> That has just insulted a quarter of the population.
>
>> Some of them -- yuppies with SUVs -- think
>> like Boomers.
>
> Another few percent.
>
>> The under-20 generation are sincere patriots.
Because they've not lived any of their formative years under a non Bush 
government.

I think you have all your ideas backwards anyway....as Churchill didn't 
actually say " "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If 
you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."


> Well there yer go.  All you need is to be under 20 and that guarantees
> sincerity.
>
>> for the first time since WW II, we're doing everything RIGHT.
>
> What was wrong with Korea ? Not finishing the job and nuking China ????

Sooner or later _all_ americans will realize that Europe will always be 
greatful for WWII support, even if we don't feel like having to hear about 
it everytime a decision needs to be made in world politics.

In a similar vein, the world needs to realize that Germans are not all 
Nazi's anymore. The French aren't anti american bigots.  I think every 
nation has paid dearly for the price for war -whether needed or not.  The 
period between 1939 - 1954 was not fun for anyone in the UK.....
The sheer numbers of WWII when compared to Iraq are astounding....the thing 
I never understand is how many of the Americans I talk to do not realize 
that at that time the USSR was an ally - I guess that speaks to the success 
of the cold war education system.   Even fewer seem aware of the Chinese 
death toll..

Source: bbc.

Civilian and Military Deaths in the Second World War

Countries  Total Deaths  % of Pre-war Population  Military Deaths  Civilian 
Deaths
USSR  20,600,000  10.40%  13,600,000  7,000,000
China  10,000,000  2.00%  -  -
Germany  6,850,000  9.50%  3,250,000  3,600,000
Poland  6,123,000  17.20%  123,000  6,000,000
Japan  2,000,000  2.70%  -  -
Yugoslavia  1,706,000  10.90%  -  -
France  810,000  1.90%  340,000  470,000
Greece  520,000  7.20%  -  -
USA  500,000  0.40%  500,000  -
Austria  480,000  7.20%  -  -
Romania  460,000  3.40%  -  -
Hungary  420,000  3.00%  -  -
Italy  410,000  0.90%  330,000  80,000
Czechoslovakia  400,000  2.70%  -  -
Great Britain  388,000  0.80%  326,000  62,000
The Netherlands  210,000  2.40%  198,000  12,000
Belgium  88,000  1.10%  76,000  12,000
Finland  84,000  2.20%  -  -
Australia  39,000  0.30%  -  -
Canada  34,000  0.30%  -  -
Albania  28,000  2.50%  -  -
India  24,000  0.01%  -  -
Norway  10,262  0.30%  -  -
New Zealand 10,000  0.60%  -  -
Luxembourg  5,000  1.70%  -  -
TOTAL  52,199,262  - - -

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
3/7/2005 4:57:02 AM
>> The under-20 generation are sincere patriots.

> Because they've not lived any of their formative years under a non
Bush
> government.

I know dozens of 'under-20' that have lived _all_ of their years under
'non Bush government'.

Maybe some, maybe most, American teens may be 'sincere patriots' some
others may not even be patriots at all.

> I think you have all your ideas backwards anyway....

In what way do you know what 'all my ideas' are ?

> as Churchill didn't
> actually say " "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no
heart. If
> you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

In what way is what Churchill said relevant at all, and more especially
to what you imagine my ideas to be ?

And anyway, why do you think that Churchill did not say that ?

0
riplin (4127)
3/7/2005 5:26:30 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:743a6$422a5266$45491f85$3191@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> jce wrote:
> That was a debate over on the White Box Enterprise Linux (WBEL) user's 
> list (it's a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), over whether to make new 
> CD images every other release (as has been the custom), or just let 
> someone run a really long yum transaction once they got it installed. The 
> decision was made to do a re-spin this time because the installer has much 
> better SATA support.
>
> And, of course, tracking Red Hat's solid commercial product for free is 
> what pretty much drew me to WBEL.
I wasn't aware of that Distro - I tried Fedora, didn't like the default feel 
to it and just spent a good hour or so downloading SUSE 9.2


>> Unfortunately, after 9/11. to express any other opinion in the US got you 
>> the evil looks - it wasn't good enough to abstain from the issue.
>
> If you're here, why would you feel differently?  "We brought this on 
> ourselves, so we should just sit back and let these Islamo-fascists nuke 
> the Super Bowl - it's our fault anyway..."
>
>> The way I see it, America was not made special by 9/11, it just joined 
>> the rest of the world. Welcome.
>
I spent time in Manchester in England to see it bombed.  I had special 
forces searching outside my digs every night. I then moved to Sheffield to 
see that Meadowhall was listed as a target.  England has had the IRA for 
years.
Spain has had ETA. And the list goes on.  My point is that the USA was not 
an exception in being targetted, it had been an exception in NOT being 
targetted.   It was an ironic welcome..

>> I do think that in general, even with the fad, and even those with 
>> antiwar stickers generally "support the right to survive" of the 
>> military. Generally speaking people support the troops but they don't 
>> even know why. People are perpetuating this myth that the military is 
>> dying for "You and I" when it's clear they aren't - they are dying for 
>> something or someone else. It's not mine to judge whether that something 
>> or someone is/was worth it.

> It's either an isolationist or a short-sighted person who can't see that 
> what we are doing today will help make ours and future generations safer, 
> as well as stopping the horrible atrocities committed by the leaders we've 
> displaced.
Perhaps it's someone who's read some amount of history? How do you think 
some of these things started?

Iraq's neighbour, Iran, is now going to setup it's own Oil group with Euros 
taking the place of the ailing dollar on the international energy markets. 
It plans to set-up its own oil bourse in direct competition with London and 
New York that are both owned by US-led consortiums.  This is why the views 
on Iran are so different on one side of the Atlantic versus the other.  How 
is this situation any safer for Americans?

The Bush family is steeped in oil, as are U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney 
and a host of other notables from the Bush administration. The United States 
was slow to condemn the Taliban in the mid-1990s because the Taliban seemed 
to favor U.S. oil company Unocal to build two pipelines across Afghanistan. 
Iraq has estimates of up to 90% of untapped oil...are these two mere 
coincidences?  Consider _why_ the CIA was quick to help bin laden against 
the Russians....

So it's still safer when viewed in the context of other middle east 
activities?

> Even if *every* single charge about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is true, 
> it's just a drop in the bucket compared to what these men did to their own 
> citizens.

Many of "these" men haven't done anything - evidence that they have been 
released with no charges.  In fact, some of these _men_ were 14 years old. 
So are you saying it's ok to incarcerate and torture innocent people in case 
there are some bad eggs in there?  Meanwhile Pinochet

>> To quote a not so famous crusty band....about a different war...same 
>> sentiment
>>
>> "Dead men in the South Atlantic, It's meant to warm our hearts.  They 
>> think that they died for you and me Oh God, what a farce"
>
> And I thought *I* was cynical...

I'm not cynical.  Just w(e)ary of a system that doesn't work.  Consider 
election 2004.   People say how great a democracy America is because every 
one voted and everyone's vote counted.  It's the saddest thing in my mind 
that most of the populace _both_ sides believe this.  The saddest thing is 
that hidden behind the _your vote counts_ is the fact that you are choosing 
from two sides who are both non representative of the majority - it's just 
whichever panders most to your needs that you vote for. This is not just an 
american issue, but it's easier to get opinions across in countries like 
France where Jean Marie Le Pen brought his agenda to the fore of world 
politics.

I think the biggest joke is that George Bush has this Texas cowboy image 
(lookup his first attempt to get into Congress in West Texas to see how this 
happened).  Contrary to his middle class cowboy image he was born into a 
family of immense wealth and political influence (see Carlyle group). He 
attended a prestigious prep school, then Harvard and Yale.


JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/7/2005 5:45:54 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1110173190.348982.235710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> The under-20 generation are sincere patriots.
>
>> Because they've not lived any of their formative years under a non
> Bush
>> government.
> I know dozens of 'under-20' that have lived _all_ of their years under
> 'non Bush government'.

I define formative years to be high school age - that point where most start 
challenging ideas. Assuming they live in the US,  that would mean that they 
lived under Bush using this criteria.
I understand that people in NZ haven't lived directly under a Bush govt, but 
I'd challenge you if you said that they weren't impacted by it.

> Maybe some, maybe most, American teens may be 'sincere patriots' some
> others may not even be patriots at all.
>
>> I think you have all your ideas backwards anyway....
>
> In what way do you know what 'all my ideas' are ?
Ok - so I messed up with the criteria for a response.  This was a response a 
section of the post to which you were responding.  It has a single '>' not a 
double '>>'
"You" in this instance was RW.  Answering the same question, I don't, I'm 
piecing them together post by post and using the evidence in the particular 
post and inferring.  To be fair, 'all' means within the scope of the post.

>> as Churchill didn't
>> actually say " "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no
> heart. If
>> you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
>
> In what way is what Churchill said relevant at all, and more especially
> to what you imagine my ideas to be ?
Because the general notion of the quote was that the young tend to be 
liberal whereas the elders tend to be conservative.  The opinions on the 
state of Iraq in the US generally run along these lines.


> And anyway, why do you think that Churchill did not say that ?
Because there is no evidence that he did? He may have well said it in 
private discourse but I have no evidence of this neither being alive not his 
secretary at the time.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/7/2005 5:58:54 AM
> I understand that people in NZ haven't lived directly under a Bush
govt, but

Or even indirectly.  He ain't the boss of me.

> I'd challenge you if you said that they weren't impacted by it.

Certainly not into making them 'sincere patriots of the USA', probably
the complete reverse.

I doubt is more than a very small percent know or care about US
politics, we do have our own, you know.

JCE>> I think you have all your ideas backwards anyway....

>  "You" in this instance was RW.

Oh, in that case I _completely_ agree with you   ;-)

> To be fair, 'all' means within the scope of the post.

Hmmm, be careful.  Many take 'all' to mean 'all'.  In fact just saying
'your ideas' means 'all' unless you explicitly restrict it.

> Because the general notion of the quote was that the young tend to be
> liberal whereas the elders tend to be conservative.

Does that mean you think my ideas are 'liberal' or 'conservative' ?

More importantly, how would you judge my ideas against the norm for New
Zealand.  What you think as liberal, I may see as conservative.

0
riplin (4127)
3/7/2005 6:34:37 AM
Robert Wagner wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:26:03 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>>I don't think that was a mistake either.  The man had thumbed his nose 
>>at 12 UN resolutions - doesn't act like an innocent person to me. 
>>(Besides, he shipped his nukes/bio stuff to Syria - we'll find it 
>>eventually..
> 
> We had a large unit (regiment? battalion?) dedicated to do nothing but
> find them. It came up empty. I assume we had Special Ops in Syria.
> Those who say 'you can't prove a negative' are wrong. When a huge
> investigation finds nothing, it really doesn't exist.

I'll bet that time will tell that they *do* exist.  It will probably be 
long after the Bush administration has ended - a very knowledgeable 
Ba'athist, seeing that this democracy, self-government thing is going to 
work, will join up with the existing government, and through one 
person's information, weapons will be found.  (It could happen...)

>>>We
>>>can't 'win' militarily, because there are more insurgents than we can
>>>kill,
>>
>>Nope - just more than we *will* kill, being moral people and all, trying 
>>to avoid collateral damage.
> 
> There are some 200K insurgents. It would take 800K American troops to
> root them out.

Naw - it might take around 1K, aircraft support troops included.  :)

>>>but we can help the decent people of Iraq pevail politically and
>>>morally. That will be a victory for mankind, not just George W's rich
>>>friends. 
>>
>>So why is it painted so drearily by so many?  If everyone benefits, why 
>>do so many resist?
> 
> They're peace-niks, a holdover from the '70s, and Democrats who oppose
> anything Bush does. It's just politics solving yesterday's problems
> rather than looking to the future.

Peace-niks have no grounding in reality, and "because Bush likes it, I 
don't" doesn't either.  So, they've got their heads in the sand (or 
other dark places)...

> What's the deal with #42? Give President Clinton some respect. His
> philandering was mild compared to most politicians, including
> Republicans. It's also mild compared to Army personnel. 

I don't respect the man one bit.  And really, sex is the least of the 
reasons.  He doesn't have an opinion until he takes a poll.  He has no 
character (or, at least, didn't demonstrate any).  He seemed to have a 
complete disrespect for the office of the Presidency, and has 
continually skated near or over the line of the law in everything from 
business dealings to fund-raising.

Although, I'm sure the teenage boys of this country are grateful to him 
for the generation of teenage girls that think that oral/anal sex isn't 
sex...

> Collaberation based on fear rests on a weak foundation. I'd rather
> have colleagues than fair weather 'friends' who are likely to bolt on
> the next threat.

In this case, though, I think that the "threat" would reinforce the 
foundation (fear).  Yes, I'd rather have colleagues as well - but, as 
Rumsfeld famously said, when you go to war, you go with the army you've got.

> Genocide in Western Sudan is going on now; it's just getting started,
> really. So far, about 50K people have been exterminated. If we do
> nothing, the toll might go to 1M. We wring our hands over 1K Americans
> killed in Iraq (plus 25K maimed in 'non-combat' accidents) while
> ignoring a thousand times as many Africans  'in harm's way'. They're
> not freedom fighters or insurgents, they're innocent women and
> children being brutalized by a system they have no control over.

We don't have the resources to be the world's police, which is what 
we're increasingly being asked to do.  Right now, we're in Afghanistan 
and Iraq - once we draw down in those spots, we've got to reconstitute 
the forces.  That's one reason why the Department of State is important 
in all this as well - we're working on some of the other "warm spots", 
but with diplomacy rather than force.  This gives a two-fold benefit - 
first, we get time to regroup if we have to use force; and second, maybe 
we won't have to use it at all.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/7/2005 2:43:05 PM
jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:743a6$422a5266$45491f85$3191@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>>jce wrote:
>>
>>That was a debate over on the White Box Enterprise Linux (WBEL) user's 
>>list (it's a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), over whether to make new 
>>CD images every other release (as has been the custom), or just let 
>>someone run a really long yum transaction once they got it installed. The 
>>decision was made to do a re-spin this time because the installer has much 
>>better SATA support.
>>
>>And, of course, tracking Red Hat's solid commercial product for free is 
>>what pretty much drew me to WBEL.
> 
> I wasn't aware of that Distro - I tried Fedora, didn't like the default feel 
> to it and just spent a good hour or so downloading SUSE 9.2

I've been pleased.  I had some hardware problems, so I tried FC2 for a 
while, but missed the stability of WBEL.  Since Red Hat released version 
4 last month, WBEL 4 will probably be out soon - they're working on the 
rebuild now.  CentOS (another RHEL tracker) already has their version 4 out.

>>>The way I see it, America was not made special by 9/11, it just joined 
>>>the rest of the world. Welcome.
>>
> I spent time in Manchester in England to see it bombed.  I had special 
> forces searching outside my digs every night. I then moved to Sheffield to 
> see that Meadowhall was listed as a target.  England has had the IRA for 
> years.
> Spain has had ETA. And the list goes on.  My point is that the USA was not 
> an exception in being targetted, it had been an exception in NOT being 
> targetted.   It was an ironic welcome..

Ah - but we have been targeted, just not on our own soil.  And, 9/11 
wasn't the first time we were targeted on our own soil - just the first 
time we didn't stop the plan in time.

>>It's either an isolationist or a short-sighted person who can't see that 
>>what we are doing today will help make ours and future generations safer, 
>>as well as stopping the horrible atrocities committed by the leaders we've 
>>displaced.
> 
> Perhaps it's someone who's read some amount of history? How do you think 
> some of these things started?

Usually by a despot/dictator rising to power in a violent fashion.  I 
can't think of one that started due to freedom being introduced (unless 
you count our Revolutionary War).

> Iraq's neighbour, Iran, is now going to setup it's own Oil group with Euros 
> taking the place of the ailing dollar on the international energy markets. 
> It plans to set-up its own oil bourse in direct competition with London and 
> New York that are both owned by US-led consortiums.  This is why the views 
> on Iran are so different on one side of the Atlantic versus the other.  How 
> is this situation any safer for Americans?

I hope they do that - maybe that'll finally make these 
pseudo-environmentalists who oppose us drilling our own oil realized 
that now is the time.

> The Bush family is steeped in oil, as are U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney 
> and a host of other notables from the Bush administration. The United States 
> was slow to condemn the Taliban in the mid-1990s because the Taliban seemed 
> to favor U.S. oil company Unocal to build two pipelines across Afghanistan. 
> Iraq has estimates of up to 90% of untapped oil...are these two mere 
> coincidences?  Consider _why_ the CIA was quick to help bin laden against 
> the Russians....
> 
> So it's still safer when viewed in the context of other middle east 
> activities?

I believe so, yes.  Everyone says that cheap oil just benefits the oil 
companies, but it truly benefits our economy as a whole (and, thereby, 
everyone).  What activities have you had to curtail because the gas 
price has more than doubled in the last 5 years?  Alliances to buy 
foreign oil cheaply, while maintaining our domestic reserves, is smart 
for our country.  However, the first part of that equation is quickly 
drying up (pardon the pun).

>>Even if *every* single charge about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is true, 
>>it's just a drop in the bucket compared to what these men did to their own 
>>citizens.
> 
> Many of "these" men haven't done anything - evidence that they have been 
> released with no charges.  In fact, some of these _men_ were 14 years old. 
> So are you saying it's ok to incarcerate and torture innocent people in case 
> there are some bad eggs in there?  Meanwhile Pinochet

We haven't been torturing, as a general rule.  And, if you're an enemy 
combatant, you're subject to apprehension and detainment, even if you've 
never fired a single shot against the enemy.  That's certainly the way 
they'd treat us!

>>>To quote a not so famous crusty band....about a different war...same 
>>>sentiment
>>>
>>>"Dead men in the South Atlantic, It's meant to warm our hearts.  They 
>>>think that they died for you and me Oh God, what a farce"
>>
>>And I thought *I* was cynical...
> 
> I'm not cynical.  Just w(e)ary of a system that doesn't work.   Consider
> election 2004.   People say how great a democracy America is because every 
> one voted and everyone's vote counted.

I dealt with that myth in an earlier post...  :)

> It's the saddest thing in my mind 
> that most of the populace _both_ sides believe this.  The saddest thing is 
> that hidden behind the _your vote counts_ is the fact that you are choosing 
> from two sides who are both non representative of the majority - it's just 
> whichever panders most to your needs that you vote for. This is not just an 
> american issue, but it's easier to get opinions across in countries like 
> France where Jean Marie Le Pen brought his agenda to the fore of world 
> politics.

Votes do count in that sense.  We've elected folks that were bad for the 
country - yet, the country survived.  Good leadership is important - 
and, if we had two or three back-to-back, we might start seeing a 
decline (in fact, look how much worse our economy is doing coming out of 
the 1990's...).  However, I believe the majority of folks *are* being 
represented by those who reflect their views.  Remember that the 
President is but one of many elected offices.  :)

> I think the biggest joke is that George Bush has this Texas cowboy image 
> (lookup his first attempt to get into Congress in West Texas to see how this 
> happened).  Contrary to his middle class cowboy image he was born into a 
> family of immense wealth and political influence (see Carlyle group). He 
> attended a prestigious prep school, then Harvard and Yale.

Cowboys can't go to prestigious schools?  That's kind of stereotypical, 
isn't it?  ;)  Choosing the image you wish to project is a right in this 
country - just ask any teenager.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/7/2005 3:01:56 PM
On  4-Mar-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> >Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'...
> >silly me!
>
> I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.

That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking outside
the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 5:25:06 PM
On  4-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> These days, at least around here, it seems every second car or so has
> one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbons; some yellow, some with a flag
> design, some with a camouflage design.  A lot of them are being
> displayed sideways, so it's both a ribbon and a fish.  As a
> servicemember, I'm grateful for the support, and I don't at all want to
> sound like I don't appreciate it.  I just wonder - are we all of a
> sudden *that* patriotic?  The cynical part of me wonders if it
> patriotism is becoming a fad, and not something that's rooted in true
> heart belief.

As a Vietnam  Era veteran, I find myself irrationally resenting these ribbons.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 5:26:23 PM
On  5-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.
>
> I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there to be
> gained by telling people that?'

It can be useful to be aware of when you are preparing to persuade someone of
something.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 5:27:57 PM
In article <d0i33l$7m9$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On  5-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.
>>
>> I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there to be
>> gained by telling people that?'
>
>It can be useful to be aware of when you are preparing to persuade someone of
>something.

Ahhhhh, of course... a sort of disclaimer, a 'what I am about to present 
may not be verifiable but it serves to further my particular argument.'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/7/2005 6:03:48 PM
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:


>We don't have the resources to be the world's police, which is what 
>we're increasingly being asked to do.  Right now, we're in Afghanistan 
>and Iraq - once we draw down in those spots, we've got to reconstitute 
>the forces.  That's one reason why the Department of State is important 
>in all this as well - we're working on some of the other "warm spots", 
>but with diplomacy rather than force.  This gives a two-fold benefit - 
>first, we get time to regroup if we have to use force; and second, maybe 
>we won't have to use it at all.

You're right. It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
thousand Marines could stop it.

0
3/7/2005 6:26:22 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >> >Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.
> >>
> >> I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there to be
> >> gained by telling people that?'
> >
> >It can be useful to be aware of when you are preparing to persuade someone of
> >something.
>
> Ahhhhh, of course... a sort of disclaimer, a 'what I am about to present
> may not be verifiable but it serves to further my particular argument.'

I didn't quite get that.    What I mean is that if you look at aspects of what
you are trying to sell that best serve the person you want to buy - you will
have more success selling.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 6:42:13 PM
jce wrote:

Thank goodness for Auntie Beeb. Following is a set of statistics I've 
always wanted to find. Better go looking at the BBC for other info.

> 
> Source: bbc.
> 
> Civilian and Military Deaths in the Second World War
> 
> Countries  Total Deaths  % of Pre-war Population  Military Deaths  Civilian 
> Deaths
> USSR  20,600,000  10.40%  13,600,000  7,000,000
> China  10,000,000  2.00%  -  -
> Germany  6,850,000  9.50%  3,250,000  3,600,000
> Poland  6,123,000  17.20%  123,000  6,000,000
> Japan  2,000,000  2.70%  -  -
> Yugoslavia  1,706,000  10.90%  -  -
> France  810,000  1.90%  340,000  470,000
> Greece  520,000  7.20%  -  -
> USA  500,000  0.40%  500,000  -
> Austria  480,000  7.20%  -  -
> Romania  460,000  3.40%  -  -
> Hungary  420,000  3.00%  -  -
> Italy  410,000  0.90%  330,000  80,000
> Czechoslovakia  400,000  2.70%  -  -
> Great Britain  388,000  0.80%  326,000  62,000
> The Netherlands  210,000  2.40%  198,000  12,000
> Belgium  88,000  1.10%  76,000  12,000
> Finland  84,000  2.20%  -  -
> Australia  39,000  0.30%  -  -
> Canada  34,000  0.30%  -  -
> Albania  28,000  2.50%  -  -
> India  24,000  0.01%  -  -
> Norway  10,262  0.30%  -  -
> New Zealand 10,000  0.60%  -  -
> Luxembourg  5,000  1.70%  -  -
> TOTAL  52,199,262  - - -
> 

Canadian figures sure look small at 0.3%, considering they 'policed' the 
Atlantic for merchant convoys and their bomber crews served as part of 
Bomber Command. (In case I miss it and he protests - Donald's dad was an 
RCAF fighter pilot).

One of those nice reminiscing articles in yesterday's paper. Two ladies, 
now 80 plus, recounting their days back in the 40's - one served as a 
parachute packer.

Canada as a whole was quite useful for air training but Alberta 
particularly for the southern landscape, (wide, open and clear skies), 
flowing down to Montana. We had the Commonwealth Air Training Program 
with some 18 flying schools in Alberta. Crews were trained from 23 
countries. (My parents next-door-neighbour's son did his navigation 
training here - hated it ! Back then Calgary looked like the set for the 
Gary Cooper movie 'High Noon'). BTW one lady made specific reference 
that the Aussies wore a black uniform - Somebody from Oz-land is that 
still the case or do they wear an 'RAF' blue.

As one of the ladies said Calgary was then awash in military uniforms, 
more than any other city in Canada. She recalls VE or VJ-Day - she 
didn't specify which, where they went snaking through downtown Calgary 
in a joyous conga. Then puff ! Suddenly all the lads were gone.

Reading Daniel and Robert - I think they have got so much wrong about 
Iraq. Presidents get voted in on domestic issues, ('How much are you 
going to tax us ?") - who gives a damn about foreign policy. It takes 
just too much typing to explain - so I'll give it a miss.

Guys forget Iraq - it's smalltime, as probably are Iran and N. Korea.
How's about this, just like Richard pointed out the cause for the Pearl 
Harbor attack :-

'To ensure oil supplies, the Peoples Republic will probably have to go 
to war with the USA by 2008".

Sez who ? The party sponsored Chinese Military publishing house.

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
3/7/2005 7:19:55 PM
In article <d0i7et$9vi$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >> >Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.
>> >>
>> >> I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there to be
>> >> gained by telling people that?'
>> >
>> >It can be useful to be aware of when you are preparing to persuade someone of
>> >something.
>>
>> Ahhhhh, of course... a sort of disclaimer, a 'what I am about to present
>> may not be verifiable but it serves to further my particular argument.'
>
>I didn't quite get that.    What I mean is that if you look at aspects of what
>you are trying to sell that best serve the person you want to buy - you will
>have more success selling.

Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:

A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'

B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner 
that is self-serving.

How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/7/2005 7:38:55 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
>
> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
>
> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner
> that is self-serving.
>
> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?

In particular only that A has analyzed his aspects that don't appear at first
glance to be self-serving.   When A does something that appears to be
altruistic, he is gaining satisfaction from it - and knows that.    Whether or
not A gains from telling B this, who knows?   A thinks he does, or he wouldn't
say that.

And in general, that others also derive satisfaction from what they do - even if
they don't know it.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 7:44:01 PM
In article <a57p215s56ucc3fs41cqha69d6klj4i3qg@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>We don't have the resources to be the world's police, which is what 
>>we're increasingly being asked to do.  Right now, we're in Afghanistan 
>>and Iraq - once we draw down in those spots, we've got to reconstitute 
>>the forces.  That's one reason why the Department of State is important 
>>in all this as well - we're working on some of the other "warm spots", 
>>but with diplomacy rather than force.  This gives a two-fold benefit - 
>>first, we get time to regroup if we have to use force; and second, maybe 
>>we won't have to use it at all.
>
>You're right. It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
>thousand Marines could stop it.

Who would benefit, Mr Wagner?  According to Major General Butler his job 
as a Marine was to be a thug, a 'high class muscle man for Big 
Business... a racketeer for capitalism.'  What would be the ROI for such 
an intervention?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/7/2005 7:58:04 PM
In article <d0ib2q$buv$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
>>
>> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
>>
>> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner
>> that is self-serving.
>>
>> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
>
>In particular only that A has analyzed his aspects that don't appear at first
>glance to be self-serving.

Quite the reverse, in fact... it seems that A is 'tipping his hand' 
regarding motive.

>When A does something that appears to be
>altruistic, he is gaining satisfaction from it - and knows that.    Whether or
>not A gains from telling B this, who knows?

I don't, among others... an hence my question.

>A thinks he does, or he wouldn't
>say that.

That seems, Mr Brazee, to be assuming the conclusion:

'Since everyone acts in their self-interest A, in revealing that he is 
acting in his self-interest and removing the possibility that he might be 
acting altruistically, thereby depriving himself of the mechanism of 
apparent altruism, which is an advantage, is acting in his self-interest.'

In other words... 'Denying one'sself an advantage is an act of 
self-interest'... which seems absurd.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/7/2005 8:05:03 PM
LX-i wrote:
> Robert Wagner wrote:

Hey ! I started the thread 'Treeviews' - my prerogative to shuffle this 
over to a new thread :-)
> 
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:26:03 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> I'll bet that time will tell that they *do* exist.  It will probably be 
> long after the Bush administration has ended - a very knowledgeable 
> Ba'athist, seeing that this democracy, self-government thing is going to 
> work, will join up with the existing government, and through one 
> person's information, weapons will be found.  (It could happen...)


...... said Alice through the Looking Glass. Even Dubya got real smart, 
probably for the first time in his life, although I'll concede he is 
cunning like a fox. (On Daddy's behalf he took a look at the 
Evangelicals, as a vote potential, *if* you uttered the right words - 
ever since then he has knowingly made courting them part of his 
strategy. Probably about that time also that he threw away the beer can 
and 'got religion). He has *admitted* there ain't no goddamn WMDs - just 
that one admission took a lot of heat off him from his critics, and like 
the WMDs the criticism became vapourware.

I could also comment on Daniel's denigrating remarks about #42 - whom I 
believe, came form a poor or modest family. He became a Rhodes scholar - 
no mean achievement. $43 did make it to Harvard and Yale - but with 
Daddy's money. As I recall his score card at both institutions was 
nothing to rave about. Just over half the US population voted for # 43, 
(Daniel sees 52% as an affirmative majority. To me a 60-40 split is much 
MORE significant).

Now here's an interesting one, if you 'Yanks' feel like doing your 
homework.

1 - you have to state your current political conviction, Republican, 
Democrats, Libertarians, Ralph Nader, Greens or whoever.
2 - list all US presidents in historical sequence, starting with FDR
3 - against each, give them a rating of 1 to 10, 1 being LOW. (Don't 
bamboozle us with accompanying arguments - just keep it basic 
statistical). Any arguments could follow later in the thread.

When some of you Yanks have had a go, perhaps some of us 'foreigners' 
might have a crack.

Why on earth would I suggest starting way back with FDR. Because one 
Republican, presumably digging through his history books, as he 
definitely wasn't born during FDR's time - made sneering remarks about FDR.

Not quite the same as the above, but one of you that likes digging in 
the Web :-

US Deficit figures - what you OWE - no fancy Enron accounting. (In 
simple non bean-counter terms - what you took in as income and how much 
you spent more than you received). Give the figures for deficit at the 
following stages :-

Prez #42 - what was National deficit when he started
Prez #43 - what was National deficit when he started
Prez $43 - what is the latest known deficit

And the 'deficit' is about home-grown domestic politics, but is affected 
by your foreign policy and trading.

Jimmy
0
3/7/2005 8:25:49 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> ..... said Alice through the Looking Glass. Even Dubya got real smart,
> probably for the first time in his life, although I'll concede he is
> cunning like a fox. (On Daddy's behalf he took a look at the
> Evangelicals, as a vote potential, *if* you uttered the right words - 
> ever since then he has knowingly made courting them part of his
> strategy.


With the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday in Selma, I noticed that LBJ's
voting rights bill was a response to what happened.    What happened would have
happened no matter who was president - and the response might have been the same
as well.

Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.   
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 8:49:40 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On  4-Mar-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'...
>>>silly me!
>>
>>I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking outside
> the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?

Haven't you noticed that all non-conformists look the same?  ;)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/7/2005 9:08:38 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On  7-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>..... said Alice through the Looking Glass. Even Dubya got real smart,
>>probably for the first time in his life, although I'll concede he is
>>cunning like a fox. (On Daddy's behalf he took a look at the
>>Evangelicals, as a vote potential, *if* you uttered the right words - 
>>ever since then he has knowingly made courting them part of his
>>strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> With the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday in Selma, I noticed that LBJ's
> voting rights bill was a response to what happened.    What happened would have
> happened no matter who was president - and the response might have been the same
> as well.
> 
> Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.   

Got me Howard. Who is Miller ?

Saw reference to Bloody Sunday and immediately thought of Ulster and the 
IRA :-). The point you are making is lost on me - see this former 
systems analyst wants the problem/solution spelled out in a littler more 
detail SVP.

Jimmy
0
3/7/2005 9:25:43 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking
> > outside
> > the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?
>
> Haven't you noticed that all non-conformists look the same?  ;)

Check out any high school to confirm this.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 9:28:43 PM
For defeated vice-presidential candidate William Miller - see:
   http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wemiller.htm

For the Selma (Civil Rights) "Bloody Sunday" (not to be confused with others you 
may know about), see:
  http://www.civilrights.org/issues/voting/details.cfm?id=28738

(and of course bunches of other places)

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:rF3Xd.596534$Xk.256487@pd7tw3no...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On  7-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>..... said Alice through the Looking Glass. Even Dubya got real smart,
>>>probably for the first time in his life, although I'll concede he is
>>>cunning like a fox. (On Daddy's behalf he took a look at the
>>>Evangelicals, as a vote potential, *if* you uttered the right words - ever 
>>>since then he has knowingly made courting them part of his
>>>strategy.
>>
>>
>>
>> With the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday in Selma, I noticed that LBJ's
>> voting rights bill was a response to what happened.    What happened would 
>> have
>> happened no matter who was president - and the response might have been the 
>> same
>> as well.
>>
>> Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.
>
> Got me Howard. Who is Miller ?
>
> Saw reference to Bloody Sunday and immediately thought of Ulster and the IRA 
> :-). The point you are making is lost on me - see this former systems analyst 
> wants the problem/solution spelled out in a littler more detail SVP.
>
> Jimmy 


0
wmklein (2605)
3/7/2005 9:33:01 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> > Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.
>
> Got me Howard. Who is Miller ?
>
> Saw reference to Bloody Sunday and immediately thought of Ulster and the
> IRA :-). The point you are making is lost on me - see this former
> systems analyst wants the problem/solution spelled out in a littler more
> detail SVP.

Nixon/Lodge ran then Goldwater/Miller.   If Nixon had won, then Nixon or Lodge
should have been president instead of Kennedy or Johnson.

But Johnson reacted to the Selma incident and Bush reacted to 9/11.    They
weren't part of their philosophies until they occurred, but their responses
helped define their parties and their opposition parties.
0
howard (6283)
3/7/2005 9:43:54 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:rF3Xd.596534$Xk.256487@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.
>
> Got me Howard. Who is Miller ?

He would have become president had Goldwater been elected and then 
assassinated.


0
3/7/2005 9:50:14 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On  7-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking
>>>outside
>>>the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?
>>
>>Haven't you noticed that all non-conformists look the same?  ;)
> 
> 
> Check out any high school to confirm this.

EXCELLENT HOWARD ! How very, very true !

Jimmy
0
3/7/2005 9:50:24 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On  7-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Consider if Nixon or Miller was president and responded the way LBJ did.
>>
>>Got me Howard. Who is Miller ?
>>
>>Saw reference to Bloody Sunday and immediately thought of Ulster and the
>>IRA :-). The point you are making is lost on me - see this former
>>systems analyst wants the problem/solution spelled out in a littler more
>>detail SVP.
> 
> 
> Nixon/Lodge ran then Goldwater/Miller.   If Nixon had won, then Nixon or Lodge
> should have been president instead of Kennedy or Johnson.
> 
> But Johnson reacted to the Selma incident and Bush reacted to 9/11.    They
> weren't part of their philosophies until they occurred, but their responses
> helped define their parties and their opposition parties.

OK, see the point you are making. However, in the case of Johnson, 
although the Brothers "K" thought he was one big joke, wasn't he at 
least partially influenced by his predecessor's civil rights thinking, 
mainly pushed by Bobby. (Although perhaps civil rights didn't sit well 
with a Texan - I don't know).

Yes 9/11 was the trigger-point for GWB. Back to his father - on advice 
mainly pushed by Scowcroft, George Senor. didn't push and go all the way 
to Baghdad in GWI.

Then GWB, Rather than concentrate on knocking off enemies one at a time, 
i.e., Afghani Taliban first, the 'Young Turks' from the old man's 
administration, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Wolkowitz,  took this as an 
opportunity to settle an old score - completely muddying the waters, 
throwing in the Wolkowitz phrase passed on to Canadian speech-writer 
David Frum, (Canucks : he's the son of Barbara from CBC days), where it 
spilled out of GWB's mouth as 'Axis of Evil. Nothing like telling the 
'non-friendlies' you've got them in your sights !

Tommy Franks I think, quit as quickly as he could, once the main 
objective had been achieved. I don't think he wanted to stay around for 
the mess. But some of your sensible military people still insist 
logistically not enough troops and spread too much around the world as 
an international police force.

I realize that 'West Wing' is completely fictional, and Democratic 
fiction at that :-), but confirmed by at least two or three former 
presidents in a documentary, is a pretty accurate reflection of how the 
White House works - the problem being everybody has to think on their 
feet instantaneously.

You are missing the 'specialty' of a Kissinger, Kirkpatrick or a 
Brezhinski in foreign affairs. Sadly, the honoured military man, Colin 
Powell has been a great disappointment. Partially of course he had to 
fight uphill against the former Yong Turks. Back to the GWI days - 
there's Colin up, front and centre at the podium as JCOS with a somewhat 
withdrawn Cheyney in the background. Contrast that with Rumsfeld 
crooking his claw in confrontational mode at the news reporters; 
meanwhile the current JCOS is stood meekly by, waiting to be slaughtered 
and offered as a gift to Jaweh.

Jimmy
0
3/7/2005 11:18:02 PM
On 7 Mar 2005 14:58:04 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <a57p215s56ucc3fs41cqha69d6klj4i3qg@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>> It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
>>thousand Marines could stop it.
>
>Who would benefit, Mr Wagner?  According to Major General Butler his job 
>as a Marine was to be a thug, a 'high class muscle man for Big 
>Business... a racketeer for capitalism.'  What would be the ROI for such 
>an intervention?

Image Advertising. For example, ExxonMobil's sponsorship of
Masterpiece Theater doesn't sell much petroleum directly. It creates
goodwill for the organization that pays off later, indirectly. A cynic
might say it assuages gu .. on second thought, you can present the
cynics' argument.
0
3/7/2005 11:24:03 PM
In article <klop215usd15mqkuah8os33pfd4ter5eut@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2005 14:58:04 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <a57p215s56ucc3fs41cqha69d6klj4i3qg@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
>>>thousand Marines could stop it.
>>
>>Who would benefit, Mr Wagner?  According to Major General Butler his job 
>>as a Marine was to be a thug, a 'high class muscle man for Big 
>>Business... a racketeer for capitalism.'  What would be the ROI for such 
>>an intervention?
>
>Image Advertising. For example, ExxonMobil's sponsorship of
>Masterpiece Theater doesn't sell much petroleum directly. It creates
>goodwill for the organization that pays off later, indirectly. A cynic
>might say it assuages gu .. on second thought, you can present the
>cynics' argument.

Image Advertising... you mean like the good PR that flows like a mighty 
river out of the Middle East with every US military action?  

'I know that half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; but I could 
never find out which half' has been attributed to Wanamaker, Lord 
Leverhulme and others... perhaps you have known more Marines than I, Mr 
Wagner, and thus value them differently but I am loath to invest the lives 
of my countrymen - even the jar-headed ones - for a return such as you 
suggest.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/7/2005 11:46:57 PM
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:08:38 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On  4-Mar-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the box'...
>>>>silly me!
>>>
>>>I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.
>> 
>> That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking outside
>> the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?
>
>Haven't you noticed that all non-conformists look the same?  ;)

No. Some are clean-shaven, wear Gap clothes and blend in.

0
3/8/2005 12:57:14 AM
> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of ...

ExxonMobil's sponsorship of Masterpiece Theater may be for reasons
entirely because they are devoted to promoting quality programming.

A cynic might say they do it 'to create goodwill for the organization
that pays off later'.

0
riplin (4127)
3/8/2005 1:51:44 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
> 
>> Robert Wagner wrote:
> 
> 
> Hey ! I started the thread 'Treeviews' - my prerogative to shuffle this 
> over to a new thread :-)
> 
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:26:03 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll bet that time will tell that they *do* exist.  It will probably 
>> be long after the Bush administration has ended - a very knowledgeable 
>> Ba'athist, seeing that this democracy, self-government thing is going 
>> to work, will join up with the existing government, and through one 
>> person's information, weapons will be found.  (It could happen...)
> 
> 
> 
> ..... said Alice through the Looking Glass. Even Dubya got real smart, 
> probably for the first time in his life, although I'll concede he is 
> cunning like a fox. (On Daddy's behalf he took a look at the 
> Evangelicals, as a vote potential, *if* you uttered the right words - 
> ever since then he has knowingly made courting them part of his 
> strategy. Probably about that time also that he threw away the beer can 
> and 'got religion). He has *admitted* there ain't no goddamn WMDs - just 
> that one admission took a lot of heat off him from his critics, and like 
> the WMDs the criticism became vapourware.

How is enough sarin gas to kill several city blocks *not* a weapon of 
mass destruction?  It does to me.  (I'm guessing it would to you too, if 
it were in close proximity.

> I could also comment on Daniel's denigrating remarks about #42 - whom I 
> believe, came form a poor or modest family. He became a Rhodes scholar - 
> no mean achievement.

Just because you have accomplished something doesn't mean you have 
character, or that you're qualified to be a leader.  I'm happy for his 
accomplishments - he's very intelligent, almost to a fault, and his "I 
feel your pain" and "triangulation" strategies were infuriatingly 
successful (infuriating to me because the general public didn't seem to 
see (or want to see) through it).

> $43 did make it to Harvard and Yale - but with 
> Daddy's money. As I recall his score card at both institutions was 
> nothing to rave about. Just over half the US population voted for # 43, 
> (Daniel sees 52% as an affirmative majority. To me a 60-40 split is much 
> MORE significant).

Just over half the voters, not the US population (I'm guessing that's 
what you meant).  But, #42 didn't get a majority of the vote *either* 
time!  And, just because Reformin' Ross wasn't in the race doesn't mean 
other credible opponents who *could* have gotten the traction that Perot 
did, but didn't.

> Now here's an interesting one, if you 'Yanks' feel like doing your 
> homework.

kept as new - I'll do homework tomorrow.  :)

> Why on earth would I suggest starting way back with FDR. Because one 
> Republican, presumably digging through his history books, as he 
> definitely wasn't born during FDR's time - made sneering remarks about FDR.

heh - are you calling me a kid?

> Not quite the same as the above, but one of you that likes digging in 
> the Web :-
> 
> US Deficit figures - what you OWE - no fancy Enron accounting. (In 
> simple non bean-counter terms - what you took in as income and how much 
> you spent more than you received). Give the figures for deficit at the 
> following stages :-
> 
> Prez #42 - what was National deficit when he started
> Prez #43 - what was National deficit when he started
> Prez $43 - what is the latest known deficit
> 
> And the 'deficit' is about home-grown domestic politics, but is affected 
> by your foreign policy and trading.

Is a deficit bad?  Have you paid cash for all your cars and homes?  Have 
you ever paid off a car or a home?  Deficits allow for entities to 
acquire more over time, by borrowing today.  But, no one's really upset 
about the deficit - did you hear the Democrats howling about the 
150-something programs that were cut in the President's latest budget?

The biggest question with debt (and this is good for people and 
countries alike) is to decide if what you want is worth going into debt 
over.  You won't get a loan to buy a loaf of bread.  You shouldn't get a 
loan to get a small appliance or electronic apparatus (rent-to-own 
prices are usually twice to three times the original price of the item - 
that's a *horrible* interest rate).  However, you may need to get a loan 
to get a car, make a major improvement to your home, or educate yourself 
or your child.  These are worth debts that can be incurred with the 
confidence that with those items, you can make not only what those items 
cost, but more back.

Now, turn that to a country.  Should a country go into debt for welfare? 
  For endowments to the arts and public broadcasting?  For national 
defense?  For infrastructure upgrades?  One thing we saw after the most 
recent tsunami was the generosity of the American people, who gave much 
through private charities.  Why, then, should the government be in the 
business of charity?  Let the private organizations do it - they're 
often closer to the point of need, they're generally staffed by people 
who care about the cause, and their hands aren't bound by all the red 
tape.  And then, contributions are optional - no one is forced to 
support charity.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/8/2005 3:37:17 AM
Richard wrote:
>>ExxonMobil's sponsorship of ...
> 
> 
> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of Masterpiece Theater may be for reasons
> entirely because they are devoted to promoting quality programming.
> 
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Are you familiar with 
Masterpiece Theatre from a visit to the States ? I think PBS - Public 
Broadcasting System (donations) is over 30 years old now. I've been 
watching it since '75. Real top quality English dramas both from BBC and 
ITV - impossible to remember them all, but examples "Henry VIII" - with 
Keith Michell from Oz, "Henry VIII" - current, Glenda Jackson as QEI 
(that's the Queen, Bill, not the ship :-), "Pallisers", oodles of the 
Dickens novels turned into TV format, "I Claudius". Some Shakespearean - 
goes on and on. 'The cream of the cream'. Same sort of UK stuff you 
probably see down there as well as US shows.

Unfortunately they now have to compete with other quality channels. I 
watched 'Churchill' with Robert Hardy - can't be quite sure, but Parts 1 
and 2 I believe. Boy, was I annoyed. Another channel I didn't have 
picked up Part 3 - so I never saw it. But they have had both Richard 
Burton and Albert Finney (?) as Churchill. 'The Story of English' that I 
previously mentioned narrated by Canuck, Robert McNeil. Scratch your 
brain-cells. You just might vaguely remember him before you left UK - he 
was on the BBC's 'Panorama' during the Richard Dimbleby era.

The UK detective stuff we get here in Calgary on Thursday nights, (from 
Spokane, Washington) -  'Mystery' - Rumpole, Agatha Christie, P.D. 
James, and my beloved 'Morse' - both fictional character and actor John 
Thaw - now dead.

> A cynic might say they do it 'to create goodwill for the organization
> that pays off later'.
> 
If you want to go cynical there's always the Valdez incident. That 
Alaskan community is still suffering from the fall-out of that oil 
spill. Still affects wildlife and the local economy hasn't yet recovered.

Jimmy
0
3/8/2005 4:11:18 AM
On 7 Mar 2005 18:46:57 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <klop215usd15mqkuah8os33pfd4ter5eut@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>On 7 Mar 2005 14:58:04 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <a57p215s56ucc3fs41cqha69d6klj4i3qg@4ax.com>,
>>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
>>>>thousand Marines could stop it.
>>>
>>>Who would benefit, Mr Wagner?  According to Major General Butler his job 
>>>as a Marine was to be a thug, a 'high class muscle man for Big 
>>>Business... a racketeer for capitalism.'  What would be the ROI for such 
>>>an intervention?
>>
>>Image Advertising. For example, ExxonMobil's sponsorship of
>>Masterpiece Theater doesn't sell much petroleum directly. It creates
>>goodwill for the organization that pays off later, indirectly. A cynic
>>might say it assuages gu .. on second thought, you can present the
>>cynics' argument.
>
>Image Advertising... you mean like the good PR that flows like a mighty 
>river out of the Middle East with every US military action?  

People think we're in Iraq to grab oil. If we were in Sudan, they'd
think our motivation was altruism.

>'I know that half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; but I could 
>never find out which half' has been attributed to Wanamaker, Lord 
>Leverhulme and others... perhaps you have known more Marines than I, Mr 
>Wagner, and thus value them differently but I am loath to invest the lives 
>of my countrymen - even the jar-headed ones - for a return such as you 
>suggest.

That's why I said Marines. They're cheap to rdplace and it's hard to
get emotionally attached to them.
>
>DD

0
3/8/2005 4:21:48 AM
LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>> Now here's an interesting one, if you 'Yanks' feel like doing your 
>> homework.
> 
> 
> kept as new - I'll do homework tomorrow.  :)
> 
>> Why on earth would I suggest starting way back with FDR. Because one 
>> Republican, presumably digging through his history books, as he 
>> definitely wasn't born during FDR's time - made sneering remarks about 
>> FDR.
Good lad. Do your homework in due course. I'd like to think some others 
would too.
> 
> 
> heh - are you calling me a kid?
> 
Well your ARE a kid to me :-)  But in fact that wasn't an indirect 
reference to you.

>> Not quite the same as the above, but one of you that likes digging in 
>> the Web :-
>>
>> US Deficit figures - what you OWE - no fancy Enron accounting. (In 
>> simple non bean-counter terms - what you took in as income and how 
>> much you spent more than you received). Give the figures for deficit 
>> at the following stages :-
>>
>> Prez #42 - what was National deficit when he started
>> Prez #43 - what was National deficit when he started
>> Prez $43 - what is the latest known deficit
>>
>> And the 'deficit' is about home-grown domestic politics, but is 
>> affected by your foreign policy and trading.
> 
> 
> Is a deficit bad?  <snip> -

Don't equivocate. Like the Dragnet Man used to say, "Just give me the 
facts ma'am, just the facts. Dah dee dah dah !". I have no idea what the 
actual figures are - but I'm reasonably certain #43 doesn't show up as a 
shining star.

Let's see the ACTUAL figures - then we can talk economic theory. You do 
realize, put a bunch of economists together - you'll never get a 
straight answer.

Alberta as a province about to hit a $3 billion windfall, clearing any 
outstanding debt - but that's hardly fair, you just have to watch the 
oil/gas oozing down the streets. Nor does Alberta have to sponsor a 
military - perhaps we should having seen last Wednesday's 'West Wing' 
:-). The fictional Prez's  Security Adviser - startled to find the 
military guys had a contingency plan to invade Canada. And they *were* 
talking the Montana/Alberta border !

Actually one Canuck wrotre me privately - "Hey Jimmy, perhaps you 
shouldn't be writing this stuff. You are too near to them !".

**********

Well of course the thing is to be adaptable and flexible. Paul Martin 
(Mr. Dithers) our Federal Liberal PM phones our boy Ralphie - everybody 
calls him Ralphie. Ralph Klein our Provincial conservative Premier.
"Hey Ralph, I just got wind that the US are planning to attack us 
through Montana into Alberta". Paul makes a quick air trip to Ralph to 
be on the spot. Got to watch this one - try and avoid escalation.

The 507789 Cavalry Division wends its way north, nipping quickly across 
the border and heading for points due north. Trying to avoid bloodshed, 
we send one mountie on a horse all decked out in his scarlet coat, a 
lance with a pennant.

The US brigadier calls a halt when he sees the one mountie - gotta be a 
trap. "Hey son", (well the mountie is only 23), "Wahddya here for ?". 
The mountie responds politely, "To advise you of the danger sir". "What 
danger ? I don't see no danger lookin' around".

"Well sir. See all those beef".

"Yes".

"They've got BSE".

Brigadier consults his maps, Well I know BC is over there to the west, 
right. But I don't see no BSE".

"Mad cow disease, sir".

'Aint heard of it son".

"Sir. We've been restricted to exporting our beef to the US for 22 
months now. After a lot of haggling the borders were supposed to open 
last Monday. But R-Calf in Montana and now your senators have jumped on 
the bandwagon, even though President Bush was prepared to get the border 
open".

"Didn't know that son".

"Well it does seem unfair to me that you weren't told before you came. A 
$4 billion industry down the tubes and costing Alberta alone some $10 
million a day. You can see just how dangerous this BSE thing is".

"Hmm. Get your point son. Could be serious and we don't need to go home 
tagging BSE with us. OK men. About turn ! Head for Home !".

Ralphie and Paul Martin get up from the ditch where they've been 
watching this. "Good God Ralphie, it worked", says Martin. Ralph eying 
the cattle around him and watching them defecate, replies, "Told you. A 
bit of bullshit doesn't hurt".

Jimmy
0
3/8/2005 4:53:40 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1110246704.948485.39300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of ...
>
> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of Masterpiece Theater may be for reasons
> entirely because they are devoted to promoting quality programming.
>
> A cynic might say they do it 'to create goodwill for the organization
> that pays off later'.

Maybe that's why they dropped sponsorship in 2004.  It's "later".  [please 
correct me if I'm wrong - I remember reading a headline..."ExxonMobile 
realizes nobody watches Masterpiece Theater"]

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/8/2005 6:38:13 AM
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message 
news:g5pp21l7ioj62ckhnmmf2kef5qpefcn6p4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:08:38 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On  4-Mar-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is that what it is?  I thought it was just 'thinking outside the 
>>>>>box'...
>>>>>silly me!
>>>>
>>>>I hate that phrase. It's most often used by conformists.
>>>
>>> That's interesting.   I've heard it used by people advocating thinking 
>>> outside
>>> the box.   Conforming to non-conformity?
>>
>>Haven't you noticed that all non-conformists look the same?  ;)
>
> No. Some are clean-shaven, wear Gap clothes and blend in.

I thought thinking outside the box just meant using PL/I

JCE




0
defaultuser (532)
3/8/2005 6:47:41 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0iakf$kt6$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d0i7et$9vi$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> >On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> >> >Everyone acts in a manner that is self serving.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've heard that said before... and I've often thought 'What is there
to be
> >> >> gained by telling people that?'
> >> >
> >> >It can be useful to be aware of when you are preparing to persuade
someone of
> >> >something.
> >>
> >> Ahhhhh, of course... a sort of disclaimer, a 'what I am about to
present
> >> may not be verifiable but it serves to further my particular argument.'
> >
> >I didn't quite get that.    What I mean is that if you look at aspects of
what
> >you are trying to sell that best serve the person you want to buy - you
will
> >have more success selling.
>
> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
>
> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
>
> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner
> that is self-serving.
>
> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
>

It disarms B, so that when A smacks him with the hidden hook from out of
left field, he is totally unprepared for it, having already decided that A
is an honest, "up front" and decent guy with no hidden agendas... :-)

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/8/2005 8:26:57 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0ic5f$fv2$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d0ib2q$buv$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> >On  7-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
> >>
> >> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
> >>
> >> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a
manner
> >> that is self-serving.
> >>
> >> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
> >
> >In particular only that A has analyzed his aspects that don't appear at
first
> >glance to be self-serving.
>
> Quite the reverse, in fact... it seems that A is 'tipping his hand'
> regarding motive.
>
> >When A does something that appears to be
> >altruistic, he is gaining satisfaction from it - and knows that.
Whether or
> >not A gains from telling B this, who knows?
>
> I don't, among others... an hence my question.
>
> >A thinks he does, or he wouldn't
> >say that.
>
> That seems, Mr Brazee, to be assuming the conclusion:
>
> 'Since everyone acts in their self-interest A, in revealing that he is
> acting in his self-interest and removing the possibility that he might be
> acting altruistically, thereby depriving himself of the mechanism of
> apparent altruism, which is an advantage, is acting in his self-interest.'
>
> In other words... 'Denying one'sself an advantage is an act of
> self-interest'... which seems absurd.
>

Only to an honest man...

You have overlooked the fact that dishonest people are included in the set
as well.

It could well be in the interest of a dishonest person to appear to be
acting against his own interest.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/8/2005 8:30:16 AM
In article <39564uF5s04neU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0ic5f$fv2$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]

>> 'Since everyone acts in their self-interest A, in revealing that he is
>> acting in his self-interest and removing the possibility that he might be
>> acting altruistically, thereby depriving himself of the mechanism of
>> apparent altruism, which is an advantage, is acting in his self-interest.'
>>
>> In other words... 'Denying one'sself an advantage is an act of
>> self-interest'... which seems absurd.
>>
>
>Only to an honest man...
>
>You have overlooked the fact that dishonest people are included in the set
>as well.
>
>It could well be in the interest of a dishonest person to appear to be
>acting against his own interest.

So a dishonest man acts in his own interest by saying that he is acting in 
his own interest, thereby appearing to act against his own interest?  This 
is beginning to sound like that old Cretan Liar paradox... but be that as 
it may I don't have enough data to gauge Mr Brazee's honesty.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 10:14:57 AM
In article <3955unF5uj3ejU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0iakf$kt6$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]

>> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
>>
>> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
>>
>> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner
>> that is self-serving.
>>
>> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
>>
>
>It disarms B, so that when A smacks him with the hidden hook from out of
>left field, he is totally unprepared for it, having already decided that A
>is an honest, "up front" and decent guy with no hidden agendas... :-)

Kind of hard for Mr Brazee to do that to anyone over the UseNet... but 
it is interesting that so low an opinion should be expressed of him.  
Seems like one is being encouraged to greets 'everyone acts in their own 
self-interest' as the sort of flag waved by a stranger's oleaginous 'trust 
me'.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 10:17:48 AM
In article <ij8q21pl863lok2o29f2fqenbtedn8j7gv@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2005 18:46:57 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <klop215usd15mqkuah8os33pfd4ter5eut@4ax.com>,
>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>On 7 Mar 2005 14:58:04 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <a57p215s56ucc3fs41cqha69d6klj4i3qg@4ax.com>,
>>>>Robert Wagner  <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:43:05 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's frustrating to do nothing in Sudan when a few
>>>>>thousand Marines could stop it.
>>>>
>>>>Who would benefit, Mr Wagner?  According to Major General Butler his job 
>>>>as a Marine was to be a thug, a 'high class muscle man for Big 
>>>>Business... a racketeer for capitalism.'  What would be the ROI for such 
>>>>an intervention?
>>>
>>>Image Advertising. For example, ExxonMobil's sponsorship of
>>>Masterpiece Theater doesn't sell much petroleum directly. It creates
>>>goodwill for the organization that pays off later, indirectly. A cynic
>>>might say it assuages gu .. on second thought, you can present the
>>>cynics' argument.
>>
>>Image Advertising... you mean like the good PR that flows like a mighty 
>>river out of the Middle East with every US military action?  
>
>People think we're in Iraq to grab oil. If we were in Sudan, they'd
>think our motivation was altruism.

Just the way folks did in Somalia... no, wait, I don't recall too much 
Brand-Name Building that resulted from that.  Just the way folks did in 
Kosovo... no, wait... Grenada... Vietnam...

Mr Wagner, can you name an actions such as the one you describe in the 
post-Korean Conflict world that had such an effect?

>
>>'I know that half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; but I could 
>>never find out which half' has been attributed to Wanamaker, Lord 
>>Leverhulme and others... perhaps you have known more Marines than I, Mr 
>>Wagner, and thus value them differently but I am loath to invest the lives 
>>of my countrymen - even the jar-headed ones - for a return such as you 
>>suggest.
>
>That's why I said Marines. They're cheap to rdplace and it's hard to
>get emotionally attached to them.

I don't know which passport you carry, Mr Wagner... but members of the 
United States Marine Corps are, quite often, *my* countrymen; as such I am 
loath to invest their lives for a return such as you suggest.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 10:21:34 AM
In article <GB9Xd.600666$8l.375887@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>Some Shakespearean - 
>goes on and on. 'The cream of the cream'.

Well... I don't remember who did the sponsorin but I recall many an 
evening, back in the early days of cable television in the neighborhood in 
which I lived, sitting up, late at night, flipping through 36 Channels of 
Worthless Garbage...

.... and seeing what appeared to be a group of kids fresh out of college, 
standing about on a rather... minimal set... and THEY would CHANT their 
LINES across the STAGE to EACH and ALL in ME-ter FINE to MAKE sure THAT 
the BARD still LIVED...

.... and thinking 'Ahhhh... this must be 'BBC Presents... BAD Classics'!'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 12:47:56 PM
In article <pLbXd.162373$JF2.49152@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
>news:1110246704.948485.39300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of ...
>>
>> ExxonMobil's sponsorship of Masterpiece Theater may be for reasons
>> entirely because they are devoted to promoting quality programming.
>>
>> A cynic might say they do it 'to create goodwill for the organization
>> that pays off later'.
>
>Maybe that's why they dropped sponsorship in 2004.  It's "later".  [please 
>correct me if I'm wrong - I remember reading a headline..."ExxonMobile 
>realizes nobody watches Masterpiece Theater"]

Perhaps it wasn't that 'nobody watched'... but that those who did had 
tough heartstrings, the kind that would not resonate to the plucking 
provided by watching a corporation obtain the benefits of yet another tax 
write-off.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 12:50:05 PM
In article <odaXd.601108$8l.583011@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>You do 
>realize, put a bunch of economists together - you'll never get a 
>straight answer.

From http://www.bartleby.com/66/22/53422.html :

--begin quoted text:

QUOTATION: If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a 
conclusion.

ATTRIBUTION: George Bernard Shaw (1856�1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, 
critic.

--end quoted text

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 12:53:54 PM
On  7-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Is a deficit bad?  Have you paid cash for all your cars and homes?  Have
> you ever paid off a car or a home?

It's a tax.   How you rank it with other taxes depends on your situation.   But
it is a tax, and it will be paid.
0
howard (6283)
3/8/2005 3:56:05 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <GB9Xd.600666$8l.375887@pd7tw1no>,
> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>Some Shakespearean - 
>>goes on and on. 'The cream of the cream'.
> 
> 
> Well... I don't remember who did the sponsorin but I recall many an 
> evening, back in the early days of cable television in the neighborhood in 
> which I lived, sitting up, late at night, flipping through 36 Channels of 
> Worthless Garbage...
> 
> ... and seeing what appeared to be a group of kids fresh out of college, 
> standing about on a rather... minimal set... and THEY would CHANT their 
> LINES across the STAGE to EACH and ALL in ME-ter FINE to MAKE sure THAT 
> the BARD still LIVED...
> 
> ... and thinking 'Ahhhh... this must be 'BBC Presents... BAD Classics'!'
> 
> DD
> 
 From your description Doc I haven't a clue what you are writing about. 
It must surely have been during the embryonic stage of PBS. I can't 
recall any crap like that, and from your description, I wouldn't have 
watched it either.

The very latest I watched was called, I think, "Island at War". That was 
an interesting take - the German occupation of the Channel Islands 
within days of France falling in 1940. Not even sure of exact location, 
but say some 10 miles from French coast and 70 miles from England. 
Foregone conclusion the islands would be occupied and the Brits couldn't 
do a damn thing.

It was a four parter - showing the fictitious island trying to carry on 
with its 'town council' - a twit of a retired Lt. Col, brushing his 
mustache, "What ? What ? Old boy", wearing a French judicial head cap 
and the councilors were called senators.

It touched on a very delicate wartime issue - the girls fraternizing 
with the enemy. It handled that one very well - initial hostility to the 
invaders, but slowly, oh so slowly some succumbed, with one falling in 
love with a young Luftwaffe crew member.

Shakespeare - I can take or leave, but prefer the 'historicals' - the 
English Kings. Even given Ian Holm playing 'King Lear' didn't turn me on 
either. Away from TV, Shakespeare gets the 'modern' treatment which I 
don't much care for. Ian McKellan (?) playing a modern day Richard III - 
movie. Then back in my training days in RAF in 49/51 seeing 
actor/manager  Donald Wolfitt dressed in modern duds playing Brutus in 
'Julius Caesar'. He was portly then, and looked like Hermann Goering to me !

Who's heard of Wolfitt. Possibly Howard, but not by name. Howard - 
"Lawrence of Arabia" the first general to confront Lawrence before 
Allenby (Jack Hawkins) takes over. Wolfitt had big black bushy eyebrows.

Jimmy
0
3/8/2005 6:51:13 PM
In article <BumXd.612640$6l.463236@pd7tw2no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> ... and thinking 'Ahhhh... this must be 'BBC Presents... BAD Classics'!'
>> 
> From your description Doc I haven't a clue what you are writing about. 

Oh good... some things are best left where they were.

>It must surely have been during the embryonic stage of PBS.

Well, it was a... few years ago... *and* it was late at night, when the 
best stuff was not shown.  ('We got the shows we wanted... but we had to 
buy this other stuff, looks like college-kids doing 'Hamlet'... hey, we 
got some air to fill between 2 and 4am, why not.')

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/8/2005 9:44:31 PM
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:51:13 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Away from TV, Shakespeare gets the 'modern' treatment which I 
>don't much care for. 

Franco Zeffelli's movie Romeo and Juliet was brilliant. Several women
I saw it with remarked on the boots being so masculine.


0
3/9/2005 1:37:04 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> 1 - you have to state your current political conviction, Republican, 
> Democrats, Libertarians, Ralph Nader, Greens or whoever.

Republican

> 2 - list all US presidents in historical sequence, starting with FDR

> 3 - against each, give them a rating of 1 to 10, 1 being LOW. (Don't 
> bamboozle us with accompanying arguments - just keep it basic 
> statistical). Any arguments could follow later in the thread.

#32 - 1933-1945 - Franklin D. Roosevelt - 4
#33 - 1945-1953 - Harry Truman - 6
#34 - 1953-1961 - Dwight Eisenhower - 8
#35 - 1961-1963 - John F. Kennedy - 9
#36 - 1963-1969 - Lyndon Johnson - 7
#37 - 1969-1974 - Richard Nixon - 4
#38 - 1974-1977 - Gerald Ford - 5
#39 - 1977-1981 - Jimmy Carter - 3
#40 - 1981-1989 - Ronald Reagan - 10
#41 - 1989-1993 - George H. W. Bush - 7
#42 - 1993-2001 - William J. Clinton - 3
#43 - 2001-     - George W. Bush - 9

> US Deficit figures - what you OWE - no fancy Enron accounting. (In 
> simple non bean-counter terms - what you took in as income and how much 
> you spent more than you received). Give the figures for deficit at the 
> following stages :-
> 
> Prez #42 - what was National deficit when he started
> Prez #43 - what was National deficit when he started
> Prez $43 - what is the latest known deficit

You're saying "deficit", but I think you mean "debt".  Deficit is a 
number that varies from year to year, based on the budget.  If that's 
really what you want, I have those numbers as well.  But, as national 
debt goes, here are the thresholds for the first and last years of each 
of the presidents mentioned above (the table I have starts at 1940)...

Pres  Year   Amount (M)   % GDP
#32 - 1944 -    184,796 -  88.4
#33 - 1945 -    235,182 - 106.3
       1952 -    214,758 -  61.6
#34 - 1953 -    218,383 -  58.5
       1960 -    236,840 -  45.6
#35 - 1961 -    238,357 -  44.8
       1962 -    248,010 -  43.6
#36 - 1963 -    253,978 -  42.4
       1968 -    289,545 -  33.3
#37 - 1969 -    278,108 -  29.3
       1973 -    340,910 -  26.1
#38 - 1974 -    343,699 -  23.8
       1976 -    477,404 -  27.5
#39 - 1977 -    549,104 -  27.9
       1980 -    711,932 -  26.1
#40 - 1981 -    789,427 -  25.8
       1988 -  2,051,819 -  40.9
#41 - 1989 -  2,190,956 -  40.5
       1992 -  3,000,073 -  48.2
#42 - 1993 -  3,248,755 -  49.5
       2000 -  3,410,120 -  35.0
#43 - 2001 -  3,477,472 -  33.6
(est) 2005 -  3,547,672 -  29.2

source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/hist.html



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/9/2005 5:03:57 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
>> Is a deficit bad?  <snip> -
> 
> Don't equivocate. Like the Dragnet Man used to say, "Just give me the 
> facts ma'am, just the facts. Dah dee dah dah !". I have no idea what the 
> actual figures are - but I'm reasonably certain #43 doesn't show up as a 
> shining star.

I'm not equivocating - just shooting down a fallacy before you put it 
forth.  :)  Your list for "raw numbers" also doesn't take into account 
what was going on in the nation or the world at the time.  Look at 
Truman's first year - 106.5% of the GDP!  (Oh yeah - we were gearing up 
to *win a world war*...)

I imagine, as skeptical as a bunch the denizens of this newsgroup are, 
they're well acquainted with the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

> Let's see the ACTUAL figures - then we can talk economic theory. You do 
> realize, put a bunch of economists together - you'll never get a 
> straight answer.

I think, hands down, the economist who understands the free-market, 
capitalist economic system better than any today would have to be Thomas 
Sowell.  Sometimes he says things contrary to conventional wisdom, but 
what he says just makes sense.  (And, he can back up his principles with 
examples of them in action.)  Another is Walter Williams - doesn't make 
me go "wow" as much as Sowell, but still a bright mind.

And, both these men are old enough to have seen a lot more than me...  :)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/9/2005 5:10:38 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0ju4c$pd0$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3955unF5uj3ejU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d0iakf$kt6$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
> >>
> >> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
> >>
> >> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a
manner
> >> that is self-serving.
> >>
> >> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
> >>
> >
> >It disarms B, so that when A smacks him with the hidden hook from out of
> >left field, he is totally unprepared for it, having already decided that
A
> >is an honest, "up front" and decent guy with no hidden agendas... :-)
>
> Kind of hard for Mr Brazee to do that to anyone over the UseNet... but
> it is interesting that so low an opinion should be expressed of him.

My opinion of Howard is a matter of record. I have nothing but respect for
him, though I may diasagree with him on occasion. (And even those are
rare...)

As we were discussing A and B, your attempt to personalise this is seriously
out of order.

Why would you do that?

Is it because I pointed out that there COULD be an occasion where what you
considered absurd, actually wasn't?

Let it go, Doc. It isn't important. My observation was meant to amuse as
much as inform.

> Seems like one is being encouraged to greets 'everyone acts in their own
> self-interest' as the sort of flag waved by a stranger's oleaginous 'trust
> me'.
>

The relationship between an oily "Trust me..." and "Fuck you..." is pretty
well understood on the street... (well, it is on SOME streets...) But
surely, that is a horse of an entirely different colour... have you heard
the one about the green horse?  maybe some other time... :-)

Pete.



> DD
>
>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/9/2005 10:54:11 AM
In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0ju4c$pd0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <3955unF5uj3ejU1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0iakf$kt6$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Perhaps I was being obscure... again.  What I attempted to convey was:
>> >>
>> >> A says to B 'Everyone acts in a manner that is self-serving.'
>> >>
>> >> B then knows that A, being a subset of 'everyone', is acting in a manner
>> >> that is self-serving.
>> >>
>> >> How does it self-serve A for B to know that A is acting in this manner?
>> >>
>> >
>> >It disarms B, so that when A smacks him with the hidden hook from out of
>> >left field, he is totally unprepared for it, having already decided that A
>> >is an honest, "up front" and decent guy with no hidden agendas... :-)
>>
>> Kind of hard for Mr Brazee to do that to anyone over the UseNet... but
>> it is interesting that so low an opinion should be expressed of him.
>
>My opinion of Howard is a matter of record. I have nothing but respect for
>him, though I may diasagree with him on occasion. (And even those are
>rare...)
>
>As we were discussing A and B, your attempt to personalise this is seriously
>out of order.
>
>Why would you do that?

Leaving aside the possibility that 'when someone says 'everyone does (x)' 
or 'you know that when someone says (x) they mean (y)' it is often an 
expression of said someone's saying '*I* do (x)' or 'when *I* do (x) I 
mean (y)'... Mr Brazee was the one who introduced the assertion of 
'Everyone acts in a self-serving manner' and, last I looked, Mr Brazee is 
a subset of 'everyone'...

.... but perhaps I get too dry here; if I were any more wry I might be 
pumpernickel.

(note to those for whom English is a learned, rather than native, language 
or to those unfamiliar with baking: 'wry' is being used in the sense of 
'ironically or grimly humorous' (http://www.m-w.com) and is a homonym of 
'rye', a kind of grain used, at times, to make bread-dough; 'pumpernickel' 
is defined (same cite as above) as 'a dark coarse sourdough bread made of 
unbolted rye flour'... proving, once again, that a joke explained is a 
joke lost)

>
>Is it because I pointed out that there COULD be an occasion where what you
>considered absurd, actually wasn't?

No conditional in your assertion (quoted above beginning with 'It disarms 
B...'), Mr Dashwood... my apologies for not supplying it.

>
>Let it go, Doc. It isn't important. My observation was meant to amuse as
>much as inform.

Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.

(note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/9/2005 12:34:10 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
[snip]
>>As we were discussing A and B, your attempt to personalise this is seriously
>>out of order.
>>
>>Why would you do that?

[snip]

> .... but perhaps I get too dry here; if I were any more wry I might be 
> pumpernickel.

Pete, don't toss docdwarf too much, or he is becoming dizzy...

-- 
rien
0
3/9/2005 1:32:07 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.
> 
> (note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)
> 
> DD

You do not need to explain Doc ... after all, I am a flour child.

Donald


0
donald_tees (563)
3/9/2005 1:53:48 PM
In article <NdDXd.18934$fW4.574889@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.
>> 
>> (note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)
>> 
>
>You do not need to explain Doc ... after all, I am a flour child.

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

.... that might explain why some ideas presented seem so half-baked, aye.

(I will now stop making these puns about baking so as not to get a rise 
out of anyone.)

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/9/2005 2:40:46 PM
On  9-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Leaving aside the possibility that 'when someone says 'everyone does (x)'
> or 'you know that when someone says (x) they mean (y)' it is often an
> expression of said someone's saying '*I* do (x)' or 'when *I* do (x) I
> mean (y)'... Mr Brazee was the one who introduced the assertion of
> 'Everyone acts in a self-serving manner' and, last I looked, Mr Brazee is
> a subset of 'everyone'...

Actually, it was JCE who introduced it.   You responded to it, and I responded
to your statement.

To me, it isn't an insult to recognize that people seek to maximize their
personal satisfaction.
0
howard (6283)
3/9/2005 3:17:10 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <NdDXd.18934$fW4.574889@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
>>>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.
>>>
>>>(note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)
>>>
>>
>>You do not need to explain Doc ... after all, I am a flour child.
> 
> 
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
> 
> ... that might explain why some ideas presented seem so half-baked, aye.
> 
> (I will now stop making these puns about baking so as not to get a rise 
> out of anyone.)
> 
> DD
> 

Yes, one must remain professional, and dedicated to making bread.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
3/9/2005 3:20:13 PM
Donald Tees wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>> In article <NdDXd.18934$fW4.574889@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
>>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.
>>>>
>>>> (note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not need to explain Doc ... after all, I am a flour child.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>>
>> ... that might explain why some ideas presented seem so half-baked, aye.
>>
>> (I will now stop making these puns about baking so as not to get a 
>> rise out of anyone.)
>>
>> DD
>>
> 
> Yes, one must remain professional, and dedicated to making bread.

You'd hate to be like those folks on the Amazing Race last night, and 
run out of dough...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/9/2005 3:51:24 PM
LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>> 1 - you have to state your current political conviction, Republican, 
>> Democrats, Libertarians, Ralph Nader, Greens or whoever.
> 
<snip>

Good on you Daniel and also making the effort to back-track on 
Debt/Deficit for the same group.

I can understand some of your presidential ratings, some I'm a little 
surprised at and if later I take a crack you will probably be surprised 
at mine - and that's not necessarily that I'm going to give Democrats a 
higher mark - it's Republicans as well.

I will however come back to your 'estimate' for # 43 - having googled 
last night on sources which were NOT U.S. based.

Anybody else what to chip in giving ratings or perhaps dispute Debts ?

Jimmy

PS - I left tables in below so I've got a copy in my 'Send' folder.

Ratings : 1 to 10

> #32 - 1933-1945 - Franklin D. Roosevelt - 4
> #33 - 1945-1953 - Harry Truman - 6
> #34 - 1953-1961 - Dwight Eisenhower - 8
> #35 - 1961-1963 - John F. Kennedy - 9
> #36 - 1963-1969 - Lyndon Johnson - 7
> #37 - 1969-1974 - Richard Nixon - 4
> #38 - 1974-1977 - Gerald Ford - 5
> #39 - 1977-1981 - Jimmy Carter - 3
> #40 - 1981-1989 - Ronald Reagan - 10
> #41 - 1989-1993 - George H. W. Bush - 7
> #42 - 1993-2001 - William J. Clinton - 3
> #43 - 2001-     - George W. Bush - 9

DEBT :

> Pres  Year   Amount (M)   % GDP
> #32 - 1944 -    184,796 -  88.4
> #33 - 1945 -    235,182 - 106.3
>       1952 -    214,758 -  61.6
> #34 - 1953 -    218,383 -  58.5
>       1960 -    236,840 -  45.6
> #35 - 1961 -    238,357 -  44.8
>       1962 -    248,010 -  43.6
> #36 - 1963 -    253,978 -  42.4
>       1968 -    289,545 -  33.3
> #37 - 1969 -    278,108 -  29.3
>       1973 -    340,910 -  26.1
> #38 - 1974 -    343,699 -  23.8
>       1976 -    477,404 -  27.5
> #39 - 1977 -    549,104 -  27.9
>       1980 -    711,932 -  26.1
> #40 - 1981 -    789,427 -  25.8
>       1988 -  2,051,819 -  40.9
> #41 - 1989 -  2,190,956 -  40.5
>       1992 -  3,000,073 -  48.2
> #42 - 1993 -  3,248,755 -  49.5
>       2000 -  3,410,120 -  35.0
> #43 - 2001 -  3,477,472 -  33.6
> (est) 2005 -  3,547,672 -  29.2
> 
> source:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/hist.html

Glad you quoted the source.
0
3/9/2005 5:37:10 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0n1te$sh8$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <NdDXd.18934$fW4.574889@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >> In article <3982urF5ulq71U1@individual.net>,
> >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Likewise... but evidently my ryeness was not so well-bred.
> >>
> >> (note to those for whom English is a learned... oh, never mind)
> >>
> >
> >You do not need to explain Doc ... after all, I am a flour child.
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... that might explain why some ideas presented seem so half-baked, aye.
>
> (I will now stop making these puns about baking so as not to get a rise
> out of anyone.)
>

I should think so too... it's the very yeast you can do.  (aside: I liked
the pumpernickle/wry reference...:-))

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/10/2005 12:20:50 AM
In article <d0n46i$o63$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On  9-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> Leaving aside the possibility that 'when someone says 'everyone does (x)'
>> or 'you know that when someone says (x) they mean (y)' it is often an
>> expression of said someone's saying '*I* do (x)' or 'when *I* do (x) I
>> mean (y)'... Mr Brazee was the one who introduced the assertion of
>> 'Everyone acts in a self-serving manner' and, last I looked, Mr Brazee is
>> a subset of 'everyone'...
>
>Actually, it was JCE who introduced it.   You responded to it, and I responded
>to your statement.

Well, so much for the quality of my memory... you'd think I might warn 
folks that it is porous.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/10/2005 1:34:49 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:

Just a quick note...

>> source:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/hist.html

The data available there also has budget deficit detail for each year...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/10/2005 2:38:52 PM
SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:18:56 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> enlightened us:
> 
> >
> >On 12-Mar-2005, "lewy" <lewy@dim.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Neither one would have responded because neither one was a big civil
> >> > rights advocate.
> >>
> >> Which party was more opposed to civil rights legislation though?  Based on
> >> the senate vote at least it was the Democrats, not the Republicans.
> >
> >On the other hand, there is the "Only Nixon could go to China", syndrome.
> >Because the Democrats were so strongly anti-civil rights, they would have
> >been effective in stopping Republicans from passing a civil-rights bill.
> >Maybe it took Democratic leadership to get over this hurdle.
> 
> I think the Democratic leadership was always for civil rights but
> there were enough southern democrats in the house and senate who were
> opposed.  When they left the democratic party, then the leadership was
> able to focus on civil rights.  With Nixon getting elected, it was the
> start of the Republican party leaning more and more toward corporate
> America and away from citizen, especially minority, issues.

For certain values of "always". It's the Democrats of eighty years
earlier that got the country into the mess in the first place.
-- 
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
0
aaron4325 (6)
3/14/2005 11:06:43 PM
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On 18-Mar-2005, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > Truman was first elected in 1922 as a judge -- that would mean his race
> > was in 1921/22 -- predating any kind of mass media.  AFAIK, he had never
> > visited the southern US, or even traveled except for France (circa
> > 1917-1919) to save those insufferable pussies from their own misguided
> > foreign policy.
> 
> Missouri was a Confederate state.

No it wasn't, it was a slave state. In particular, it was one of the
"border states" which were slave, but Union: Maryland, West Virginia,
Kentucky, and Missouri.
-- 
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
0
aaron4325 (6)
3/19/2005 8:36:58 PM
Reply: