🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2585882...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> jo...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Conan the Barbarian) writes:
>VERIFY that it was completely and uncorrupted on the tape.  So, he methodically
>types NEW, and VERIFY and gets no errors.  By now I was laughing so hard, he
>couldn't help but think he'd goofed so he VERIFYs again.  If I had looked 
>carefully, I'll bet he typed NEW again.

How about we try to explain some of these stories when we submit
them?  Several times I've read a punch line and had to infer from
context the critical technical details.

In the present case, I can guess that either the initial save didn't
work so verifying against a NEW (null) program succeeded, or that
verifying against a null program erased the tape.  Knowing which it
was would have made the story a tad more digestible.

Most of us have used some crufty old system, but I doubt there is
anyone here who's used them all.
-- 
Steve Nuchia	      South Coast Computing Services      (713) 964-2462
"If the conjecture `You would rather I had not disturbed you
 by sending you this.' is correct, you may add it to the list of
 uncomfortable truths."   - Edsgar Dijkstra