Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!xerox
From: xerox@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (James Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: SafeEject and 6.0.4
Message-ID: <16363@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 26 Oct 89 00:43:00 GMT
References: <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <16360@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: xerox@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (James Osborne)
Distribution: na
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 54

In article <16360@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> danno@dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) writes:
>In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>>      It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4.
>>System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before
>>ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of
>>SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY)
>>
>>Todd Wilson
>>std disclaimer
>>
>Everyone who has jumped on Todd is WRONG. (Boy, don't you all feel toasted
>by that all-encompassing flame!) His statement should NOT be reduced to
>
>"This is the function of SafeEject, which was written for FDHDs."
>
>but rather
>
>"System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD."
>
>I don't know whether this is TRUE or not (hey, I can't answer every question
>for you :-), but that's what he said. He just said it in the wrong place, for
>which he should get two demerits for bad grammar.
>
>Ciao,
>Danno

*sorry to do this net folks, but Danno is in need of a lesson in linguistics.
       Some may consider this wasting the net resources, but many more
spurious postings have came before this...*

  OK, danno, *flame on*.  You can not possibly infer that he
meant "System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD"
from what he said.  His statement says
1. System 6.0.4 moves the drive head to the 79th track.
2. Moving the head to the 79th track is the function of SafeEject
3. THIS is for FDHDs only.  Now, 'this' has a completely ambiguous anticedent,
and therefore must be take to mean the previous statement, which was 2.  Now,
because 3 refers to 2, all of the people who flamed him were correct, and
YOUR interpolation of the structure was incorrect.  If we assume, though,
that 3 does not refer to 2, then to be logical at all it must refer to
2 AND 1, since referring to 1 would be a gross misplacement of the PS (3).
therefore, he is saying that 1 AND 2 are 3, where 3 = the domain {function of
FDHDs}.  This would mean that he is saying that system 6.0.4 moves to 79 in
ONLY FDHDs and that SafeEject moves to 79 in FDHDs.  You have no basis for
inserting the conditional "if" as you have done.
*flame off*

*smiles for Algernon*

--
----------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:  Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, even at such
             time they may be that of my employer. Nor are they my own.
UUCP/Internet/ARPA/(anything)  James.Osborne@mac.Dartmouth.edu