To: JW@KSC who wrote (8508 ) 12/21/1997 4:06:00 PM From: SteveG Respond to of 21342
<..You've placed another useful URL at my finger tips...>> You are welcome. <..I'm sure you'll agree that we both had valid view points in our discussion/minor debate...> Well, even wanting to be generous, this is STILL not the case. The specific term "Quality of Service" (note caps) and especially the acronym "QoS", as has been amply clarified for you, has NOTHING to do with YOUR use of it to mean simply "good quality service". QoS is a very specific networking term, and your dilutive use of it to encompass your generic "good quality service" is incorrect. Both Geoff Hollingsworth and myself pointed this out to you. Even your own references (that you unsuccessfully attempted to use to show it could have your generic meaning) did not support your use at all, In fact, one of them cautioned a dilutive the use of the term "QoS" within a TECHNICAL framework. Your use is naive at best. See our previous interactions (and there related backlinks) as a reminder:techstocks.com techstocks.com techstocks.com techstocks.com <...This is what I consider QOS to the customer, never having to call for Customer Service, unless I want to ad Options.> Well, YOU can consider "QoS" to be any darn thing you want - but it would STILL be an incorrect use of the term. Why don't you just say what you mean, instead of shrouding it in fancy, if misused, terms and acronyms? Just say, "good old-fashioned, high-quality service", since this is what you mean, and nothing more? Here's another description of the technical use of QoS and CoS that you may have missed before: teledotcom.com <Merry Christmas to you Sir!..> ....and a Happy Chanukkah to you and all as well! Steve