<chuckle>

Chip, you are absolutely right!  I supported an office at a very large herein-unnamed aircraft-building firm located in the Seattle area a few years ago.  The Vice President in charge of that office was absolutely adamant that all his reports run in the BQ simply because he was a vice president.  Apparently, he felt his "stuff" was more important that the hundred or so employees that actually USED the system. Became rather spectacularly unpleasant when they didn't, as I recall.

Users can be so weird sometimes, bless their hearts!

Bob Graham
Director of AMISYS Computing Support

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers.
Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new
tablets.  Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for
everything about him is ripe for the harvest." - Friedrich Neitzsche,
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra"


-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Dorman
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BS queue question


Hi y'all,

Over the years, I have been amused by how the technical
aspect of processor queue assignment has gotten confused
with the emotional aspects of a particular job/task.  Quite
a number of times I have found people insisting that a job
had to be "put into the highest queue because it was important!"
What would be un-stated is the thought that the assigned queue
somehow conferred moral value and emotional importance to the task
being process by the computer.  By assigning it to a lower queue,
the task would somehow be diminished in importance.

Chip Dorman
Greenfield Industries,
Kennametal, Inc.