8051 Keil C site updated!
in [Embedded]
|
From: cbarn24050 on 10 Jul 2010 07:04 On Jul 9, 10:59 pm, Muzza <vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:42 am, "cbarn24...(a)aol.com" <cbarn24...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 11:13 am, Muzza <vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 3:24 am, "cbarn24...(a)aol.com" <cbarn24...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 1:40 pm, "Murray R. Van Luyn" <REMOVE.vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > <cbarn24...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:96241fde-0d12-4aee-a970-038ea36aaf9e(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:19 pm, d_s_klein <d_s_kl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 6:12 pm, "Murray R. Van Luyn" <REMOVE.vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Into 8051 derived controllers and coding with Keil C51? Save countless > > > > > > > development hours by basing your applications on my proven, > > > > > > > user-friendly > > > > > > > foundation Keil C source code modules. Find them here: > > > > > > > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/ > > > > > > > > Please take advantage of the site's safe bookmarking mechanism and come > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > often. New content is currently being added on a very regular basis. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Murray R. Van Luyn. > > > > > > > There is a commercial site (pay me to download my software) at the end > > > > > > of that link - your post is the textbook definition of SPAM. > > > > > > > For the rest of the world, there is better software out there FOR > > > > > > FREE! > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > Very true, I had a quick look at the serial module and it's joke code. > > > > > Has no value whatever. > > > > > > Isn't it odd that such empty criticism always comes from anonymous, with no > > > > > worthy contribution of their own? > > > > > Nothing anonymous about me squire, if you cant email me its because > > > > your hiding behind an anonymous address yourself. Try using the > > > > address your isp gave you. > > > > > I think my contribution was posative, aside from maybe saving someone > > > > time and money it should have spurned you on to look again at your > > > > effort. Sadly it looks like one out of two. > > > > > > Okay cbarn24050, please feel free to impress us all with your own > > > > > significant and worthwhile contributions to the embedded community. > > > > > Well what would impress you? > > > > > > Can't do it? Why ever not, I wonder? > > > > > Can do have done, and yourself? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Murray R. Van Luyn.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > hahahaha. > > > > Scurry away little cockroach. The light might shine on you! > > > I hope some light shone on you from your post 2 days ago, man your > > some expert!! > > >http://www.8052.com/forum/read/176494 > > > > Regards, > > > Murray R. Van Luyn.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What are you doing over at 8052.com, anyway? laughing at you. They don't allow posts > from anonymous Usenet cockroaches, They let you in and they've also got a moderator to > keep your type under control. Why dont you post your spam there and see if he's awake If you actually built something you would soon find out why your code is no good. You should allways test it on hardware in the real world. A half harted similation is no good at all. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 11 Jul 2010 10:06 Am 09.07.2010 14:48, schrieb Muzza: > Hans feels that criticism of unseen code is legitimate, Nonsense. You're making that claim up. What I find legitimate is to measure you by the same standards you apply to others. E.g. no use of telepathic information as an argument. > and rejects my right to ask for those uninformed critic's > qualifications. No. I do reject your right to accuse others of telepathy when you're relying on telepathic knowledge yourself, though. > He claims that I could not know who has, and who has not seen my > code. And you haven't spent so much as a single word on refuting that claim in about three dozen posts spread over the past 10 days. You'll have to excuse people for not knowing what you know if you can't be bothered to tell us. You insisted we weren't allowed telepathy, so how else were we to know? > PayPal send me a detailed transaction notification each time a > valued customer contributes a small sum to my distribution costs. Ah, so you're _finally_ admitting that our main claim, about your misrepresenting a commercial site (one that has "customers") as a benevolent contribution to the general public, was correct all the time. > I am quite able to identify those that 'expertly' claim the code is > bad, yet who have never had any of my code in their possession. But you're still relying on telepathy as the basis of your assumptions that a) none of your known customers showed that code to somebody else, and b) that you know every single mail address / nickname used by any of your customers. > Hans vilifies me as a self-promoting saviour to all embedded-kind. I > have merely countered his fallacious assumption that I am a profit > seeker, by informing him otherwise. There was no such information. What there was were lies in breathtakingly obvious contradiction to the facts present on your webpage (in its state at the time of the statement). > Numerous detractors, including Hans, have maliciously misrepresented > me, by stating that I have either used a fallacious return e-mail > address in my postings, or that I have attempted to conceal my name. I did no such thing. What I did do was point out that you changed your own screen name and mail address in the middle of the thread (on July 7th, sometime between 14:40 and 20:00 CET), which seemed a rather self-contradictive thing to do immediately after of having complained about cbarn24050 being an anonymous coward. Which, BTW, is another fact you never bothered to argue against, resorting to personal attacks instead. > It seems to have escaped each of them that I have signed each and > every posting in this thread, with the same contraction of my full > legal name, Yet you changed your "From:" header, then claimed you couldn't remember having done so. > Yes, anger is blind. .... which is exactly why you can't see how offensive your behaviour is. > Those that are so readily offended by what they > mistakenly regard as being spam, There was absolutely nothing mistaken about that judgment.
From: cbarn24050 on 11 Jul 2010 15:41 On Jul 11, 3:06 pm, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Am 09.07.2010 14:48, schrieb Muzza: > > > Hans feels that criticism of unseen code is legitimate, > > Nonsense. You're making that claim up. > > What I find legitimate is to measure you by the same standards you apply > to others. E.g. no use of telepathic information as an argument. > > > and rejects my right to ask for those uninformed critic's > > qualifications. > > No. I do reject your right to accuse others of telepathy when you're > relying on telepathic knowledge yourself, though. > > > He claims that I could not know who has, and who has not seen my > > code. > > And you haven't spent so much as a single word on refuting that claim in > about three dozen posts spread over the past 10 days. You'll have to > excuse people for not knowing what you know if you can't be bothered to > tell us. You insisted we weren't allowed telepathy, so how else were we > to know? > > > PayPal send me a detailed transaction notification each time a > > valued customer contributes a small sum to my distribution costs. > > Ah, so you're _finally_ admitting that our main claim, about your > misrepresenting a commercial site (one that has "customers") as a > benevolent contribution to the general public, was correct all the time. > > > I am quite able to identify those that 'expertly' claim the code is > > bad, yet who have never had any of my code in their possession. > > But you're still relying on telepathy as the basis of your assumptions > that a) none of your known customers showed that code to somebody else, > and b) that you know every single mail address / nickname used by any of > your customers. > > > Hans vilifies me as a self-promoting saviour to all embedded-kind. I > > have merely countered his fallacious assumption that I am a profit > > seeker, by informing him otherwise. > > There was no such information. What there was were lies in > breathtakingly obvious contradiction to the facts present on your > webpage (in its state at the time of the statement). > > > Numerous detractors, including Hans, have maliciously misrepresented > > me, by stating that I have either used a fallacious return e-mail > > address in my postings, or that I have attempted to conceal my name. > > I did no such thing. What I did do was point out that you changed your > own screen name and mail address in the middle of the thread (on July > 7th, sometime between 14:40 and 20:00 CET), which seemed a rather > self-contradictive thing to do immediately after of having complained > about cbarn24050 being an anonymous coward. > > Which, BTW, is another fact you never bothered to argue against, > resorting to personal attacks instead. > > > It seems to have escaped each of them that I have signed each and > > every posting in this thread, with the same contraction of my full > > legal name, > > Yet you changed your "From:" header, then claimed you couldn't remember > having done so. > > > Yes, anger is blind. > > ... which is exactly why you can't see how offensive your behaviour is. > > > Those that are so readily offended by what they > > mistakenly regard as being spam, > > There was absolutely nothing mistaken about that judgment. If anyone is interested in 8051 code, this book is now downloadable for free. http://www.tte-systems.com/books/pttes?gclid=COXnt8XG46ICFciQ3wod0DUMyw
From: Chris H on 12 Jul 2010 04:24
In message <0a0ed4cf-8b01-4dc2-b1f9-fd190e68651a(a)u36g2000prg.googlegroup s.com>, Muzza <vanluynm(a)iinet.net.au> writes >Chris Hills, > >Please, Please, Please stop sending me your whiney personal >correspondence. > >You are already responsible for the malevolent destruction of a >community asset. When will killing something that you have already >slain be enough for you? > >No More E-mail To My Private Address. It's Not Welcome! > >Regards, >Murray R. Van Luyn. I explained the ramifications of using a some one else's trade mark. I explained the changes in Keil (an ARM company) over the last 4 years and how that affected the (implied) agreement he thought he had with Reinhard Keil. There was nothing malevolent about it. I was trying to be helpful but he would not listen. He shot the messenger. I have not done anything else so I fail to see how that closed his web site. I suspect that some one blew the whistle on Murray to Keil-ARM )No! It was not me) and he has been asked to remove the Trademark. What you should all realise is that people (usually support engineers) from virtually all the embedded companies lurk here. They rarely if ever post and apart from Ulf (Atmel) and Walter (Bytecraft) they do not use company email addresses. Some also use false names as they are well known ny their customers. Just for reference Murray, it was NOT a community asset. It was a commercial site selling software. I have a commercial web site for my business (selling software) and a personal one that gives SW away. The biggest problem was not the web site per-say but the attitude of the owner. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |