8051 Keil C site updated!
in [Embedded]
|
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 7 Jul 2010 20:05 Am 08.07.2010 00:28, schrieb Muzza: > On Jul 8, 5:37 am, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker<HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> Am 07.07.2010 20:51, schrieb Muzza: ^^^^^^ >>> On Jul 8, 1:45 am, Bob<SkiBoy...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>>> Murray R. Van Luyn wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> No odder than you suddenly deciding to change your own name from "Murray >> R. Van Luyn" to "Muzza" in the middle of a thread. > > I think you might need to read the thread again, Hans. I don't. I just need to look at the attribution lines above. I've taken the liberty to mark them ^^^^^^ for you. > I don't seem to remember doing what you have suggested. Whether you remember it or not is quite irrelevant. You did do it, though. >> So let's see: _you_ claim to know what somebody who you emphasize never >> having heard of before, has or has not seen, and in the same sentence >> accuse _them_ of being "apparently psychic". Now that's rich. Oh, and >> a great way to destroy any credibility you might have had left, too. > > Hmm...you might need to make that a little simpler for me to > understand, Hans. I really don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I've > read it a few times, and yet I can't seem to get a clear grip on your > point. Well, then let's make it blunt: you can take that characterization as an "apparently psychic critic" and stick it onto your own forehead. That's exactly the place where it belongs. You claim you know what cbarn... has seen. Yet you insist you've never seen or heard of him before. So either you're just making these things up as you go, or you must be just the kind of telepath you want to discredit others as. >> In your dreams. Whether you consider that PayPal contribution a "very >> affordable investment" or a "token" doesn't matter in the least. It >> makes your website a commercial one, and unsolicited advertising for it >> spam. > > Okay, you're in the 'all software is my free right' camp then, I see. No, you don't see. You're imagining things to fit your prejudices. You can give away your software for free, or you can charge for it, it doesn't matter to me. I rather doubt I would want any of it either way. You get to choose whether your site should be commercial or not. Your choice was to make it commercial. So you'll be held to the rules applicable to commercial services --- and one of those is that unsolicited advertisement for them is, by definitionm, spam. And frankly, this "holier-than-thou" attitude of yours, projecting yourself as the benevolent saviour of all embedded-kind, and anyone who dares criticize you as some kind of deviant, sucks. > You're entitled to your view that news of my benevolent contribution > is spam then, No. That information is not news, because for that it would have to be new (it's not), interesting (it might be), and factually accurate (it's not). Posting this "news" here, OTOH, is unsolicited advertisement for a commercial service. Which, whether you like it, qualifies as a textbook-perfect example of spam.
From: George Neuner on 8 Jul 2010 00:38 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:05:19 +0200, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker <HBBroeker(a)t-online.de> wrote: >Am 08.07.2010 00:28, schrieb Muzza: >> On Jul 8, 5:37 am, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker<HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: >>> Am 07.07.2010 20:51, schrieb Muzza: > ^^^^^^ >>>> On Jul 8, 1:45 am, Bob<SkiBoy...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>>>> Murray R. Van Luyn wrote: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>> No odder than you suddenly deciding to change your own name from "Murray >>> R. Van Luyn" to "Muzza" in the middle of a thread. >> >> I think you might need to read the thread again, Hans. > >I don't. I just need to look at the attribution lines above. I've >taken the liberty to mark them ^^^^^^ for you. > >> I don't seem to remember doing what you have suggested. > >Whether you remember it or not is quite irrelevant. You did do it, though. Unfortunately, I have noticed on several occasions that your attributions are almost always of the form "<date-time> schrieb <name>" and do not routinely include the person's address. Fortunately, I can look directly at the posts in question and see that "Murray R. Van Luyn" <REMOVE.vanluynm(a)iinet.net.au> and Muzza <vanluynm(a)iinet.net.au> both are hiding behind the same address even if, in fact, they are not the same person. George
From: Chris H on 8 Jul 2010 04:06 In message <15b69eae-be65-420e-b318-58c3afa905e4(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroup s.com>, Muzza <vanluynm(a)iinet.net.au> writes >On Jul 8, 5:37�am, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker <HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> Am 07.07.2010 20:51, schrieb Muzza: >> >> > On Jul 8, 1:45 am, Bob<SkiBoy...(a)excite.com> �wrote: >> >> Murray R. Van Luyn wrote: >> >>> Isn't it odd that such empty criticism always comes from anonymous > >> In your dreams. Whether you consider that PayPal contribution a "very >> affordable investment" or a "token" doesn't matter in the least. It >> makes your website a commercial one, and unsolicited advertising for it >> spam. > >Okay, you're in the 'all software is my free right' camp then, I see. I am most certainly not in that camp but I agree with Hans. >You're entitled to your view that news of my benevolent contribution >is spam then, It is not a "benevolent contribution" It is just not worth the money you are asking. Or any money come to that there is a lot of far better Sw out there for free. SO why pay for your sub standard code. > be it a mis-informed and perverse misperception, or >otherwise. I'm sorry that my efforts to best serve the embedded >community seem to offend you so deeply. Reading the legal stuff on your web site the only person you are serving is yourself. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 8 Jul 2010 04:23 In message <f53cc2ad-b2a4-4600-b5a3-2be805df2cb5(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups ..com>, Muzza <vanluynm(a)iinet.net.au> writes >On Jul 8, 2:55�am, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> In message <c1a99e82-a85d-4d53-a5d1-64e334f3d...(a)q21g2000prm.googlegroup >> s.com>, Muzza <vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> writes >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 8, 2:24�am, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >> In message <AOCdnRhkTMt56KnRnZ2dnUVZ_hedn...(a)westnet.com.au>, Murray R. >> >> Van Luyn <REMOVE.vanlu...(a)iinet.net.au> writes >> >> >> ><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? >> >> >> >Okay cbarn24050, please feel free to impress us all with your own >> >> >significant and worthwhile contributions to the embedded community. >> >> >> >Can't do it? Why ever not, I wonder? >> >> >> >Regards, >> >> >Murray R. Van Luyn. >> >> >> I second the criticisms made by Cbarn and RK. >> >> >> There is far better C51 software available for free. �I would also >> >> suggest that you are a novice at embedded code. >> >> >> Further I think you really should (and very quickly) remove most of your >> >> web site before people see it. You are probably in a LOT more trouble >> >> than you realise. >> >> >> Regards >> >> � Chris >> >> >And how am I in trouble according to you this time, Chris? >> >> >Regards, >> >Murray R. Van Luyn. >> >> Apart from the appalling code do you have permission to use the Kiel >> logo? > >More psychic code commentary. How about I give you Reinhart's e-mail >address, and you can indulge your child-like desires to intimidate by >telling on me to him? > >Regards, >Murray R. Van Luyn. I don't need you to give me anyone's email address. I have known Reinhard personally for many years, by which I mean face to face in real life. However it is Mark Onions or Rene Fabricius you need to talk to before you use an ARM trade mark. As a Keil distributor (and for several years I was Keil UK Ltd) and many years of actually using the Keil C51 in real projects apart from a decade of Keil tech support I have seen a lot of Keil C51 code and the only use of your web site is the legal statements. You seem to have spent more time on those than the code. Pity you do not understand them. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 8 Jul 2010 07:35
Am 08.07.2010 06:38, schrieb George Neuner: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:05:19 +0200, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker > <HBBroeker(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Unfortunately, I have noticed on several occasions that your > attributions are almost always of the form > > "<date-time> schrieb<name>" > > and do not routinely include the person's address. Well, people's mail address in their newsgroup headers is usually bogus these days (guess we can thank the Gibe worm for that), so there's not much to be gained from including it in the attribution. It's the default attribution format of TBird, too. I haven't found the motivation to change my news user agent's attribution format after the most recent machine switch, which is why it's still in German. TBird hides that setting too well. > both are hiding behind the same address even if, in fact, they are not > the same person. It's pretty darn obvious they're the same person. Which begs the question why the change of name (and address) mid-thread, or the claim not to remember having done made the change. |