| ??? 08/07/10 21:21 Read: times |
#177863 - Once again, you're overreaching ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
Clearly you don't ... While it's true that those who give free advice are supposed to target the questions asked, they're not supposed to start with, "Well you're totally wrong and should be doing something you don't want to do." 1) You are a bit wrong here. Someone getting money for answering questions may have an obligation. Someone who answers questions for free has also the free right to decide what to answer as long as the answer isn't rude, spam or similar. There's more of an obligation than that. It's a matter of reason and etiquette. This point has been brought up time and again, even by you. The choices are, (1) answer the question as asked or (2) remain silent. 2) No one have posted that the OP is totally wrong. Except of course insinuated by someone named Richard. The OP has received options, and you don't like when someone gets optional solutions. The second question asked was a mystery, apparently not just to me, as it had no relevance to the 80C31 or any other 805x-type. The first, however, was quite clear. He wanted the names, and possibly links to, an assembler. He didn't ask for advice. He didn't ask for recommendations about what to do. Well, whatever happened, it scared the O/P off, never to be heard from again. Wrong again. The OP did return, and didn't seemed too scared. You would have noticed if you spent some time reading what people posted. If you take that in the contemporaneous context, he hadn't at the time I made that remark, come back yet. Perhaps you didn't notice that. I think it appropriate that the O/P get answers to his questions, no matter how silly, if it's even possible to answer them, simply to tell him he can get answers, rather than being grilled right away. More examples of your problems to read. No one have said the OP have asked silly questions. No grilling of the OP. Just answers giving options, and questions to help direct the debate. Timely answers from the O/P certainly would have helped direct the discussion. Answers to questions not yet asked just misdirect it. After he sees that he can get answers, he'll hopefully become brave enough to expose his ignorance by asking more detailed questions. If he is immediately slammed with questions HE doesn't understand ... well ... he'll probably just fade out. Why should he have to be "brave enough" to "expose his ignorance"? Slammed with questions? HE doesn't understand? I would say that your very aggresive posts are quite effective at scaring people away, because you seem to be operating without feedback loop. You repeat the same claims again and again but in stronger - and ruder - language. Your slamming of Andy Peters wasn't exactly classy. If I seem aggressive, it's just because I'm so tired of Erik's shilling for Keil and SiLabs. I agree that those are good products, but, please ... lets try to apply them in context of the O/P's query. All I've been saying is that you, Erik, should let the O/P, in any case, not just this one, discover the error of his ways, instead of postulating that he's wrong and then telling him to do something that he doesn't yet know he wants to do. No one have claimed the OP is wrong. Just given alternative options - which you dislike, because you like people to drive off the road "for learning purposes". By the way "All I've been saying [...]" - and you have needed more than 60 posts in this thread that all together can be boiled down to that single sentence. Staggering ... Yes, and 59 of them were more or less in response to the same, "Make him do what WE want, not what HE wants" haranguing. Most people aren't so dumb that they buy components before they figure out what they'll do with 'em. I regularly do, if I see an interesting component. Nothing is as fun as having a bored day and suddenly find some interesting components laying around. So, yes. I'm so dumb that I now and then buy components before having figured out what to do with them. If (a) you don't know what they're intended to do, and (b) you don't know why you'd want them, that might be a bit foolish. You've taken my remark out of context, as you so often do, and completely forgotten that this was in the context of the "you have to buy a programmer ... you have to buy an eraser" thread that Erik raised. The 2716 programmer my son built when he was in 7th grade was driven from the parallel port, as it was intended to look like a printer. Interesting. Would you tell me how you yourself would manage to duplicate your sons feat, in case all you have is a recent Windows machine with no MS-DOS available? My son did this under DOS, as there was no Win9x or beyond at the time, to interfere with full control of the machine. I still have machines just for that purpose, i.e. to avoid the rubbish that Windows does. When I need Windows, I use it. When I want to do hardware work, I use DOS, or I back off even further to a box running CP/M on a fast Z80. Ever looked at the Windows API for accessing a printer port? Ever wondered why most hobbyists abuses signal lines on the serial port instead of using all those nice signals on the printer port? Besides the tiny little fact that most PC now don't even have a printer port then, ... It's not convenient to do low-level work under Windows, so one probably would wake up and use DOS. If you have funds available, with which you can purchase a programmer, that's probably preferable to building your own. With the Maxim/Dallas DS89C4x0, it's so simple even a rank beginner can build it with high confidence. Why suddenly give advice, when most of your rants are basically focusing on the fact that you don't like everyone else giving advice in this thread? It's because the O/P has come back, so we're on to the next step. Apparently he's read at least some of the things written about his sad query. Now it's time to face the facts. He's either going to have to spend some money, or to do something someone else has suggested. The point, of course, is to leave the choice up to him. RE |
