Ian -
I have waited well over a week here now, thinking about whether or not I
should even respond to your little tirade.
I have walked away from responding to this some 20 or 30 times or more,
during that period.
Ultimately I believe that I cannot let such a vitriolic personal attack go
unanswered, especially when such an attack calls into question my very
credibility, both as a designer, and as a programmer.
I am sorry Ian, please don't take it personally if I take this opportunity
to set the record straight on several major mistakes that you have foolishly
made in your haste to attack me.
While I am sorry that you and some others in this forum do not like my
attitude, I do not think that it is really my attitude that is in question
here.
You have made it very clear in the past that you do not like my attitude,
and more specifically, that you simply do not like me, period.
You have also made it very clear both here and in the past that this has
more to do with your being right and my being wrong, and your not wanting to
side with me or agree with me for any reason, even if I am right on an
issue, than with whether or not something actually is right or wrong, or
whether a description of a problem is realistic or not.
It is not my intention to be rude, and I apologize to the forum if I have
been, but personally, at this point, I don't care whether you personally
like my attitude or not.
You have personally attacked me, and I believe at a minimum I have the right
to defend myself against your accusations, and show you where you have in
fact made misrepresentations, false accusations, and have just plain wholly
misunderstood some things.
I also believe that I have the right to show everyone else in this form just
how you appear to have intentionally inflamed the rhetoric here in the
forum, or at a minimum refused to do anything to diffuse it when you clearly
could have, and then attempted to offload the blame on me.
I will attempt to be very cautious in what I say, because I certainly do not
want to inflame the situation any further, and I do not want to be
misunderstood, nor do I want to be accused of misunderstanding something
myself.
It is my intent to be reasoned and rational, and present a logical answer to
the issues that have been raised here in this thread in the last few weeks.
Once again, I apologize in advance to others in the forum for anything that
may be perceived as rude or an attitude problem.
Please see below,
JaMi
* * * * * * * * * *
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs. - Flame start!
> On 11:24 PM 31/07/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs.
> >
> >
> > > As others have told you, there are reasons some programs misbehave
> > > when
> > > they
> > > are not the root cause.
> >
> >You really havn't understood all of the posts to this thread, have you?
>
>
> I've had enough of your rudeness.
>
I am very sorry that this appears to be rude to you Ian, but the simple fact
is that Tony appears to have misunderstood several things in many of the
previous posts to this thread, and I don't know of any simpler or less
offensive way to way to say that.
Unfortunately, the very same sentence applies to you, here in this response
of yours, as I will show below. I am sorry if it is rude to say that.
> A lot of people have been trying to be constructive in the face of what is
> simply rudeness.
This may in fact be true of some people, but I do not believe that I have
been rude to them.
As for you and Tony, I believe that it is fair and honest evaluation to say
that it appears that the both of you have been on the attack ever since your
very first responses to my initial post in this thread, way back on July 22,
and I have been defending myself from that attack ever since.
I will most certainly admit, as I already have in a previous post in this
thread, that none of the three of us (you, Tony, and I), have not gone out
of our way to be courteous to one another.
>I firmly think you should go back over the emails you
> have sent over the last few weeks and the replies.
I have indeed done just that, and that is why I have made the above
statement about attack and defense, as well as the additional statements
regarding your misunderstanding things also.
>This is especially
> galling as some of us have gone out of our way to assist you and you
simply
> throw back flack.
>
In the US, we have a slang expression which goes like this: "Talk about the
Pot calling the Kettle Black!" I believe that this is applicable here.
As I have stated before when you have thrown these kinds of accusations
around here in this thread and in other places, I am not alone. In other
words, I believe that in most cases, if I have "thrown back flack", it was
just that, "thrown back", flack for flack.
As for your assertion that "some of us", or more specifically, you
personally, " have gone out of [your] way to assist [me]", I think that I
will show below that just the opposite is true.
> I have not been responding to the goading you have been attempting. It is
> beneath me.
>
This does deserve a response, and I will call this ISSUE A and respond
below.
> I have admitted that I made a mistake in thinking you were beta testing
> DXP. Your were not. I was wrong, I said so. I am not sure you on going
> attitide is related to that but if it is please lets move on.
>
No harm - no foul - no problem - not relevant to the current discussion.
> However, your insistence that you are right in some matters that are,
> frankly, a matter of opinion, is simply foolish and damaging to your
> standing. You seem to want to call all aspects of Protel that do not
> conform to "your way" as bugs.
>
I can respect your opinion, but unfortunately, it is just that, opinion.
Virtually everything that is said in this forum contains a certain amount of
opinion, or to put it another way, it is colored by opinion, and
unfortunately, there is no way to really end any battle of opinions.
If however, you will allow me to substitute the word "preference" for the
word "opinion" in your above statement, I will reply as follows:
I can accept and understand what you are trying to say here, "preference"
wise, and admit that it does have some application, but cannot accept your
applying this "rational" to an issue that is not in fact a question of a
preference, but rather a real question of right and wrong.
In other words, I do not believe that it is acceptable to try to answer a
rational factual argument by calling it "a matter of preference" - i.e:
whether a system physically crashes or not is not something that can be
called "a matter of preference", nor do I believe it realistic to say that
whether or not a specific function in Protel works or does not work is "a
matter of preference".
> Witness:
> 1) You have a preference for the PgUp and PgDn zoom actions to re-centre
> the screen. You call this a bug. Others prefer it. Others are told they
> are wrong. You make a claim the *my* server, that I wrote to calm your
> original onslaught on joining this forum some time ago, was an admission
> by
> me that it is a bug. And then you denigrate my denial that it is anything
> of the sort. I did you a favour, OK pal. I spent my time, doing something
> for you (yep just for you), to show you it could be done and to help you
> out. (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:32:34 -0700)
Funny thing here Ian, I had just pretty much resolved all of your arguments
on this issue down to mere "preferences" on your part, but with some real
valid extra steps on my part, which brought up some real productivity
issues, and had in fact called all of your arguments bogus, when rather than
answer those specific issues, you avoided answering by throwing this little
tantrum instead.
You may be right that it is not exactly what most people would call a bug,
but you have already admitted that it was non standard and what you would
call a "quirk".
You seem to forget that the whole issue behind my initial post was to find
out if this "quirk" as you call it, had been propagated into DXP, and not to
re-challange you on whether or not it was a bug.
You are the one that has been freaking out over this issue, and as stated
above, when I answered all of your supposed "physiological" arguments in
this thread and showed them to be "bogus", you are the one who freaked out,
not me.
I could care less as to whether it is a "bug" or a "quirk", I just hope that
it is not still there in DXP.
I will admit that I did in fact "push your buttons" a little on this one,
simply because your argument against it was so ridiculous (yes, I am sorry,
that is an opinion)
> 2) You have a problem with a mouse and key shortcuts. This is in fact a
> known bug in Protel but the solution is related to bugs in the mouse
> driver
> that you were supplied with your computer. Known driver bugs. Known
> solution. Yet you harp on this endlessly. Others attempt to explain this
> in a calm manner. You SHOUT at them. (Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:57:21 -0700)
I believe that this matter is very germane to your attitude about this issue
and the trouble that it causes in the forum, so I will answer this item as
ISSUE B below.
> 3) You call the formatting in Protels P&P format a bug. Others are able
> to
> use the P&P format but you can't, so it is a bug. Sure, you have to
> structure you library correctly.
You have grossly and it appears intentionally mischaracterized and
misrepresented what I have stated regarding this issue in the Protel
Development Forum (PDEV) as anyone who is a member of that forum and is able
to read my post can readily see.
For those who are not members of that forum, I will briefly recap what I
said, and restate my conclusion, so that everyone can see how you have
distorted this. My position is essentially this: 1. The Protel Libraries are
delivered part of Protel, and at least some Protel customers in fact
purchased Protel in part because of the included Libraries. 2. Pick and
Place file generation is part and parcel of any 21st century EDA
Application, and that again at least some Protel customers purchased Protel
in part because it has the ability to generate Pick and Place Files. 3.
Protel cannot generate a Pick and Place File using a design created using
the included Protel Libraries which does not include ERRORS in the rotation
of many, if not the majority, of the components contained in those Protel
Libraries, which can cause many of those components to be installed with
incorrect polarity.
These three things are all a matter of "fact", and not a matter of
"preference" or "opinion".
I then went on to state that I believe that this ERROR in the generation of
Pick and Place files is unacceptable in any EDA Application today, and is
therefore what I would call a BUG.
> Bug exactly what is a bug.
We could argue over this question from now until the "cows come home", and
you would still be claiming that it is nothing but my "opinion".
I would however submit to the rest of the forum that if a board gets built
wrong because of a bad pick and place file, it is a "error", and it is a
"bug", and not just a matter of "preference" or "opinion".
> (Are right-hand drive vehicles buggy, BTW?)
This is totally off the wall and simply another example of your attempt to
detract from a reasoned and rational argument and inflame the situation.
> 4) You made a statement that implied you were surprised when someone came
> back with a contrary view to yours some time later.
While the first part of this statement seems somewhat opinionated,
> ... You had taken their
> previous silence as you having convinced them
I will admit that I did believe that I had answered his position back in
January, and I was in fact questioning why he would bring up his argument
again now after not responding before.
> ... (rather than the more likely
> case of you having simply annoyed them). (Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:18:43 -0700)
This is wholly inflammatory, and nothing but conjecture on your part, and in
fact goes to show that you misunderstood the situation or failed to read all
of the related posts in which Rob very clearly and specifically stated his
reason for not responding to my original post back in January.
This is a clear example of your simply wanting to "trash" me irrespective of
the facts and your ignoring or misunderstanding what really transpired.
> 5) You repeat statements in a fashion only likely to raise tempers, and do
> nothing for sensible discussion (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:51:38 -0700)
Notwithstanding the fact that I believe that I have just shown that this
directly describes you, I will answer it nonetheless.
Yes, I repeated the phrase "Nothing crashes but Portal!" several times,
simply because I was trying to get that simple point across, and that simple
point had been missed so many times before. I thought that this would be
much less inflammatory than saying some of the other things that come to
mind when you repeatedly directly state something to someone and he either
repeatedly ignores it or simply doesn't hear it or even worse simply doesn't
understand it. In the same charitable vein, I will say nothing further here.
> 6) You confuse motives, and then argue over the denials. (Tue, 30 Jul 2002
> 10:44:46 -0700). This gives me the appearance of arrogance, maybe you do
> not wish to convey that.
Just how did I misconstrue or "confuse" your motives in that post. You've
lost me on this one.
I think that not only I, but you yourself, have successfully demonstrated
that anytime at all since the time that I have joined this forum that I have
disagreed with you, on any subject, for any reason, you have interpreted it
as "arrogance" or an "attitude" of even "flack" on my part.
I am sorry Ian, I cannot be held responsible for your inferiority complex.
> 7) You are very ready to get personal. (Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:40:59
> -0700). What is especially galling about this is that the subject at the
> time, that you attempted to confuse (deliberately or not) are not
> related. The auto-pan bug in Protel is not related to the manner in
which
> PgUp and PgDn zoom operates.
Ian, this is a classic misunderstanding on your part.
I have never said or even implied that my "thanking Brian" has anything at
all to do with the zoom issue as you think that it does.
Brian stated the following (copied from that post): "If, every mouse & video
card combination I have used to date auto-scrolls & manipulates any other
software's windows fine without bugs & clunking, WHY should there be a
special case for Protel where bugs should be acceptable when you happen to
own not the correct combination of hardware? The only way I would NOT
consider this a bug, is if, and only if, Protel / Altium made clear print on
their hardware system requirements that you should never use ATI, or Matrox
video cards, with these specific mice, or, mention that the auto-pan may
malfunction under these circumstances."
I believe that his statements are DIRECTLY APPLICABLE to the then ongoing
discussion (primarily with Tony), about Protel and the "mouse wheel keyboard
shortcut" problem. I still think that it is DIRECTLY APPLICABLE, and believe
that the parallel in reasoning is a classic.
I still marvel at how some in this forum can so completely agree with Brian
and his argument but so totally reject the application of the identical
logic and argument to the mouse issue.
I have to laugh at the fact that even you have missed this. It seems that
you are so wrapped up in defending yourself and finding errors in my
arguments that you assumed that I had to be attacking you and talking about
the PgUp PgDn zoom issue.
I am not responsible for your misunderstandings.
Respecting my "getting personal". I knew that the minute I sent the post
that someone would attack it, and I figured it would be you. Why do you
think that is?
Talk about getting personal!
Why is it that almost every time I place a post on any subject to this
forum, I actually expect an attack in response from you? Why am I usually
right about this?
Why is it that it seems that you can only disagree with me?
Ian - give me a break!
More on this below.
> 8) You confuse missing features with bugs in the program and then proceed
> to add snipe comments within your email (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:23:08 -0700)
>
We appear to be digressing here into the "opinion" zone again.
As I thought I succinctly stated in that post, I believe that any time any
EDA Application causes me to circumvent DRC functions that are an
established part of every EDA Application on the market today in order to
perform a function that has been standard in our industry for 30 years, when
such circumvention can itself cause design ERRORS in a future "turn" of the
design if I am not there to catch it, I consider that to be a bug. I also
stated that I thought most of the people that purchased Protel would also
call it a bug.
I would invite all in the forum to carefully read the entire post to see
what I really said.
I stand by my statement that it is a bug.
Respecting the "snipe" comments, what can I say. I will admit that
sometimes I have attempted to offset your "no bug here" mentality by
attempting to anticipate your response and "nip it in the bud", as it were,
or to cut you off before you get a chance to respond.
In this vein, I said that I would address something that you stated above
here below as ISSUE A. so I will copy it again here and answer it"
> I have not been responding to the goading you have been attempting. It is
> beneath me.
>
Ian, you accuse me of "goading you". Please understand that I am not in any
sense of the imagination "goading you", but rather attempting in these
instances where you consider me to be "goading you", to "silence you before
you speak".
I am really trying to cut you off before you go into your "automatically
disagree with JaMi" mode and respond.
In one sense I believe that I may owe you and the others in the forum an
apology for the few times that I have done this.
On the other hand Ian, don't you think we have had enough of the "Uh Oh!
JaMi used the word bug again! I've gotta trash him" mentality.
I would much prefer that you simply drop your "no bug here" mentality, which
I believe would be more productive to the forum.
I believe that an example follows here immediately.
> I think, you need to:
> a) learn to separate bugs from other failings
Ian, what is the difference between a "bug" and "other failings"?
I would maintain that most "failings" are in fact "bugs".
I apologize here, it is not my intent to put words into your mouth, but, you
appear to only want to call something a "bug" only if it causes the system
to "crash and burn".
I mean do we really need smoke?
On the other hand, I tend to call a "failing" that prevents someone from
properly designing a PCB "correctly", with an expensive 21st century EDA
Application, a "bug".
I am sure that some would say that both positions could be said to be
"opinions", but I believe that mine is a little closer to being realistic.
> b) stop being rude and arrogant
If you (and Tony and a few others) would not attack everything that I say, I
am sure that you would find me much less defensive, and much more agreeable,
and once again I will point out that I am not alone in what some would call
being "rude and arrogant"
> c) start discussing things in a sane fashion
>
I always try to do just that.
I will apologize for saying this before I say it, but I think that it needs
to be said: I cannot help the fact that some people respond to me as if they
were "playing with less than a full deck".
> Other issues:
> 1) referring to DXP you stated "Realistically, it will almost surely be
> released prior to October 1st, whether it is ready or not, so as to comply
> with the "promises" made to all those who bought into ATS, so that they
> will sign up for yet another year." (Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:40:44 -0700). I
> do not recall seeing a public admission that you were wrong by three
> quarters of a year.
Ian, this is a perfect example of where you are so caught up in searching
the archives in an attempt to find me in a mistake or error, that you
totally blow it and make a fool of yourself.
You clearly have totally have misunderstood what was said, and apparently
misunderstood the whole post.
You don't even need to go any farther than what you have copied here to see
that you have no concept of what is being said. I would however recommend
that you and others who have trouble understanding what is being said go
back to the archives and read all of the posts in the thread.
Just what can you not understand about what is being said here above.
It is kind of hard for me to see how you have misunderstood what is so
plainly stated, but I will try to explain it to you.
The background was that Altium had made some announcement regarding the
release of DXP, and people were speculating as to whether or not it would be
released soon, or whether we would have to wait many many months for it to
be released, since it appeared that it had not even been beta tested at that
time. There was additionally much speculation about whether or not it would
actually be a finished product and work properly when it was released.
Against this background I made the above statement, wherein I stated, and I
thought that the application was obvious, that I believed that Altium would
release DXP prior to October 1st (obviously this year), whether or not the
product was actually ready for release, due to the fact that they were
selling or giving away a one year subscription (possibly not the right word)
to ATS (with a Protel Purchase) beginning in October 1st 2001, and that they
had promised all of those who had "bought into" ATS (for that one year which
would end beginning in October 1st 2002) that they would receive a free
upgrade to DXP.
As I stated, I believed that they would have to release it whether it was
ready or not simply because they had promised all those who "bought into"
ATS beginning in October 2001 (for 1 year) that they would receive the
upgrade "under ATS", since it is obvious that for them to not release it by
October would have been to "fail to keep their promise" (to state it
nicely), and cause people to not "renew" their ATS (among other things (like
maybe turn their lawyers loose on Altium)).
OK - so what do you not understand about this?
Respecting the part of the statement where I said "whether it is ready or
not", I think that the fact that they (Altium themselves) appear to already
talking about Service Pack 1 in the DXP Forum, speaks for itself.
OK - so what do you not understand about this?
Here it is, less than two months before October 1st 2002, and I just today
received my DXP Upgrade under ATS (although I am still waiting for the
software key which was to be mailed separately).
I actually think that my statement made back on April 11 of this year was
"right on target", if not actually somewhat "prophetic", and yet for some
reason you appear to assume that I am somehow in error.
I said that they would release it at least by October 1st, and now they have
released it not quite 2 months before that. Just what about this makes me in
error, and just why do you feel that I need to make "a public admission that
[I was] wrong by three quarters of a year".
Hello!
Ian - what on earth are you talking about!
Are you so blinded by trying to show me up that you can't even think
straight?
Don't answer that.
Am I wrong in extending you the common courtesy of assuming that you have a
basic understanding of the english language and basic mathematical skills
such as counting from 1 to 12.
Yes that is being rude - but I believe you asked for it.
How much time did you spend searching the archive to find that one. You
appear be so wrapped up in attacking me and finding me wrong on something
that you can't seem to be able see beyond trapping me and proving me wrong.
I am sorry, I will attempt to get back on track here.
Ian, I would like to direct your attention and everyone else's to what you
have written below.
PLEASE READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY!
> 2) In contrast to some of your recent statements (re: Protel on a new Dell
> computer with new mouse etc), you have previously stated "To give credit
> where credit is due, the "undocumented feature" dates back far beyond
> Microsoft and Bill Gates to at least the early days of IBM." (Thu, 11 Apr
> 2002 15:31:10 -0700)
I am not quite sure what you are talking about here, as you seem to have
misunderstood yet one more post, so l try to straighten this out before
getting on with the rest of this statement which I believe is very
important.
It occurred to me that someone was applying the term "undocumented feature"
in some manner to either Microsoft, or Bill Gates, as if it had possibly
originated with either of them, and I was simply pointing out that it is
actually older than most people here in the forum, and has been around since
dirt was made. I don't see why that seems to be a problem with you. It must
have something to do with your obsession to prove me wrong about something.
Hopefully we can now continue with this statement of yours.
> The quote goes on...and the context here is not as
> simple as this brief quote suggests. Point is, you have recognised that
> software is not perfect,
I don't think that I have ever said anything to suggest that I thought
anything other than "software is not perfect"
Back to your main statement here.
> ... yet in some recent claims you have suggested that
> your new Dell with your new mouse was not the source of the problems you
> were having. There is a subtle conflict in these concepts.
OK Folks. Here it is, after trashing me right here in this very sentence,
and also trashing me above on this very issue above here in this very post
(which we will deal with below as ISSUE B), and letting this issue rage here
in the forum for the past 6 months, we very subtly attempt to sneak it by on
the off chance that no one will notice it.
> (Now don't
> get
> confused here with the point I am making, I think Protel does have a bug
> in
> how it handles the mouse - the mouse should never hose the key shortcuts.)
SHAM GOLLIEE! as Gomer Pile used to say!
Ian - Did you just say the exact same thing that I have been saying here for
the last 6 months!
Did you just say the exact same thing that you have berated me over and over
for attempting to prove to Tony and others in this forum for the last 6
months!
Did you just say that "Protel does have a bug in how it handles the mouse"!
Did you also say that it was obvious because "the mouse should never hose
the key shortcuts"!
YOU HYPOCRITE !
YOU B#%&()$ !
YOU M!@*^& F{>/&@` A&&%0*# !
And everything else I can't say in polite company!.
Ian - I have never ever said anything more than exactly what you have just
said here above, regarding the "mouse bug", and I have actually said exactly
what you have said here in this thread in almost identical language, in
several posts, both here in this thread and in similar post 6 months ago.
And all this while Ian, you, yes you, have sat there and smiled while Tony
and others have trashed me here in this forum, and done nothing, absolutely
nothing, to stop the heated discussions on this topic.
Why Ian?
You Hypocrite!
You could have said and should have said that (what you just said above) 6
months ago when this topic first came up in the forum, and put the issue to
rest at that time, but no, you couldn't side with me, you couldn't admit
that what I called a bug really was a bug, you couldn't, not even for the
sake of the peace of the forum, agree with me.
You would rather see Tony and others in the form attack me and watch me
defend my arguments, and let things get heated up here in the forum, EVEN
THOUGH YOU NOW APPEAR TO HAVE AGREED WITH ME ALL ALONG.
And you have the audacity to say that you care about peace in the forum.
You Hypocrite!
Yes I am getting personal, but unfortunately I can't call you what I really
want to, and what you really deserve to be called, here in the forum.
YOU HYPOCRITE!
YOU **********************************
And Yes, I am yelling that as loud as I possibly can!
Tony - and anyone else who still believes that the "mouse wheel keyboard
shortcut" issue is not a "Protel bug" - Please go talk to Ian about it
offline!
OK, now we have set the stage to deal with ISSUE B from above, and I will
copy it in here below, so that I can respond to it
> 2) You have a problem with a mouse and key shortcuts. This is in fact a
> known bug in Protel but the solution is related to bugs in the mouse
> driver
> that you were supplied with your computer. Known driver bugs. Known
> solution. Yet you harp on this endlessly.
Neither you or anyone else has ever before stated (that I remember) that it
was a "known bug in Protel", as you now state above (copied here).
Quite the opposite, you and Tony and others who have been argueing with me
on this issue have always stated and meant that the "bug" was not in fact in
Protel, but rather that there was a "bug" in a particular version of the
"intellimouse driver", and that by replacing the mouse driver the "problem
was solved" (now it is your turn to go back and re-read all of the posts).
If I remember correctly, someone even suggested that the mouse could
possibly not be being handled correctly by Delphi, and even that suggestion
was promptly trounced.
You know as well as I do that this is not in fact saying the same thing that
you have just stated above (that "Protel does have a bug in how it handles
the mouse"!).
I have specifically stated numerous times in the past that even when I
locked out the "wheel" in the "intellimouse software" that the keyboard
problem stopped but the continual system crashes did not stop, which to any
programmer should be indicative of the problem not actually being solved.
I have specifically stated additionally that the "system crashes" went away
only when I specifically replaced the "intellimouse driver" with a driver of
a totally different kind.
> Others attempt to explain this
> in a calm manner. You SHOUT at them. (Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:57:21 -0700)
Ian, maybe now, since you claim to be a programmer, and since you now admit
that "Protel does have a bug in how it handles the mouse", you can explain
to Tony and the other holdouts how even now, even thought though the
"intellimouse driver" was updated, and the keyboard shortcuts no longer
disappear, that the fact that "Protel does have a bug in how it handles the
mouse" could still be responsible for some "system crashes".
Maybe they will listen to you and I will not have to SHOUT at them anymore.
And you have the audacity to say that you are interested in the welfare of
the forum! (see below)
On to the remaining things.
> 3) You have previously reported problems with Adobe Acrobat (Wed, 27 Mar
> 2002 15:52:45 -0800) but have recently been using it as an example of how
> printing should work in Protel.
>
Ian, what seems to be your problem here?
Yes I pointed out a problem, or more specifically a "bug" in Adobe Acrobat
Writer and the manner in which it occasionally prints documents containing
dashed lines, in response to someone having a problem with Acrobat Writer.
So?
What has that got to do with using the "Print Dialogue Box" in Adobe Acrobat
Reader as an example of how the rest of the world handles a Print Dialogue
Box".
I would specifically point out that this was one of the initial 4 issues
that I brought up in my initial post back on July 22, and that after a
considerable amount of argument and many posts, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AGREED
WITH ME THAT THE PRINT PROBLEM WAS IN FACT A BUG.
Are you now so intent on trapping me in an error that you make the above
statement that makes absolutely no sense other than the fact that you
obviously think that you have finally caught me in something?
How Hyprocritical can you get? You have already at long last agreed with me
that it is in fact a bug and yet you still bring it up here to attack me
thinking that there is something wrong with my manner of argument.
> That is enough history for now.
>
Fantasy maybe, but certainly not history.
Forgive me if I get a little bit defensive here Ian, but I believe that your
motives in what you state below as opposed to what you have demonstrated
herein do not exactly coincide.
> What is my purpose in spending my time doing this? I value the forum.
I think that it is obvious that one of your primary purposes in doing this
(i.e.: writing your post that I am now responding to) is specifically to
maintain your credibility and standing in the forum.
You say that you value the forum, but I believe that I have in fact
demonstrated that you appear to value winning the argument with me far much
more than you value the forum.
I believe that I have shown below that you have actually let some of this
nonsense rage unchecked in the forum when you could have easily stopped it,
yet you chose not to since to do so would have meant to side with me.
You Hypocrite - Don't tell me that you value the forum when you have stood
by and let this garbage continue!
> I
> dislike instances where one party of the other is not reading very
> carefully the answers others are giving.
Hello!
Earth to Ian! - Earth to Ian!
I apologize, but how else am I supposed to get you to read your own writings
and apply your own standards to yourself?
> Bullying is not attractive and
> is
> the sort of thing that will cause others to leave the forum.
I agree 100 percent, and it is not my intent to Bully anyone.
Once again I must apologize before I say something, but I believe that it
needs to be said: Please do not misconstrue my attempts to get someone to be
rational and apply some very very simple understanding to an issue, as
Bullying someone.
> I think that
> you will find others replies to you have generally been quite calm and
> reasoned.
For the most part I will agree with you on this one respecting most people
here in the forum, with the previously noted exceptions of you and Tony, and
possibly a few others.
> Are you confident that your participation is constructive or
> destructive?
>
I am confident that my initial participation in virtually every topic I have
posted to here in this forum has been with the intent of being constructive.
However, after either you or Tony (and a few others) have responded to many
of my initial posts, will admit that I have had to abandon my initial
intent, had to go into a defensive mode.
> Your manner is offensive, and you are out of order, sport. Back off, calm
> down and you will get a better reception.
>
I would maintain that my manner has really been "defensive" on most
occasions, although I will allow that it may tend to "offend" some,
particularly you.
I am sorry Ian, If I am out of order, then I am not the only one, and I will
not take the blame for this getting so far out of control while you stand
idly by and encourage it when you could have and should have stopped it.
> I will put it to the group. Who has played the more constructive role in
> the forum over the past years. Who would you most like to shut-up?
>
I am sorry Ian, as much as you would like to boil this down to a popularity
contest, it simply is not a popularity contest.
While you would most certainly win such a contest, it really comes down to
what is right and what is wrong.
Opinions and popularity don't really count
You seem have put an inordinate amount of effort into trying to make sure
you don't lose an arguement to me.
I would suggest that you could have averted much of the heat here in the
forum if you truly had the best interest of the forum in mind, for only a
fraction of that effort.
I don't really care whether I win or loose an argument, but I will stand up
for what I believe when I believe that I am right.
The primary reason for this forum as I see it, is to help people who have
problems with Protel and solve those problems as they come up.
Solving problems and communicating answers and solutions with one another is
what I believe this forum is all about.
> As far as calling bugs-bugs I suggest you need to go back over the
> archives
> and see who is calling what what.
I have done that, and I have now finally gotten you to say that "Protel does
have a bug in how it handles the mouse" and suggested that you discuss that
with Tony offline, I would recommend that you go back over those archives
again yourself, and that further, in the future, you be very careful about
what you accuse others of saying and doing.
Right now Ian, I am not interested in how many bugs you have allowed to be
called bugs in the past, or how much you have helped people in the past.
You are currently tearing this forum apart with your rhetoric such as this
post, and inhibiting the solution to many problems simply because you have a
personal problem with me, and do not like my terminology.
You seem to be willing to let others attack me, even when you disagree with
them, just to see me attacked, and then pile on the personal slurs in a
response such as this.
You are very much responsible for much of this, and yes, I will say it once
again" You Hypocrite!
> One of your favorites has been accused
> many more time than I of being an Altium sop.
>
There is absolutely no reason to bring him or anyone else into this - we
don't need any more problems.
> Now for any others about to chime in - please read this carefully. I
> consider Protel to have many bugs. I started and maintain the users
> Protel
> bug list. If a bug is identified I will be happy to add it to the list
> and
> if you look through it you will see I have reported and validated a number
> of them. My record is clear. I will *not* accept someone else shouting and
> ranting at me and others as a valid form of discourse for this forum. Do
> not make the mistake of every thinking I go soft on Protel or
> Altium. Maybe I have a calmer, hopefully more thoughtful, manner of
> dealing with these things.
>
I am not even going to respond to this, except to say that your actions here
in this post tell s slightly different tale.
> I am not sure, but it seems possible to me that you consider an
> argument/discussion won when others shut up. In my case this may not be
> the case.
>
Not that I like to argue Ian, but I usually consider a rational discussion
ended when all agree that there has been a logical reason given to accept
one position or the other, and all logically assent to that.
> Finger hovering over the JaMi block...
>
Maybe if you and Tony would have done this in the first place back on July
22 in response to my original post, rather that both of you responding the
way that you have, we all would feel a little better about each other right
now.
You know, It is ironic, all I wanted to do was stimulate a little discussion
on whether or not there would be any real improvements in DXP, and I got
trashed for almost 2 weeks, primarily by you and Tony.
Tony - go talk to Ian about Protel mouse bugs offline.
> Ian
>
> PS. I have just completed over 100 hours of Sch, SPICE, PCB work in Protel
> without shutting down or having a crash. My machine is old and slow.
>
Which you know as well as I, means absolutely nothing, since there are in
fact still Protel 99 SE systems crashing out there for no known reason,
other than a possible connection with the fact that "Protel does have a bug
in how it handles the mouse"!
JaMi
If you feel that you have to respond to this Ian, why don't you think it
thru for a week or two first, like I have, before you inflame the situation
more.
************************************************************************
* Tracking #: 541CF0475D7A2E44ACDE32B9B259D269625F9DE6
*
************************************************************************
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
