| ??? 03/13/07 21:27 Modified: 03/13/07 21:37 Read: times |
#134920 - What you\'re spewing is nonsense Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
so what you say is "unless the chairman of the board confess his sin, it is not evidence". I didn't say that, but YOU did. As far as I recall from the judicial system, if 5 people (list in previous threads) state the same fact (in this case "using a supervisor takes care of it all") it is considered evidence. If you'd ever spent any effort in learning about or experiencing the judicial system, you'd have learned that witnesses have to be direct observers of the incidents about which they testify, and, in cases of technical merit, have to be qualified by both depth of education, experience, and standing in the professional community, to be expert in the subject matter about which they're called upon to bear witness. What's more, they have to be able to support their expert conclusions by virtue of specific research. There's been no published specific research. I think there's a reason for that. If you refer to 1) I have had dealings with Brent and, yes, the reaction is not immediate but the reasonable complaints he has gotten from me have all, eventually, been addressed satisfactorily. That some complaints such as "this feature of the debugger, that does work, is cumbersome to use" have yet to be deemed 'reasonable' is another story. However, anything related to an actual malfunction has been addressed.random
if you refer to 2) then the fact that NO ONE have in a thread that long reported flash erasures with correctly configured and coded chips should say something. There's no evidence presented here. Just because the chip salesman or his FAE takes your calls or, maybe even, buys you lunch, doesn't mean what he says is true or accurate. above you will see "been addressed satisfactorily" and "no one" what more evidence do you need? There is no reference to "what he says", only to "been addressed satisfactorily". Further, the fact that you have to add a supervisor to a chip that apparently has features that should alleviate the need for one says something too, doesn't it? you do not need to "add a supervisor to THIS chip" in http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=134533 I state: "On a one uC board ... with a f124 there is no supervisor. This design is about 3 years old and 1000+ boards ...t without any memory loss". THUS, "that you have to add a supervisor to a chip that apparently has features that should alleviate" is refuted by 1000+ "witnesses". You do not want to use chips that do not conform to your old sockets, should that allow you to judge todays state of the art by what is true for yesterdays chips? Erik Erik ... While there may be hidden truth in what you are trying to say, the way in which you present it is fundamentally nonsense. I can just envision you sitting there, frothing at the mouth, unable even to compose a single complete clause. Slow down ... think about what you're putting out there ... consider whether you really want to put your name at the bottom of that garbled stuff. First of all, the majority of 805x-core products seems, at least according to the manufacturers' websites, still to be offered in the "classic" packaging, despite the fact that there are many new features. The package doesn't make them old and obsolete technology. The fact that a manufacturer representative tells you something doesn't make it fact. He's paid to tell you whatever is necessary to get you to buy his product. You should consider the source. It's not necessary for anyone to confess. It's just necessary for most of us to stop believing them. When they put something into print, which you can take to your lawyer and say, " here's where we were misled into using this component ..." and "Here's how I can prove that this is false." You know you've got reaonably believeable information. In today's business environment, you have to assume everything that's considered a positive is false and intended to mislead. RE |
