What's your point? That people should be diplomatic no matter what? Yeah,
right. Diplomacy is a two way street buddy. I have no patience with people
who spout off unsubstatiated, illogical, and incorrect garbage, reagrdless
of whether it offends the ears or eyes of the current priveledged class. I
find it darkly humorous that most of you people who instinctively rally for
blind diplomacy are those who
a) are generally overpaid,
b) are secretly worried that the rest of society around them will discover
how much of a gravy train they're riding
c) will generally overlook any deceptive remarks made by others if it suits
their purposes
d) always have subtle "diplomatic" methods of imbuing the world with their
own forms of poison.

Finally, I'll note that your own "contribution" to the thread consisted of
little more than an attack on me, with no mention of the fact that Peter
Morgan was wrong in his authoritative statement about the purpose of this
group.
(See items "c" and "d" above)

Pot.Kettle.Black

aj

Clearly we do not share the same vision of what constitutes open, honest
communication. If that means I am not part of your community, then thank
God. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Moreton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:14 PM
> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme
> nt D XP
> 
> 
> My point? - that you can make *your* point better by not using
> inflamatory language, and perhaps by being a little more 
> helpful to the
> orginal poster. Why publicly insult someone you have never met (and
> therefore cannot truly know), with words like "ignorant" and phrases
> like "spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa..." ???.
> Whether you are right or wrong about a particular point, and no matter
> how strongly you feel about that point, there is always a 
> diplomatic way
> to get your point over.
> 
> The Forum Administrator did re-state your premise, but he/she did so
> without resorting to insults.
> 
> Peter Moreton
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 09 July 2003 19:27
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent 
> > component placeme nt D XP
> > 
> > 
> > It is also instructive to note that the Forum administrator 
> > has stated my
> > own premise. 
> > 
> > By the way, making a typing error, unlike cognitive 
> > disfunction, is not
> > indicitive of stupidity.
> > 
> > Your point?
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Moreton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:32 PM
> > > To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent 
> > component placeme
> > > nt D XP
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jason, 
> > > 
> > > It is instructive to note that in your post, you took the time to
> > > actually answer Dr Roberts question, very fully. Mr Jenkins 
> > > replied only
> > > to be offensive by inferring that you were " ignornat " 
> > (sic), and he
> > > did not contribute anything to the original question.....
> > > 
> > > Peter Moreton 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: 09 July 2003 16:15
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent 
> > component placeme
> > > nt D XP
> > > 
> > > Andrew, 
> > > 
> > > Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this 
> morning....
> > > 
> > > After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake 
> > (it has been
> > > known
> > > on several occasions)
> > > I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and 
> > written by an
> > > experienced,
> > > user long term member of both lists.
> > > 
> > > I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor 
> > did I cast
> > > aspersions
> > > on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better 
> > support for
> > > Protel 99se and below
> > > in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK
> > > anyway).
> > > 
> > > I just pointed out you may get a response from people who 
> know more
> > > about
> > > DXP on a
> > > list maintained for DXP users.  Posting on the official DXP 
> > list will
> > > also
> > > draw potential
> > > problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and 
> > > monitor the
> > > DXP
> > > list.
> > > 
> > > We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very 
> different to
> > > 99se,
> > > and these questions
> > > on "how do I....." come up all the time.  It is very 
> important that
> > > Altium
> > > are aware of
> > > such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the
> > > documentation.
> > > 
> > > I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both 
> lists will
> > > agree.
> > > 
> > > Jason.
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent 
> > > component placement
> > > D XP
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mr Morgan,
> > > 
> > > Since when is this the "Protel 99SE" list?
> > > 
> > > For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, 
> > as clearly
> > > and
> > > explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every 
> > > list message,
> > > and
> > > kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public 
> > > dissemination of
> > > issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software,
> > > including,
> > > but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP.
> > > 
> > > I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly 
> > > not all) when
> > > I
> > > say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to 
> remember this
> > > before
> > > spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you 
> > post below. In
> > > any
> > > case, I speak for myself.
> > > 
> > > Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not 
> > > the exclusive
> > > territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post 
> > queries or
> > > otherwise participate in this forum as she likes.
> > > 
> > > As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by 
> > Altium, which
> > > is
> > > dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to 
> un-obfuscate the
> > > distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a
> > > quarantined,
> > > corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that 
> > > go with that
> > > status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL 
> > Protel EDA
> > > products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by 
> it's novice or
> > > jaded
> > > participants.
> > > 
> > > thank you,
> > > 
> > > Andrew Jenkins
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM
> > > > To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> > > > 
> > > > Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 
> > > > 99se, and not
> > > > DXP,
> > > > there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
> > > > http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp
> > > > 
> > > > To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
> > > > component-component clearance rule
> > > > that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.
> > > > 
> > > > I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over 
> > > > some LEDs.
> > > > 
> > > > e.g.
> > > > Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
> > > > HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') 
> > > you need to
> > > > specify "Full Check"
> > > > and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm
> > > > 
> > > > Make sure that the rule priority puts this rule above the 
> > > > global clearance
> > > > rule, Press the Priorities
> > > > button to check.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, make sure that one of the electrical clearance rules 
> > > > does not also
> > > > fail, though you should be
> > > > able to tell the difference of a component clearance fail and 
> > > > a net fail by
> > > > the colours on the screen.
> > > > 
> > > > Jason.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dr Gwyn Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 09 July 2003 09:21
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Cc: Aled Williams
> > > > Subject: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Need to place a number of terminal blocks in a row, with 
> > > the body of 
> > > > each touching that of its neighbour, on a PCB being laid out 
> > > > in Protel DXP.
> > > > 
> > > > Despite setting the electrical placement and component 
> > > clearance DRCs 
> > > > for these particular components to 0mm, Protel still 
> flags this a 
> > > > violation when they are placed next to each other.  .  
> > > > 
> > > > Anyone come across this problem/know of a workaround?
> > > > 
> > > > Many thanks
> > > > Gwyn Roberts
> > > > Univ of Wales, Bangor
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to