I do not believe you for a moment. Your statement could not be read any way other than the way you intended it to be read.
And I quote "Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP" That statement cannot be read any other way than to authoritatively indicate to readers and writers alike that they should not be posting any DXP related topics to this group, thereby doing the work of Altium's executive board is isolating the independent user's group from be able to openly scrutinize the corporate mismanagement of this expensive EDA package. I'll respect the Neo-Eurocratic (or should I say Plutocratic) nature of this group and so leave, as I have realized that it is now thoroughly corrupted by the same old-world scheming values that have caused so much strife there, here, and elsewhere in the world. Your remarks were offensive to the truth, but it is also clear from the response that you are in like company here. As with all things, one must either embrace or avoid company of a particular sort. And in this case, I will no longer attempt diplomacy to embrace this group, as its premise that diplomacy trumps truth is disgusting. aj > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:58 AM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent > component placement > D XP > > > I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list > is not for > discussing DXP, of course > such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like > that. I only > wished to indicate that > this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP > operational issues. > > I still think that the response from one of this lists > members was uncalled > for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this > with people he > actually > meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs > for long. > > You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I > don't think I've > ever > noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions > on this list using their 'Protel' identity. > > On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more > feedback direct > from engineers at Altium. > > Jason. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme > nt D XP > > > For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL > versions of > Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software > from other > vendors. > > As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this > forum enjoys a > large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership > of this forum > currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those > span employees > from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. > > If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own > DXP forum is > probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to > post to both > forums as some already do. > > Regards, > > Forum Administrator > Association of Protel EDA Users > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers > > > At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: > >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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *