Re: BX24-AHT code snippet

[Marc F Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 Sep 2005 20:34:20 -0700, "tomapowa" <tom2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message  <1126841660.847490.13960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>HI Dave,
>I'm unsure who you are "strenuosly" disagreeing with but in any case, I
>think the writing's on the wall.
>
>When I mentioned, "decoding scheme", I was referrring to the "basic"
>code required to decode the RF stream.  Did you really think I was
>talking about the all encompassing X-10 RF coding ?   I know I've been
>away for a while but,... lets be serious now.  I also put a lot of
>effort into documenting/commenting my code.  To me, the comments are
>worth more than the code itself.  If you were to look at it, you will
>see I pointed out an error in previous decoding documenation (did I
>hear you say you were the one that found this error?).
>
> You might have been messing with Ming receivers well before I started
>my Whole house transceiver projects but from what I can remember, I was
>the first to come up with the DIY whole-house transceiver approach, the
>first to post/share ideas surrounding the idea of such a project, the
>first to post actual operating code, and the first to actually get a
>DIY whole-house transceiver built and working.
>
>Believe me, I really didn't rejoin this newsgroup to get into pissing
>contests (one of the main reasons I took a break), but please give
>credit where it's due.  This will be my last post on this topic.
>
>Tom


Tom,

Please don't let Dave chase you away from this newsgroup again.

Dave used vulgar language directed at me to categorically (and falsely) deny
any input from the newsgroup. When I demonstrated that to be false, he
threatened me with a lawsuit in defense of a charge that he manufactured as a
smoke screen. Now he attacks you for clarifying his mis-statements and in the
process provides the very evidence of input that he earlier falsely claimed
didn't exist, namely "There were several people involved in a general
discussion of an all housecode transceiver in CHA." and so on.

Dave has pontificated on his nice (accurate) usage of language, so he may be
leading up to arguing about the meaning of the word "design" and "input" as in
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is " .

I dunno. I do agree with Dave's gleeful self-characterization as a curmudgeon,
and that a curmudgeon is "an ill-tempered person full of resentment and
stubborn notions" (American Heritage Dictionary). So Dave is doing and being
what he wants to do and be. It is unlikely that we will change that.

Thanks for coming back to the newsgroup and for your past contributions. Your
web site is neat!. Don't let Dave bully you away.


... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org