Lpc2000

Folks,
At the risk of being fomenting unrest and the ensuing results...

What's wrong with letting members decide what information they wish to 
look at on their own? 

For instance the Keil site has plenty of useful info on it and is indeed
commercial. Should I not look there because it's an 'enemy' list?.

I don't understand why this should be a competitive thing. It certainly
doesn't seem to have anything to do with embedded development to 
blast somebody for mentioning a site.

I can decide on my own if it's a legitimate resource. I do this with any
list I frequent . What will cause a loss of users isn't a competing site,
but an antagonistic environment on this one with lots of off topic junk
mixed in with core content. 

You have to avoid reading too much motive into email because a lot of
the cues found in normal communication are missing.
It often takes several posts before you can get a true feel for any
underlying message. It's better to just not go there and stick to
technical issues and take it all at face value.

There is precious little info on some of the practical details of the
LPC series and it's good to find information that doesn't require
an inordinate amount of winnowing to extract the good stuff.

For instance you can flip the state of the GPIO pins used as outputs
with an ESD hit and not trigger the watchdog leaving the processor
running but the I/O shot to pieces. This is the type of thing that
upsets me, not somebody posting a link.

Just my .02,
Landrum

> I always think of something better after I hit send.
> 
> Reading over gradoj1 last post, I realised that if he would have used:
> 
> " I am an embedded developer currently working
> > on a project with an ARM processor. I started developing this site
> > when AT91.com went down - I didn't know if Atmel would ever bring it
> > back up. I found it a very valuable resource and thought it would be
> > nice if there was a website similar dedicated to all ARM core
> processors."
> 
> in his posts around the net, his "spam" would have been far better
> accepted.
> 
> The series of posts about this 'new' self serving web site, gave no
> idea if its just a play on technology to draw hits to a un-related
> site, is I think the real issue here.
> 
> So gradoj1 or K....., or whoever you are, please be a little more
> forth coming about what you are trying to do.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> hamilton