berrabbit5849
Member
I have been working on this program for two months. Today I opened it to do some more edits and my TAGs/descriptors are not above my I/O contacts.
Rslogix 5000
- Thread starter berrabbit5849
- Start date
The only time I saw this, if I remember, was when the program had the Multi-Language Enabled...
Suppose you do all your programming in en-US, then the language is switched to fr-CA, then you may have the impression your comments are all gone.
Do an export of your documentation (Menu Tools -> Database -> ASCII Export) and check the CSV file...
Suppose you do all your programming in en-US, then the language is switched to fr-CA, then you may have the impression your comments are all gone.
Do an export of your documentation (Menu Tools -> Database -> ASCII Export) and check the CSV file...
berrabbit5849
Member
OP
descriptors
Got it back. TOOLS, OPTIONS, DISPLAY
Thanks to all.
Got it back. TOOLS, OPTIONS, DISPLAY
Thanks to all.
berrabbit5849
Member
OP
RSLinx
After I work on one L33er and connect to another RSLinx does not see the new processor but still sees the one I just left.
After I work on one L33er and connect to another RSLinx does not see the new processor but still sees the one I just left.
berrabbit5849
Member
OP
I got a new/used Windows 7 Pro laptop. Stuio 5000 rev 20.Now my mouse scroll is reversed in the ladder viewing and when I look at TAGS it will not scroll at all.
Is this the "berrabbit5849" thread?...
Hi berrabbit5849,
Some friendly Forum etiquette advice...
When you have a new issue, which is somewhat unrelated to the original issue of the thread, be it your thread or not, and especially when a considerable amount of time has since passed; it is good practice and expected here that you start a new thread for your new issue(s).
Sometimes, after the original issue in a thread is resolved, the opening poster will present with a follow on issue, which is often, but not always, somewhat related to the original issue. This usually happens within a relatively short period of time after the original issue is resolved. In these cases I would say it is OK to follow on in the same thread. But, when months or years have passed, as is the case here, I would say you should definitely be starting a new thread for each subsequent issue, especially when they are so unrelated to the original issue.
A small example of why it is not good practice...
"Somebody" revives an old thread seeking advice on an issue, related or not...
Some "Otherbody" (new word!) replies to the "Somebody", either assisting them or informing them that it would be better to start a new thread...
"Manybody" (another new word!) now read the revived thread, from the start...
"Fewbody" (also new!) does not realize that the thread is quite old, and so starts replying to certain older posts they have now read...
"Otherbody" then has to inform "Fewbody" that they are replying to an old post in an old thread that "Somebody" has revived...
"Fewbody" usually then says..."Doh!"...
This can be quite embarrassing, to say the least, and "Nobody" wants that!
So, for the sake of the "Manybodies", the "Otherbodies", and for the "Fewbodies", it is best that the "Somebodies" try not to revive old threads. Especially when the "Body" of the new issue is unrelated to the "Body" of the original issues.
Body Hell!
Sunday Sermon over...
Regards,
George
Hi berrabbit5849,
Some friendly Forum etiquette advice...
When you have a new issue, which is somewhat unrelated to the original issue of the thread, be it your thread or not, and especially when a considerable amount of time has since passed; it is good practice and expected here that you start a new thread for your new issue(s).
Sometimes, after the original issue in a thread is resolved, the opening poster will present with a follow on issue, which is often, but not always, somewhat related to the original issue. This usually happens within a relatively short period of time after the original issue is resolved. In these cases I would say it is OK to follow on in the same thread. But, when months or years have passed, as is the case here, I would say you should definitely be starting a new thread for each subsequent issue, especially when they are so unrelated to the original issue.
A small example of why it is not good practice...
"Somebody" revives an old thread seeking advice on an issue, related or not...
Some "Otherbody" (new word!) replies to the "Somebody", either assisting them or informing them that it would be better to start a new thread...
"Manybody" (another new word!) now read the revived thread, from the start...
"Fewbody" (also new!) does not realize that the thread is quite old, and so starts replying to certain older posts they have now read...
"Otherbody" then has to inform "Fewbody" that they are replying to an old post in an old thread that "Somebody" has revived...
"Fewbody" usually then says..."Doh!"...
This can be quite embarrassing, to say the least, and "Nobody" wants that!
So, for the sake of the "Manybodies", the "Otherbodies", and for the "Fewbodies", it is best that the "Somebodies" try not to revive old threads. Especially when the "Body" of the new issue is unrelated to the "Body" of the original issues.
Body Hell!
Sunday Sermon over...
Regards,
George
berrabbit5849
Member
OP
Sorry but I couldn't find where to post a new thread. Still can't find it.
Towards to the top of the page or the bottom on the left-hand side.
Start A New Thread
http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/forumdisplay.php?f=2
Start A New Thread
http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/forumdisplay.php?f=2
PLCnovice61
Member
Yee of new words, surely "Fewbody" and others could look at the date and work it out.
But what is proven every time is that someone adds to old thread, that someone also gives them the answer instead of ignoring it.
But when it is a poorly described post like this "Rslogix 5000" it could be anything.
How about promoting better thread descriptions, but even then it doesn't matter if it has AB in it somewhere as everyone will look.
I was going to added my own words but they normal go something like this "**%$#@@!"
But what is proven every time is that someone adds to old thread, that someone also gives them the answer instead of ignoring it.
But when it is a poorly described post like this "Rslogix 5000" it could be anything.
How about promoting better thread descriptions, but even then it doesn't matter if it has AB in it somewhere as everyone will look.
I was going to added my own words but they normal go something like this "**%$#@@!"
I am all for promoting what is best for the Forum...
Hello fellow Forum member PLCnovice61,
You would surely think so, and I would agree that all us members should be diligent in checking thread dates before entering. But, experience tells us otherwise. Now and again we many of us fall foul to being unwittingly lured in without having checked.
Argument flag!
Sorry for the tangent, but I'd like to dispense some more friendly advice...
I have an adage of my own that I like to use when it comes to people arguing a point...
Absolutes dilute.
When I see someone trying to make a point, which may be quite valid, and they add in a trusty absolute, or two, for good measure, such as...
..."Always", "Every time" or "Every one"...
...or...
..."Never", "Not once" or "No one"...
...I feel that it can actually serve to dilute one's argument. It can give the impression that you're either sure of yourself and you feel the need to force your opinion, or you're not so sure of yourself and you feel the need to reinforce your opinion. Using absolutes, where in reality it is most likely not the case, can actually damage your argument and hand power back to your opponent. Whatever credibility your point might have had is quickly diminished by the use of the very word you may have felt would win you through. I'll demonstrate this to you a little later on.
Note how earlier I used the words "...we many of us..." instead of "...all of us..." or "...everyone...". This suggests I am referring to those that do fall foul, which may be many members, but I am in no way suggesting that I feel that all members have or will fall foul. That would be an ill-judged use of an absolute which could serve to arm an opponent, or even several opponents.
My carefully chosen words can still imply a lot of members without going as far as saying every member. This tactic is worth noting if you want to argue well and hold on to your point's credibility.
All the Pros use it...
Note how our esteemed colleague, Ron Beaufort, will "most, to often" use terms like "many (most?)" in an effort to convey a typical behaviour, misconception or belief, without saying that he feels everyone is guilty as such. This gets the point across that it is thought prevalent, but not systemic, without triggering those into combat that may otherwise feel wrongly included.
This is clever use of gentle, but persuasive language without resorting to absolutes. I won't give away any more of Ron's little secret tactics!
Another one you'll see me use a lot is the word "feel". This one, I feel, is very important.
Some examples...
..."...I feel that it can actually serve to dilute one's argument..."...
..."...but I am in no way suggesting that I feel that all members have or will fall foul..."...
..."...It can give the impression that you're either sure of yourself and you feel the need to force your opinion..."...
..."...without saying that he feels everyone is guilty as such..."...
..."...without triggering those into combat that may otherwise feel wrongly included..."...
This word suggests deep inner thought with a lot of consideration for the expressed opinion or feelings, be it your own, or another's. It emphasises that this is an opinion and not an absolute or unyielding statement. It suggests a level of empathy toward another's viewpoint. While it is intended as a somewhat disarming tactic, I don't use this word loosely or in a deceitful way. I do use it to express how I actually feel and to demonstrate honest empathy.
This is in stark contrast to this type of language...
I'm intelligent enough to read beyond the opening salvo here and pick up on your intended point. I am all for promoting what is best for the Forum. So I could not agree with you more on this. Clear and consise thread titles are very important in attracting the right people. This is something I would wholeheartedly endorse members to practice. I did, in fact, notice the vague title when I first entered the thread. However, for our friend here, I felt the more pressing matter to bring to their attention was the habit of reviving an old thread with unrelated issues. I have noticed other discrepancies in this thread, but they are not of importance to me right now.
But, that salvo. Your "...How about..." could be perceived as being very sarcastic. It might not be intended as such, but it suggests, to me, that you felt I was incorrect to advise our friend as I have and that my efforts would be better served concentrating on other matters. If that is the case then whether or not you are right or wrong on that...
Pointed sarcasm, personal insults, and bad manners will also serve to diminish the credibility of your viewpoint. I'm not accusing you of all those things. I'm just mentioning some of the negative tactics that are counterproductive to one's argument. People with very entrenched beliefs tend to resort to these defensive, but negative tactics, quite quickly when faced with arguments that they cannot positively counter. Incidentally, this reluctance to accept a different view, often in spite of hard evidence to the contrary, is known in the neurological world as the "Backfire Effect". The more one's beliefs are tested, or disproved, the more entrenched one becomes. It's an interesting topic, should anyone care to read up on it.
But, we all have to be careful...
Perhaps you thought my method of advising our friend was also sarcastic and so drew you to reply as you did, somewhat defensively? If so, I can assure you that it was done with entirely good intentions and was only meant as a humorous take on the matter, albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek, or perhaps sarcastic. I used the words "pointed sarcasm" above as a negative tactic. This is to distinguish the use of more visceral sarcasm as opposed to light-hearted sarcasm, which can have its place. But it is a fine line.
Anyway, they are just some friendly tips for arguing, or debating well. You might take exception to me pointing such things out to you, but I would hope not. They are, again, well intended.
This is to genuinely demonstrate, as I promised earlier, the power that I said your absolute "every time" can hand to an opponent...
To the above I would counterargue that while I would agree that sometimes, or even often, an updated reply in an old thread may add value to the original topic; I would certainly not say that it would be the case, every time. Every time would suggest that this thread be included. In the case of this thread, our friend added two subsequent and completely unrelated posts, after considerable time had elapsed from the successful resolution of the original topic. The second posted issue, unfortunately, was left unanswered. So not only could we potentially end up with replies attempting to resolve the latest issue, but also replies attempting to resolve the second issue. All, of course, in a thread which was originally intended to resolve a different issue, of which could also draw new posts, when that original issue has already been resolved.
Our friend has since explained, after opening with an unnecessary apology, why this happened and has now received good advice on how to start a new thread. Something I'm sure they would have chosen to do at the time, if they'd known how to.
That, as I said, was a genuine counterargument. But, it was more intended to demonstrate the point I am trying to make regarding the use of absolutes. Also, I do not feel that I am your opponent here. I just used us as an example to demonstrate the tactics that one can use or should avoid. We probably agree on more than less here.
Well, I would hope those words you would normally use would not have been directed at me, or that would be a whole other "issue" for this resurrected thread!
Regards,
George
Hello fellow Forum member PLCnovice61,
PLCnovice61 said:
You would surely think so, and I would agree that all us members should be diligent in checking thread dates before entering. But, experience tells us otherwise. Now and again we many of us fall foul to being unwittingly lured in without having checked.
PLCnovice61 said:
Argument flag!
Sorry for the tangent, but I'd like to dispense some more friendly advice...
I have an adage of my own that I like to use when it comes to people arguing a point...
Absolutes dilute.
When I see someone trying to make a point, which may be quite valid, and they add in a trusty absolute, or two, for good measure, such as...
..."Always", "Every time" or "Every one"...
...or...
..."Never", "Not once" or "No one"...
...I feel that it can actually serve to dilute one's argument. It can give the impression that you're either sure of yourself and you feel the need to force your opinion, or you're not so sure of yourself and you feel the need to reinforce your opinion. Using absolutes, where in reality it is most likely not the case, can actually damage your argument and hand power back to your opponent. Whatever credibility your point might have had is quickly diminished by the use of the very word you may have felt would win you through. I'll demonstrate this to you a little later on.
Note how earlier I used the words "...we many of us..." instead of "...all of us..." or "...everyone...". This suggests I am referring to those that do fall foul, which may be many members, but I am in no way suggesting that I feel that all members have or will fall foul. That would be an ill-judged use of an absolute which could serve to arm an opponent, or even several opponents.
My carefully chosen words can still imply a lot of members without going as far as saying every member. This tactic is worth noting if you want to argue well and hold on to your point's credibility.
All the Pros use it...
Note how our esteemed colleague, Ron Beaufort, will "most, to often" use terms like "many (most?)" in an effort to convey a typical behaviour, misconception or belief, without saying that he feels everyone is guilty as such. This gets the point across that it is thought prevalent, but not systemic, without triggering those into combat that may otherwise feel wrongly included.
This is clever use of gentle, but persuasive language without resorting to absolutes. I won't give away any more of Ron's little secret tactics!
Another one you'll see me use a lot is the word "feel". This one, I feel, is very important.
Some examples...
..."...I feel that it can actually serve to dilute one's argument..."...
..."...but I am in no way suggesting that I feel that all members have or will fall foul..."...
..."...It can give the impression that you're either sure of yourself and you feel the need to force your opinion..."...
..."...without saying that he feels everyone is guilty as such..."...
..."...without triggering those into combat that may otherwise feel wrongly included..."...
This word suggests deep inner thought with a lot of consideration for the expressed opinion or feelings, be it your own, or another's. It emphasises that this is an opinion and not an absolute or unyielding statement. It suggests a level of empathy toward another's viewpoint. While it is intended as a somewhat disarming tactic, I don't use this word loosely or in a deceitful way. I do use it to express how I actually feel and to demonstrate honest empathy.
This is in stark contrast to this type of language...
PLCnovice61 said:
I'm intelligent enough to read beyond the opening salvo here and pick up on your intended point. I am all for promoting what is best for the Forum. So I could not agree with you more on this. Clear and consise thread titles are very important in attracting the right people. This is something I would wholeheartedly endorse members to practice. I did, in fact, notice the vague title when I first entered the thread. However, for our friend here, I felt the more pressing matter to bring to their attention was the habit of reviving an old thread with unrelated issues. I have noticed other discrepancies in this thread, but they are not of importance to me right now.
But, that salvo. Your "...How about..." could be perceived as being very sarcastic. It might not be intended as such, but it suggests, to me, that you felt I was incorrect to advise our friend as I have and that my efforts would be better served concentrating on other matters. If that is the case then whether or not you are right or wrong on that...
Pointed sarcasm, personal insults, and bad manners will also serve to diminish the credibility of your viewpoint. I'm not accusing you of all those things. I'm just mentioning some of the negative tactics that are counterproductive to one's argument. People with very entrenched beliefs tend to resort to these defensive, but negative tactics, quite quickly when faced with arguments that they cannot positively counter. Incidentally, this reluctance to accept a different view, often in spite of hard evidence to the contrary, is known in the neurological world as the "Backfire Effect". The more one's beliefs are tested, or disproved, the more entrenched one becomes. It's an interesting topic, should anyone care to read up on it.
But, we all have to be careful...
Perhaps you thought my method of advising our friend was also sarcastic and so drew you to reply as you did, somewhat defensively? If so, I can assure you that it was done with entirely good intentions and was only meant as a humorous take on the matter, albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek, or perhaps sarcastic. I used the words "pointed sarcasm" above as a negative tactic. This is to distinguish the use of more visceral sarcasm as opposed to light-hearted sarcasm, which can have its place. But it is a fine line.
Anyway, they are just some friendly tips for arguing, or debating well. You might take exception to me pointing such things out to you, but I would hope not. They are, again, well intended.
This is to genuinely demonstrate, as I promised earlier, the power that I said your absolute "every time" can hand to an opponent...
To the above I would counterargue that while I would agree that sometimes, or even often, an updated reply in an old thread may add value to the original topic; I would certainly not say that it would be the case, every time. Every time would suggest that this thread be included. In the case of this thread, our friend added two subsequent and completely unrelated posts, after considerable time had elapsed from the successful resolution of the original topic. The second posted issue, unfortunately, was left unanswered. So not only could we potentially end up with replies attempting to resolve the latest issue, but also replies attempting to resolve the second issue. All, of course, in a thread which was originally intended to resolve a different issue, of which could also draw new posts, when that original issue has already been resolved.
Our friend has since explained, after opening with an unnecessary apology, why this happened and has now received good advice on how to start a new thread. Something I'm sure they would have chosen to do at the time, if they'd known how to.
That, as I said, was a genuine counterargument. But, it was more intended to demonstrate the point I am trying to make regarding the use of absolutes. Also, I do not feel that I am your opponent here. I just used us as an example to demonstrate the tactics that one can use or should avoid. We probably agree on more than less here.
PLCnovice61 said:
Well, I would hope those words you would normally use would not have been directed at me, or that would be a whole other "issue" for this resurrected thread!
Regards,
George
JasonTheSparky
Member
Wow.
harryting
Lifetime Supporting Member
I propose that all the titles change to "help".
/not serious
/not serious
Similar Topics
Hi folks, in the alarm manager of Rslogix 5000, the tag-based alarm has been created. But when I tried to change the condition, it was found the...
I am completely stuck on building a ladder program that requires a start button to be pressed 3 times to turn on motor 1. Then motor 2 starts...
First off, I'm a hobbyist-level programmer, and this program isn't controlling anything anything that could even remotely be considered "life...
Hello all,
I have a question in regards to RSlogix 5000. I am having issues with the program force closing when I try to make online edits. We...