Common Emitter Amplifier with 2N3904

Fred Bloggs · Jan 15, 2004

John Larkin wrote:

Occasionally a woman will post to s.e.d., and invariably one or
another of the macho males here will go out of their way to make her
unwelcome.

John

Right - you're very typical of the ASCII-land chivalry types- in real
life you are hopelessly timid and would never risk the slightest
inconvenience- to include personal harm God forbid- to rescue any damsel
in distress. You're all ASCII and no action....

Bill Sloman · Jan 15, 2004

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<knda00p1e4e680af6srj5idukp664qulq8@4ax.com>...

On 13 Jan 2004 15:46:53 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

That was Ted Heath, demonstrating how not to improve industrial
relations. He got slung out for gross incompetence after producing the
27% inflation

Heath got slung out in February 1974 after setting the whole of
British industry on short-time working in Juanuary 1974 - the infamous
"three-day week".

Inflation was 8.4% in 1973, 17.2% in 1974 and 24.2% in 1975 after
which is started to decline to 16.5% in 1976. See page 14 of

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

Bullshit. That rate was solely Labour's doing and Heath had his arse
kicked out long *before* that 27% rate was reached in 1976;

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/G/GreatBri-history-the-1960s-and-70s.html

Heath took the U.K. into the Common Market in 1971 under terms that
seem to exacebated the U.K. balance of payments deficit, and both he
and Wilson/Callaghan had their hands tied by the deficit when they
tried to sort out the consequent mess.

the same year in which Labour's Dennis Healey had to get back off his plane > at Heathrow to deal with the ensuing Sterling crisis.

The inflation was a consequence of the continuing sterling crisis that
Labour has inherited from the Conservatives. The IMF's loan to tide
the country over came with a massive set of strings attached which
made it very difficult to get the real economy back on its feet.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-October/016433.html

discusses some of the background to the 1976 intensification of the
sterling crisis, including the Saudi decision to sell their oil only
for dollars, rather than selling 25% of it for U.K. sterling as they
had used to do before December 1974.

It's also worth noting that by doing so he exacerbated it. But when did a
Labour chancellor ever get anything right?

Or a Conservative one for that matter? Anthony Barber's "Barber Boom"
which went bust around 1972 wasn't exactly an act of genius.

Heath was slung out long before for letting the unions have it all
their own way, selling us out to EUrope and for generally being too
'pink.'

In fact he went to the country in an attempt to get a mandate to
shackle the unions, and lost his majority instead.

Thatcher's demented economic ideas (which you seem to share) did make
a nasty mess of the British economy, while the more socialist French
and Germans did much better.

They did better because they didn't have to play catch-up as we did,
thanks to you and your buddies wrecking this place in the 1970s.

Heath and Barber got the U.K. into a state from which is was very
difficult to rescue it. Wilson/Callaghan managed to hold things
together until North Sea oil and gas came on line, but the electorate
blamed them for the hardships inflicted by the IMF and gave the
country to Thatcher at the point when the worst of the structural
problems had been solved. She proceeded to throw away the advantages
of North Sea oil and gas on another series of ideological idiocies.

The unions in continental europe weren't riddled with Trotskyists; they
were far more moderate and reasonable and didn't set their countries
back 10-15yrs like your lot did here.

First Marxists and now Trotskyists - you do let your right-wing
fantasies run away with you. I never met one in all my trade union
days. I did meet a number of ideologically committed socialists - and
about as many fundamentalist Christians - but the rank and file
regarded them as demented.

I suspect that the main reason that the French and German trade unions
were more moderate and reasonable was that the French and German
employers were rather more honest in their dealings with the unions
than were their British equivalents.

My one experience of sitting in on a trade union negotiation (at
George Kent in Luton in 1976) left me totally amazed - not only did
the personnel people lie to the trade union reps, but they produced
such patently unconvincing lies as to suggest an attitude of utter
contempt. I managed to nail a few of the more blatant lies, which
surprised and disturbed the personnel people, who claimed that the
engineers had suddenly become "militant".

Which they had, but only because our salaries had dropped 20% behind
inflation.
The personnel people were too dumb to see this, and too arrogant to be
told, but after 20% of us had resigned and gone to better paid jobs
over the next six months (including me) they eventualy got the message
and promoted everybody to get around the then wage freeze.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Jan 15, 2004

"Roger Gt" <Xenot@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<OonNb.1103$2p6.450@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

"John Crighton" <john_c@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4005aec2.5506833@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
On 13 Jan 2004 05:13:07 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

<snip>

In their early days they encountered much opposition from local authorities
and other official bodies, as many Conservative and Liberal politicians
argued that socialist sunday schools were subversive and were poisoning the
minds of young people with political and anti-religious doctrines and
teachings.
They had THAT right!

Only in the sense that the socialist Sunday schools weren't implanting
the sort of propaganda that favoured Conservative and Liberal policies
- the British public-school boy isn't exactly open-minded.

I always wondered what led to the decline of England as a leader, this
explains one of the causes.

It may explain it to you. Examining the economic basis of Britain's
period of imperial success should explain matters rather better.

<snip>

I'm out of here, no intelligent discussion possible!

That's odd, considering your contributions to other debates.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Jan 15, 2004

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8eea00hbc51ado5vkpk7kebb4k83840itr@4ax.com>...

On 13 Jan 2004 23:57:43 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

While Paul Burridge wastes time and bandwidth illustrating his
capacity to produce beautifully articulated chaff without a single
grain of useful wheat. Very English.

Yes, Bill. I really must try to devote more time to discussing
politics and gun control on this group.

I'm afraid your grasp of these subjects is no better than your grasp of electronics.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:33:46 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Occasionally a woman will post to s.e.d., and invariably one or
another of the macho males here will go out of their way to make her
unwelcome.

John

Right - you're very typical of the ASCII-land chivalry types- in real
life you are hopelessly timid and would never risk the slightest
inconvenience- to include personal harm God forbid- to rescue any damsel
in distress. You're all ASCII and no action....

I don't know, hence seldom am called upon to rescue, any "damsels". I
know and like a lot of women, some of whom occasionally need help but
most of whom are plenty tough enough to take care of themselves. I
like women who are smart, tough, competent, funny, skinny, and
feminine, the kind that scare most guys off. Damsels are boring,
reserved for insecure guys.

And, for the record, I am anything but timid. You don't walk into a
room full of scientists and managers, and tell them their stuff is a
crock and you can do better, if you're timid.

John

Jim Thompson · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:15:45 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:33:46 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:
[garbage deleted]
I don't know, hence seldom am called upon to rescue, any "damsels". I
know and like a lot of women, some of whom occasionally need help but
most of whom are plenty tough enough to take care of themselves. I
like women who are smart, tough, competent, funny, skinny, and
feminine, the kind that scare most guys off. Damsels are boring,
reserved for insecure guys.

And, for the record, I am anything but timid. You don't walk into a
room full of scientists and managers, and tell them their stuff is a
crock and you can do better, if you're timid.

John

I think that's fundamental... self-confident males love smart,

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:18:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I think that's fundamental... self-confident males love smart,
assertive women.

Wienies like to demean women... they lack the guts to pick on anyone
else.

...Jim Thompson

Yeah, and speaking of weenies, what about Fred's promise to stop
posting?

========

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:08:36 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Right- these people like the pseudo-intellectual Burridge and
superficial Ian Bell who advocate abuse of people they consider "odd"-
is best handled by starving the public information pool. From now on- my
posts go the OPs return address- no more public contributions or discussion.

========

I knew it was too good to be true.

John

Jim Thompson · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:40:31 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:18:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I think that's fundamental... self-confident males love smart,
assertive women.

Wienies like to demean women... they lack the guts to pick on anyone
else.

...Jim Thompson

Yeah, and speaking of weenies, what about Fred's promise to stop
posting?

[snip]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Bill Sloman · Jan 15, 2004

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4cea00tp8dpmudchggcgc6vomp4kdj8nlc@4ax.com>...

On 13 Jan 2004 23:52:15 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

I've been here a lot longer than you have, long enough to be aware
that Fred Bloggs does make useful contributions from time to time. As
far as I am concerned, as long as he does that, his rudeness and
hostility are tolerable ideosyncracies.

By their friends shall you know them...

I think he's been even ruder and more hostile to me than I've been to
you.
They may be some mutual respect involved but friendship sounds rather
too strong a word.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John S. Dyson · Jan 15, 2004

In article <4005aec2.5506833@news.cis.dfn.de>,
john_c@tpg.com.au (John Crighton) writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 05:13:07 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:
snip

Our American members have a rather different perspective - they've
been trained in primary school to panic when they hear the word
socialism, and few ever recover enough to develop a rational approach
to politics.

snip

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hello Bill, Paul and the Group,
I am not going to get involved in personal slanging matches
between individuals, but your comment above, Bill, about
Americans "been trained in primary school to panic when
they hear the word socialism"

It isn't 'hearing' the word socialism that is so worrisome, but

the idiocy and idiots behind it.

I thought that was good,
very funny!

It is truly sad that the socialists are so provincial and limited

by their government-solves-all attitude.

It certainly sounds true to me when I read
the posts from some Americans on this newsgroups.
Where is my wee mate John Dyson?

Your vast superior, both in intellect and experience is right

here watching the socialist children play.

John

Aubrey McIntosh · Jan 15, 2004

lily@masterz.com (Lily Bepant) wrote in message news:<40964975.0401120853.503a0c55@posting.google.com>...

I, may be knowledgeable and well educated enough to troll in Linux,
systems programming or microprocessors groups, but not in electronics.

Can't you simply realize the fact that I don't know electronics enough
to build a simple BJT amplifier DOES NOT mean that I'm too dumb to
read books or just google!

....

You might spend your time answering the question if it's that simple.
That way, you would be more appreciated. Do you know that feeling? To
be appreciated? I don't think so.

....

Thanks for all the guys who answered my question.

I think that it is very important for any organization to embrace new
members. To be selective, but to welcome those who may qualify and
contribute. I am very aware of this, as it is my chosen role. I am
one of those in society who welcomes new chemists: I am a professor
of chemistry.

You may wish to google for Shotokon Karate of America and read some of
the ambience regarding new people, from an organization that has a
1,000 year pedigree.

Lily, your question seemed straightforward. With some pointedness, I
claim that it doesn't matter whether it is a basic question or a
devilishly deep question. The only criteria is whether it was on
topic, and it was.

It also, by the authority of the charter, does not matter whether you
have never actually picked up a wire or component, are a dilletant who
only picks up wires and components without a clue about Fourier,
Legendre, LaPlace, and all the Dead French Men, or who only simulates
and don't touch hardware.

I find that deliberately simple questions often lead to important
discussion. In fact, it is often the most simple and obvious of
questions that give insight. As an example, last year at a Gordon
Conference I heard that first year graduate students in physics were
given three circuits http://www.jump.net/~vima/led/simple.pdf and
asked to rank the brightness of lights in them. The batteries, wires,
and lights are all identical and ideal. There are no tricks.

The astonishing thing is, the faculty argued that this question was
way too simple. The incoming graduate student failure rate was almost
75%. These students are all people who have good math skills, and can
calculate the voltage across a voltage divider. The faculty think
that the answer is obvious by inspection. The point is, the data say
that this question was NOT too simple, it was a powerful diagnostic,
and by actually issuing it, very important information was obtained
-- disturbing information that was not the intent, but very important
nonetheless.

This point of view leads me to think that to troll, to utter in a full
rolling voice with a simple question, is vital and healthy. If there
is not subsequent confusion, if a silence follows and is filled with
other discussion, no harm was done. But if there is ongoing on topic
and civil discussion, then the question was well merited. Those
choices depend on the responders, not the original posters.

In order to have fresh minds and new points of view we must embrace
new members. Surely we don't want to listen to the same old posters
forever. You are one of those prospective new members. I am certain
that I speak for several thousand lurkers when I say that I am
saddened that you feel that you have been driven off.

And I am angry. I am angry at you, I am angry at Bloggs, I am angry
at others. Why am I angry at you? Because you are letting a bully
drive you from a public place. By not protecting freedom you are
letting it erode. Why am I angry at others? Because by not
protecting freedom they are letting it erode. By allowing that, we
allow the bullys to run the playground and make it unsafe for
civilized and decent folk to interact and enjoy the fruit of
socializing with their peers.

Don't let him do that. To borrow a phrase, "take back the night."
And for the rest of us, act civil. Quit peeing in the pool.

Earlier, about 9/12/1995, this group was formed. From what I can
read, the charter for this group is given below.

-------------------------

RATIONALE: sci.electronics.components, sci.electronics.design,
sci.electronics.equipment

These three groups are an attempt to categorize the traffic into
separate subfields. The usual proposals for splitting the group
typically start with proposing splits along either applications
(audio,
automotive, computer ...) or along what would best be called design
specialization (analog, digital, ...). The problem with the first is
that the underlying methods and techniques are the same across the
field, and for the second, the dividing line is blurred (and the most
interesting part of the field).

The split proposed here is set up on levels of complexity. In this
field of technology, people look for solutions to problems along these
levels. Someone who is looking for a box that solves their problems
is
working at a higher level of detail than someone who is designing a
module (circuit board) and that second person is working at a higher
level than someone looking for a prebuilt integrated circuit that they
need to purchase.

The proposed components group is for questions dealing with individual
parts. Someone working on this level is looking for a specific
function or source or identification for an electronic component.
Postings requesting the identification of an integrated circuit are a
large portion of the current traffic.

The design group is for persons combining components into circuits.
Discussion on design solutions and techniques.

The equipment group is for persons looking for already available
solutions to their problems.

John Larkin · Jan 15, 2004

On 15 Jan 2004 12:51:48 -0800, mcintosh@spam.vima.austin.tx.us (Aubrey
McIntosh) wrote:

In order to have fresh minds and new points of view we must embrace
new members. Surely we don't want to listen to the same old posters
forever. You are one of those prospective new members. I am certain
that I speak for several thousand lurkers when I say that I am
saddened that you feel that you have been driven off.

And I am angry. I am angry at you, I am angry at Bloggs, I am angry
at others. Why am I angry at you? Because you are letting a bully
drive you from a public place. By not protecting freedom you are
letting it erode. Why am I angry at others? Because by not
protecting freedom they are letting it erode. By allowing that, we
allow the bullys to run the playground and make it unsafe for
civilized and decent folk to interact and enjoy the fruit of
socializing with their peers.

Newsgroups provide an appealing forum for creeps who can otherwise not
attract or hold an audience, people that other sensible people walk
away from asap. In an unmoderated group, the only sensible thing to do
is ignore the obnoxious background and make friends with the decent
and helpful people.

I agree that the simple questions are sometimes good; I learn a lot by
trying to clearly express things that most engineers have taken for
granted for a long time.

John

Paul Burridge · Jan 15, 2004

On 15 Jan 2004 10:52:29 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4cea00tp8dpmudchggcgc6vomp4kdj8nlc@4ax.com>...
On 13 Jan 2004 23:52:15 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

I've been here a lot longer than you have, long enough to be aware
that Fred Bloggs does make useful contributions from time to time. As
far as I am concerned, as long as he does that, his rudeness and
hostility are tolerable ideosyncracies.

By their friends shall you know them...

I think he's been even ruder and more hostile to me than I've been to
you.
They may be some mutual respect involved but friendship sounds rather
too strong a word.

"Mutual respect"?? That says enough to me, Slowman. You'll be one of
the fist in the KF when I eventually get around to re-installing the
full version of Agent.
--

My opinion is worth what you've paid for it.

Sir Charles W. Shults III · Jan 15, 2004

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:fd0e00tf18fqjj2qn6a560d3c148k19et2@4ax.com...

I agree that the simple questions are sometimes good; I learn a lot by
trying to clearly express things that most engineers have taken for
granted for a long time.

This is one of the wisest policies- to answer many basic questions, you
must inspect your own thinking and assumptions. This means that you must
think them through carefully and be very clear about what they mean. By
answering such questions, we provide ourselves with a constant reality
check, and improve our communications skills at the same time.

Michael A. Terrell · Jan 15, 2004

"John S. Dyson" wrote:

In article <4005aec2.5506833@news.cis.dfn.de>,
john_c@tpg.com.au (John Crighton) writes:
On 13 Jan 2004 05:13:07 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:
snip

Our American members have a rather different perspective - they've
been trained in primary school to panic when they hear the word
socialism, and few ever recover enough to develop a rational approach
to politics.

snip

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hello Bill, Paul and the Group,
I am not going to get involved in personal slanging matches
between individuals, but your comment above, Bill, about
Americans "been trained in primary school to panic when
they hear the word socialism"

It isn't 'hearing' the word socialism that is so worrisome, but
the idiocy and idiots behind it.

I thought that was good,
very funny!

It is truly sad that the socialists are so provincial and limited
by their government-solves-all attitude.

It certainly sounds true to me when I read
the posts from some Americans on this newsgroups.
Where is my wee mate John Dyson?

Your vast superior, both in intellect and experience is right
here watching the socialist children play.

John

John, what do you expect out of a bunch of bleating sheep, waiting to
be fleeced? They are afraid to make decisions for themselves, because it
has been bread out of them. It takes real men to stand up for what you
believe. After all, men own guns, sheep don't.

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Take a look at this little cutie! ;-)
http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/photos.html

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Crighton · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:27:50 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <4005aec2.5506833@news.cis.dfn.de>,
john_c@tpg.com.au (John Crighton) writes:
On 13 Jan 2004 05:13:07 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:
snip

Our American members have a rather different perspective - they've
been trained in primary school to panic when they hear the word
socialism, and few ever recover enough to develop a rational approach
to politics.

snip

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hello Bill, Paul and the Group,
I am not going to get involved in personal slanging matches
between individuals, but your comment above, Bill, about
Americans "been trained in primary school to panic when
they hear the word socialism"

It isn't 'hearing' the word socialism that is so worrisome, but
the idiocy and idiots behind it.

I thought that was good,
very funny!

It is truly sad that the socialists are so provincial and limited
by their government-solves-all attitude.

It certainly sounds true to me when I read
the posts from some Americans on this newsgroups.
Where is my wee mate John Dyson?

Your vast superior, both in intellect and experience is right
here watching the socialist children play.

John

A big Hello John,
I am relieved to know that you are still here,
hale, healthy and on form.

I missed you!

Would you like me to send you a laminated copy
of the socialist commandments for your study, den
or workroom. They really are "neat" !
That is a new Americanism I have learnt.

Regards,
John Crighton
Sydney

Jim Thompson · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:35:08 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

[snip]

After all, men own guns, sheep don't.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Crighton · Jan 15, 2004

On 15 Jan 2004 12:51:48 -0800, mcintosh@spam.vima.austin.tx.us (Aubrey
McIntosh) wrote:

<snip>

In order to have fresh minds and new points of view we must embrace
new members. Surely we don't want to listen to the same old posters
forever. You are one of those prospective new members. I am certain
that I speak for several thousand lurkers when I say that I am
saddened that you feel that you have been driven off.

And I am angry. I am angry at you, I am angry at Bloggs, I am angry
at others. Why am I angry at you? Because you are letting a bully
drive you from a public place. By not protecting freedom you are
letting it erode. Why am I angry at others? Because by not
protecting freedom they are letting it erode. By allowing that, we
allow the bullys to run the playground and make it unsafe for
civilized and decent folk to interact and enjoy the fruit of
socializing with their peers.

Don't let him do that. To borrow a phrase, "take back the night."
And for the rest of us, act civil. Quit peeing in the pool.

Hear! Hear! Well said Aubrey!

C'mon Lily, please don't go.

Regards,
John Crighton
Sydney

Jim Thompson · Jan 15, 2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:07:18 GMT, john_c@tpg.com.au (John Crighton)
wrote:

[snip]

C'mon Lily, please don't go.

Regards,
John Crighton
Sydney

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Bill Sloman · Jan 15, 2004

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bu6pjm$248i$2@news.iquest.net>...

In article <4005aec2.5506833@news.cis.dfn.de>,
john_c@tpg.com.au (John Crighton) writes:
On 13 Jan 2004 05:13:07 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:
snip

Our American members have a rather different perspective - they've
been trained in primary school to panic when they hear the word
socialism, and few ever recover enough to develop a rational approach
to politics.

snip

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hello Bill, Paul and the Group,
I am not going to get involved in personal slanging matches
between individuals, but your comment above, Bill, about
Americans "been trained in primary school to panic when
they hear the word socialism"

It isn't 'hearing' the word socialism that is so worrisome, but
the idiocy and idiots behind it.

Like I said, childhood training. You don't know a thing about
socialism, but you are convinced that it is idiocy and produced by
idiots.

I thought that was good,
very funny!

It is truly sad that the socialists are so provincial and limited
by their government-solves-all attitude.

As opposed to capitalists, who believe that creating a free market
solves everything.

It certainly sounds true to me when I read
the posts from some Americans on this newsgroups.
Where is my wee mate John Dyson?

Your vast superior, both in intellect and experience is right
here watching the socialist children play.

The vastly self-deluded John Dyson - ill-informed as ever, and quite
unconcious of the fact. I just love the complacence - a sort of
endlessly prolonged prat-fall.

Give us some facts, John - your opinions are funny enough, but your
"facts" are comic in the extreme.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Common Emitter Amplifier with 2N3904

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John S. Dyson

Guest

Aubrey McIntosh

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Paul Burridge

Guest

Sir Charles W. Shults III

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Crighton

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Crighton

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor