Driver to drive?

On Sep 25, 6:00 pm, Glen Walpert <nos...@null.void> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:12:01 -0700 (PDT), wolti_At <wo...@sil.at
wrote:





On 19 Sep., 10:43, Comcast1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 3:38 pm, wolti_At <wo...@sil.at> wrote:
Hello,

I am currently working on a design where I need to amplify the signal
generated from a glass electrode and a reference electrode. Right now
I have a basic input amplifier with an instrumentation amplifier from
analog devices working. The challenging task on these designs is the
very high output resistance of the glass electrodes (up to 200Meg) and
the noise immunity. The input stage is very simple and all input
traces have a guard ring which is biased to the common mode voltage
(to reduce leakage). The inamp currents are handled by a connection to
the media which the probe is placed in.
Since this is my first design with electrodes I heard a bit around on
the net and some people seem to have a different input stage which is
based on a capacitor and an integrator. I wonder if someone has seen
such other circuits because it would be interesting for me to evaluate
other options.

Thanks for any input,
  Christian Walter

Christian, Guard rings work great for preventing leakage and they work
best if the guard ring voltage tracks to voltage of the source. Let's
use a peak detector as an example, tie the cap to the + of an op amp
configured as a unity gain buffer and tie the output of the op amp to
the guard ring. The guard ring voltage tracks the cap voltage. Does
this help you?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hello,

One more question regarding the guard rings and driving the shield.

1) For the shield I can drive the shield with the same voltage as the
inner conductor. I would do this by an simple opamp because I can not
directly connect to the gain input of the inamp (would reduce common
mode performance) and a small series resistors for damping. In this
case I would reduce leakage but I think there could be stability
problems (multiple opamps and the shield also couples to the inner
conductor by a capacitance).

Indeed, stability needs to be considered with any amplifier.  Nothing
special about this case as far as I can see.

2) I could drive both shields with the common mode voltage of the two
inputs. I have seen this at least in one application sheet. This will
give me some leakage currents because the potential is not the same
for the conductor or the shield but maybe this is better in some way.

What is the better solution? The same applies for the guard rings but
for the guard rings I would drive them with the same voltage.

Since you have 2 separate cables to your 2 separate electrodes it
might be best for each shield to track its own signal.  But you would
be much better off reading the grounding and shielding book I
recommended and doing the analysis yourself, considering the details
of your specific situation, than accepting my guess.

http://www.amazon.com/Grounding-Shielding-Circuits-Interference-Techn...

I haven't seen this 5th edition, but it is probably better than the
4th edition I have.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

haven't seen this 5th edition, but it is probably better than the
4th edition I have.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Yep, I've seen some engineering flops because they had no idea how to
lay out a circuit. These books are a great help.

One thing interesting about star grounds when a shield is
involved is it seems to work better if there is also a lot of copper
at the node where the sheild is connected. And don't use the sheild as
a bridge to other grounds, the solder cracks from temp changes and
poof.


Its too bad you can't buff the signal right on the glass
electrode. Perhaps mount a pc board on the electrode and hermetically
seal it. The connecting wires can probably carry the supply supplies
and the output signal. It might solve a lot of problems.

Have fun
Alan

 

[Eeyore]

Morris Dovey wrote:

rpautrey2 wrote:

Sources for this story include: www.foxnews.com; web.mit.edu.

I would have expected better of an MIT public source.

Not any more. They seem to have caught a stupid virus at MIT.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jon Slaughter wrote:

Is there a cheap source for fiber optic that is't used for communication but
lighting?

Yes and I even had some as samples but since you have me killfiled there's not
much point me helping you !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jon Laughter wrote:

have you dealt with any of these chinese companies before? I'm a bit wary
about them for some reason.

I suppose you're wary about your DVD player too ! Maybe it has a nuclear bomb
hidden in it ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jon Laughter wrote:

Here are some pics of a proof of concept. The quality sucks but shows whats
going on:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=MVC-001S.48c.JPG
http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=MVC-002S.3ec.JPG
http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=MVC-003S.4a3.JPG
http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=MVC-004S.688.JPG

Did better than that over 20 years ago.

Graham

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:55:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.


Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

One function of religion is to enforce a set of socially-beneficial
values 27/7, even when nobody else is around to check up on people.
It's the cop within your head. That's probably why religion is
near-universal in various cultures across history, and more organized
and formalized in the most successful cultures. So tendency towards
belief is naturally selected, in that groups with a religion-based set
of behavioral standards are better able to enforce the rules, so
compete better as a group. Nationalism, gene sharing, language, and
race are other group organizing forces. Religion, because it can cross
some of those other group boundaries, affords a possibly more
effective basis of group organization.

Emperors, kings, lunatics who run North Korea, are usually promoted as
divine. It works better that way.

Really, all these religion haters can't seem to get beyond their
prejudices and *think* about the social dynamics of religion. That's
wonderfully ironic, since they profess to believe in nothing
themselves. They're mostly using their contempt for believers as a
means of showing how smart and sophisticated they are, and are
shutting off their brains in the process. Now that's funny!

Shutting off small brains is easy. It amazes me that the people who
scream the loudest about how smart they are, aren't. They are close
minded, refuse to consider any idea other than their own, and live on
what others have done while beating on their chests and proclaiming
themselves 'King of the jungle'. They couldn't find their way out of a
maze with only one turn, but to hear their story, they invented the
concept.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:58:20 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Come on, Graham. You can't be claiming that there was no one in Europe who
had a clue how to save their own ass?

Yes us, the British.

Sweden, Switzerland, the Irish Free State and
Spain/Portugal stayed out of it by being Neutral

---
All chickenshits indeed,

You think war is sensible ?

Whether it is or not is immaterial.

Hardly IMHO.

---
Oh, OK, you're right then. It is material.

Too bad you weren't smart enough, then, realizing that, to nip WW2 in
the bud, when you had the chance.
---

The point is that you effectively talked Czechoslovakia into acceding to
Hitler's demands in return for what you thought would be your own
freedom from invasion by Hitler.

Stinks, doesn't it?

Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

What EXACTLY do you think we could have done to stop it ?

---
At the very least, you could have been watching Germany remilitarizing
in violation of the treaty of Versailles and stopped them with economic
blockades.

After all, early on the problem was yours and, by not taking care of it
properly, you let a madman come to power who's hurt us all in ways we'll
never know.

Maybe some worthless Jew who knew something about cellular biology died
at Auschwitz without being able to express her idea about how cancer
works?

Maybe some other worthless Jew had an insight on how to bring about
world peace?

We'll never know, but the point is, it was Europe's duty to watch
Germany and you all fell asleep at the watch.
---

except maybe for the Irish Free State, which
you must have sweet-talked into getting behind you.

WTF do you mean by that ?

---
Figure it out.

That isn't an answer.

---
Sure it is.

It may not be the answer you wanted to hear, or an answer you can figure
out, but it's still an answer.
---

If you mean some Irish chose to fight for/with our forces,
that was of their own free will. Despite what you may think, Ireland and Britain
have always had a close association.

---
Yeah, sure.

Except for the Catholics which you put down, thanks to the legacy of
Henry VIII, whose "Church" is no different from the Catholic church
except that it allows divorce and murder.

Allows? No. "Regales" is a better term.

Have always had a close association with?

Just like England and Scotland?

Just like England and India?

Just like England and the Middle East?

Just like England and the "association" you tried to pull of on us,
early on?

England's stance has always been that England is the center of the
Universe, no matter what, and that what she wants is God-given to her at
the expense of everyone else.

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:29:47 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:55:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.


Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

One function of religion is to enforce a set of socially-beneficial
values 27/7, even when nobody else is around to check up on people.
It's the cop within your head. That's probably why religion is
near-universal in various cultures across history, and more organized
and formalized in the most successful cultures. So tendency towards
belief is naturally selected, in that groups with a religion-based set
of behavioral standards are better able to enforce the rules, so
compete better as a group. Nationalism, gene sharing, language, and
race are other group organizing forces. Religion, because it can cross
some of those other group boundaries, affords a possibly more
effective basis of group organization.

Emperors, kings, lunatics who run North Korea, are usually promoted as
divine. It works better that way.

Really, all these religion haters can't seem to get beyond their
prejudices and *think* about the social dynamics of religion. That's
wonderfully ironic, since they profess to believe in nothing
themselves. They're mostly using their contempt for believers as a
means of showing how smart and sophisticated they are, and are
shutting off their brains in the process. Now that's funny!


Shutting off small brains is easy. It amazes me that the people who
scream the loudest about how smart they are, aren't. They are close
minded, refuse to consider any idea other than their own, and live on
what others have done while beating on their chests and proclaiming
themselves 'King of the jungle'. They couldn't find their way out of a
maze with only one turn, but to hear their story, they invented the
concept.

Yup. Their opinions are based on their need to show their
sophistication, not on any abilities for original observation or
thought. That's also why they design crap electronics, or no
electronics at all.

John

 

[Frank Buss]

Stephan Goldstein wrote:

Hall, P.M., "Resistance Calculations for Thin Film Patterns",
which appeared in the journal _Thin Solid Films_, Vol. 1,
pp 277-295 (1968). I would be happy to pay postage for
a decent copy, or if someone could provide a good-quality
scan.

Usually you can get anything ever printed in the US from the Library of
Congress:

http://lccn.loc.gov/sf81005059

They even sell you scans of books, even oversea, I've tried it once for an
out of print book, but this can be expensive.

For the article you are searching, you can buy it and download online as a
PDF:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-6090(68)90046-1

--
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:07:43 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:29:47 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:55:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.


Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

One function of religion is to enforce a set of socially-beneficial
values 27/7, even when nobody else is around to check up on people.
It's the cop within your head. That's probably why religion is
near-universal in various cultures across history, and more organized
and formalized in the most successful cultures. So tendency towards
belief is naturally selected, in that groups with a religion-based set
of behavioral standards are better able to enforce the rules, so
compete better as a group. Nationalism, gene sharing, language, and
race are other group organizing forces. Religion, because it can cross
some of those other group boundaries, affords a possibly more
effective basis of group organization.

Emperors, kings, lunatics who run North Korea, are usually promoted as
divine. It works better that way.

Really, all these religion haters can't seem to get beyond their
prejudices and *think* about the social dynamics of religion. That's
wonderfully ironic, since they profess to believe in nothing
themselves. They're mostly using their contempt for believers as a
means of showing how smart and sophisticated they are, and are
shutting off their brains in the process. Now that's funny!


Shutting off small brains is easy. It amazes me that the people who
scream the loudest about how smart they are, aren't. They are close
minded, refuse to consider any idea other than their own, and live on
what others have done while beating on their chests and proclaiming
themselves 'King of the jungle'. They couldn't find their way out of a
maze with only one turn, but to hear their story, they invented the
concept.

Yup. Their opinions are based on their need to show their
sophistication, not on any abilities for original observation or
thought. That's also why they design crap electronics, or no
electronics at all.

John

Of course, they are so afraid of getting nailed for any mistake that
they must do the irreducible minimum and defend it to death. Willful
mediocrity, pretending to be arrogant excellence. Too bad most can't
be bothered to distinguish between the two.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:29:55 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:56:06 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

COMPLETE GARBAGE. As is all the rest of your idiotic speculation. The Pope ceased to have
any influence and there was the official Protestant Church of England instead.

Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad.

In the light of yours being nonexistent

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Do they specially edit history books in the USA to be anti-British ? And plain WRONG ! Seems
like it to me.

Graham


One thing is clear; the content of our "history" texts do not match
the content of your "history" texts. Perhaps an inter-continental
text book exchange is in order, using well regarded textbooks. I
would be glad to participate.

Do you think he could really handle the truth ?


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

Why not offer him the opportunity? Repeatedly.
If he takes it, i will ship him a couple new volumes without my notes
scribbled all over them. Or just the ISBNs if that is enough. I
expect that they are available on Amazon.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Nov 2, 3:32 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:
rpautrey2 wrote:

Sources for this story include:www.foxnews.com;web.mit.edu.

I would have expected better of an MIT public source.

Not any more. They seem to have caught a stupid virus at MIT.

There seems to be a growing trend where prominent universities publish
sensational-but-misleading research results. Naturally there is a
correlation between the sensation generated and research funding
received. Institutions engaging in this practice might be taking away
research dollars the would have been better allocated elsewhere. And
the media, especially in the age of the WWW, has no incentive to stop
publishing this stuff.

I would be surprised if more than a few US Senators could draw upon
their own insight and intuition to determine the relative merit
between competing projects. I think there should be an impartial
organization that provides brutally objective assessments of these
research results, in plain English, so that our public funds are not
abused.

I guess NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc. have scientists on staff who are
suppposed to do that, but from what I see...ahem.

But in defense of these same organizations, there also seems to be
gradual movement away from academica-only funding. NASA/CAFE has not
been bashful at all in asking for a flying car, from whomever can
provide it. DARPA's ATP states that they will only fund "killer
applications". I think NSF could do a bit more in this regard.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

Yup. Their opinions are based on their need to show their
sophistication, not on any abilities for original observation or
thought. That's also why they design crap electronics, or no
electronics at all.

That's ok. Everyone can see through their tall tales and don't
expect anything useful from them.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

England's stance has always been that England is the center of the
Universe, no matter what, and that what she wants is God-given to her at
the expense of everyone else.

All while pretending to be civilized and polite.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

On 2 nov, 22:09, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:07:43 -0800, John Larkin





jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:29:47 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:55:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.

  Only to small minds like yours.  People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to  build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

One function of religion is to enforce a set of socially-beneficial
values 27/7, even when nobody else is around to check up on people.
It's the cop within your head. That's probably why religion is
near-universal in various cultures across history, and more organized
and formalized in the most successful cultures. So tendency towards
belief is naturally selected, in that groups with a religion-based set
of behavioral standards are better able to enforce the rules, so
compete better as a group. Nationalism, gene sharing, language, and
race are other group organizing forces. Religion, because it can cross
some of those other group boundaries, affords a possibly more
effective basis of group organization.

Emperors, kings, lunatics who run North Korea, are usually promoted as
divine. It works better that way.

Really, all these religion haters can't seem to get beyond their
prejudices and *think* about the social dynamics of religion. That's
wonderfully ironic, since they profess to believe in nothing
themselves. They're mostly using their contempt for believers as a
means of showing how smart and sophisticated they are, and are
shutting off their brains in the process. Now that's funny!

  Shutting off small brains is easy. It amazes me that the people who
scream the loudest about how smart they are, aren't. They are close
minded, refuse to consider any idea other than their own, and live on
what others have done while beating on their chests and proclaiming
themselves 'King of the jungle'.  They couldn't find their way out of a
maze with only one turn, but to hear their story, they invented the
concept.

Yup. Their opinions are based on their need to show their
sophistication, not on any abilities for original observation or
thought. That's also why they design crap electronics, or no
electronics at all.

John

Of course, they are so afraid of getting nailed for any mistake that
they must do the irreducible minimum and defend it to death.  Willful
mediocrity, pretending to be arrogant excellence.  Too bad most can't
be bothered to distinguish between the two.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

John Larkin certainly isn't afraid of getting nailed for any mistake -
he regularly pontificates on stuff he know very little about, and
occasionally produces truly remarkable nonesense, which makes him a
prime example of (possibly inadvertent) intellectual arrogance.

Michael A.Terrell is nowhere near as bad - he does overvalue his
(considerable) expertise in the areas where he has worked, and
undervalues expertise in every other area, but he doesn't seem to have
an kind of delusion of expertise about areas where he knows very
little.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On 3 nov, 02:49, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Yup. Their opinions are based on their need to show their
sophistication, not on any abilities for original observation or
thought. That's also why they design crap electronics, or no
electronics at all.

   That's ok.  Everyone can see through their tall tales and don't
expect anything useful from them.

Mike Terrell doesn't know much about electronics outside his rather
narrow areas of expertise, and regularly writes off perfectly
respectable claims as "tall tales", simply because he doesn't knw any
better. But that's okay - we don't expect anything useful from him
anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On 3 nov, 01:49, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 2, 3:32 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:
rpautrey2 wrote:

Sources for this story include:www.foxnews.com;web.mit.edu.

I would have expected better of an MIT public source.

Not any more. They seem to have caught a stupid virus at MIT.

There seems to be a growing trend where prominent universities publish
sensational-but-misleading research results. Naturally there is a
correlation between the sensation generated and research funding
received. Institutions engaging in this practice might be taking away
research dollars the would have been better allocated elsewhere. And
the media, especially in the age of the WWW, has no incentive to stop
publishing this stuff.

I would be surprised if more than a few US Senators could draw upon
their own insight and intuition to determine the relative merit
between competing projects. I think there should be an impartial
organization that provides brutally objective assessments of these
research results, in plain English, so that our public funds are not
abused.

Senator William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards demonstrated just
how badly that it likely to work. His stafff worked hard and long to
find research projects that could be portrayed as comical or fautuous
in their press release - the actual merits of the research were
ignored (not that there is any evidence to suggest that the Senator
had gone to any trouble to find staff who were equipped to assess that
value of the reesearch in its field) and some prefectly respectable
projects were pilloried, purely because the project title could be
made the basis of an attention-getting sound bite.

I guess NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc. have scientists on staff who are
suppposed to do that, but from what I see...ahem.

What have you seen? And how much trouble did you go to to find out
what the research was really about? Did you ever ask any academic with
interests in the offending area?

Sorry to be sceptical, but here we've had John Larkin rejecting
anthropogenic global warming here because its proponents rely on
"including insane things like pressure line broadening" in their
models, where the pressure broadening of infra-red absorption lines is
a well-established and well-understood effect. From the thread "Re:
OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?" posted on August 17 2007.

But in defense of these same organizations, there also seems to be
gradual movement away from academica-only funding.  NASA/CAFE has not
been bashful at all in asking for a flying car, from whomever can
provide it. DARPA's ATP states that they will only fund "killer
applications". I think NSF could do a bit more in this regard.

A different administration might encourage them to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[legg]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 01:13:39 -0800 (PST), kmrityunjay@gmail.com wrote:

I my plant we have a rectifier for electrolytic cleaning. 7500A and
30V(Max). We give the reference for current. The problem is when we
measure the current through out PLC analog channel we find it
fluctuating. The current waveform exactly follows the voltage
waveform. The configuration is 2 half wave 3-phase rectifiers working
in paralle through the interphase transformer. Should I add something
to get an steady feedback. I suspect the fluctuation has to do with
the scanning of the AI channel of the PLC. we should send the coltage
as DC without harmonics rather than the way it is now.

Filter the measurement or synchronize it to the phase period.

RL

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Come on, Graham. You can't be claiming that there was no one in Europe who
had a clue how to save their own ass?

Yes us, the British.

Sweden, Switzerland, the Irish Free State and
Spain/Portugal stayed out of it by being Neutral

---
All chickenshits indeed,

You think war is sensible ?

Whether it is or not is immaterial.

Hardly IMHO.

---
Oh, OK, you're right then. It is material.

Too bad you weren't smart enough, then, realizing that, to nip WW2 in
the bud, when you had the chance.

No such chance existed as I have reviously explained. The Secret Services did consider
assassinating Hitler, shame they didn't, but doubtless once of his henchmen would
simply have assumed his place.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

John Fields wrote:

England's stance has always been that England is the center of the
Universe, no matter what, and that what she wants is God-given to her at
the expense of everyone else.

All while pretending to be civilized and polite.

We are indeed both. About a year ago I was with 2 Zambian sisters and the
older one who spends more time in the USA in NY as it happens said "this
country (UK) rocks, there's nowhere else like it".

UK 1: USA ZERO.

Graham