another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Not quite tak22,

Rosie asks a whole lot of questions that are IGNORED.  Poynty then asks an elementary question OUT OF CONTEXT and DEMANDS AN ANSWER.  For some reason he need not answer my questions.  For some reason I MUST answer his?  And I must answer it in a form that I find utterly objectionable because there is NO STRAIGHT ANSWER.  What N CHANNEL MOSFET is he referring to?  With what properties?  And used to what purpose?  And where is the applied signal?  And how is this relevant to the questions under discussion?  And on and on.  I think if you're about to draw conclusions from this - then NOTE.  I HAVE answered his question.  He has NOT answered mine.

Regards,
Rosemary

I'm not one of the three readers, but I read it like this:
Rosie gets asked a question and asks for a definition, gets a definition, and then after oodles of words plus a few
accusations and sidesteps thrown in for good measure, tosses it back unanswered with 'conditions' if it's to be pursued.
Normally questions aren't answered this way.
tak

[poynt99]

So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question was "POSITIVE"?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question was "POSITIVE"?

Dear Poynty,

With regard to this post of yours.  Certainly NOT.  Here is my answer. 

Kindest regards
Rosie

My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

AND HERE

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.

EDITED.  Added the second answer. 

[poynt99]

So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question is "NEGATIVE"?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question is "NEGATIVE"?

STILL WRONG Poynty.

Wake up.  My answer will ONLY be forthcoming when you FULLY EXPLAIN the context of your QUESTION.

Kindest as ever,
R