<dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> While your description is correct in most aspects, it does contain the
> inaccuracies that
I realize, I left out several aspects, since I was hoping to keep it
simple, since I didn't know the background of the person asking.
Well...okay...I admit, I wanted to add the aspect of reversal-potential,
but couldn't figure out, where it would fit in best.
Chr. Wilms (melvin at gmx.de)