Problem: Given the question: This article: In 1949, former U.S. Army Air Forces officer Harvey Stovall spots a familiar Toby Jug in the window of a London antique shop and learns that it came from Archbury, an airfield where Stovall served during World War II. Convinced that it is the same jug, he buys it and journeys to the derelict airfield. Stovall remembers the events of 1942, when the 918th Bomb Group at Archbury had gained a reputation as the 'hard luck group'. After a particularly disastrous mission, group commander Colonel Keith Davenport appears exhausted and demoralized. His defeatist attitude spreads to other senior leaders of the group, including his Air Exec, Lieutenant Colonel Ben Gately. Ordered to fly another mission the next day, at a dangerously low altitude, Davenport protests to his friend, Brigadier General Frank Savage, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations at VIII Bomber Command. Later, Savage reluctantly shares with Major General Pritchard, the commanding general of VIII Bomber Command, his belief that Davenport has become too emotionally close to his men and may no longer be fit to command. That night, Pritchard and Savage visit the group headquarters to investigate the cause of the mission's heavy losses. Pritchard realizes that Savage is right: Davenport has become over-protective and is unwilling to discipline his men even for costly mistakes. Davenport is relieved of command and Savage is asked to take over. contains an answer for the question: What is the full name of the person who is thought to be no longer fit to command?, what is it ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Keith Davenport

input question: This article: Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University's Department of Central Eurasia Studies, writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction." He writes that Chinese writers of the early 20th century were of the view that Tibet was not annexed by China until the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion during the 18th century. He also states that Chinese writers of the early 20th century described Tibet as a feudal dependency of China, not an integral part of it. Sperling states that this is because "Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus" and also that "China's intervening Ming dynasty ... had no control over Tibet." He writes that the Ming relationship with Tibet is problematic for China's insistence of its unbroken sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century. As for the Tibetan view that Tibet was never subject to the rule of the Yuan or Qing emperors of China, Sperling also discounts this by stating that Tibet was "subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers" and that even Tibetans described themselves as subjects of these emperors.Josef Kolmas, a sinologist, Tibetologist, and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government." Yet he states that this was a radical change in regards to all previous eras of Sino-Tibetan relations.P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron and priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism. According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role... contains an answer for the question: What is the full name of the man who wrote that Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron,"?, what is it ????
output answer: Christiaan Klieger

Please answer this: This article: When Matt moved to Hollywood he made a pact with himself that if he wasn't a working actor in exactly seven years he'd quit the business and move back to Washington, DC. As the film opens Matt finds himself seven days shy of his self-prescribed deadline, and he's just as anonymous as the day he arrived into town. After an afternoon of soul searching in the mountains he decides to honor his deadline, and plans to spend his final week in Hollywood visiting friends to tell them he's leaving for good and that he'll have a going away party to cap it all off. With a couple days left before his going away party and tension mounting, Matt visits his eclectic mix of friends and people who have affected him over the years. Despite intending to tell them he's quitting the business, he chickens out, not quite being able to bring himself to tell them. On the night of the going away party he starts to think he's been stood up by everyone he thought he cared about and thought cared about him. But finally Dylan shows, then Robert, Amanda, JR - even Mylo, which means a great deal to Matt - and before long all the people he's visited over the past week are at the party. Amid drinks and music each friend stands up and gives their "goodbye Matt" speeches, making it clear that even though Matt's leaving he'll never be forgotten; he may be giving up on his dreams but he's been a good friend and helped a lot of people. In the middle of Matt's going away speech Sara pops in, looking beautiful, and Matt becomes so shocked and tongue-tied that he has to cut his speech short and take Sara out back alone. It is here that Matt asks her bluntly: "If I stay in Hollywood would you be with me?" She shakes her head. This is the final straw. There's officially nothing keeping him in Los Angeles. Matt is emasculated, and now more inspired than ever to leave Los Angeles in his rear view mirror. He heads back into the party to say his final goodbyes. contains an answer for the question: Who;s appearance causes the struggling actor to cut his speech?, what is it ?
++++++++
Answer:
Sara