🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:27:00 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:15:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their use of Vutrax also means their CAD files are totally incompatible with virtually everyone else in
>>>> the world but hey-ho ! As a result some products have ended up being drafted in no less than THREE
>>>> packages.
>>> They should talk to Airbus about how that can lead to $billion delays in 
>>> a project. (A380 - incompatible versions of a CAD system lead to 
>>> significant wiring problems).
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>> 
>> 
>>   Actually, it was the fact that it was the French that were doing it
>> that led to significant problems.  Even their 'big bird' sucks so bad
>> that it sucks at sucking.  Nearly as bad as you do.
>
>It seems to be flying, even if it has a few teething troubles (which is 
>to be expected). How many airliners have you built recently?
>
>Sylvia.


  There is no single person on the entire planet that 'builds airliners',
you ditzy bitch.  It has always been a team effort.  Even the very first
plane was.  I do not expect you to get it, though.

  However, of the 52 computers in the C-17, I have worked on the 17 that
were considered mission critical.

  Currently, I am working on products to be used in the manufacture and
calibration of the JSF.

  Not that I think you have enough brains to know what the decade old
term 'JSF' stands for.

  Just so you do know, BOTH airframes are an order of magnitude (at
least) more complicated than ANY airliner.

 Got any more stupid baby bullshit, dipshit?