🚀 go-pugleaf

FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor wrote:
> 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?

I'll take that as a "none" then.

Sylvia.