It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are defence establishments obsessed with secrecy ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
the libra says:

"Firstly, I wasn't patronizing you, I was admitting that I had neither the time nor the interest enough to convince someone who didn't want to be convinced."

Well, that sounds a bit patronizing to me, jack.

I do have to admit, though, that your comments show that your knowledge of The Boeing Company's activities, capabilities, and techniques are far in excess of mine.

Perhaps you could get together sometimes and you could tell me more about the 40-year lag between platform prototype and fielding, the aerospace business in general, and The Boeing Company's capabilities in particular.

I'm always interested in learning more. Pop me an e-mail sometime at my office address, taking out the appropriate part of the address, of course:

duncan.z.kunz@NOSPAMboeing.com


[edit on 10-12-2004 by Off_The_Street]




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
the libra says:

"Firstly, I wasn't patronizing you, I was admitting that I had neither the time nor the interest enough to convince someone who didn't want to be convinced."

Well, that sounds a bit patronizing to me, jack.


My apologies, then. I'm afraid that text cannot convey posture, tone, or gesture. It was not intended to be patronizing, merely admitting defeat in an attempt to educate. I find that sometimes it's easier to let people learn for themselves (or never learn) than it is to convince them...and of course, at the time, I had about 5 minutes till it was time to go and had tickets to Cirque du Soleil, so, I really -didn't- care, but it wasn't due to anger or insult, just excitement about where I was going. Now I'm back at work, and for a few more hours, at least, I can care because I only have boring stuff to do.



Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I do have to admit, though, that your comments show that your knowledge of The Boeing Company's activities, capabilities, and techniques are far in excess of mine.


Not neccesarily... I'm a lot better informed about Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, and Gulfstream. My exposure to Boeing is a lot more limited. The knowledge I gained on Boeing's thermoplastics was gleaned from a Nova documentary called "The Battle of the X-Planes", which was about the competition between Boeing and LM to get the contract to make the next generation of fighter aircraft.


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Perhaps you could get together sometimes and you could tell me more about the 40-year lag between platform prototype and fielding, the aerospace business in general, and The Boeing Company's capabilities in particular.


I can try, but to be perfectly honest, anything I'd ever say publicly or to an individual is going to be limited to what is already available to the public, via books and documentaries. Even if I had any eyes-only knowledge (which I don't) it would never be worth the risks to divulge it just to make a point.


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I'm always interested in learning more. Pop me an e-mail sometime at my office address, taking out the appropriate part of the address, of course:
duncan.z.kunz@NOSPAMboeing.com


ROFL!!! I just now reread your email address while editing the quotes.
I'm not sure whether or not I should be flattered to receive an offer to
discuss aerospace with a Boeing employee, or if I should consider myself
reprimanded for thinking I know something... either way, bravo!

But seriously, I wasn't making it up about the thermoplastics. I literally watched the stages of the process on Nova.

Still, I'll go ahead and email you, cause I'm always up for discussion about aerospace. I myself hope to work in the field at some point.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Fair enough, I accept that you did not intend to come across as patronzing. In fact your post in reply to me shows that we were talking at cross purposes as I fully accept the points you made about research and prototyping, thats what I clumsily tried to say when I made my comment about new fighters being the best they could be, I was speaking in a practicality and reliability sense rather than a 'latest scientific breakthrough' sense.

ronii259; How did I prove your point? The F-117 didn't replace the F-16 because it is not capable of doing so, not because it was a secret.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Fair enough, I accept that you did not intend to come across as patronzing. In fact your post in reply to me shows that we were talking at cross purposes as I fully accept the points you made about research and prototyping, thats what I clumsily tried to say when I made my comment about new fighters being the best they could be, I was speaking in a practicality and reliability sense rather than a 'latest scientific breakthrough' sense.


Cool...cool. The last thing I ever want to do is offend anyone inadvertantly here. (Now if I intentionally insult, that's different, but so far everyone here has been a real cool cat to me).

Anyway... glad we got it sorted out...



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join