Originally Posted by
George K Lee
Ken...
It is a matter of public record that EADS offered the passenger version of the A330 and not the freighter.
The Wikipedia entry shows nothing of the sort. It shows no discontinuity between the EADS/NGC bid, based on the KC-30 MRTT, and the EADS solo bid. Proof or hold your peace.
Oh my. The EADS/NGC offer was for the passenger version of the A330. At that time there was no requirement for a freighter and further, the A330F did not yet exist and could not be offered. And as you yourself just stated, the final EADS solo bid was
the same as that earlier team bid.
Originally Posted by
George K Lee
Ken...
I don't have to prove anything, certainly not the negatives of your fantasies. Particularly nothing about a consultant setting up the deal, because that's not what I said.
Hmmmm. You "don't have to prove anything?" So sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander? Hmmmmm.
Now about that consultant. This is what you said in post #57:
Because we know where the guy who set up the KC-46 deal is sitting today, do we not?
And of course that consultant still cashes Boeing checks.
Sounds to me that "that consultant" who "still cashes Boeing checks" also "set up the KC-46 deal". Or are you talking about two different people here? If so who are the two different people because that is not at all clear.
As for your MO, recall your long and tedious ranting about how the JSF GenIV HMDS included eyeball-movement tracking, when the GenIV didn't actually exist
Back to that are we? I very clearly and emphatically admitted that I erred when I talked about eyeball-movement tracking because I had attributed features in the lab helmet that was demonstrated to me with features in the production helmet. Further, a SINGLE misstatement made nearly
three years ago does not remotely constitute an "MO." Nor does a misstatement of this kind remotely constitute a "deflection", which was your claim. So I call
total BS on your entire assertion.
And finally, you demanded "linked independent evidence." Your recollection of an exchange that happened nearly three years ago does not remotely constitute "linked independent evidence." So while demanding "linked independent evidence" from others, you exempt yourself from that requirement. So is this really a case of sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander or just plain old fashioned hypocrisy?
BTW, holding a grudge for going on three years is not healthy. You might want to consider that.