I like to think I've earned enough karma on this board over the years to get away with a tongue-in-cheek facetious comment. Whether people want to think of me as smart or otherwise doesn't really concern me. As I've said many times, I'm not a pilot (I did a few years of AEF and AEG in the Air Training Corps before I got long hair, rock music and pacifism) - though I do have a passion for aviation and engineering that's been with me since childhood. I consider it an honour and a privilege to be allowed to communicate with you guys and learn facts about the things I love from the people who design, fly and maintain the aircraft that make it possible. That said, I'm not inclined to tug my forelock unthinkingly, and I will speak my mind if I don't think it will derail the conversation.
I was sad to see an honest question about the relative merits of Airbus and Boeing aircraft in day-to-day line flying (which flying environment do you prefer?) degenerate into the same old mudslinging that I've seen so many times on here over the last decade or so that it's almost painful to read.
And it always seems to end up with the same ill-informed things being said - variations on "I want to feel like a pilot, not a g*d-d*mned computer operator", or "Since when have the French ever made good aircraft?". Then someone will bring up Habsheim and regurgitate the old press inaccuracies about that incident, sometimes more recently we get the "weak composite tail lugs" rubbish - and the general feeling from the anti-Airbus side is a long-held seething resentment at the (false) idea that the design is intended to degrade the skills involved in line flying and ultimately lead to pilotless aircraft.
Those friendly to Airbus and their products aren't entirely blameless in this, but generally they seem to spend a lot of time patiently explaining the misconceptions in the face of people for whom it has become an almost religious argument. For once, I felt like expressing my frustration in a light-hearted, but open manner.