No problems, but I just want to make a couple of things clear.
I am not "defending" the Airbus FBW and computer philosophy. All I have ever done is explain aspects of the design and implementation that I am aware of, and occasionally this has meant refuting statements that, while part of popular myth, are either incorrect or unproven.
(And, on several occasions when my memory has failed me or I've made a false assumption, accepting correction on the subject.)
The design may come in for criticism in some respects, but because engineering is and has always been the art of compromise this is as true for Airbus as it is for any manufacturer. The only way to design an "uncrashable" airliner would be to make it completely immobile, which would fulfil the "uncrashable" part of the spec, but leave it completely useless as a mode of transportation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's nothing wrong with the sidesticks or the control system designed around them when used properly. Some pilots are uncomfortable with the notion (I suspect that number is decreasing with time), but the truth is that all the sidestick design does is confront the reality that has been the case with every new airliner design since the '70s - which is that the flight controls are not connected to the surfaces and that artificial feel is not only just that - artificial - but also in itself a complex system which can be prone to failure. Be sure of what I'm saying here - I'm not saying the sidestick design is better or preferable to the yoke, I'm saying that there are positives and negatives to both approaches and that any preference is therefore both personal and subjective.