That's just nonsense, through and through. If two Coke cans could make the point, a point to which you have acquiesced, then the question you ask below after like six continuing posts answers itself:
QED.
Oh noes!1! The front linear vent we aren't even discussing didn't extend quite far enough up the pylon, which has jack to do with the point about gross detail of a larger area! We're doomed!
The model is publicly available and you have demonstrated that you can deal with 3-D models in other posts. Prove that the pylon is screwed up if it matters so much to you, but recognize the irrelevance. It was more than accurate enough to illustrate the point I was making (in lieu of Coke cans), and what started as a foolish attempt to evade that reality is now just unintended comedy.
I'm sorry you're so upset, but that does not justify crap like this:
Again, you were merely trying to evade the facts, which I was too polite to directly state at the time. Now that you've lost the debate (for it was clearly a debate in your mind, given the continuing confrontationalism I'd been seeking to avoid), you're trying to recover some scrap of something in your mind via this nitpicky nonsense. It's the equivalent of speeding, being caught speeding, admitting to speeding, paying the fine, but coming up to the cop and having a tirade about how you were really sixteen miles per hour over the limit and not seventeen and his radar gun is invalid because it might be off by 1%.
Nobody cares, but it would be much wiser to stop antagonizing the officer. Sure, trolling a cop to try to get a reaction out of him or her in order to mine for a city lawsuit or firing is a thing, but nobody likes that guy.
Again, nonsense. I already pointed out that the pylon-to-nacelle angle does not match, which you ignored, and you basically ignore the greater fore-to-aft length issue here, too. I thought you said you were detail-oriented and that the Wiley model was unusable? Here you're suddenly willing to toss in whatever inaccuracies and don't care, even hoping to hide them in angled view, and even after I pointed that out already. That's just embarrassing self-contradiction.
Oh yes, it is clear that we most certainly would. The vent is a feature on the rear of the pylon, not the pylon itself. You know this.
But, the heel-digging gets worse:
Again... dude, just stop. You claimed the Constitution side was based on BTS info, and I replied "It's not just the behind-the-scenes argument. If we had a saucer and neck only, for example, we couldn't automatically claim Constitution because the Jupp exists." You replied to this with the utterly nonsensical "That sounds suspiciously like a behind-the-scenes argument.
"
So after I literally just noted not-BTS and gave an example, you're all 'BTS! LOL!'.
That's just a baffling response, especially with the emoticon following it up like something was achieved with great amusement. Such a troubling level of reading comprehension matches your claim of contradiction on my part, I'd say.
Anyway, I'm going to grant you the mercy of stopping here. You can keep trying to throw mud and shade as you like, but I am not interested in satisfying masochism.
Good day.
