On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject. 2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.


2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.


We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.

We were talking about PCBs. Define "CPU" (we clearly weren't
talking about chips).

2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.


We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

When you admit that you leaped *way* beyond your knowledge.