William Wilson wrote in a message to Bill Shaughnessy:
WW> Bill,
WW> You REALLY don't like being corrected, do you?
Willie:
        When the so-called correction is presented in the manner you used, I 
get extremely upset.  I also get extremely upset when someone presumes to 
know more about my own operating experience than I do.  And I get even more 
upset when someone who doesn't know what he is talking about presumes to 
lecture me on the cause of what he presumes my problems are.
WW> Rather than over quote and confuse the issue with lots of
WW> BS> (Pun Intentional!) let me respond in brief fashion.
WW> First of all, I pay absolutely no attention to what version
WW> of PCB anybody is running, and couldn't care less in fact
WW> whether any particular one is FTS0001 compatible or not. 
WW> Having received netmail from someone running a version of
WW> PCB, however, with instructions to forward it to you to
WW> demonstrate that it was FTS compatible, I naturally assumed
WW> the latest was indeed up to
WW> standards!
        This is an excellent example of you opening your mouth without 
knowing anything about the subject.  You don't know the first thing about 
what is going on with the FTS-0001/OPUS/PCB problem, nor does any other 
current OPUS sysop, with the possible exception of Don Breda.  Yet you tell 
me to quit whining about a problem which is affecting me. Willie, I've played 
a very key role in the resolution of that problem, but it is not, and has not 
been a problem to me since last December.  If you had wisely kept your mouth 
shut, I would not have raised the issue, because it really is extraneous to 
the original topic.
WW> Secondly, you keep telling me to prove that there are not 2
WW> versions of Opus 173A out there, but the evidence you have
WW> for there being two is so shakey I don't know what to tell
WW> you!
WW> Bill, because you connect to some and you don't to others is
WW> not the kind of evidence to support such a claim, things
WW> like CRC and the like much better sources, and if the CRC on
WW> my Opus isn't the same as most all the other Opuses out
WW> there, I'll eat a bug! 
        Willie, there are two of us making a claim that there are two 
versions of OPUS 1.73a out there.  We both, Michele Marie Dalene and I, have 
strong indications of this.  What indicators other than your ubiquitous 
phrase "Trust Me" can you present that Michele and I are wrong?
WW> Finally, and most important, Stu isn't running vanilla Opus
WW> anymore, he hasn't been for months, and if you're still
WW> conducting your tests that way, what can I say?  You
WW> questioned my reading ability in your message, but since I
WW> stated in my original message this was the case, and you
WW> even quoted those lines, here's coming back to you!
        I'm very well aware that Stu is no longer running OPUS.  I really 
didn't conduct any tests on Stu's board.  Frankly, Willie, I didn't have to.  
In the course of running my board on a day-to-day basis, I had an excellent 
understanding as to what Stu's board, in conjunction with mine, could or 
could not do.  As a matter of fact, before I made the actual switch to 
PCBoard, I did, with what I later found was a non-FidoNet compliant PCB 
mailer, somehow manage to connect twice or thrice daily to Stu's vanilla OPUS 
setup, and further, did so for a period of 2 1/2 months.
WW> Again, I have no idea whether the version of PCB you're
WW> talking about is FTS compatible or not, but a friend of
WW> yours sent me mail using his PCB mailer, and I sent it to
WW> you.  Beyond that, I'm willing to bet you can't find two
WW> different versions of
WW> Opus.EXE 173A in this net, you name the wager!
        Again, Willie, the fact that your board was used in a nationwide test 
of PCBoard's FTS-0001 compliance, has nothing whatsoever to do with Michele 
asking whether or not there might be two versions of OPUS 1.73a, and my 
response that I had encountered strong indications that such really was the 
case.  If you had stuck to that thread, and that thread only, and didn't try 
to snow people with your brilliance, we wouldn't be blasting at each other 
now.
        For your information, Willie, the question as to whether or not there 
might be two different versions of a software package carrying the same date 
and time stamp is not all that unusual.  That question is being addressed 
right now with regard to PCBoard Ver 15.22, only it is not a question of two 
versions, but are there possibly three.  You see, I already have two 
differing versions of the total package that do carry the same date and time 
stamp.  I mention this because the distribution of PCBoard is considerably 
more restricted than the distribution of OPUS>
                   Bill
--- timEd 1.01
---------------