Richard Town wrote in a message to Craig Ford:
 CF> Forval, Digicom, USR were the first vendors to have V.32bis modems 
 CF> on the market, and they did so _before_ the recommendation was 
 CF> officially ratified. Where do you dream this stuff up at?
 CF> Unadulterated bovine fecal matter! Please detail _any_ change that
 CF> occured to V.32bis between the time it was voted out of SG1 and the
 CF> time it was adopted by the general assembly.
 RT> Why?  V32bis is now settled.  Which is at least some saving grace
 RT> for those trying to call UK x2-upgraded Couriers when V34 can't be
 RT> negotiated 
You claimed that there were problems with USR's implementation of v.32bis 
based on the use of the final draft prior to the General Assembly 
ratification.  Please document the changes in the final draft between it's 
leaving SG1 and being ratified.  The changes which would be required for your 
claim to have any validity.
Of course, this does rather contradict your earlier claim that USR was late 
to the market with v.32bis units.  What the heck, consistency is a bugaboo of 
small minds.
 CF> Your claim was:
 CF> "...refuse to recognise extended V42 commands..."
 CF> Where do you see a change of subject? It is direct rebuttal of your
 CF> claim.
 RT> My claim is that USR deliberately and by design attempts to limit
 RT> full capablities to others only of its own marque
So you are saying that USR should implement every proprietary extension in 
the hopes of preventing connectivity problems caused by another company's 
failure to correctly implement standards?
Regards,
       David
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------