Richard Town wrote in a message to David Bowerman:
 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
 RT> How telling it is that anytime someone actually has the temerity to
 RT> question USR's terrible record in interop, there's always a cabal
 RT> of groupies needing to try and dig something out of the dim distant
 RT> past as cover 
Richard, take a look at your messages.  Remember when you wrote these words 
of "wisdom"?
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Date : Wed Jan 14, 09:17     From : Richard Town
To   : Wes Newell            Subj : Negociations (SP)
RT> The point is that USR was late into the V32bis arena, preferring
RT> to try and force their proprietary HST at 14k4 instead.  They tried 
RT> it on with V.FC, but that was a V42bis glitch if memory serves, 
RT> after being late there too preferring to hold on to their 
RT> proprietary 21k6 and then go to V34 directly.
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Was that not Richard Town blathering on about USR being late into the v.32bis 
arena?  As for V.FC, name any other manufacturer other than USR and the 
Rockwell chipset stuffers who produced modems that supported V.FC.  Now name 
the company that originated v.32terbo.
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
RT> go to fax Class2.0 before ratification and not offer Class2,
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Hmmm... you still haven't presented any evidence that USR implemented Class 
2.0 fax in any of their products prior to the adoption of TIA/EIA-592.  Can 
you present any such evidence?
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Date : Tue Jan 20, 09:39     From : Richard Town
To   : Craig Ford            Subj : Negociations (SP)
 -=> Quoting Craig Ford to Richard Town <=-
 RT> The point is that USR was late into the V32bis arena, preferring to
 RT> try and force their proprietary HST at 14k4 instead.
 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?
RT> So, modems that follow the ratified V32bis work amongst themselves
RT> but have a difficulty with those that followed their own 
RT> pre-ratification methods.  No dreaming necessary for working that 
RT> one out.
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Once again, show us the differences between the final draft of v.32bis that 
came out of SG1 and the version that was adopted by the UN General Assembly.  
Though I must admire your ability to change directions in mid-spin doctoring. 
From complaining that USR was late to the market with v.32bis and attempted 
to force HST down people's throats, you switch to criticizing them as using 
their own pre-ratification methods.  Neither comment haven't any relation to 
any reality outside of Richard Town's paranoid fantasies.
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
RT> Try sticking to the subject in hand, before slithering off into
RT> pastures already well trodden.  FYI Extended V42 requests should 
RT> _not_ have been switched on as default.  That was corrected with 
RT> the next ROM update ver1.309.  USR has never supported Miracom 
RT> protocols beyond 4 for error correction simply because of being too 
RT> mean!  And since MNP10/ACE kicked HST_CELLULAR out of sight, they 
RT> dropped cellular support altogether rather than provide at least 
RT> something.  Huh?
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
Given the both the ZyXEL cellular and AT&T cellular protocols were shown to 
be superior to either MNP10/ACE or HST Cellular, why has Rockwell not gone 
with those protocols instead of forcing their users to use a lesser protocol?
As for being too mean to support Microcom protocols past MNP 4, can you let 
us know the difference between the licensing fees for MNP 1 through 5 
compared to MNP 6 through 10?  Perhaps the results of any market studies that 
show any demand for such protocols that would justify the R&D expense?
-----------------------8<-cut-here--------------------------------------
 RT> No I did not.  Please don't place words into my mouth, as I don't
 RT> know where they've been.  All I said was that there was interop
 RT> problems with USR's original V32bis, and that they were late into
 RT> the V32bis arena.  You and others have responded with a stout
 RT> defence of v.32bis claiming that there were no changes to it at all
 RT> between its introduction in USR product and up
Such stoutly defended ignorance.  However, just to be fair, conider this as 
another chance to post a list of the differences between the final draft of 
v.32bis that came out of SG1 and the version that was adopted by the UN 
General Assembly.
 RT> Warbling on about what Rockwell did or did not do has no relevance.
 RT> Then why bang on about them.  Smoke?  Surely not :)
You are the one who babbles on as if Rockwell never stumbled and any problems 
with interop between USR and Rockwell modems *MUST* to be the fault of USR -- 
and likely the result of deliberate action.  You seem to want us to believe 
that Microcom had now replaced the ITU-T, that any and all additions to 
Rockwell's protocol suite should be immediately supported by USR regardless 
of a lack of market demand or standardization by an ITU-T recommendation.
You are shown evidence on several occasions that Rockwell screwed up in their 
v.34 handshaking and yet you continue to blame USR for Rockwell's screwup. 
Perhaps if Rockwell had done proper interop testing prior to releasing their 
firmware, we wouldn't have to listen to your bad-mouthing of USR in a vain 
(IMHO) attempt to whitewash Rockwell's failings.
Neither company is perfect but neither is totally imperfect despite your 
risible attempts to depict the "Evil Empire" as being centred in Skokie.
Regards,
       David
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------