>      I never said that there were two or more versions of
 > OPUS 1.73a floating around.  Michele Marie Dalene posted
 > a message asking if this possibility existed.  I responded
 > to that message affirming the possibility, and did so because
 > I have experienced several things which lead me to believe
 > that the possibility of multiple versions is very strong.
 
Hello?
 
So what if you were not the first person to say anything about it? 
 You have repeated your *suspicions* over and over in the MEADOW.
 
Other people have suggested that you might have had other causes for the 
differences in behavior you allegedly observed.  You refused to consider any 
other cause by waving your hands and blowing smoke, claiming to have checked 
all those.
 
Other people have also suggested that if you wanted to find out the validity 
of your *suspicions*, there were several simple ways to go about it.  Once 
again, you insisted that your methodology was the right way to go about it, 
but you refused to reveal how you came up with the numbers you were 
presenting as "proof" that you were right.  And just to cover yourself, you 
make bogus claims that only the results from studying Net 129 are worth 
considering.
 
Read my lips, Bill.  We don't care.  Whatever axe you have to grind with Stu 
and Willie, whatever in-house crap goes down in Net 129, it is shameful for 
you to bring your local fight into MEADOW and slander Stu and Willie and the 
other folks in Net 129 which have been running Opus for years, by making 
veiled insults and suggestions of what you 
*suspect*.
Clearly you have no interest in finding out the truth; you'd rather sit and 
spew innuendo.
 
As for the rest of your remarks, I refuse to comment, except to say that I'm 
not surprised to find that kind of talk coming from a fellow who has been 
"intimately involved" with a non-compliant mailer.
 
--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
---------------