Paul, at 08:40 on Feb 23 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Incidentally, I think it rather incredible that Paul has had two modems 
BG> which supported V.32ter, 

PE> The Thunder I had V32terbo disabled for permanently, as it caused
PE> too many problems.  The USR I scrapped because it had too many
PE> problems for the hefty price of $165.

Your opinion.  Most others disagree though.

BG> as well as a caller who can use that protocol, yet 

PE> A caller who supports the non-standard protocol.  Whoopy doo.

As a sysop, you should be catering for as many users as possible.  Besides,
Dave has no trouble at all with his 4 or 5 V.32ter callers.  I notice that
you deleted my mentioning that V.FC is also a non-standard protocol.

BG> has opted to purchase a modem which doesn't support V.32ter at all.  Oh 
BG> well, no skin off my nose, but it's a pity about Frank being restricted to 
BG> 14k4 now...  :)

PE> Yeah, great shame.  Hey Frank, how much has that added to your
PE> phone bills?  Had any 2400 bps connects like you did with the
PE> USR?  Oh, do your phone calls still take around 1-2 minutes now
PE> that I have a Netcomm?  Tragedy isn't it?  BFN.  Paul.

No point insulting me because YOU fucked up and bought a NetComm, in spite
of numerous warnings suggesting that you should do otherwise.

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20