>>With a little more time, this is what I am referring to in my previous message: Message #352283 Thread #351963
>
>I knew posting that was a bad idea at the time, but I didn't know it would come back to haunt me years later....
>
>>See both John's online response and subsequent private emails sent by both parties in the discussion.
>
>Eh? Karl replied to that message, not John, and what "subsequent private emails" are these, pray tell?

Sorry for referring to the wrong message. I meant to link to the previous, in which case your reply would have been the reference to the subsequent and alleged private email content you received from John.

FWIW, I say alleged because obviously I have no way of verifying what was posted by either of you. Didn't mean this to ricochet on you though, sorry.