dakretz said:
>   Great news! Let's test this thesis.
>   ...
>   etext # 200, dated "1995-01-01".
>   ...
>   Can anyone from DP tell me how to get the scans?

ok, two things...

first, it looks like i was wrong when i said
that d.p. had stopped maintaining the "ols",
so of course my "reason" for their having
stopped maintaining it was also incorrect.
(or one could say it's _no_longer_ correct,
but i do believe it was correct at one time.)

at any rate:
>   http://www.pgdp.org/ols

it claims 16,809 "unique books".

whether that means 16,809 scansets, i do not know.
but the scans for pg#31946 are right there, online...

second, the scan-sets from the very earliest books
were said to be "inconvenient to get to right now"
at one point in time.  whether they were located or
lost to the wind, i don't know.  but that _could've_
included pg#200.  the lowest p.g. numbers which
are shown as being included in "ols" presently are
pg#460 and pg#464, and four without any number.

but are you sure that d.p. actually digitized pg#200?

-bowerbird