@Susan The OP has made a major edition of his question. Perhaps the question requires an adjustment of wording.

@PaulVargas Right, but David already answered that one.

@Susan Ah! OK. Duplicated?

(@Davïd perhaps "brief notes by way of a preliminary answer” is no longer applicable?)

@Susan That's fine. Then duplicate.

And now he changed it again. I can't keep up.

@Davïd If you happen to have time, be interested, and are feeling especially accommodating, one could imagine revising your summary statement in a way that would satisfy this OP. (FWIW, the "areas for future research" part flies over my head.)

I obviously am not going to re-open a duplicate question in order to prove that I know how to summarize other people's answers.

(If you decide to revise, suprise-->surprise. ;-) )

@Susan The limit is client side---Javascript on the page runs to "validate" the comment before you submit it if you are in a fully-functioning browser. It also makes sure they aren't too long, etc. If you disable Javascript in your browser then those checks won't run and you can force any comment through. Of course the server won't necessarily do anything with it. In this case is ignores all but the first ping and it would truncate comments that are too long.

Also the mobile website template doesn't have as much Javascript pre-validation stuff, and the mobile app's do it a little differently. There are thus several ways to get comments through with more @ signs in them, but not necessarily a way to ping multiple people.

Except there is. ① Write comment pinging one user: "Attention @bob." ② Save it and wait about ten seconds for the notification to go out. ③ Edit the comment inside the 5 min grace period to ping another user: "Attention @alice and bob." A new notification will go out for Alice and Bob's will not be withdrawn. ④ Eat cake.

@Susan I did a bit of tweaking that I think makes explicit what our dup-OP wants to know. See what you think. If you spot anything else needing fixed, please feel free to edit away. :)

@Caleb "... ④ Eat cake." Is "awesome sauce" an optional extra?

@Susan Hmm - odd. I'm at home now (was at work before) and those links are working fine. It's just a raw directory listing of files. What are you seeing?

Tov did do quite a bit of retroversions on LXX Jeremiah, but I doubt he did this on the scale of the whole HB. More likely to be glosses in the aligned LXX-MT texts/indices that CCAT produced. These are, I believe, the basis for the parallel texts in e.g. BibleWorks. Not sure about that though.

@Susan And thanks! :D

@Davïd Oops, sorry, it’s working now. Not sure what the problem was yesterday. I was on a a secure (whatever that means) network at the time and it may have been somehow blocked for that reason.

@Caleb Oooh, exciting. And I don’t need me no grace period. Lots of cake coming my way.

@Davïd I'm missing a bunch of pages there, so I went to see if I could buy the book on Amazon. $387!

@Davïd The reason I want to know if this (hypothesized Hebrew vorlage (? never used that word before) of (?) the LXX) exists is (not because I'd prefer to read the LXX in Hebrew! but) because I want to see statistics about the "likeness" of the text of the MT vs LXX for various books, and having a comparison with DSS would be even more interesting.

Presumably someone such as yourself has some idea of which parts of the LXX appear to be more or less different from the MT, but I want numbers. And DSS info. Which is at least theoretically possible if somebody has come up with such a "retroversion" (that's yours, I like it) of the entire LXX. And if somebody else knows how to write computer programs. Which I hear they do.

@Davïd Season with awesome sauce to taste.