It was a followup to my assertion that one can't take a program license "GPLv2 or later" and modify and distribute it as "GPLv2 only" to downlevel recipients.
Ben and the lawyer's opinion is that one *can* do that as long as one keeps the original copyright notice intact, thereby leaving the original code to be under "GPLv2 or later" and one's modifications to be explicitly under GPLv2 (think the later was part of your reasoning, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Having read some other opinions on it I'm starting to gravitate to their side on that, but for some reason it doesn't "feel" right.
Then my eyes glazed over and I found I didn't really care that much :)