The title says it all. It seems to me that inn.qnx.com groups qdn*
handle anything comp.os.qnx does and handles it better by categorizing
postings. Perhaps comp.os.qnx should go to that great newserver in the
sky?
That may be so for you. Have you considered that all the qdn.*
newgroups are QSSL sponsored, but comp.os.qnx is not.
While I haven’t seen any attempt at censorship on these
groups, having an independent forum is a good thing.
Don’t you agree.
Previously, Dean Douthat wrote in comp.os.qnx:
The title says it all. It seems to me that inn.qnx.com groups qdn*
handle anything comp.os.qnx does and handles it better by categorizing
postings. Perhaps comp.os.qnx should go to that great newserver in the
sky?
–
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com
Wow Mitchell. And I thought I was paranoid! 
I don’t think I can recall an instance in nearly 20 years of QSSL doing
anything like that but, I suppose, there’s a first time for everything.
Mitchell Schoenbrun wrote:
That may be so for you. Have you considered that all the qdn.*
newgroups are QSSL sponsored, but comp.os.qnx is not.
While I haven’t seen any attempt at censorship on these
groups, having an independent forum is a good thing.
Don’t you agree.Previously, Dean Douthat wrote in comp.os.qnx:
The title says it all. It seems to me that inn.qnx.com groups qdn*
handle anything comp.os.qnx does and handles it better by categorizing
postings. Perhaps comp.os.qnx should go to that great newserver in the
sky?
\Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:
Wow Mitchell. And I thought I was paranoid! >
I don’t think I can recall an instance in nearly 20 years of QSSL doing
anything like that but, I suppose, there’s a first time for everything.
Of course, if we did the censorship right, you wouldn’t see it, would
you?
Actually comp.os.qnx has the advantage that it is a normally
distributed/propagated newsgroup – if, for some reason, our servers
for qdn went down or were unreachable, comp.os.qnx would still be
available.
-David
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
David Gibbs wrote:
Dean Douthat <> ddouthat@faac.com> > wrote:
Wow Mitchell. And I thought I was paranoid! >I don’t think I can recall an instance in nearly 20 years of QSSL doing
anything like that but, I suppose, there’s a first time for everything.Of course, if we did the censorship right, you wouldn’t see it, would
I think the poster might notice that a post was missing/altered.
you? >
Actually comp.os.qnx has the advantage that it is a normally
distributed/propagated newsgroup – if, for some reason, our servers
for qdn went down or were unreachable, comp.os.qnx would still be
available.-David
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:
David Gibbs wrote:
Of course, if we did the censorship right, you wouldn’t see it, wouldI think the poster might notice that a post was missing/altered.
And complain about it in the newsgroup, right? 
–
Wojtek Lerch (wojtek@qnx.com) QNX Software Systems Ltd.
Well, there are other ways: word of mouth, /. posting, email, picketing
QNXnnnn, etc. 
Wojtek Lerch wrote:
Dean Douthat <> ddouthat@faac.com> > wrote:
David Gibbs wrote:
Of course, if we did the censorship right, you wouldn’t see it, wouldI think the poster might notice that a post was missing/altered.
And complain about it in the newsgroup, right? >
–
Wojtek Lerch (> wojtek@qnx.com> ) QNX Software Systems Ltd.
Previously, Wojtek Lerch wrote in comp.os.qnx:
And complain about it in the newsgroup, right? >
My point exactly.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com