| QS_User#7284637486 2006-10-19, 1:12 pm |
| In article <1g97j2trsb26b0v3omr2kafus93e2ucusm@4ax.com>
panPiotrGlownia <panPiotrGlownia@swip.net> wrote:
>
> On 16 Oct 2006 01:25:59 -0000, Crusader Rabbit <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Definitely NOT.
>
> Some of us use QS, and have not been able to post using QS for
> more than a week.
That's funny, I use QS and I almost never have a problem posting.
But then again, I always make certain to have current keyrings and stats
before I post too. I also use gatepick, which I also make certain has the
latest data.
It doesn't take much for QS postings to work 100% of the time.... only a
few brain cells on at least a passing aquaintance.
> Since we do not really want to pay for a remailer service, we use QS,
> when it is working.
>
>
> Same here.
See above, there is no reason for QS postings to have less than 99% success.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|