🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53f3a5$e28@news.netonecom.net>, bbcat@netonecom.net says...
>
>In <53dhfn$qpc@tandem.CAM.ORG>, aulne@cam.org writes:
>>In <53c6n8$rpo@noc.van.hookup.net>, chatter@jumppoint.com (G.C.) ecri
>vait:
>>
>>>I have my doubts.  It seems that there is only a select few
>>>whose messages are allowed in the quebec newsgroups and as
>>>a result, many messages are not able to be accessed from 
>>>anywhere.  For example, "Re: The Quebec Letter: Galganov",
>>>cannot be accessed except through Dejanews.  When trying
>>>to get it through any of the newsgroups, the request returns
>>>with a "Bad article number".  So much for "freedom of speech".
>>
>>Totalement incroyable!   T-o-t-a-l-e-m-e-n-t.
>>
<Snip>
>
>Kind of amusing isn't it?
>I live in Michigan and can't subscribe to most Canadian, Quebec or 
>Acadian newsgroups and this is
>because of the local provider which hasn't put the groups back 
>since the last Usenet crash.
>I get a lot of the soc.culture groups (not the catalan group 
>unfortunately) and the Galvanov thing is the first I flag with 
>Ctrl-J so I don't see it the next time I load the NR/2 newsreader. 
>There are a lot of them. I guess I'll have to take a peek, I have 
>no idea what it's all about. The title
>didn't sound like an interesting topic to waste my time on.
>
>It is not a question of censorship by any mean just other 
>priorities from a provider who doesn't realize that there is 
>a demand for those groups. I'm sure that out in BC or Ontario 
>it is much for similar reasons if you can't get the newsgroups 
>you want.
>
Actually, it turns out that Hookup in Ontario, who had taken
over my provider out here, had decimated our previously great
newserver.  According to the latest notice from Hookup, this
is on its way to being corrected.  My sincere apologies for
wondering if monitoring was to blame.

G.C.