In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] t>, extdgl42 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>John et al, >Very interesting idea. I would like to get something in QLT saying some >of us are trying to summarize, then move forward on, 'Netting for the >QL, as near original as possible w/o super extensive upgrades. I >suspect the deadline for a soon-to-be issue of QLT is past and any such >will have to wait a couple months for the next issue. (No, I don't 100% >know what I'm doing/have done in volunteering to head up such an >idea--would I be doing this if I really _knew_ what I was getting >myself into?). > >This could be what amounts to a regular QLT "department", with >differing contributors from time to time. > >And I suspect there are numerous QLers out there who do not use their >QLs for much 'Netting and rely on post/snail mail for many things--such >as the printed QLT. Notification by paper might produce results amongst >lurking QLers that other efforts have not. > >Mm-hmm, I'm aware that large efforts have already been expended and >milestones have been reached--e.g. Johnathon Dent's SoQL and Phoebus' >three-part series of articles. However, I don't think anyone really >_knows_ we can't go further, and can't draw old devotees and draw >lurkers back to or closer to renewed QL involvement. Some folk at the >QL NA show were saying lack of modern abilities such as Internet or at >least email (which Johnathon's SoQL addresses) is one of the main >stumbling blocks to having some old-line QLers using their QL for much. > >Hmm, looks like John is thinking of Quanta and I'm thinking of QLT, but >ultimately that should not be a handicap. > >QL Forever, >Doug 37830 USA It will be interesting to read about how to get a fairly basic QL on to the internet. Good luck with your developments. -- Malcolm Cadman _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
