Subject: [removed] Digest V2001 #367
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 11/14/2001 4:52 PM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

    ------------------------------

                                The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                                  Volume 2001 : Issue 367
                             A Part of the [removed]!
                                     ISSN: 1533-9289

                                     Today's Topics:

      Re: Setting The Record Straight       [ Hugh DiIorio <daudio@[removed] ]
      Cheerios/Lone Ranger Lunch Box        [ lynn wagar <philcolynn@[removed]; ]
      Replies to Recent Postings            [ "General Manager" <genmanager@radio ]
      Great Gildersleeve                    [ "John Davis" <wolfpackfan@[removed] ]
      Re:Re Lone Ranger Cheerios pack       [ "Garry D. Lewis" <glewis@[removed] ]
      uncaoted aluminum                     [ "Joe Salerno" <sergei01@[removed] ]
      OTR's future is about Quality         [ Bryan Wright <bswrig@[removed]; ]
      Re: The Evil Hoarders" - What Would   [ OTRChris@[removed] ]
      Would you like a bicycle that says "  [ neil crowley <og@[removed]; ]
      Setting the Record Straight           [ "[removed]" <swells@[removed]; ]
      The Evil Hoarders                     [ "George Tirebiter" <tirebiter2@hotm ]
      Playing Catch-Up and War Bonds        [ Grbmd@[removed] ]

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:16:16 -0500
    From: Hugh DiIorio <daudio@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: Re: Setting The Record Straight

    Greetings:

    I wanted to chime in with a couple of thoughts about this thread. TV is how
    we get dramatic entertainment into our homes early in the 21st century. The
    few thousand OTR fans can promote dramatic radio until the _next_
    millennium and/or they turn blue. The reality is that OSR radio will never
    be a viable mass medium again. I love it. You love it. Let's preserve it.
    Let's discuss it. Let's learn about it. But let's never fool ourselves that
    non-fans will ever care. Yeah, we all have a story about how we got Gus
    from next door to listen to the Shadow. But I bet he went back to his TV
    set for the most part. OTR's a hobby, a niche. There's no shame in loving
    it. There's no shame in loving model trains either, but who cares except
    other hobbyists?

    Another thought: I've heard a lot of contemporaneous American radio drama.
    The acting is uniformly terrible. Radio acting seems to be like those 17th
    century violin varnishes we can no longer formulate. The art is lost. There
    is a modern acting style that informs most movies and TV shows I've seen.
    It's mostly low key, naturalistic, probably heavily influenced by the
    Method. I've never heard anyone successfully translate this style to modern
    radio drama. I've even heard a few radio dramas with major stars whose work
    I knew from movies and TV. Even they missed the boat. Actors in modern
    radio drams sound like they're reading. Does modern radio drama leave
    anyone else cold?

    Regards,

    Hugh DiIorio

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:16:27 -0500
    From: lynn wagar <philcolynn@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: Cheerios/Lone Ranger Lunch Box

    Hello Everyone,

         With regards to the Cheerios offer.  I live in
    Minnesota and it is not being offered to any of the
    stores in minnesota.  I would love to have a Mini
    Lunch
    Box!   Would anyone be interested in helping me get
    one?  I would be willing to cover all cost plus some
    thing for your time and efforts.  If you are please
    contact me at my e-mail address philcolynn@[removed].
    Thank you for your considerations!!!!!!!

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:00:52 -0500
    From: "General Manager" <genmanager@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: Replies to Recent Postings

    Fred Berney writes:

>     Back in the last 1950's, I bought some paper, actually more like

    cardboard,

>     disks to use at a carnival. We offered "cut your own record" for something
>     like 50 cents.

    I've come across a great many of these over the years - including some
    WWII-vintage disks that were made exclusively for use by soliders, who would
    be given the opportunity to record a message to their loved ones and send it
    to them without charge. As might be imagined, the quality is not great but
    they did serve a nice purpose.

    Manufacturers continued to produce cardboard-based recording blanks into the
    early 1950's, but they were always intended for use by those with home disk
    recorders. They were obviously the cheapest grade of recording blank, though
    many of the aluminum-based lacquer disks intended for the same market
    weren't much better - the aluminum was thinner than that used for
    professional blanks and, from examples I've seen, I believe the coating may
    have been lower grade as well.

>     I had another uncle that had some connection to Bing Crosby. Or maybe it
>     was to Decca. He once played a recording for me of Bing Crosby singing a
>     song that he had forgotten the lyrics and use a couple of swear words in
>     place of the real ones.

    These Crosby out-takes were meticulously kept by Decca and, though never
    intended for general distribution, a great many of them did end up in the
    hands of collectors and record dealers in the form of bootlegs. A friend of
    mine recently shared with me a CD containing quite a few of them and many of
    them are really very funny. (There is, in fact, a lengthy extant recording
    of a in-studio discussion between Crosby, Jimmy Dorsey, and Crosby's
    producer over the merits of a particular song. This conversation is
    transcribed at length in Gary Giddin's recent biography of Crosby's early
    career "Bing Crosby: A Pocketful of Dreams--The Early Years 1903-1940.")

    * * *
    Scott Eberbach writes:

>     I have never really understood why a collector would *donate* a large

    number

>     of discs to a library and then place all sorts of legal restrictions on

    the

>     use and availability of said discs!  Sort of defeats the purpose of a
>     lending institution in my opinion.  It would make a lot more sense to

    donate

>     the discs to institutions such as SPERDVAC or The Radio Archives for
>     preservation of a special part of [removed] least they could be cared

    for

>     properly.  Perhaps someone could explain the logic behind all these legal
>     restrictions.

    There are a number of good reasons why donated recordings come with
    restrictions, the main one being that the donator doesn't always have any
    legal right to the material he or she is donating.

    A good example of this is the NBC collection at the Library of Congress.
    Though recorded by or for NBC, the network didn't actually have any right to
    *use* the majority of the recordings for any commercial purposes. NBC had
    indeed broadcast the shows, but it was essentially a technical facility paid
    to broadcast the programs by the advertisting agencies that produced and
    owned them. Thus, though NBC donated the disks, it was agencies like BBD&O
    that owned the rights. It was in the best interests of NBC to restrict
    access to the collection, of course, since it didn't wish to be sued by any
    of the actual owners of the broadcasts themselves if the programs were made
    available in any commercial manner.

    Another more common example is programming donated by radio performers
    themselves, who had the recordings made by private recording studios for
    their own personal use but never had any rights to them. It is my
    understanding that, during the early years of the Reagan administration,
    there were changes made in the tax laws that allowed individuals to donate
    their "papers" to educational institutions and libraries in exchange for a
    substantial tax deducation. (Perhaps someone on the list can offer a more
    detailed history of this.) In any case, quite a number of performers donated
    their collections of disks, scripts, letters, and such to non-profit
    organizations. However, since very few if any performers were their own
    producers, the majority of this material could not be made available in any
    commercial way because the donators held no rights to it.

    To make this situation clear, let's say that you are an actor on a popular
    soap opera produced by Proctor and Gamble. You don't "own" any part of the
    program, you're simply an actor hired to perform a role. Over the years,
    you've video taped every episode of the series in which you appeared and
    kept them, along with your copies of the scripts, in your own personal
    library. One day, you decide to retire and you want to donate these tapes
    and scripts to your alma mater in exchange for a tax deduction. They agree
    to accept the donation, but your lawyer insists that you stipulate in your
    donation that you have no legal rights to the materials you're donating.
    This way, in case a researcher decides to abscond with some early episodes
    and market them, you won't be held liable in case P&G decides to press
    charges.

    In this scenario, the college *has* the material and, because it has it, can
    probably make it available for legitimate research purposes without any
    legal problems. However, should a researcher wish to quote from the scripts
    or use clips from the tapes, he or she would have to contact P&G to get
    permission to do so, since they own the actual rights to the material in the
    collection - even though they didn't donate it.

    SPERDVAC has, indeed, been priviledged to receive the donation of materials
    from a variety of radio performers - notably people like Dick Mack, producer
    for people like Rudy Vallee and Martin & Lewis; Olan Soule', who donated
    many of his early performances; and Win Horton, who donated Kraft Music Hall
    shows recorded for his uncle Edward Everett Horton. Once again, though, the
    people who donated these broadcasts didn't hold any legal rights to
    them -which is why SPERDVAC has "no trading" lending restrictions on their
    tape and CD libraries as legal protection.

    Another problem with collections donated to institutions is the cost
    associated with maintaining them. When a person decides to donate their
    collection, many institutions will either stipulate that the donation must
    come with some funding to maintain it or, if the donation has publicity
    value, use the donation to spearhead a fund-raising campaign for maintenance
    of this and other collections. Since radio's hey-day ended over 40 years
    ago, there is often little wide-spread public interest in radio-related
    collections - at least in comparison with television or film-related
    collections. This, to a certain extent, is why UCLA has chosen to devote
    themselves more to the preservation of television and film materials and
    give little attention to their extensive radio holdings. An historic movie
    or TV show can easily have a second profitable commercial life on cable,
    video, or DVD, which means that film studios and television production
    companies have a vested interest in working with UCLA to preserve and
    restore materials from their collections. And, since UCLA gains prestige and
    funding from having their facility associated with these projects, they
    welcome them. Meanwhile, because the majority of radio programs are not
    perceived to have any real commercial value, their radio collection -
    hundreds of boxes of disks and reels, on shelves in storage - lies dormant.

    It has been argued that publicly-funded institutions like the LOC should be
    forced to make their collections more widely available, given that our tax
    dollars are being used to support the preservation of materials that we
    can't gain access to. But the reality is that, even if the LOC spent the
    hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to transfer all of their disks to
    CD and make them available for listening, OTR collectors and enthusiasts
    would still not be able to copy them and trade them around because the LOC
    simply doesn't have the legal right to allow this to happen, any more than
    it could allow someone to photocopy one of their books and sell the copies.

    There have been indications, however, that some material can make its way
    out of institutions and into the hands of enthusiasts - albeit on a very
    limited basis. The "One Man's Family Family," a small non-profit group of
    fans, recently worked with the Carleton E. Morse estate and the Library of
    Congress to pursue the possibility that a previously-uncirculated run of the
    series could be made available to members of the group. Mike Sprague, who
    heads the group and is also well known for his association with the Radio
    Enthusiasts of Puget Sound, raised the funds necessary to get copies of the
    programs from the LOC and also obtained permission from NBC to let the LOC
    release them for non-commercial purposes. However, at this writing, I
    believe that the attorney for the Morse estate has not yet granted
    permission for the series episodes to be distributed to the group. (Details
    of this are available at  [removed])
    Nevertheless, should this transaction prove to be successful, it may set a
    precedence for other groups to make the same arrangements - at least, let's
    hope so!

    * * *
    Shawn Wells, in regard to my posting regarding "hoarders" of radio material,
    writes:

>     Unfortunately, this is the "nature of the beast." There are some that
>     actually believe that the Lib. Of Congress is the ultimate home of OTR,

    but

>     rest assured, that this is not the case. As a matter of fact, there are
>     shows that exist that people don't speak of, trade, or otherwise

    acknowledge

>     their existence. There are "one or two shows"  in private hands and in
>     "private collections" that will more than likely not surface.

    I have no doubt that this is indeed so - and probably for a very good
    reason, too. Transfer technicians who are skilled in the transfer of
    recorded material are often entrusted with rare broadcast materials on a
    contractual basis. Many of them, for safely reasons, *will*, with the
    permission of the contractor, keep copies of their transfers but will never
    make them available to anyone but the person who contracted for the work.
    This is a professional and responsible way to conduct business. Likewise,
    collectors - particularly those who are engaged in historic research - will
    sometimes also come into possession of a rare broadcast with the stipulation
    that they not share it with others.

    None of these people can be defined as "hoarders;" they're simply people who
    stick to their word.

    Over the years some collectors, in friendship, have personally offered me
    copies of programs that were not in circulation with the understanding that
    I could not share them with others. I've thanked them for their trust in me,
    but have refused most of them - basically because I didn't want to take the
    chance that I would inadvertantly forget a restriction and share a show with
    someone else by accident!

    Harlan

    Harlan Zinck
    First Generation Radio Archives
    [removed]

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:14:12 -0500
    From: "John Davis" <wolfpackfan@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: Great Gildersleeve

    My favorite OTR comedy is the Great Gildersleeve. I have been listening to
    the entire series from the beginning and noticed something interesting. If
    this has been discussed before, please forgive me. The role of Marjorie
    seems to change somewhat in the series beginning with August 1943. This is
    right after Gildy is left standing at the alter when Leila's husband
    Beuraguard comes back from the dead. Before this Marjorie seemed alot more
    mature than she does after August 1943. Before she seemed pretty much the
    lady of the house and you expected her to get married to Ben at anytime
    until he joins the service. But then in August 1943, she seems alot more
    like a whiney teenager, with typical teenage problems. She and Leroy also
    seem to have alot more arguments back and forth. Was a definite plot change
    made at this point? If so, I wonder why the writers made the change? I know
    this probably doesn't seem that important to most folks, but I thought it
    was kind of interesting.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:36:42 -0500
    From: "Garry D. Lewis" <glewis@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: Re:Re Lone Ranger Cheerios pack

    Is this what you're talking about?

    [removed]~[removed]

    		yours hi-yo away,

    				Garry D. Lewis
    --
    Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:20:49 -0500
    From: "Joe Salerno" <sergei01@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: uncaoted aluminum

    Ms. Elizabeth writes:

>     They don't break like
>     glass, they don't warp or chip like shellac, they don't chemically
>     decompose like lacquer

    While I have not handled many uncoated aluminum transcriptions, I must
    disagree here just a bit. I have transferred some uncoated aluminum that was
    warped, and in one severe case had been subjected to stress that caused a
    bend in the surface of the record. It looked like it had been dropped on its
    edge and had a heavy object dropped on it as well. Whatever force could
    cause multiple deformities in an aluminum record like this would surely have
    demolished a shellac record, probably even broken a vinyl one, so her basic
    premise that aluminum is more prone to survival is correct. If only they
    were a little [removed]

    Joe Salerno

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:48:13 -0500
    From: Bryan Wright <bswrig@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: OTR's future is about Quality

    Hi, all!

    I appreciated reading Harlan Zinck's letter about MP3's. I completely agree.
    As one of the younger members on this group, one of the complaints I hear so
    much from friends I have tried to interest in OTR is "it sounds so bad--I
    can hardly understand what's being said." Having grown up a bit removed from
    my generation (with record players, 78's, OTR, etc.), I've developed a
    tolerance for the poor quality that is often associated with vintage
    recordings. My favorite music comes straight out of the 1920's, '30's, and
    '40's, and I much prefer a stack of OTR tapes over virtually _any_
    television program. When I tell this to friends, they often laugh and think
    I'm a little strange.

    I've tried countless times to interest my friends and parents in OTR, but am
    always met with the same, "oh, not another one of those scratchy, hissy,
    muffled old things." This _could_ have been an excuse in the late sixties
    and seventies when OTR was copied repeatedly on analogue reel to reel tape
    on home equipment, but the digital age has provided a means of taking a step
    back, examining the situation of the hobby, and moving ahead in a slightly
    different direction. With quality digital recording equipment so readily
    available (most people with a decent computer and a quality sound card can
    make good digital recordings), there's no reason many of the circulating
    shows couldn't improve in quality as those with access to low generation
    material make new digital transfers.

    I realize that for most of us here, enjoyment's the thing--even if it means
    straining a little harder to understand the dialogue in an OTR show.
    Unfortunately, many of the younger crowd aren't so forgiving of poor quality
    recordings. With CD's in nearly every boom box or mini-system, high quality
    digital television and satellite receivers everywhere, why would someone
    give those up to listen to a muffled, distorted tape or MP3? Personally, I
    tire very quickly of the violence, obscene language, and overall "hyped-up
    speed" of today's entertainment industry, and enjoy the relaxed pace, clean
    humor, and imaginative dramas in old radio, movies, and music, and try and
    look past the sound or picture defects, but I'm one of a very few these
    days.

    Just last night, I tried to introduce a friend to OTR through an episode of
    Sherlock Holmes (we've been discussing Stephen Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd"
    play a lot recently and listening to the soundtrack). He was eager to hear
    the Sherlock Holmes episode of "The Demon Barber," once I told him about it.
    Since I didn't have it, I reluctantly downloaded a copy from an ftp site and
    we started listening. After just a few minutes, I could see he was no longer
    interested, and I myself was having a difficult time understanding Watson
    and Holmes as they set the scene--all thanks to a poorly encoded MP3. He
    just didn't want to spend his time trying to decipher the English words from
    a bunch of horrible digital distortion and hiss (both products of transfers,
    dubs, and MP3 encoding--NOT the original transcription!)

    I try and keep an open mind and try as many shows as possible, and while
    great quality is an added bonus, if a rare episode exists only in poor
    quality, then it may just mean I'll have to put on headphones and
    concentrate very hard.

    I highly commend the First Generation Radio Archives for all their work to
    preserve as many OTR shows in the best quality possible. Such efforts may be
    the only way we can hope to pass along interest in OTR to younger
    generations. As a member, I've participated in some of their round robins
    and have borrowed from their libraries. I am just amazed at the quality of
    the shows and the dedication of the people involved in the Archives.

    While the lifetime of CD-R's is not yet known with certainty, it seems that
    those may be the way to go (although it would be good to keep a high quality
    reel copy of low-gen material just in [removed]). With blank CD's as cheap as
    they are, it's now cheaper to store shows even as regular audio CD's with
    just 2-3 shows per disc than even on decent cassette tapes. But if you have
    to go MP3, wouldn't it be better to adopt a higher encoding rate than
    32kbps? Encoding at low rates and further degrading the quality of OTR is
    "shooting this hobby in the foot," especially when we have the opportunity
    to share excellent quality OTR for a still relatively small price. The best
    way to save and promote this hobby is to try and keep the sound quality up,
    by supporting groups like the First Generation Radio Archives and SPERDVAC's
    Archives libraries. I've had the opportunity to listen to OTR directly off a
    transcription disc, and it is amazing how good it can sound. The digital age
    lets us preserve this "right off the transcription disc" sound and share it
    without any loss in quality. Let's not abuse that by pinching our pennies
    and squeezing as many shows as possible onto one 25-cent CD-R.

    Bryan Wright

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:48:44 -0500
    From: OTRChris@[removed]
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: Re: The Evil Hoarders" - What Would You Do?

    In  regard to the ILAM wherein an investment of 8,[removed] dollars was made and
    an owner would not want the recordings produced  enmasse thus making his
    investment worthless.
    This is a valid concern . That is why you would offer to make it available to
    a buyers network .
    In otherwards you offer to make it available for $[removed] as long as 200 people
    are interested in purchasing. You will return the money if the buyers list
    does not reach
    200.  If it does you have easily made back your investment and still own the
    original discs and people
    can enjoy these shows.  If people want them bad enough
    they will make the investment.

    -Chris

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:49:10 -0500
    From: neil crowley <og@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: Would you like a bicycle that says "Mama"?

>     From: "Rodney w bowcock jr." <rodney-selfhelpbikeco@[removed];
>     Ever since I started seriously collecting OTR shows, I've heard wonderful
>     things about Vic & Sade.
>     Is the Radio Spirits set worth spending $35 for?

    The answer is Yes. Or No.

    First, Radio Spirits is not your only choice. Go to:
       [removed]
    and follow the links.

    For those who love Vic & Sade it's never a question of cost. But there are
    peculiar people in the world who think drying paint is more entertaining.
    Some also prefer vanilla ice cream even though chocolate is best. You're
    stuck. Until you try V&S you won't know if you're vanilla or chocolate. And
    V&S is one of those shows that seems to define polar opposites.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:50:00 -0500
    From: "[removed]" <swells@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject: Setting the Record Straight

        Jim Widner stated:

>     I should go on record that I am not advocating
>     copyrights for old time
>     radio Ala Radio Spirits, but do respect legitimate licenses to market.

        Funny you should mention this, I was just recently informed by a
    gentleman that works for a  company that investigates the intellectual
    property rights and guards that of their clients, has been investigating
    this matter as it refers to trademarks. , and the claims of RS and Carl.
    Apparently, this gentleman has been investigating RS claims of ownership of
    various material and found it to be "far less than the truth." He stated to
    me that he has contacted the legal trademark holders of some specific titles
    and informed them of his investigation and findings. He went on to say that
    those companies had never heard of Carl or RS and were "not pleased to
    discover that their property was being used.  I am not going to go into more
    details, but from what I gather it should be rather public soon.
    Shawn

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:54:46 -0500
    From: "George Tirebiter" <tirebiter2@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: The Evil Hoarders

    Hello All:

    [removed] Wells wrote:

>     Can you tell someone of your find, because if you do and word
>     gets out people will bombard you for copies. Do you sell, trade, or donate
>     them to a "non-profit organization?" There's no doubt once they leave your
>     hands that they will be completely pilfered throughout the world, either on
>     reel, cassette, CD, CD/MP3, or etched with a nail on a old soggy piece of
>     bark.  thus leaving you with a considerably less valuable set of
>     transcriptions, and $8,000 poorer.

    I think the thing to do would be to gradually use the programs to trade with
    others for other programs I want.  I'd probably be rather closemouthed about
    where they had come from.  Then when I had exhausted the trading value of
    the programs and they were appearing in dealers catalogs I'd donate the
    disks to an appropriate organization.

    By the way, I don't have any equipment to play transcription disks and I
    doubt I'll ever have $8,000 to spend at one go on OTR so my response is
    extremely hypothetical.

    George

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:33:55 -0500
    From: Grbmd@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject: Playing Catch-Up and War Bonds

    I had been out of town for several weeks, and in playing catch-up (mail,
    newspapers, bills, etc.) I've not been able to review my missed Digest
    postings until today.

    (I might say that, in reviewing the past postings, I've become doubly
    appreciative of the expertise in and love of OTR among the many members of
    the Digest.  I wish I had been able to keep up in real time.  You all help
    make an OTR veteran's life worthwhile.)

    If I remember correctly after reviewing a week or two, one Digest member was
    soliciting information or memorabilia about War Bonds during the World War II
    years.  My original intention was to go through *all* my accumulated postings
    before responding, just in case someone else had already posted my idea.
    But, I give up.  I surrender.  I can't wait any longer.  Here is my response.
     With still a couple of weeks of postings to review, I apologize if I'm
    repeating anyone else's response.

    I think the requester was asking for any info on War Bonds and the bonds
    drive during the war.  Well, I don't have any strictly audio recordings, but
    I did come across and bought a VHS video titled "WWII:  The Music Video."
    Its secondary title is "The Songs We Sang; The Stars We Loved."

    Among the 20 selections on this 60-minute video is the animated cartoon shown
    in movie theatres of the day titled "Any Bonds Today" (number 5 on the list).
     It features Bugs Bunny (voice of Mel Blanc) with Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd.
    For those of us old enough to have lived through the war, it's a kick to
    watch and hear it again.

    Incidentally, other tracks on the tape feature Peggy Lee ("Why Don't You Do
    Right"), the Andrews Sisters ("Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy"), and Lanny Ross ("I
    Left My Heart at the Stage Door Canteen").

    Spence

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V2001 Issue #367
    *********************************************

    Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
      including republication in any form.

    If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
       [removed]

    For Help: [removed]@[removed]
    To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]

    For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
      in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]

    To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]

    To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]