Subject: [removed] Digest V01 #169
From: <[removed]@[removed]>
Date: 6/4/2001 5:34 PM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

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

                          The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                             Volume 01 : Issue 169
                       A Part of the [removed]!
                               ISSN: 1533-9289

                               Today's Topics:

     Re: "Inventors" of Radio             [Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed]]
     Copyrights, Radio Spirits & Carl Ama [Mike Ray <MRay@[removed];    ]
     Awash with awe                       ["Jimidene Murphey" <jimimark@[removed]]
     Matt Crowley movie appearances.      ["jstokes" <jstokes@[removed];    ]
     Trains                               [Len Kistner <lkistner@[removed]; ]
     PROCTOR ARTICLES ON 1980'S ( c ) LIT ["Owens Pomeroy" <opomeroy@[removed]; ]
     Altitude                             [Harry Bartell <bartell@[removed]]
     It's Deja Vu all over again.         [Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];       ]
     the dilemma for dealers              ["J. Alec West" <Alec@[removed];]
     Recording for the Blind              ["Lois Culver" <lois@[removed];  ]
     Re: Copyright, Napster and RSI. (whe [Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];       ]
     Fluffs                               ["Lois Culver" <lois@[removed];  ]
     Re: Radio for children -- today?     ["D'Alessio Mario-DALESSI0" <[removed]]

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:17:50 -0400
    From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: "Inventors" of Radio

    John notes,

>     but, apparently, Tesla *was* the first to
>     demonstrate the ability of radio waves to send signals, though he
>     demonstrated by
>     transmitting across a stage rather than across the Atlantic, in 1895 in
>     St. Louis.

    This demonstration did indeed occur -- but whether or not it was actually
    radio is still open to debate. From the slight documentation which
    survives, it seems quite possible that it was actually a demonstration of
    an induction field in action. An induction field set up between two
    resonant coils can be used to transmit electrical signals from point to
    point -- but the power of the signal depends on the size of the coil, and
    to transmit signals for any real distance requires coils of enormous
    size. (The same principles were probably used in the
    remote-control-model-boat experiment a few years later -- indeed, Tesla's
    1898 patent for the method used to control the model specifically
    describes it as an induction-based system.)

    Using a system of 50-foot-high AC induction coils -- and enormous aerials
    -- Telsa was eventually able to transmit broadband electrical signals for
    a distance of about thirty miles, but this appears to have been the upper
    limit of his technology as he himself developed it.  He never succeeded
    in transmitting voice in any form, and as has been noted, he was less
    interested in communication systems than in finding a way to transmit
    electricity without wires. It was an interesting system, and it was
    certainly a form of "wireless telegraphy." But it wasn't based on the use
    of Hertzian waves -- so while it *was* "wireless," one can argue that it
    *wasn't* "radio." To the end of his life, Tesla in fact refused to accept
    much of the Hertzian theory on which modern radio is based, dismissing it
    as "an aberration" and "a fiction."

    Tesla was a fascinating man -- a combination of a genuine visionary, a
    showman who carefully created a theatrical "master of lightning" persona
    for himself, and, for want of a better term, a real-life "mad scientist."
    His invention of the AC induction motor should alone be enough to ensure
    his place in history -- it's a device that is absolutely central to Our
    Modern Way of Life -- but the fact that Tesla got more and more bizarre
    as he got older, and that since his death he has been adopted as a sort
    of martyr-saint by the New Age/UFO/Area 51/Atlantis/Pyramid
    Energy/Philadelphia Experiment/conspiracy-theory crowd have probably
    combined to do his mainstream reputation much more harm than good.

    And John Moore suggests,

>     For those who've never heard of Nathaniel B. Stubblefield, you might
>     look at [removed]

    Stubblefield was another researcher into "inductive wireless telegraphy,"
    and unlike Tesla he actually succeeded, by some accounts, in using the
    system to transmit voice for a short distance around 1892. But, again,
    this was a system that did not use Hertzian waves -- and therefore really
    wasn't what-we-know-as-radio. In fact, neither Tesla nor Stubblefield
    were the first to experiment with transmitting electrical signals without
    wires -- a West Virginia dentist/eccentric by the name of Mahlon Loomis
    secured a patent in 1872 for a "conductive" wireless system, and claimed
    to have transmitted a telegraph signal between two kites eighteen miles
    apart. But this was another system that had nothing to do with actual
    Hertzian radio waves, and there is in fact no positive proof that it ever
    actually worked.

    In the end, I personally believe it's pointless to try and single out one
    individual as the "Inventor of Radio." Radio as we know it wasn't
    "invented" by the inspiration of a single genius in an isolated lab -- it
    evolved over a period of decades and drew from the work of a long line of
    scientists, including Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Henrich
    Hertz, Oliver Lodge, Alexander Popov, John Stone Stone, Reginald
    Fessenden (probably the first person to successfully transmit voice by
    actual Hertzian radio waves) and, yes, Guglielmo Marconi. All of these
    scientists drew liberally on the discoveries of those who came before --
    that's how science works.

    Tesla, Stubblefield, and a few others were also experimenting with
    wireless in the 1890s, but their work focused on a different system of
    technology, and while some elements of their work overlapped into "real
    radio," especially Tesla's work with tuned circuits, most of their work
    seems to be a different and separate technological branch growing from a
    common root.

    Elizabeth

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:58:19 -0400
    From: Mike Ray <MRay@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Copyrights, Radio Spirits & Carl Amari

                       Recently: Dave Phaneuf was discussing Copyrights,
    Radio Spirits and Carl Amari. Dave said in part: "    Does Carl Amari
    love OTR?  I'm convinced he does.  I've heard his show on Yesterday
    USA -- the man exudes OTR.  But this isn't about "loving OTR"  -- this
    is about copyright, about ownership, about income."

    Well Said Dave. I agree with you all the way. Speaking of income and
    making money. I hear some complain about how expensive their programs
    are. I would like to make this comment. The catalog prices that Carl Amari
    sets I believe are very fair and reasonable. Especially when you consider
    the outstanding quality of the product you receive. That by itself would
    be enough for me. But, it's not enough for Carl and the folks at Radio
    Spirits. Several times a year they will send out mailings announcing huge
    discounts on several of their top of the line products. The savings are
    huge.
    Many times the price is cut in half or even greater. Shoot, they even give
    away
    free tapes with every order you send in. Not bad don't you think.

    In October of this year I will mark my 32nd year in radio. 18 years as a
    full timer and 14 as a part timer. I've been involved on the air and,
    behind the scenes in radio programming, production, distribution, and
    network syndication. After this many years you get a feel for the business
    and organizations that relate to radio. Though I've never met or talked with
    Carl Amari, I've gotten the impression that Carl really does care about
    Old Time Radio. I believe that some of you have been unfair and are frankly
    jelious of this man. After all, this boy wonder was the one with the
    initiative
    to understand how the Copyright game is played. He played by the rules and
    did his best to obtain as many programs as possible. Lets face it. Carl's
    love
    for OTR is a burning passion. That's why he is at the top of the business.

     There is a lot to running a business like this. It takes a lot of work and
    a lot of money. Radio Spirits is not some Mom & Pa Store. There are the
    salaries to pay, the products to produce, and the enormous task of
    satisfying
    copyright obligations. I did copyright acquisitions for a couple of years.
    Hardest
    and most demanding thing I've ever done in the business. But copyright
    obligations
    are a very real part of Radio, old or new. They are necessary, and they are
    the law.

     Now I'm going to tell you one more thing. It may be something you haven't
     even thought about. When I think about what Carl has accomplished and what
     Radio Spirits have given to the Old Time Radio community, I believe that
     Carl belongs in the Radio Hall of Fame. Not in some future date inhistory,
     when he is old and has grand kids, but right now. Carl, more than any,
    that I know of has done the best job of keeping old time radio alive for the
     masses. I've been around this business for a long time. I've been an
    adoring
     student of Radio's history. I'm telling you right now, that Carl belongs
    in the Radio Hall of Fame.

     I understand that some will not take kindly to what I've said here today.
    I don't care what the PC crowd my think. I've been delighted with Radio
    Spirits. As long as Carl is there, that will continue to be the case. I'm
    more excited about the work Carl Amari is doing than anyone in the
    country.

     Best regards,
     Mike Ray

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:58:21 -0400
    From: "Jimidene Murphey" <jimimark@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Awash with awe

    Once again, I feel so honored to have such venerable Greats in our
    presence - thank you, Mr. Stone, for your wonderful story!  I about fell
    outta my chair!  A few days ago I wanted to bow in homage to the email of
    one of my all-time heros of OTR, Harry Bartell.  And now to hear from Harlan
    Stone -- it is indeed fortunate that we still have some of the performers of
    OTR reading this forum.  Anybody else out there who is secretly reading and
    not sharing with us all those wonderful stories?  We "young" whippersnappers
    would love to hear them!

    Jimidene Murphey   jimimark@[removed]

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:58:26 -0400
    From: "jstokes" <jstokes@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Matt Crowley movie appearances.

        Someone asked what Matt Crowley looked like.   He plays a government
    agent in "Three Days of the Condor."   He also appears in "Death Wish I."
    Both are two of my very favorite movies.

    Cut/Print!

    Jim Stokes
    NaturaLite Productions
    jstokes@[removed]

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:58:25 -0400
    From: Len Kistner <lkistner@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Trains

    I don't believe anyone has mentioned the Suspense show "The Wreck of Old
    97", based on a true story, incorporating the ballad of the same name,
    and featuring Frank Lovejoy as the engineer.
    Len

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:56:10 -0400
    From: "Owens Pomeroy" <opomeroy@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  PROCTOR ARTICLES ON 1980'S ( c ) LITIGATION

      I received permission to post this article fom one of the Distributors
    involved in the 1980's Shadow Litigation, for those of you who are still
    wondering if what we are doing is legal or not.
    This article was witten iin 1991, shortly after the Shadow Liligation Law
    Suit.
       You can find the article at this url:
    <[removed];

        There are several other good articles on this page dealing with
    non-profit ventures as well.

    Owens Pomeroy

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:22:04 -0400
    From: Harry Bartell <bartell@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Altitude

    For the record---

    John Dehner was 6 feet +

    Bill Conrad was about 5'9---tall

    Harry Bartell

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:22:02 -0400
    From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  It's Deja Vu all over again.

    From: "Owens Pomeroy" <opomeroy@[removed];

>     These postings about copyrights  brings back some daja-vu.
>     In the 80's there was another copyright litigation between several
>     OTR Distributors and a giant of a Publishing Co. (whose name
>     escapes me) over distribution of The Shadow Broadcasts.

    Conde Nast was the publishing company, and they unwittingly got dragged
    into this situation by Radio Yesteryear.  The infomation on this very
    important case is available in an article "War in the Oxide Trenches" by
    Bob Proctor available at
    [removed]
    This is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED reading!!!  Everybody, please read this.

    The not so ironic irony is that Radio Spirits bought out Radio
    Yesteryear just before it was taken over by Mediabay.  In addition to
    all of the recordings, the current company has taken over all of the
    alledged worst business practices of RY and its owner.  For example, you
    will also see how this company skunked the original owner of the rights
    to The Shadow, the person Owens undoubtedly also referred to in his
    posting, Charles Michelson.  Michelson, by the way, is the person Carl
    Amari described in this digest as the one who treated him very fairly
    when he was first starting out playing programs on his college station.
    Charles Michelson was a gentleman.  Too bad THAT seemingly has not
    rubbed off onto the current participants in this issue.

    Michael Biel  mbiel@[removed]

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:41:30 -0400
    From: "J. Alec West" <Alec@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  the dilemma for dealers

    Stephen Kallis wrote:

>     Wouldn'yt it be ironic if the only two ways people could get Public Domain
>     OTR shows would be through RSI and free over the Internet?  I don't want to
>     see the other dealers go out of business if they have Public Domain OTR
>     shows because of what looks like sleazy legalistic processes.

    I agree.  But, at the risk of being sarcastic, why should OTR fans stand up to
    RSI when OTR dealers are unwilling to stand up for themselves?  Everybody
    remembers the Sony-v-Universal Supreme Court decision of 1984 giving us all the
    right to use VCRs to tape programs/movies off TV/Cable/Dish legally.  Not many
    remember the post-decision battle fought by the MPAA.  As soon as this became
    law, the MPAA got into a brouhaha over the rising tide of video "rental"
    shops.  Those of us who were around then know that the purchase prices of
    videotapes back then were just shy of $100 ... and the MPAA wanted us to buy,
    not rent.  Then, one lone rental-shop dealer stood up to them.  His name was
    Michael Weiss.  And soon, other dealers stood by him -- and eventually formed
    the Video Retailers Association -- fighting MPAA tooth and nail until they won
    the right to rent.

    The OTR dealers are in dire need of their own "Michael Weiss" ... and their own
    OTR Retailers Association ... to stand up to RSI for their own protection and
    ultimate benefit.

    BTW, as soon as Napster began sliding down the slippery slope to legal
    oblivion, a new service started up called MusicCity.  At first, MusicCity
    operated on OpenNAP servers though now they have their own client software.
    They have vowed to fight the RIAA tooth and nail for the right to set up an
    "independent" digital music distribution system.  Their founder and president?
    Michael Weiss.  Fiesty guy, ain't he <grin>?

    Regards,
    J. Alec West

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:19:28 -0400
    From: "Lois Culver" <lois@[removed];
    To: "OTR Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Recording for the Blind

    Ryan Osentowski asks about OTR people who recorded books for the blind.  I
    am not familiar with the book house he mentions, but a number of the
    Hollywood actors gave their time to Recording for the Blind in Hollywood.
    My late husband Howard Culver had a weekly date to record there, where they
    mostly recorded books for blind students who were working for their college
    degrees.  Engineers gave their time, also, to handle the recordings on tape.
    It takes quite a nack to describe a scientific drawing, so the student can
    "see" it.

    Lois Culver
    KWLK Radio (Mutual) Longview, WA 1941-44
    KFI Radio (NBC) Los Angeles CA 1945-47, 50-53
    Widow of Howard Culver, actor

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:19:47 -0400
    From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re: Copyright, Napster and RSI. (whew)

    From: StepToons@[removed]

>     Mr. Kallis writes: (in regards to RSI's response to a query
>     for a list of their entire catalog)

> >     And if a dealer politely asks which programs RSI has rights to,
> >     they respond that they're not going to say: their reason being
> >     that to do so would give unfair marketing advantage to the competition.

>     As an innocent bystander but a member in good standing at ASCAP
>     I thought I would throw in my two cents about RSI's response.
>     I think it is perfectly fine that RSI not give this information
>     out to any competitor.

    If you are a member in good standing of ASCAP then you must know that
    ASCAP does not keep the identities of the items it controls a secret.
    If ANYBODY asks ASCAP (or BMI or SESAC, for that matter) whether they
    control the performance rights of a song ASCAP WILL TELL THEM.  They
    keep NO SECRETS.  If it is a BMI song, ASCAP will tell you.  They won't
    make you stop performing it JUST IN CASE it happens to be an secret
    ASCAP song, they will tell you they do not control the performing rights
    to it.

>     RSI apparently spends a great deal of money and time investigating
>     copyright ownership before offering a title to the public.

    The key word is "apparently".  You do not know this to be fact.  They
    have a catalog of 60,000 recordings--most of which they have NOT
    investigated the rights to and are selling anyway.

>     If a company or individual wants to sell a recording they should
>     investigate, on their own time and money, who owns the copyright
>     to the work in question before they offer it for sale.

    For decades RSI and the company they took over, Radio Yesteryear,
    operated on the principle of selling items that did not have copyright
    notices until someone who holds the copyright comes forward and
    objects.  This has been brought out in many proceedings.  This is how
    they themselves operated, and in the case of the 60,000 recordings
    seemingly still do.  Remember, copyright is something that the
    individual owners have to protect.  It is not something that the
    government does for you--you have to do it for yourself.

>     The Question should not be whether RSI owns the recording, it
>     should be WHO owns the recording in question.

    MANY of the materials are in the Public Domain, and even the copyright
    office of LC does not always have clear indications of who holds
    copyright on many items.

>     Why should RSI tell a competitor which titles they have not been
>     able to acquire for their catalog yet?

    Because this is not a game.  It is not a quiz show.  It is standard
    business practice to proclaim what is yours.  This is quite possibly the
    first time any publisher has ever dared to suggest such a radical
    business practice.

>     They should be checking with the Library of Congress. (If RSI
>     does not own the title in question, someone else might.)

    There have been allegations that some of the people RSI has seemingly
    obtained the rights from might not have been the owners of the rights in
    the first place.  But there is no way of knowing this because RSI won't
    disclose if they have obtained the rights from the exclusive owners.
    Some rights could be shared.

>     Offering this list of owned materials is not only not legally required it
>     actually would give unfair marketing advantage to the competition.

    That is not a problem with ASCAP.  Nor is it a problem with BMI.  Nor is
    it a problem with SESAC.  Nor is it a problem with any of the member
    publishers of these three performance rights organizations.  Nor is it a
    problem with any other publisher I have ever heard of anywhere in the
    world.  Name me one other publisher who maintains a secret list of
    copyright holdings.  Do you?

>     As far as RSI's legal attack on Napster, I applaud them, as I
>     would applaud any other, for trying to squash copyright infringement.

    They are trying to squash competition on [removed] items as well by the
    chilling effect of the off-chance that they have found some way to claim
    copyright on what is otherwise considered [removed]

>     Considering that the Napster Catalog changes, literally, every
>     second (with users signing on and off) to state and complete list
>     of "WHICH" titles are being infringed upon is an unnecessary
>     and impossible task. A sampling showing even ONE title is
>     enough to make their case.

    No it isn't.  I cannot defend YOUR copyright.  I can only defend mine.
    Your idea seems to be that if there is one infringing title then the
    whole thing must be closed down.  No.  Only the one title must be
    excised.  Your own statement shows how impossible for Napster to keep
    up-to-the-second information on what suddenly appears on theie list.  If
    an item appears on their list before anyone has a chance to react and
    check, then it is unfair to insist that this is an
    infringement--especially if you are keeping us guessing as to which
    items you REALLY control.  What DOESN'T change is RSI's list.  THAT list
    does not change from second-to-second.  It would be EASY for them to
    publish their entire catalog of programs they hold copyright to.  That
    list actually contains only about 179 series according to what Carl
    Amari posted on this digest (I don't remember the exact number and don't
    have the stomach to go back to that posting and look right now.)  That
    number probably has gone up a little since then, but would still be a
    fairly reasonably sized list that would be easy to print out or insert
    into a data base checker.

>     As a copyright owner, myself, if I saw even ONE of my titles unlawfully
>     offered on Napster, that would be all it would take for me to take action.
>     I look at my catalog of work as another would look at their own children.

    But you PUBLICIZE what is in your catalog, don't you?  You don't make us
    guess out of all of the millions of songs that have been written which
    are the few that YOU CONTROL, do you?  If you see one of your songs on
    Napster, go to it.  Sue them.  BUT it is not an infringement till a copy
    has been made.  So listing it is not enough--no copy has been made yet.
    What you really should do is send Napster a list of your catalog and
    demand that it be protected.  If you have not done that, then your only
    recourse is to go after them after the copy has been made.  And the suit
    will be at your expense, of course.

>     You don't have to take all of my baby's, you just have to touch
>     one of them and I'll be one angry Papa.

    But if you keep them a secret, how is anyone supposed to know which are
    yours and which might be in the Public Domain.  If you are proud of your
    babies you should be eager to let us know their names.  RSI apparently
    is not such a proud parent as you are.  Actually, the real reason for
    their secrecy is that apparently RSI is trying to TRICK people into
    thinking that PD programs might be controlled by them.

>     Napster is similar to the "Temple of Thieves." Napster thinks
>     that the temple shouldn't be held responsible for opening their
>     doors to the thieves and making them a happy home.

    You are accusing ALL Napster users of being thieves.  They are not
    thieves if they are copying items in the [removed] there is honest
    debate whether individual copies for personal use are exempt from
    copyright under Fair Use statements in the law.  But until RSI specifies
    what they control, they are attempting to scare people away from the
    honest practice of exchanging [removed] items.

>     Some condone this practice of "trading" material on line stating
>     that "no money is exchanged so it is a fair and lawful practice."
>     "Commerce" began with trade, money only makes commerce easier.
>     Converting goods or services into money and then back again is
>     what makes business stay in business. All online "material trading"
>     is doing is skipping a step. But it does not make it right.

    Under the copyright law that was in force during the OTR era, commerce
    "FOR PROFIT" was a necessary ingredient to claim copyright
    infringement.  The rules of the game changed after the OTR era.  This
    doesn't excuse the current practices that might be against the current
    law, but OTR was created with the knowledge that payments were only
    required for "Public performance for profit."  Additional rights have
    been granted since that time, but the OTR folks had no way of knowing
    that it would happen.  And they were seemingly happy with the way things
    were then--they kept producing.

>     Pay for what you own.

    TELL US WHAT YOU OWN.

>     Don't bootleg.

    It is not bootlegging to sell copies of PD items.

>     Be honest.

    That is ALL we are asking RSI to be.  Be honest.

>     And then you will have the right to feel proud of your collection.

    I dare say that even RSI would be shocked to know how some of the items
    arrived in their archive.

>     Okay, I need some coffee. It appears I'm feeling a bit grouchy
>     this morning.  Grrrrrrrrr.  Be seeing you!   Step

    You should have had the coffee before you posted--nobody should be at
    the disadvantage of withdrawal symptoms. :-)  Much of it was based on a
    total misunderstanding of normal business practices of organizations you
    yourself work with.  If you had thought about that, maybe you would have
    really understood this specific situation.  Again, I suggest that you
    read "War in the Oxide Trenches" so you can see the background of the
    companies involved.
    [removed]

    Michael Biel  mbiel@[removed]

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:21:54 -0400
    From: "Lois Culver" <lois@[removed];
    To: "OTR Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Fluffs

    Hal Stone's telling of his "uck" fluff gives me the nerve to pass this one
    one.

    Howard Culver was announcing a dance band at the Peacock Court at the
    Fairmont (?) Hotel in San Francisco.  "And now, from the beautiful Peacourt
    [removed]!!!!!"

    Lois Culver
    KWLK Radio (Mutual) Longview, WA 1941-44
    KFI Radio (NBC) Los Angeles CA 1945-47, 50-53
    Widow of Howard Culver, actor

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

    Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:21:56 -0400
    From: "D'Alessio Mario-DALESSI0" <[removed]'alessio@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: Radio for children -- today?

>     Maybe someone can answer this for me:  aside from popular music,
>     is there anything left on radio that appeals to children today?

    Well, I've gotten items from my local library that are
    new programs done by various radio theater groups. One
    I just saw was a 20 part dramatization of "The Wizard
    of Oz" books. I don't know if these were ever actually
    broadcast, but I'll bet they were. And there's "Adventures
    in Odyssey" which I think is still being produced. Again,
    the libaries by me have quite a few of these shows.
    So, I'm sure there out there. Like you, I just don't
    know where to look.

    Go here for more info on "Adventures in Odyssey":

      [removed]

    Mario

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V01 Issue #169
    *******************************************

    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]