On Thursday, December 1, 1994 at 8:08:10 PM UTC, Ron Asbestos Dippold wrote:
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> unmoderated group rec.music.classical.recordings
> Newsgroups line:
> rec.music.classical.recordings Classical music on CD, vinyl, cassette, etc.
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 22 December 1994.
> This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting
> questions only contact rdip...@qualcomm.com. For questions about the
> proposed group contact James Chokey <jch...@leland.stanford.edu>
>
> CHARTER
> Rec.music.classical.recordings is a forum for the discussion
> of recordings of classical music on any format (CD, vinyl, cassette,
> videotape/videodisc, etc.) This includes (but is by no means limited to):
> * Reviews/reccomendations of new and old recordings
> * Requests for reccomendations (i.e. "What recording of X
> should I buy?")
> * Comparative discussions of different recordings
> * Questions/discussion about the availability of specific
> recordings or specific pieces
> * Discographical discussion
> * Discussion of places to buy recordings of classical music
> Posting between rec.music.classical.recordings and rec.music.classical
> is discouraged.
>
> Rationale (taken from the RFD):
>
> Rec.music.classical is a high traffic group, receiving around 200
> posts per day and between 1300-1500 posts per week, on average. During
> the past several months, there has been a regular undercurrent of dis-
> cussion on the possibility of splitting the group. Few practical ideas,
> however, have been put forward regarding just how a split might be
> effected. The one idea that has gained substantial support, and which
> many r.m.c readers feel might be an effective way to effect a "compromise"
> is to simply create a new group in the r.m.c.* hierarchy for the discussion
> of recordings of classical music. Discussions and reccomendations of
> recordings constitute a sizable chunk of the discussion on rec.music.classical.
> Based on a random sampling I did of 200 posts, there were 49 posts (approx.
> 25%) which clearly fell into the "Reccomendations wanted," "Which version
> of x should I get," and "Is there a good recording of y available?"
> varieties. Additionally, the fact that the discussion of recordings
> constitutes a fairly easy-to-define body of discourse makes the possibility
> of a *.recordings group much more viable than some of the other proposals
> which were being bandied about. So, I am proposing the creation of rec.
> music.classical.recordings in order to move all recordings-related traffic
> to a separate newsgroup. By doing this, the amount of traffic on r.m.c.
> should go down considerably (approx. 25%), but yet the change will be modest
> enough that it should not overly rankle those folks who are opposed to seeing
> r.m.c. split up into multiple newsgroups.
> HOW TO VOTE
> Send MAIL to: vot...@qualcomm.com
> Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.
> Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
> I vote YES on rec.music.classical.recordings
> I vote NO on rec.music.classical.recordings
> You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
> Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The
> votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
> ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
> It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
> One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and
> votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.

Strange name. What does this Asbestos stand for?
The Blob (Paramount Pictures, 1958)?
Glenn Gould Silver Jubilee?

Dream.

-
DAVID BARGNESI BBXZ11A@prodigy.com (Do anagram me!)