Posted by krw on February 24, 2007, 1:29 pm
noone@nowhere.com says...
> >> You reallly think that sending back the return envelope stuffed with
> >> the mailing materials dissuades the junk mailers of anything? I hope
> >> not, because it doesn't, even if it costs them postage money. It's
> >> just a business cost figured into the price of their services. So
> >> actually, by sending the stuff back, he's making that company's
> >> services more expensive for other people. That's 2 bad things; causing
> >> extra pollution and increasing costs for others.
> >>
> >How is it extra pollution? It simply moves the cost of that
> >pollution from the innocent to the guilty. If it increases the
> >costs of the guilty, good.
> If he throws out the junk, at least he can be certain it's going into
> the recycle bin. If he returns the junk, It might just go out as
> trash. That's how it reduces pollution, by making sure the paper
> doesn't end up in a landfill.
Does any business throw paper into the landfill anymore. Every one
I've seen has a recycling program. There is a better chance that
any given company will recycle than any random individual. I don't
recycle mail. Can't be bothered separating it.
--
Keith
Posted by <aemeijers on February 24, 2007, 2:25 pm
> noone@nowhere.com says...
>> >> You reallly think that sending back the return envelope stuffed with
>> >> the mailing materials dissuades the junk mailers of anything? I hope
>> >> not, because it doesn't, even if it costs them postage money. It's
>> >> just a business cost figured into the price of their services. So
>> >> actually, by sending the stuff back, he's making that company's
>> >> services more expensive for other people. That's 2 bad things; causing
>> >> extra pollution and increasing costs for others.
>> >>
>> >How is it extra pollution? It simply moves the cost of that
>> >pollution from the innocent to the guilty. If it increases the
>> >costs of the guilty, good.
>> If he throws out the junk, at least he can be certain it's going into
>> the recycle bin. If he returns the junk, It might just go out as
>> trash. That's how it reduces pollution, by making sure the paper
>> doesn't end up in a landfill.
> Does any business throw paper into the landfill anymore. Every one
> I've seen has a recycling program. There is a better chance that
> any given company will recycle than any random individual. I don't
> recycle mail. Can't be bothered separating it.
I run all the junkmail through the shredder, and recycle the resulting
confetti. I do it while watching TV. You should see the size of the hamster
colony at the dropoff station.
aem sends....
Posted by The Etobian on February 24, 2007, 2:55 pm
>If he throws out the junk, at least he can be certain it's going into
>the recycle bin. If he returns the junk, It might just go out as
>trash. That's how it reduces pollution, by making sure the paper
>doesn't end up in a landfill.
In many areas (no, I don't have a citation), business must recycle.
This could be matters of state or local laws or regulations.
Posted by Vic Smith on February 24, 2007, 4:05 pm
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:47:00 GMT, "Casual Observer"
>>
>>>> They are "PRM" prefix queries, which means "only your name and address
>>>> were given to a credit grantor so that they can provide you a firm
>>>> offer of credit or insurance."
>>>> So even if you move, you have to take your shredder with you, because
>And you can file a US Postal Service Form 1500 - I've used them to almost
>eliminate junk mail - it's intent is to go after sexually solicitous
>mailers - BUT, guess who is the only one that can determine whether a
>mailpiece is sexually solicitous - the person that receives the mail! The
>PO MUST accept and process the form, they issue a Prohibitory Order, and
>then they'll go after the person that sent you the mail if you receive
>anything else.
Thanks for that info. Your suggestion sounds easier than sending
garbage back, and probably costs the offender more too.
I'll look into that form next time I'm at the post office.
--Vic
Posted by Rich Greenberg on February 24, 2007, 4:10 pm
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:47:00 GMT, "Casual Observer"
>>And you can file a US Postal Service Form 1500 - I've used them to almost
>>eliminate junk mail - it's intent is to go after sexually solicitous
>>mailers - BUT, guess who is the only one that can determine whether a
>>mailpiece is sexually solicitous - the person that receives the mail! The
>>PO MUST accept and process the form, they issue a Prohibitory Order, and
>>then they'll go after the person that sent you the mail if you receive
>>anything else.
>>
>Thanks for that info. Your suggestion sounds easier than sending
>garbage back, and probably costs the offender more too.
>I'll look into that form next time I'm at the post office.
Save a trip. d/l it from: http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
XML site map
> >> the mailing materials dissuades the junk mailers of anything? I hope
> >> not, because it doesn't, even if it costs them postage money. It's
> >> just a business cost figured into the price of their services. So
> >> actually, by sending the stuff back, he's making that company's
> >> services more expensive for other people. That's 2 bad things; causing
> >> extra pollution and increasing costs for others.
> >>
> >How is it extra pollution? It simply moves the cost of that
> >pollution from the innocent to the guilty. If it increases the
> >costs of the guilty, good.
> If he throws out the junk, at least he can be certain it's going into
> the recycle bin. If he returns the junk, It might just go out as
> trash. That's how it reduces pollution, by making sure the paper
> doesn't end up in a landfill.