General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[EC ed]

I really don't understand the point of trying to argue the semantics of media mail. When the post office sends a bill to the recipient because there was a comic in it (with outdated ads for products that don't exist anymore) they certainly aren't going to change their minds when you hit them with a wall of meaningless text.

 

 

I agree with you that this "after the fact" approach won't work. What we have to do is be proactive. Type out the argument for why "you" believe that comics qualify for media mail shipping into a Word document, lead off with "Dear Postal Inspector,...". Print this, and place that sheet of text addressed to the inspector right inside the package on top of the comics. Then, when he/she opens the package, hope that he/she rationally considers the argument.

 

This is what I do when I use Media Mail to ship Mad Magazines (which don't contain ANY ads from any era, by design)...I'm not kidding. Some of you who have bought Mad Magazines from me know I'm not kidding.

Edited February 5, 2016 by edowens71

[jsilverjanet]

#4: Is Greggy really a dork?

 

in order for it to be a debate there must be an opposing argument.

[greggy]

#4: Is Greggy really a dork?

Absolutely

[RockMyAmadeus]

To simplify:

 

You, Jaybuck, are saying that it is up to interpretation about what is, and what is not, an ad.

 

I, RMA, am saying that's not true. If the ad is in force, it's an ad. If it is not in force, it's no longer an ad, and thus doesn't fall under the definition of an ad in the DMM.

 

No interpretation necessary.

 

RMA you are adding to the definition of an advertisement. That is OUTSIDE the DMM, which you said is unacceptable. The DMM definition for advertisement is 1) material in a publication that is 2) published in exchange for valuable consideration having been paid, accepted, or promised that 3) calls attention to something 4) for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it.

 

Within that definition the key question is 3 and 4. Why? Because we know number 1 to be true (it's in the publication so duh) and we can assume that valuable consideration was paid back in time. So now look at 3 and 4. Does the material call attention to something? Yup, whatever the concept was (be it a store, a food, an article of closing etc.) and is the purpose of the material to get an individual to buy it, sell it, seek it or support it? Well yea that is why they paid valuable consideration, they wanted people to do one of those things. There is no mention of whether or not something is in effect. You've added that concept. And by your own admission, nothing added to the DMM is acceptable. Thus your concept is inconsistent.

 

You're stuck on the concept of "calling attention to something" and "for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it," which is where your argument fails.

 

Again...ads are not intended to be in force in perpetuity. We know that, because, by standard practice, when contracts for advertising are negotiated, there have been very few, if any, "in perpetuity" clauses. Specifically in print media, a merchant contracts with an advertiser for a specific amount of 1. space and 2. "time" or "appearances" (such as "this ad will run in X amount of publications for X amount of weeks/months.")

 

The advertiser (in this case, the publisher) runs a certain ad in a certain amount of periodicials for a certain period of time, and the merchant pays to run that ad in a certain amount of periodicals for a certain period of time.

 

Once that period is over, the ad is no longer in force. Neither the merchant nor the advertiser thinks the ad is in force for perpetuity, so why should the USPS do so? They don't. They simply define what an ad is. And ads that are no longer in force are NOT "calling attention to something" to "get people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it" as intended by either the advertiser OR the merchant.

 

That time has passed. Done, finito, over. That the ad still "calls attention" to something on a passive basis for as long as the print material still exists does NOT, repeat NOT mean that it is "calling attention to something" to "get people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it" forever.

 

If an ad was an ad forever, that makes all sorts of problems...for example, I should be able to buy 144 toy soldiers for $1.09, even if that company no longer exists. In fact, it can't go out of business, because its ads are still in force.

 

You can see why that doesn't work.

 

Therefore, no, there is no "adding" to the DMM. That's taking the DMM on its face. There doesn't need to BE any mention of "in effect" or not, because it is already understood by all parties that ads, by design, aren't in effect in perpetuity. They aren't in force, which means they aren't ads, which means they can be shipped Media Mail.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

 

It's more interesting than the usual banter.

 

 

I am on team Jaybuck.

 

That's because you're slower than a river of molasses in the dead of a Kentucky winter.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Jaybuck is right, I tried the "stale ad" argument with the Cdn Rev Agency (it affects the taxes on comics 13% vs no ads/TPB 5%) up here in Canada, it's more of a content vs advertising thing that they consider and determining whether it's an ad or not is based on the intent at time of printing. While I agree with the spirit of the argument RMA's making and even made it myself.

 

 

Yes, but it depends on how the CRA defines it.

 

If they specifically state that, there's no getting around it.

 

But the USPS' DMM does NOT specifically state it.

 

If they did, conversation over. But they don't. And until they do, the argument is a good one.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

 

Yep. We might as well go on and air out the whole trifecta....

 

#2: Is pressing restoration?

 

Yes, but it is what is called "market acceptable" restoration.

 

#3: Is it OK to use PayPal personal to pay each other for comics?

 

 

No. There shouldn't even be an argument about that. Is it ok to take comics from your house because you left the front door open?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I really don't understand the point of trying to argue the semantics of media mail. When the post office sends a bill to the recipient because there was a comic in it (with outdated ads for products that don't exist anymore) they certainly aren't going to change their minds when you hit them with a wall of meaningless text.

 

 

I agree with you that this "after the fact" approach won't work. What we have to do is be proactive. Type out the argument for why "you" believe that comics qualify for media mail shipping into a Word document, lead off with "Dear Postal Inspector,...". Print this, and place that sheet of text addressed to the inspector right inside the package on top of the comics. Then, when he/she opens the package, hope that he/she rationally considers the argument.

 

This is what I do when I use Media Mail to ship Mad Magazines (which don't contain ANY ads from any era, by design)...I'm not kidding. Some of you who have bought Mad Magazines from me know I'm not kidding.

 

Wombat's woeful lack of understanding of just how bureaucracies operate aside, I'm not making the case that anyone would be able to ship comics with expired ads via Media Mail without consequence. Obviously, it's not really a fight worth having if someone at the USPS challenges it, and there's clearly a measure of risk involved because of the lack of clarity in the DMM.

 

It's simply the reason why it could be done, legitimately, if anyone was worried about the regulatory validity of doing so.

 

But did that wall of meaningless text already expire?

 

If it did I'm sure a new one would be supplied in short order.

 

Snide commentary makes this a worse place, for everyone.

[miraclemet]

I saw the words "media mail" last night, and woke up this morning to 5 new pages of posts. You guys are so predictable!

 

I love seeing the citation for the rules and such, when they are all moot because what matters is what is DONE, not what rule is on the books (since we've already established that the rule is interpreted a variety of ways by your local postmasters).

 

So you can go ahead and send the books media mail, and deal with the potential of the books being delayed, inspected at an increased frequency, and possibly damaged.

 

Im going to base my decision not on what rule is on the book, but on how the people behave.

[Ryan.]

[miraclemet]

here's a non-media mail question...

 

 

If in a sales thread I listed a rareish Sig Series book with say its a Dark Knight book signed by director Christopher Nolan. I list it for $1k.

 

and I say something in the listing like

 

""These books cost a little over $1,000 a piece"

 

what do you take from a statement like that? What do you think it implies?

[jaybuck43]

That you're offering it for less than the rest of the market.

[entalmighty1]

here's a non-media mail question...

 

 

If in a sales thread I listed a rareish Sig Series book with say its a Dark Knight book signed by director Christopher Nolan. I list it for $1k.

 

and I say something in the listing like

 

""These books cost a little over $1,000 a piece"

 

what do you take from a statement like that? What do you think it implies?

 

If you're selling it for $1k, and you're telling me it cost "a little over $1k each," I would assume you're taking a little loss on it, and you're just trying to get close to breaking even.

 

I could be misunderstanding the premise though.

[miraclemet]

interesting.. .Im mostly asking what you think the phrase

 

""These books cost a little over $1,000 a piece"

 

implies

[seanfingh]

here's a non-media mail question...

 

 

If in a sales thread I listed a rareish Sig Series book with say its a Dark Knight book signed by director Christopher Nolan. I list it for $1k.

 

and I say something in the listing like

 

""These books cost a little over $1,000 a piece"

 

what do you take from a statement like that? What do you think it implies?

 

That the guy is a little special.

[entalmighty1]

here's a non-media mail question...

 

 

If in a sales thread I listed a rareish Sig Series book with say its a Dark Knight book signed by director Christopher Nolan. I list it for $1k.

 

and I say something in the listing like

 

""These books cost a little over $1,000 a piece"

 

what do you take from a statement like that? What do you think it implies?

 

That the guy is a little special.

 

 

That seems like a solid assessment.

[wombat]

I really don't understand the point of trying to argue the semantics of media mail. When the post office sends a bill to the recipient because there was a comic in it (with outdated ads for products that don't exist anymore) they certainly aren't going to change their minds when you hit them with a wall of meaningless text.

 

 

I agree with you that this "after the fact" approach won't work. What we have to do is be proactive. Type out the argument for why "you" believe that comics qualify for media mail shipping into a Word document, lead off with "Dear Postal Inspector,...". Print this, and place that sheet of text addressed to the inspector right inside the package on top of the comics. Then, when he/she opens the package, hope that he/she rationally considers the argument.

 

This is what I do when I use Media Mail to ship Mad Magazines (which don't contain ANY ads from any era, by design)...I'm not kidding. Some of you who have bought Mad Magazines from me know I'm not kidding.

 

Wombat's woeful lack of understanding of just how bureaucracies operate aside, I'm not making the case that anyone would be able to ship comics with expired ads via Media Mail without consequence. Obviously, it's not really a fight worth having if someone at the USPS challenges it, and there's clearly a measure of risk involved because of the lack of clarity in the DMM.

 

It's simply the reason why it could be done, legitimately, if anyone was worried about the regulatory validity of doing so.

 

But did that wall of meaningless text already expire?

 

If it did I'm sure a new one would be supplied in short order.

 

Snide commentary makes this a worse place, for everyone.

 

[Chip Cataldo]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I actually stopped sending comics via Media Mail a while back. I haven't even sold anything for long time and just getting back into the swing. I have a ton of Regional boxes too. Both sizes A and B. Good to know they will not go to waste.

They wouldn't anyway. You can use them to send things via regular Priority Mail and not just for Regional.

[Junkdrawer]

The reality is that if you step up to the counter with a box and tell the usps you want to ship media mail and when asked what's inside and you reply comic books, you can tell them everything you want. You will not be shipping that box media mail.

[faster friends]

The reality is that if you step up to the counter with a box and tell the usps you want to ship media mail and when asked what's inside and you reply comic books, you can tell them everything you want. You will not be shipping that box media mail.

 

I do it twice a week. My Postmaster even talks to me about comics and her kids. She knows what's in the box. She is very nice. Pretty sure she is aware it could be an issue cause sometimes she says, "These are graphic novels, right".

 

Small town Post Office. Gotta love it.