Is this unacceptable or is it just me? 4 4

[newshane]

Actually, that IS from a government website.

[kav]

38 minutes ago, newshane said:

If you (people in general, not YOU) think the average postal employee is going to give enough of a flyin' baby-making maneuver to spend more than two neurons on the validity of advertisements based on age...then you're out of your gourd my friend.

The reality is that the post master would tell you to eff yourself over the extra 7 or 8 dollar charge...then he would spend his lunch hour laughing and talking about you.

Sure, take him to court...how much are you really willing to pay for the principle of the matter?

Or...spend hours on the phone trying to work it out.

As for me, more worthwhile things await...like sitting back in a lawn chair downing a beer...or going to the dentist...

I have to agree.  You can wave around all the rule books you want and have hair splitting arguments but the final say in the matter is the person having the final say, and thats whoever you're dealing with at the post office.  You can take it up the chain but the person having the final say will just be another person having the final say.   I dont think you can take them to court I believe the federal government cannot be sued.  Or they have to give you permission to sue them-others may know better.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

If you (people in general, not YOU) think the average postal employee is going to give enough of a flyin' baby-making maneuver to spend more than two neurons on the validity of advertisements based on age...then you're out of your gourd my friend.

Wait....wait....do you mean people in general when you say "you're out of your gourd", or do you mean ME...?

Cuz the the last phrase of that sentence contradicts the qualifier.

In any event, again: I am making an ARGUMENT about why the statement that "Comic books cannot be shipped via Media mail" is not correct.

I'm not talking about the practicality or the actual practice. Obviously...obviously!...anyone with any experience with the USPS will tell you that their employees do things which are flatly contradicted by the DMM all...the....time.

That doesn't mean they're right, and it certainly doesn't mean you're wrong.

But it is certainly possible to out-bureaucrat the bureaucrats. \

1 hour ago, newshane said:

The reality is that the post master would tell you to eff yourself over the extra 7 or 8 dollar charge...then he would spend his lunch hour laughing and talking about you.

If that is your experience with bureaucrats, I feel for you. The beauty of regulations is that you can...if you have a mind to...make them work FOR you, as well as against you.

I've never had a post master tell me to "eff myself." I've made it a habit to make friends with the post office I've been going to for 19 years, so that's probably why I enjoy the regulatory advantages that I do...advantages available to anyone who wants to understand and use them themselves.

1 hour ago, newshane said:

Sure, take him to court...how much are you really willing to pay for the principle of the matter?

Or...spend hours on the phone trying to work it out.

As for me, more worthwhile things await...like sitting back in a lawn chair downing a beer...or going to the dentist...

All unnecessary, and a complete and utter waste of time.

You (people in general, not YOU) don't know how to deal with gov't employees.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

WAIT A MINUTE!

Hmmmm

This isn't a government site...maybe it's not legit but...

Actually, it IS...

 

Oh, hey, thanks! That was PRECISELY the "official notice" was referring to earlier with this post:

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

8 hours ago, newshane said:

Good to know. I was told differently.

 

By the way....many people are told differently. In fact, someone "in authority" at the USPS issued some sort of bulletin several years ago on the USPS website that said comic books are explicitly restricted from being sent via Media mail.

Didn't matter one bit. That woman didn't know what she was talking about, and didn't know her job.

The only thing that matters to the USPS is the DMM. If it's not in there, it has no meaning.

Now, you're not paying attention, or you would know the answer to this question already:

Is that in the DMM...?

If the answer is "no"...and it is...then that statement has absolutely zero relevance to anything whatsoever, utterly and totally regardless of the website on which it appears.

If it's not in the Domestic Mail Manual...the "DMM"...it...is...meaningless.

Go ahead...ask anyone who works at the USPS. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

Actually, that IS from a government website.

Not relevant.

If it's not in the DMM, it carries zero regulatory weight, and can be completely ignored as someone's mere opinion..."authoritative" though that opinion may be.

Do you notice how it contradicts itself? Read the last sentence:

"Complete explanations of qualified items can be found in the DMM."

That's what's known as "CYA." It means "nothing I just said has any value unless it's found in the DMM." And, since the DMM about Media mail says nothing about comic books....voila!

Edited May 12, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

Actually, that IS from a government website.

I can't find anywhere in the media mail section of the DMM where it says that old or irrelevant advertising doesn't count.

I agree that it's a silly rule.

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Oh, hey, thanks! That was PRECISELY the "official notice" was referring to earlier with this post:

Now, you're not paying attention, or you would know the answer to this question already:

Is that in the DMM...?

If the answer is "no"...and it is...then that statement has absolutely zero relevance to anything whatsoever, utterly and totally regardless of the website on which it appears.

If it's not in the Domestic Mail Manual...the "DMM"...it...is...meaningless.

Go ahead...ask anyone who works at the USPS. 

By the way, newshane...look at the date of the notice. It's been 6 years. The "comic books can't be mailed Media mail" has been a "thing" for well over a decade, and yet...no change to the DMM. The DMM is changed all the time. And yet...nothing. No clarity regarding what they consider "advertising."  So, if I say "that's not advertising, it's reference material"...I can quote their own regulations which allows it.

If it was that important to them, they'd change the DMM. They don't.

[masterlogan2000]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

What is an ad? An ad is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event. So what do we call an ad that has been replaced, or promotes something which is no longer available, or is past the date for which the ad was valid? It's no longer an ad...it's an expired ad. And an expired ad, by virtue of its expiration, is no longer an ad. Therefore, it no longer falls under the restriction in the DMM.

 

The DMM doesn't care about expiry or validity.  The fact is that these were once advertisements promoting products, services, or events that were current.  They continue to be advertisements that are simply promoting products, services, or events that themselves have expired.  The fact that you use the term "expired ad" makes the argument that it is still an ad (just expired).  I'm even fine with calling this "historical reference material"... but why can't it be both?  You can't just say it's an expired ad, then argue it's not an ad because it's expired.  That, to me, is illogical.

Let's make a couple analogies...
I bought a carton of milk a month ago.  It has gone sour and has passed the expiration date.  By virtue of its expiration, is this no longer considered milk?  Should I refer to it as "historical reference material"... afterall, that would indeed be a reminder to me that I should have drank it faster.

I'm buying my wife flowers for Mother's Day.  Those flowers will likely die in a week.  In other words, they'll expire.  I'll have about a dozen dead flowers, but by virtue of their death, are they no longer flowers?  Can you imagine the look on my wife's face when I tell her to throw out the "historical reference materials" that were once (but are no longer) flowers.

 

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

7 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

What about the promotion of the X-Men themselves?  Or Marvel comics?  Heck, what about action figures in general?  Could this image not invoke feelings of 90s nostalgia and entice me to make a purchase of action figures?  What if it makes me want to pick up an X-Men comic?  See an X-Men movie?  Buy DVDs of the old X-Men Animated Series?  Isn't this what advertisements are meant to do?  Wouldn't that mean that this is still valid?

Sure, I can't purchase the product that is being DIRECTLY marketed to me here, but this image is about much, much more than trying to get me to purchase a 6" Colossus figure in 1991.

That ad is not promoting "action figures in general." That is not its intention, nor what it was produced for...and that goes for X-Men comics, X-Men movies, DVDs of the old AS, etc.

No, that is not what ads are meant to do. Ads are meant to promote specific items, products, or events. No one would seriously suggest that a poster promoting a Phish appearance could therefore be said to also promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, instruments that Phish happens to be using, concerts in general, music in general, and pot smoking. 

You misinterpret my words here.  I'm stating that the ad is promoting more than the action figures.  It is promoting Marvel comics.  It is promoting the X-Men.  I'm NOT stating that it is specifically promoting the comics, DVDs, movies, etc... just using those as examples of what comes to my mind through the promotion of both Marvel and the X-Men through this ad.

With that, I both agree and disagree with your Phish example.  Does a Phish poster specifically promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, etc... ABSOLUTELY NOT (we agree).  However, does the poster promote the Phish appearance and ONLY the Phish appearance?  Or, does it also promote Phish themselves?  Your argument suggests the former, and would lead to the conclusion that a Phish poster does not actually promote the band Phish.

Now, as a side note, I will clarify that IF the Phish poster conveys images of their t-shirts, the instruments they play, or people enjoying themselves some marijuana... then I would contend that those items are indeed being promoted, and by virtue, this is also an advertisement for those materials.

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

After all, what is the dictionary? Someone's interpretation of what they think those words mean. It may be excellent work. It may be agreed upon by everyone. But that doesn't still mean that those were someone's interpretations of the idea they believe is being conveyed. 

You do realize that, with any advertisement, we are dangerously close to arguing over the interpretation of its original intention (assumingly of the original purchaser of said advertisement).  How could we possibly know what that intention is?  Who's to say that the action figure ad was actually "intended" to sell action figures?  Are we sure it wasn't intended to desensitize our children, promote juvenile delinquency, or convert all young men of America into comic geeks that will forever live in their parents' basements with no hope of ever reproducing with members of the opposite sex (let alone talking to them), thus lowering birth rates for the next generation and making America weak and vulnerable to a communist agenda?   The fact is that I can make any argument here (as crazy as it may sound) of what I assume is the original "intention" of the ad, whether true or not.

It is also a fact that my own interpretation of the message conveyed by the ad (again, whether correct or not) is likely not the same interpretation that another may have.  And, if the advertisement means something to ME that is valid TODAY, does that not mean that the ad is therefore VALID?  Who's to argue that someone else's opinion or interpretation is wrong?  (The "YOU CAN'T TELL ME HOW TO THINK, MAN!" argument.)  If even one person in this universe interprets the ad as valid, it is therefore, by virtue, valid.  I would therefore argue that the only way to contend that an advertisement becomes expired and (according to your definition) not an ad, would be to ask every single person in the universe their interpretation of the ad, and ONLY if you get 100% consensus from the entire universe, is the ad invalid.  (Though, save yourself the trouble and just ask me... I'll tell you it's still valid).

 

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm making a logical argument that I believe would stand up in court, even though it would never get to that level.

I have no intention of convincing those who disagree, because you're certainly free to choose not to use Media mail to ship comics. My argument, laid out above, is straightforward, and is in "bureaucrat think." 

You say "is this just your interpretation of YOU define as an "ad""...and the answer, obviously, is yes. It's yes because that's how human beings communicate ideas and concepts to each other: they agree, by consensus and usage, After all, what is the dictionary? Someone's interpretation of what they think those words mean. It may be excellent work. It may be agreed upon by everyone. But that doesn't still mean that those were someone's interpretations of the idea they believe is being conveyed. 

 

I'm simply stating that your interpretation and mine are different.  We can agree to disagree.

If this were to go to a court of law, the forum in which laws are ruled upon and interpreted, I believe your argument would be struck down.  Afterall, if even one person (myself in this case) interprets the law to conclude that these are advertisements, then it is feasible to believe that another within the court system or jury may share those same interpretations.  What you've implied here is that your logic and interpretation would win out over my logic and interpretation, even though it would never get to that level.

[Chip Cataldo]

On 5/10/2018 at 10:55 PM, Kramerica said:

x 14,000,605

I love that people do this now. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

The DMM doesn't care about expiry or validity.  The fact is that these were once advertisements promoting products, services, or events that were current.  They continue to be advertisements that are simply promoting products, services, or events that themselves have expired

That is, of course, your opinion, and you don't have the regulatory authority to determine what the DMM does or does not care about. Neither do I. That's the point.

You say "they continue to be advertisements", despite the fact that they are outdated, expired, and/or replaced. There doesn't seem to be a strong logical foundation for your conclusion.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

The fact that you use the term "expired ad" makes the argument that it is still an ad (just expired).  I'm even fine with calling this "historical reference material"... but why can't it be both?  You can't just say it's an expired ad, then argue it's not an ad because it's expired.  That, to me, is illogical.

Sure I can. They cannot both be ads and expired ads. They are either ads...meaning they are current...or they are not.

Is a former child still a child? No. A former child is an adult. He or she WAS a child at one point. Now, he or she is not. 

How about a former boss? Is he or she both your boss and your former boss at the same time? 

How about an ex-wife? Is she both a wife and an ex-wife at the same time? (And no "well, if I divorced her and then re-married her, yeah!" because then she would, by virtue of her being your wife, no longer be your ex-wife, even if she was that at one point. She is one or the other at a time, never both.)

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Let's make a couple analogies...
I bought a carton of milk a month ago.  It has gone sour and has passed the expiration date.  By virtue of its expiration, is this no longer considered milk?  Should I refer to it as "historical reference material"... afterall, that would indeed be a reminder to me that I should have drank it faster.

 

Now you're being glib. And you are not aware the date on your milk is not an "expiration" date, but a "sell by" or "best by" or "use by" date. And no, the milk doesn't stop being milk after it has passed those dates. It stops being milk when it goes bad. Then, in fact, it is no longer milk...it is bad milk. Depending on what type of milk, there is a good chance there's further use for it, but not as "milk." 

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

I'm buying my wife flowers for Mother's Day.  Those flowers will likely die in a week.  In other words, they'll expire.  I'll have about a dozen dead flowers, but by virtue of their death, are they no longer flowers?  Can you imagine the look on my wife's face when I tell her to throw out the "historical reference materials" that were once (but are no longer) flowers.

You're playing very fast and loose with the word "expire." Let's give you a much, much more concrete example: if you die, you have expired. You are no longer a human being. You are whatever you are. You are not now a human being AND a whatever you are.

As for your flowers...they were dead the moment they were cut from the plant which bore them. That they maintained their beauty for a while doesn't change that fact.

So...you're 0 for 2 on analogies.

And it would be nice if you took the discussion seriously, and didn't glibly misuse the term "historical reference material" to apply to things which have nothing to do with actual reference material, such as books, or photographs, or expired comic book ads.

It's not a "catch-all" term that applies to anything.that is expired, obviously.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

You misinterpret my words here.  I'm stating that the ad is promoting more than the action figures.  It is promoting Marvel comics.  It is promoting the X-Men.  I'm NOT stating that it is specifically promoting the comics, DVDs, movies, etc... just using those as examples of what comes to my mind through the promotion of both Marvel and the X-Men through this ad.

No, the misinterpretation lies with you and my response. I understood precisely what you meant, and I never said you said it was specifically promoting things outside its scope, because that would make me stupid. Again: "things that come to mind" have nothing to do with advertising. More correctly, advertising has to do with the SPECIFIC thing or things which is/are being advertised. If I see an ad about a resort in the Caribbean, and that reminds me of Jack Sparrow, the ad is not trying to call to my mind the Pirates of the Caribbean. That is not its goal nor intention. SCOPE is the operative word, here.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

With that, I both agree and disagree with your Phish example.  Does a Phish poster specifically promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, etc... ABSOLUTELY NOT (we agree).  However, does the poster promote the Phish appearance and ONLY the Phish appearance?  Or, does it also promote Phish themselves?  Your argument suggests the former, and would lead to the conclusion that a Phish poster does not actually promote the band Phish.

SCOPE is the operative word, here. Your reasoning is flawed.

Obviously a poster about an upcoming Phish concert promotes PHISH, and my argument doesn't remotely say anything to the contrary. But it is not necessarily promoting anything BEYOND Phish and their upcoming concert. SCOPE is the operative word, here. 

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Now, as a side note, I will clarify that IF the Phish poster conveys images of their t-shirts, the instruments they play, or people enjoying themselves some marijuana... then I would contend that those items are indeed being promoted, and by virtue, this is also an advertisement for those materials.

No.

By that reasoning, your X-Men Action Figures ad example is also promoting Russian music of the 19th century.

How?

Well, there's clearly a picture of a toy soldier, and toy soldiers figure prominently in the Nutcracker by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was an important Russian composer of the late 19th century. See? Advertising Russian music.

/sarcasm

Scope. You are wildly overextending the meaning of the word "advertisement", and trying to make it apply that anything that a particular ad brings to mind, no matter how incidentally.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

You do realize that, with any advertisement, we are dangerously close to arguing over the interpretation of its original intention (assumingly of the original purchaser of said advertisement).  How could we possibly know what that intention is?

That's an easy question to answer: what are they trying to promote? What is the object of the ad? That is their intention.

Simple.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Who's to say that the action figure ad was actually "intended" to sell action figures?  Are we sure it wasn't intended to desensitize our children, promote juvenile delinquency, or convert all young men of America into comic geeks that will forever live in their parents' basements with no hope of ever reproducing with members of the opposite sex (let alone talking to them), thus lowering birth rates for the next generation and making America weak and vulnerable to a communist agenda?   The fact is that I can make any argument here (as crazy as it may sound) of what I assume is the original "intention" of the ad, whether true or not.

This is, of course, total nonsense, and not a little conspiratorial. It's an ad to sell action figures, not a Communist plot to overthrow the West. Sometimes, the chair is just a chair.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

It is also a fact that my own interpretation of the message conveyed by the ad (again, whether correct or not) is likely not the same interpretation that another may have. 

It is, however, not rocket science. I can safely say the intention of the ad in question was to sell action figures.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

And, if the advertisement means something to ME that is valid TODAY, does that not mean that the ad is therefore VALID?

Mainly because we don't live in a Lewis Carroll fever dream, I can safely say that your idea of what makes an ad valid or not is well outside the realm of reason.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Who's to argue that someone else's opinion or interpretation is wrong?  (The "YOU CAN'T TELL ME HOW TO THINK, MAN!" argument.) 

That's another easy one, though it may appear not to be to many in 2018. Opinions are not created equally. There are people who are of the opinion that the earth is flat. This is demonstrably wrong. It can be disproven with empirical evidence. Does that mean they can't have that opinion? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that there opinion is not wrong. It certainly is. 

The validity of an opinion, any opinion, is based on strength of the arguments and reasons that support it. Opinions that are built on solid, logical, Aristotelian reasoning have much more value than opinions which are based on conjecture, feeling, or worst, flat out contradicted by scientific fact.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

If even one person in this universe interprets the ad as valid, it is therefore, by virtue, valid.

By virtue...? By virtue of what...? Faith? "One person interpreting it as valid"? You don't say. Your language use here is garbled. However, as interesting as the philosophy of relativism may be, it's never really panned out when met with reality. For example: "if even one person in the universe believes that they are the god of thunder, Thor, then, by virtue of that belief, they are Thor."

Obviously, such a belief system is in stark contrast with the truth.

The ad is no longer valid by virtue of it being expired. The toys it advertised, the store it advertised, the company it advertised...all no longer exist or aren't obtainable in the manner which the ad conveys. Wishing it were valid, believing it were valid, makes it an article of faith...not fact.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

I would therefore argue that the only way to contend that an advertisement becomes expired and (according to your definition) not an ad, would be to ask every single person in the universe their interpretation of the ad, and ONLY if you get 100% consensus from the entire universe, is the ad invalid.  (Though, save yourself the trouble and just ask me... I'll tell you it's still valid).

No, on all counts. Relativism only works in theory, never in practice.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

I'm simply stating that your interpretation and mine are different.  We can agree to disagree.

The issue is not "agreeing to disagree", nor that your interpretation and mine are different. Those are obvious conclusions. I am not here to convince those who wish to "agree to disagree", but to persuade those whose minds are not yet made up, or who had not considered other factors. "We can agree to disagree" is mere PC code for "You're never going to change my mind", and I'm perfectly ok with that. That's not my goal, and never is. 

The issue, the point, is to make a persuasive argument, and let those reading decide what they think, based on the arguments presented. As fanciful as your arguments have been, they are based on relativism..."it's true, because it's true for me!"...which doesn't work.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

If this were to go to a court of law, the forum in which laws are ruled upon and interpreted, I believe your argument would be struck down. 

And yet, you never explain why or how.

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Afterall, if even one person (myself in this case) interprets the law to conclude that these are advertisements, then it is feasible to believe that another within the court system or jury may share those same interpretations.  What you've implied here is that your logic and interpretation would win out over my logic and interpretation, even though it would never get to that level.

That's not how rational argumentation works. And yes, I haven't merely implied it...I've stated it. Now that I know that your interpretation is based entirely on relativism..."it's valid because I say it's valid!"...then yes, I would be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that my rationale would make it much further than yours. Western civilization was not built on relativism, but reason and rationality, actual logic. I may not actually end up persuading the governing authority...but I have little doubt it would be taken seriously and considered much more than "it's valid because I say it's valid."

But I do thank you for this interesting philosophical side trip.

Edited May 12, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus
it's it Phish

[StayInModern]

6 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

The DMM doesn't care about expiry or validity.  The fact is that these were once advertisements promoting products, services, or events that were current.  They continue to be advertisements that are simply promoting products, services, or events that themselves have expired.  The fact that you use the term "expired ad" makes the argument that it is still an ad (just expired).  I'm even fine with calling this "historical reference material"... but why can't it be both?

Because then RMA wouldn't be right, and RMA is always right! 

[bababooey]

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

6 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

If this were to go to a court of law, the forum in which laws are ruled upon and interpreted, I believe your argument would be struck down. 

And yet, you never explain why or how.

The reason the advertising is still advertising relates to the fact that, when published, that formerly blank page was sold to an entity advertising their products, the page space was sold at a cost, advertising is not just defined by whether or not the item is available.  Their effectiveness on consumers may "expire" but that doesn't change what the fact that it's still an advertisement. 

The interpretive guidelines (non DMM stuff) are to assist employees and users. 

[jsilverjanet]

48 minutes ago, bababooey said:

The reason the advertising is still advertising relates to the fact that, when published, that formerly blank page was sold to an entity advertising their products, the page space was sold at a cost, advertising is not just defined by whether or not the item is available.  Their effectiveness on consumers may "expire" but that doesn't change what the fact that it's still an advertisement. 

The interpretive guidelines (non DMM stuff) are to assist employees and users. 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

Congrats on five years and two days! 

[jsilverjanet]

[jharvey]

You can argue the rules of media mail all you want. Fact of the matter is the post office WILL occasionally open/inspect media mail, and if they find a comic book inside they WILL assess postage due, and it WILL upset the receiver of the comic book. Personally, I'm not willing to risk my seller reputation over it.

Edited May 12, 2018 by jharvey

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

9 hours ago, kav said:

Holy smokes what an incredible display of logic!

Can I mail the dead flowers back by media mail? If they are lost, can I get paid for them? Think about all the people cheated that mail flowers by USPS to a cemetery. 

[wombat]

The media mail debate always seems like such a useless conversation. Post office decides to open up your media mail package. Post office determines comics aren't valid. Post office says you have to pay up. Post office can point at statements that were made and publicly posted that comics are not valid. 

Now what? Debate them over the definition of an add? Debate them over what body has to issue their rules? 

 

 

[Number 6]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

The media mail debate always seems like such a useless conversation. Post office decides to open up your media mail package. Post office determines comics aren't valid. Post office says you have to pay up. Post office can point at statements that were made and publicly posted that comics are not valid. 

Now what? Debate them over the definition of an add? Debate them over what body has to issue their rules? 

 

 

 

For me, it's not about whether comic books would be deemed unacceptable and I (or the person I'm shipping to) would be charged additional postage.

It's the fact that media mail is a method of shipping that is subject to opening and inspection to determine whether the contents are allowed are not.

Even if tomorrow every single employee on every single level of the USPS bureaucracy came to a uniform agreement that comic books are allowed to be shipped media mail, those packages would still be subject to opening for inspection.

So in that world, even though neither the shipper nor recipient would be charged additional postage upon inspection, there would still be the risk of careless opening, handling, and repackaging with the potential of damage either at the time of inspection or in transit thereafter.   

This is one of the reasons I don't ship via eBay's Global Shipping Program:  I endeavor to pack my items very carefully and securely.  The idea that a PB employee opens the package to confirm contents and then possibly do a less than thorough job securely repackaging an item is unacceptable to me.

So if I were to say "I can't ship media mail" it would be a grammatically incorrect way of saying that because of the potential risk of mishandling and damage due to possible inspection media mail is, in my view, not a viable option for shipping items that are of a condition-sensitive nature. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Number 6

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

USPS (and the U.S. Government) can intercept and open any U.S. Mail they want, with proper legal procedures.