Is this unacceptable or is it just me? 4 4

[kav]

The measure of a man is the traits in himself he can recognize that are bad, not how many they think are good.

Edited May 12, 2018 by kav

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Why did you stop posting for so long 

He stopped posting because the board had grown tired of his endless attempts to provoke conflict, and he needed a "cooling off" period.

Unfortunately, he's back, and whining about "walls of text", as if anything anyone posts is required reading at gunpoint. It's designed with no other goal in mind except to incite and inflame.

Moderation, where are you?

Edit: good thing I managed to report the latest potshot before it was deleted. 

Edited May 13, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[kav]

[bababooey]

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's an interesting argument, and one I've not seen used in this discussion before. If I understand you correctly, it's basically "what is advertising, from the view of the advertiser and/or the publisher?"

It's a bit circular...."it's still advertising...because it's still an advertisement"...but that aside, how do you explain "page space"? Do you mean the actual, individual page as it exists in each individual sold and distributed (not printed) copy? (I'm fairly certain you don't mean this.) Or do you mean overall, as it relates to the issue, and not the copies themselves? Advertising, as you know, especially in the past, was based on tiers of sold/distributed copies, rather than individual sales results for individual issues. Contracts weren't negotiated based on the actual amount of individual copies sold/distributed, as in "we will sell this space for 2 cents for each and every copy we sell", but rather "this is our average sales rate for this title, so our ad rate is thus and such."

It's relevant, because you're contending that the space itself remains "advertising" in perpetuity, based on that space having been "sold", and forever legally belonging to, another entity, right? 

(and, an aside, it is true that advertising is not JUST defined by whether or not the item is available, but it can be part of that definition.)

If you mean the former...that the actual, physical page of each individual copy still extant belongs to the advertiser forever, since it was sold to them, I would contend that that's not true, because contracts weren't sold on a copy by copy basis. They didn't "purchase" the actual page of each actual copy. And, of course, that would come into conflict with the right of the purchaser to that individual piece of property, because every part of that copy belongs to the purchaser, and the advertiser has no legal claim to it.

If the latter...that they "own" the page on every copy, because they bought the space for the entire issue, regardless of how many copies were sold/distributed , I would contend that that's not true, because there is no such thing as "advertising in perpetuity" (at least de facto, if not de jure.) Advertisers aren't sold this particular space based on the idea that their advertising would be viewable by people forever, or even a very long time, or even a not-so-long time. They are sold the space based on the idea that a certain number of people will see it when the item the advertising contains is brand new. and will be available for retail purchase. Once the item has ceased to be "brand new", and no longer available for retail purchase, the advertising, from the view of both the publisher and the advertiser, is no longer "in effect." Whatever results the advertiser is assumed to have gotten from their investment is done, and they move on to the next advertisement.

So, in THAT sense, an ad ceases to be an ad the moment the issue is replaced by the next issue, and/or is no longer for sale. And that is how both the publisher and the advertiser view it. The space was bought, the issue was printed, distributed, and sold, and the contract fulfilled. The end.

I'm not suggesting that's the case...but an argument COULD be made that way (and, in fact, has been.)

Nevertheless, it's an interesting argument.

Page space was only mentioned as an increment of sale, like circulation and placement (back cover) would be factors affecting cost.  I don't understand the tangent you're taking with former/latter since neither thing described relates to what I meant by using the term 'page space'.   My point was simply that both current and stale advertising are still advertising and that is defined by the publisher/advertiser arrangement at time of publication NOT by the advertiser/consumer dynamic.  Stale advertising is the term I'm using for old ads where items can no longer be purchased and while I understand your argument, I don't believe the content on the pages ceases to be an advertisement with age, lack of availability etc.. 

Consider this, a coca cola logo is pretty timeless so let's call that the evergreen ad for the sake of the example...would it be reasonable to ask every postal worker, customs inspector, tax auditor etc... to comprehend the distinction between a stale ad and an evergreen ad OR is it easier to define an item's characteristics based on its original purpose at time of publication/manufacture?  

Edited May 13, 2018 by bababooey
Typos !

[RockMyAmadeus]

36 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Consider this, a coca cola logo is pretty timeless so let's call that the evergreen ad for the sake of the example...would it be reasonable to ask every postal worker, customs inspector, tax auditor etc... to comprehend the distinction between a stale ad and an evergreen ad OR is it easier to define an item's characteristics based on its original purpose at time of publication/manufacture?  

No, but there's a much easier standard: is the person before me shipping out dozens, if not hundreds, of the exact same brand new periodical, or is it someone who is shipping out what looks to be a bunch of old and different comic books? After all, "advertising" serves as merely the distinction between "educational material" and "commercial products." That was the easiest way to delineate the two. Under the spirit of the Media mail regulation, most comic books qualify as "educational material", even if they are also commercial products when published.

The reverse is also true, by the way. Under Media mail regulations as they exist, a commercial book publisher...like Doubleday, for instance...can use Media mail to ship its brand new book to tens of thousands of its subscribers, even though, technically, they violate the spirit, but not the letter, of the regulation in the DMM.

And if the counterargument is that "they're not qualified to make that determination", that's exactly what they're already doing when they open and inspect contents: making a judgment call based on what's inside the package.

Frankly, the whole thing is nonsense and, like all bureaucratic "fixes", creates more unintended consequences than it solves.

As far as "stale" vs. "evergreen" ad, again, there's no such thing. An ad for coke from 1937...despite such product still being available...is, itself, no longer a valid advertisement. It has long since expired and been replaced, dozens of times over.

The DMM is all that matters. What someone says on a "website", even the official USPS website, is meaningless. This is a quasi-governmental agency that is bound by the DMM, not Wal-Mart. That there is "nothing in the DMM" that states a time limit on advertising is totally and completely irrelevant. An expired ad is no longer an ad, just like a former child is no longer a child, or an ex-wife is no longer a wife. And if it's not an ad, then it qualifies, per the DMM. No "time limit" statement necessary.

Edited May 13, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus
Dept. of redundancy dept.

[Logan510]

27 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Page space was only mentioned as an increment of sale, like circulation and placement (back cover) would be factors affecting cost.  I don't understand the tangent you're taking with former/latter since neither thing described relates to what I meant by using the term 'page space'.   My point was simply that both current and stale advertising are still advertising and that is defined by the publisher/advertiser arrangement at time of publication NOT by the advertiser/consumer dynamic.  Stale advertising is the term I'm using for old ads where items can no longer be purchased and while I understand your argument, I don't believe the content on the pages ceases to be an advertisement with age, lack of availability etc.. 

Consider this, a coca cola logo is pretty timeless so let's call that the evergreen ad for the sake of the example...would it be reasonable to ask every postal worker, customs inspector, tax auditor etc... to comprehend the distinction between a stale ad and an evergreen ad OR is it easier to define an item's characteristics based on its original purpose at time of publication/manufacture?  

The fact that nowhere in the Media Mail section of the DMM does it state there is a time limit on advertising should put an end to any argument 

That's not even talking about how they list comic books as a no no on their own website.

[bababooey]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, but there's a much easier standard: is the person before me shipping out dozens, if not hundreds, of the exact same brand new periodical, or is it someone who is shipping out what looks to be a bunch of old and different comic books? After all, "advertising" serves as merely the distinction between "educational material" and "commercial products." That was the easiest way to delineate the two. Under the spirit of the Media mail regulation, most comic books qualify as "educational material", even if they are also commercial products when published.

The reverse is also true, by the way. Under Media mail regulations as they exist, a commercial book publisher...like Doubleday, for instance...can use Media mail to ship its brand new book to tens of thousands of its subscribers, even though, technically, they violate the spirit, but not the letter, of the regulation in the DMM.

And if the counterargument is that "they're not qualified to make that determination", that's exactly what they're already doing when they open and inspect contents: making a judgment call based on what's inside the package.

Frankly, the whole thing is nonsense and, like all bureaucratic "fixes", creates more unintended consequences than it solves.

As far as "stale" vs. "evergreen" ad, again, there's no such thing. An ad for coke from 1937...despite such product still being available...is, itself, no longer a valid advertisement. It has long since expired and been replaced, dozens of times over.

The DMM is all that matters. What someone says on a "website", even the official USPS website, is meaningless. This is a quasi-governmental agency that is bound by the DMM, not Wal-Mart. That there is "nothing in the DMM" that states a time limit on advertising is totally and completely irrelevant. An expired ad is no longer an ad, just like a former child is no longer a child, or an ex-wife is no longer a wife. And if it's not an ad, then it qualifies, per the DMM. No "time limit" statement necessary.

If the DMM is 10 on the scale of importance, the written guidance on a USPS website is a 7 and the 'spirit' of the regulation is a 2.

So you can't dismiss a 7 and hope to win your argument on a 2. 

[kav]

20 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

The fact that nowhere in the Media Mail section of the DMM does it state there is a time limit on advertising should put an end to any argument 

That's not even talking about how they list comic books as a no no on their own website.

Once a certain type person gets tied to an argument though, they cannot shake from it.  It becomes a life or death issue, for them.  I CANT BE WRONG.

[kav]

And where is it written that if it's not in the DMM, it's not a rule?  I dont think there's a specific rule in there saying how to mail an ASM 129-does that mean you cant mail one?  Can you mail something using a zebra?  Why not?  It doesnt say anything about that in the DMM-

This is like A few Good Men-DO YOU MEAN TO SAY YOU'VE NEVER HAD A MEAL WHILE YOU'VE BEEN STATIONED HERE?

Edited May 13, 2018 by kav

[RockMyAmadeus]

44 minutes ago, bababooey said:

If the DMM is 10 on the scale of importance, the written guidance on a USPS website is a 7 and the 'spirit' of the regulation is a 2.

So you can't dismiss a 7 and hope to win your argument on a 2. 

Sure, if I accepted that premise. I don't. 

But the DMM doesn't address comic books specifically, so those "written guidelines" are at a 0, if it can be shown that it conflicts with the DMM....and it can.

Don't accept the comments of fools, who conflate issues in the attempt to create trouble. There are already OTHER regulations which govern the use of Media mail that should be taken for granted in this discussion. This is not a "it doesn't say you can't, so it must be ok!" argument. This is a "this CONFORMS to the rules AS THEY EXIST" argument. Remember: expired ads are no longer ads. They WERE ads. They are no longer. Therefore, if they are no longer ads, the regulation prohibiting otherwise-qualifying items which contain ads is no longer applicable.

The easy solution for those who disagree is to not use the service for comics. 

Edited May 13, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[kav]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Don't accept the comments of fools, who conflate issues in the attempt to create trouble. This is not a "it doesn't say you can't, so it must be ok!" argument.

This is a provocative comment, meant solely to inflame conflict, regardless of any other merit it may or may not have. Your comments are not good faith efforts to come to an understanding, but rather to provoke conflict. I would appreciate if you would find other people to interact with.

Thank you.

[newshane]

8 pages of argument.

Can you imagine having this conversation with your friendly USPS Postmaster? Or, better yet, the clerk behind the counter?

[Logan510]

4 minutes ago, newshane said:

8 pages of argument.

Can you imagine having this conversation with your friendly USPS Postmaster? Or, better yet, the clerk behind the counter?

I imagine they would look at you like you were nuts, though to be fair I'm sure plenty of them wouldn't even know you were not allowed to ship comic books via Media Mail.

My "favorite" is when sellers try to pull a fast one and use the free priority boxes but cover them in brown paper like they've wrapped a present and ship it media mail. I've received packages like this from eBay sellers.

[kav]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

I imagine they would look at you like you were nuts

THIS x1000

[jsilverjanet]

3 minutes ago, kav said:

This is a provocative comment, meant solely to inflame conflict, regardless of any other merit it may or may not have. Your comments are not good faith efforts to come to an understanding, but rather to provoke conflict. I would appreciate if you would find other people to interact with.

Thank you.

It’s funny, I recall an apology you made not too long ago. It was unfortunate that it came as a result of a personal tradegy however in that moment you stated that it had put everything in perspective. And that you had seen the error in your ways. You apologied, to not just me but to RMA in the moment. You said you had seen the error of your ways, that you had and these were your exact words “have been a coward posting knowing that moderation would not me but would go after people that I argued with”

However it appears nothing has changed. Like you did before, you play the victim after posting multiple comments to incite conflict, that you cleverly “hide”, because you now can’t delete. Such a shame that the crime of someone in your eyes is “walls of text” or “not willing to admit they are wrong”, yet being a hypocrite is completely ok. 

I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

30 minutes ago, newshane said:

8 pages of argument.

Can you imagine having this conversation with your friendly USPS Postmaster? Or, better yet, the clerk behind the counter?

Postmaster? Yes. The "clerk behind the counter"? No.

8 pages...? I think your math is off.

It's an interesting discussion, regardless of the divergence of opinions. Why disparage the discussion...? There are 18 (actual) pages of argument in the Metropolis is suing Voldy thread. Is that a problem...?

There's a really easy solution for those who complain about what other people want to talk about: don't revisit the thread. Instead, you choose to complain, creating tension and discomfort where it need not be. It's one of the actual problems this board has that the noobs are always going on about.

Edited May 13, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

It’s funny, I recall an apology you made not too long ago. It was unfortunate that it came as a result of a personal tradegy however in that moment you stated that it had put everything in perspective. And that you had seen the error in your ways. You apologied, to not just me but to RMA in the moment. You said you had seen the error of your ways, that you had and these were your exact words “have been a coward posting knowing that moderation would not me but would go after people that I argued with”

However it appears nothing has changed. Like you did before, you play the victim after posting multiple comments to incite conflict, that you cleverly “hide”, because you now can’t delete. Such a shame that the crime of someone in your eyes is “walls of text” or “not willing to admit they are wrong”, yet being a hypocrite is completely ok. 

I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you. 

Agreed. 

[Buzzetta]

This is because some people and things never change. 

[wombat]

Just now, Buzzetta said:

This is because some people and things never change. 

Probably applies to most people. 

[Buzzetta]

7 minutes ago, wombat said:

Probably applies to most people. 

In this very specific case and with this specific individual there has been numerous attempts of people asking this individual both publicly and privately to take a breath and to just hit the "pause" button.  It's a shame because otherwise I am sure he would be an enjoyable person to be around.