|
Posted by George on May 3, 2008, 6:04 pm
aspasia wrote:
>>
> So how did you make out with RETURN TO SENDER? I tried that recently
> because I am FLOODED with charitable solicitations, sometimes
> 5-6x/annum from the same outfit. What happens, I found out to my
> sorrow, is that each charity/organization I donate to -- I send small
> checks/membership renewals to many -- sells or exchanges its list with
> 'n' others, no matter in some cases if you tell them not to.
> The result is an unending torrent of letters, some -- amusingly enough
> -- from organizations I OPPOSE!
Or they get a donation from you and somehow decide they will get another
one if they send you a solicitation each week. The way I stopped that is
by using $0.35 money orders. They get the money but nothing to enter
into their database(s) for future use.
>
> Yes, I tried recently to put REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER, but
> the carrier dropped them back through the slot. I called the Post
> Office. The lady said that if I refuse mail, they will stop
> delivering!! Whatthell is THAT about?
>
> For the nonce, the junque is going back into the recycling, but that
> does not address the issues: Killing trees [environmental
> degradation; paper-making is one of the most chemically polluting
> technologies] to create junque that is sent by air [carbon] and
> sorted at several stages involving transportation [carbon] and
> delivered by carriers whose load might well be lighter if...
>
> If someone more ambitious than moi could clarify the postal regs
> involving RETURN TO SENDER - perhaps REFUSED was
> the deal breaker? - we could all profit.
>
>
>
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap