CP255
join:2002-07-19
Port Clinton, OH |
to Gbcue
Re: AARP: Getting off their mailing listI shred virtually all unnecessary paper that the mailman brings. I burn it all in the patio fireplace in the summer and the living room fireplace in the winter. |
|
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI |
to CP255
said by CP255:As a gun owner and a responsible person I do not like the AARP, let me rephrase that, I DESPISE the AARP and their politics and I want them to stop harassing me!
I'm a gun owner and NRA supporter. What does that have to do with AARP? I am member of both and see no conflict. AARP has the best Medicare drug plan so that is reason alone to have a membership (assuming you are either disabled under Social Security or elderly). They have never had any 800 numbers for problems like you describe. They are not picking on you. I keep getting a letter from them saying I didn't sign the petition (on what I forget) and the letter includes the petition again. I read it all the first time and decided I did not wish to sign that petition. Here's another a letter on the same petition. I threw it away. I have gotten that letter about five times now. It is irritating but I remain a member because there are some things of value for me such as the best prescription drug plan. So, I suggest you just throw their mailings away. Some website I went to several years ago, and registered under a false name and address (but close to mine), sold that to AARP and I was getting promotions from them like you when I was already a member under my real name. I kept sending them back unopened "return to sender, addressee unknown" and that worked but the turn around time is at least six weeks so I got a couple more and then they stopped. It was a valuable lesson as it taught me to always lie on line and never put in anything close to real...blatantly lie in other words and don't purchase online if that can be avoided because your information will be sold. Call the 800 number instead as that is not as likely to sell your information. |
|
 nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
to mareastrum
Form 1500 states that the mailing contains pornographic material that you find offensive. The law says the determination of what is offensive or pornographic is at the sole discretion of the recipient. In short the recipient has complete authority to call ANYTHING offensive and have it stop. |
|
| |
said by nightshade74:Form 1500 states that the mailing contains pornographic material that you find offensive. The law says the determination of what is offensive or pornographic is at the sole discretion of the recipient. In short the recipient has complete authority to call ANYTHING offensive and have it stop. Granted, but even if the recipient were to submit the item in question, it still has to be inspected to ensure that it is in fact pandering. I just spent the better part of 2 months taking classes and seminars in mail room safety and management. The instructors went over a lot of subjects, and pandering was heavily discussed as a lot of attendees seemed to have the idea that if they filled out the form, the junk mail would go away. They were sadly mistaken to discover that their applications were denied because the items in question did not meet the criteria for objectional material. Just because it may be in the eye of the beholder does not mean that it will be viewed the same way in the eye of the postal authorities. In case anyone is wondering, DMM (Domestic Mail Manual) 508, specifically sections 9 and 10 cover this subject. » pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/ ··· #1069177» pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/ ··· #1069216So yes, while the OP can submit the form, it will most likely be denied. |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL
1 edit |
said by mareastrum 
So yes, while the OP can submit the form, it will most likely be denied.
»secure.wikimedia.org/wik ··· ry_Order
Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an addressee of postal mail has unreviewable discretion to decide whether he wishes to receive further material from a particular sender, that the sender does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone’s home.
In other words, a recipient may obtain a Prohibitory Order applying prohibiting mail from a given sender, and the mailing used as the basis for that order need not be erotic or sexually provocative in order to be the basis of prohibiting the sender from sending further mail.
and in your link
"9.1.1 Initiation by Addressee
Pursuant to 39 USC 3008, an addressee who receives a solicited or unsolicited advertisement offering for sale matter that, in the addressee’s sole discretion, is “erotically arousing or sexually provocative,” may, by completing Form 1500, obtain a prohibitory order directing the mailer of the advertisement to refrain from making further mailings to that addressee." |
|
| |
to TwighlightLA
Of course they don't have you in their database, they buy the mailing lists from companies like mine that I work for. They can send saturation mailing to everyone over the age of 40-50-60 or whatever each month and keep doing it. That updates as much as once a month, so you'll keep getting put right back in it. » www.valassis.com/1024/Co ··· ome.aspxSelect "Consumer", then select "I would like to be removed from your mailing list". May or may not block their mailings, depends on if they get data from Valassis or not. I don't deal with marketing so I wouldn't know, I'm just in the IT dept. |
|
| |
to nightshade74
Then kindly explain why several attendees were told that their application for Prohibitory Order was denied? Obviously their eyes saw it as undesireable, but someone else didn't? |
|
 Mr NeutronImpassioned Gibberish
Premium Member
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME |
said by mareastrum:Then kindly explain why several attendees were told that their application for Prohibitory Order was denied?
The USPS screwed up. Again. said by nightshade74:»secure.wikimedia.org/wik ··· ry_Order
Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an addressee of postal mail has unreviewable discretion to decide whether he wishes to receive further material from a particular sender, that the sender does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone’s home. "Unreviewable discretion" sounds pretty straightforward to me: the addressee, not the USPS, is the one who is supposed to be making the call concerning what they get and don't get in the way of mail. Your innocuous Sears Catalog could be my "obscene publication." As far as those applications for Prohibitory Order being denied goes, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that the USPS failed to follow the rules and regs they are supposed to be operating under. If the above quote concerning "unreviewable discretion" is correct, I would be interested to hear the specific grounds on which the applications you speak of were rejected. I'm not sure that the applications being denied proves anything, one way or the other, without hearing the explanation behind the denial from the USPS. |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
to mareastrum
said by mareastrum:Then kindly explain why several attendees were told that their application for Prohibitory Order was denied? Obviously their eyes saw it as undesireable, but someone else didn't?
» www.squidoo.com/Stop-Junk-Mail specifically Postal Bulletin #21977. Local Postmasters were disregarding the supreme courts ruling and the denying the application. Should they? No. The near universal advise is to skip the usually misinformed local postmaster and send the form straight to: Pricing and Classification Service Center PO BOX 1500 New York NY 10008-1500 |
|
| |
to TwighlightLA
Why all these flaky & convoluted suggestions about calling 800 numbers, photocopying postage, mailing boxes of sand (really?), citing obscure federal mail regulations, blah blah blah? If I took the time to fight back every piece of junk mail I get, I'd need to quit my job and hire a staff of lawyers to assist me. Shit dude, just throw the stuff away. Is this really that big of a deal?  |
|
Mr NeutronImpassioned Gibberish
Premium Member
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME |
said by mocycler:Shit dude, just throw the stuff away. Is this really that big of a deal?
If the OP is under 50, I can see how this might be a "big deal."  I mean, this is the AARP we're talking about here, not the Society of Supermodels. That is, rather than getting letters from supermodels clamoring to date him, the OP is, instead, getting offers for purchasing Bengay by the crate (or whatever the hell it is the AARP typically spams people with). So, yeah, I can understand why some folks would be content with simply throwing away AARP junk mail whenever it shows up, but I can also see why someone who is well below AARP age might find their mailings pretty damn annoying, too. I've known people who were/are members of AARP, but I can't recall ever knowing anyone who was in a great hurry to start getting mailings from them.  |
|
 Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA |
to mocycler
said by mocycler:Why all these flaky & convoluted suggestions about calling 800 numbers, photocopying postage, mailing boxes of sand (really?), citing obscure federal mail regulations, blah blah blah?
If I took the time to fight back every piece of junk mail I get, I'd need to quit my job and hire a staff of lawyers to assist me.
Shit dude, just throw the stuff away. Is this really that big of a deal?
I don't want to be throwing away papers from AARP for the next 40 years... |
|
|
| |
to mocycler
said by mocycler:Why all these flaky & convoluted suggestions about calling 800 numbers, photocopying postage, mailing boxes of sand (really?), citing obscure federal mail regulations, blah blah blah?
If I took the time to fight back every piece of junk mail I get, I'd need to quit my job and hire a staff of lawyers to assist me.
Shit dude, just throw the stuff away. Is this really that big of a deal?
Yeah, it is actually. Because I for one don't like going to my P.O. Box and spending 5 minutes sorting through a whole bunch of junk only to find two pieces of actual mail. If you like doing that sort of thing, well then more power to you. |
|
 SparkChaser
Premium Member
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA |
to TwighlightLA
said by TwighlightLA:I think once you are on their list you are on for good barring a court order that they take you off their internal list. I get it in my name since I'm a member. (I don't have gun or a member of the NRA. I am a member of the IEEE) I used to get it for my mother until I told them she was deceased. That seem to work.  |
|
| |
to TwighlightLA
Don't get old. |
|
Mr NeutronImpassioned Gibberish
Premium Member
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME |
to nightshade74
said by nightshade74:In short the recipient has complete authority to call ANYTHING
offensive and have it stop.
I've spent some time examining this further and it seems that there's a catch to Probhibitory Orders: The only absolute requirement is that it must be possible to construe the mailpiece as an offer to sell goods or services.
» en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr ··· ry_orderIOW: if the AARP is hammering the OP with offers for Bengay at steeply dicounted prices, then the OP can probably take out a PO against them. However, I'm less clear on what the OP can hope to do to halt the deluge of mail from the AARP if the mailings he gets are primarily concerned with the AARP's political activities, as opposed to Exciting New Offers for surgical appliances, etc. I'm under the impression that, being a lobbying organization, most of what the OP gets from the AARP is concerned with politics as opposed to straightforward commercial offers. Do I have that right? Or does the AARP expend a fair anount of effort flogging timeshares and trusses to its members, too? |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
said by Mr Neutron:I've spent some time examining this further and it seems that there's a catch to Probhibitory Orders: The only absolute requirement is that it must be possible to construe the mailpiece as an offer to sell goods or services.
» en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr ··· ry_orderIOW: if the AARP is hammering the OP with offers for Bengay at steeply dicounted prices, then the OP can probably take out a PO against them. However, I'm less clear on what the OP can hope to do to halt the deluge of mail from the AARP if the mailings he gets are primarily concerned with the AARP's political activities, as opposed to Exciting New Offers for surgical appliances, etc. I'm under the impression that, being a lobbying organization, most of what the OP gets from the AARP is concerned with politics as opposed to straightforward commercial offers. Do I have that right? Or does the AARP expend a fair anount of effort flogging timeshares and trusses to its members, too? My $0.02.. What I receive from the AARP (not being a member and way shy age wise) is solicitation for membership. I feel that a solicitation to join would meet the offer of selling something. As a non-member I've never received any political ad from them just please send money. |
|
 kingdome74Let's Go Orange
Premium Member
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY |
to TwighlightLA
I love it when those bastards send me mail because it's a few cents some retard sent them that was wasted on me. I happily rip them up and flip it into the recycling pile. They can piss off. |
|
Mr NeutronImpassioned Gibberish
Premium Member
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME |
to nightshade74
said by nightshade74:My $0.02.. What I receive from the AARP (not being a member
and way shy age wise) is solicitation for membership. I feel that a solicitation to join would meet the offer of selling something. Agreed. Even so, with the AARP being such a powerful lobbying group, (and quite possibly the most powerful lobbying group in the country) I wonder if they might have have lobbied for an exemption from Prohibitory Orders on the grounds that they are a political organization, even if they do incessantly hustle people for memberships? Does membership in a political organization like the AARP (or the NRA, for that matter) fall under the heading of "a good or service?" It would be nice if the OP could use a PO to shut off the deluge of junk mail he's getting from the AARP, but his mention of the Do Not Call List has got me thinking about all the groups that are exempt from having to obey DNC rules (non-profits, political parties, and survey companies to name three). Perhaps POs work the same way in that, if you have enough political clout, you can demand that an exemption be made for your particular organization? I don't know. OP: if you do take out a PO against the AARP, can you please let us know how it works out? |
|
