On 2/20/2013 8:44 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 7:26 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 2/19/2013 9:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I must be jaded but I think that most of it has become about making
>>> money for the companies contracted to do the fund raising than about
>>> raising money for the charity.
>>
>> That's not jaded, that's a fact. The fund raising companies can legally
>> keep just about the whole amount. You have to donate directly to the
>> charity if you want to make sure you're not paying some scammy business.

> There is an organization called Charity Watch that tracks the amount
> that actually goes to the real work of charities and publishes the
> results in a newsletter three times a year. I think the survey is quite
> reliable. An interesting thing is that putative Native American
> charities are a class that often get bad marks.

It's important to check that, too. But what I'm talking about,
the money never gets TO the charity. Those fundraising companies
keep the lion's share, and the charities know about it. They're
just happy they get anything without having to work for it.

nancy

jay > wrote in :

> In article >,
> "I'm back" > wrote:
>
>> We 'sponsor' a couple of families in Bali
>
> I would bet that you don't... unless you mean by "sponsor" you give 'em
> so old shit you don't want.
>
> LOL
>
> jay
>


I would bet that you are a pathetic little troll, with no life to speak of.
And I would be right.

Now... run along loser, but don't go away angry.... just go away.



--
Peter
Brisbane
Australia

Success isn't so difficult.
Just bite off more than you can chew,
then go do it.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
news
> On 20/02/2013 8:44 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>
>>>
>> There is an organization called Charity Watch that tracks the amount
>> that actually goes to the real work of charities and publishes the
>> results in a newsletter three times a year. I think the survey is quite
>> reliable. An interesting thing is that putative Native American
>> charities are a class that often get bad marks.
>>
>
>
> We have a government web site that you can check and see how much of the
> registered charity's money goes into programs. I checked on the one that I
> used to be involved with and was disappointed to see that the way it is
> reported, that charity looked inefficient. We did therapeutic horseback
> riding for he physically and mentally disabled. We got various government
> grants and had to raise most of our money through fund raising activities.
> Our operating expenses were substantial. We had four horses and boarding
> in a facility with an indoor arena to which we had exclusive access three
> nights a week was over $1500. Then there was the cost of specialized tack,
> vet bills, farrier bills. There was only one person who was paid, and that
> was our trained instructor. She got only $10 per one hour lesson. It was
> more of an honorarium.
>
I checked the site once and the proportion of "admin" costs for Alberta
Cancer was huge, IIRC >40%. Then I realised that much of this was the result
of their Lotteries where they give away houses and cars.
Graham

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:23:49 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2013 9:21 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>> > There are a lot of worthy charities to which I contribute but it seems
>> > that the requests for money tend to come earlier and earlier each year.
>> > This amounts to a sneaky attempt to get a larger annual contribution. I
>> > wonder if they realize that if I put the requests aside I will probably
>> > forget them completely.
>> >
>>
>> I am seeing a new and disturbing trend..... checking out in a grocery
>> store or at the liquor store and being asked if you want to donate to
>> XYZ charity. When it first started it was $1, then they started asking
>> if you want to donate $2. A couple weeks ago I was at the grocery store
>> and the cashier asked the person ahead of me if he wanted to donate $5.
>> I was not at all surprised that he said no. She did not ask me, but I
>> was left wondering if it was a legitimate charity or a sociological or
>> marketing experiment and they were looking for the cut off point, the
>> point where being pass from being intimidated by being asked directly
>> and being outraged by the amount demanded.
>
> One grocery store here gives 10¢ off if you bring your own bag and
> they're smart enough to just ask if you want to donate that 10¢ to
> whatever charity it is. Dimes do add up.
>
The Calgary Co-Op supermarkets do that. However, I always ask what the
charity is before donating as I give only to secular charities.
Graham

On 20/02/2013 10:40 AM, sf wrote:
ts clearly indicate that I posted them if you bother to
>> take 3 seconds to read the headers. And all the clues were there even
>> if you didn't read the headers. You're just not very bright.
>>
>> -sw (for -lvp)
>
> Oh, yeah - stupid me. You nymshift to escape kill files, say lots of
> shit you don't have the balls to post under your regular name, put a
> cutesy sw at the end to say gotcha and then play blame the victim;
> proving one again what a spineless coward you really are. You never
> consider that it makes you a point of derision and the butt of jokes?
> It must be killing you to have to be "nice" on the Facebook rfc group.
> I laugh every time I think about it, like right now. Oh, and don't
> think no one has noticed that the king of snooping uses x-no archive
> because he doesn't want to be caught in one of his usual lies...
> because that's what habitual liars do.
>


That helps to explain why he is in so many kill filers. I have said it
before and I will say it again. It is bad enough to be so consistently
obnoxious that you end up in a lot of people's kill files. It is really
pathetic to nymshift to get around those filters. How desperate can a
person be to go to the effort to change user names just be to an ass
under a different name.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:13:21 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

> The Calgary Co-Op supermarkets do that. However, I always ask what the
> charity is before donating as I give only to secular charities.

They always name the charity and they are not obscure.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:57:38 -0600, Linus Van Pelt
> wrote:

> And you
> don't even see the half of it since I have you blocked. You have to
> look at the group using your other alternate Facebook identity -
> otherwise how would you even know I post there?

Clueless, as usual.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

> So much stress. You REALLY need to get laid.

LOL, Steve. She's been married for years. No long-time married couple does
that often after the honeymoon wears off. heheheh

PS - deal with that fact, Bryan!

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:34:47 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>
> What annoys me is that once I give to a charity, it then pesters me to give
>
> every few weeks after that. I gave to one charity last year, and it e-mailed
>
> me *the following day* asking me to give again.

This is where a money order or counter checks with the scrawled signature comes in handy. And no return address on yer envelope.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:20:52 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
> order some though. Needed some with daughter's name on them and with all of
>
> our names on them. The ones that I have that have all of our names on them
>
> lost their sticky. I don't know why but a lot of them do that with time.
>
> And they're not that old. Maybe a couple of years.

Best thing to order is just a plain label with only the last name. Fits all occasions and doesn't blast your name to the world.

As to those received from fundraisers, I use em in lieu of staples when I need to attach a two papers and not create an upper left hand metal mountain on the stack.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:26:16 AM UTC-5, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>
> That's not jaded, that's a fact. The fund raising companies can legally
>
> keep just about the whole amount. You have to donate directly to the
>
> charity if you want to make sure you're not paying some scammy business.

True, but whaddayou supposed to do - drive to the headquarters of the organization? What if they're a thousand miles away?

I bet that veterans expose hurt a TON of contributions. Mad ME leery as heck.

On 20/02/2013 3:50 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:34:47 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>
>> What annoys me is that once I give to a charity, it then pesters me to give
>>
>> every few weeks after that. I gave to one charity last year, and it e-mailed
>>
>> me *the following day* asking me to give again.
>
> This is where a money order or counter checks with the scrawled signature comes in handy. And no return address on yer envelope.
>

Maybe the better choice is to do a favour for someone you don't like.
Make the donations in their name. Let them get the tax receipt and all
the followup beg letters.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:33:58 PM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
> Linus Van Pelt wrote:
>
>
>
> > So much stress. You REALLY need to get laid.
>
>
>
> LOL, Steve. She's been married for years. No long-time married couple does
>
> that often after the honeymoon wears off. heheheh
>
>
>
> PS - deal with that fact, Bryan!

I get lots. I was nice this morning. I had woken up in the middle of
the night, and my wife told me she'd had insomnia, so this morning I didn't
wake her up early. There are plenty of folks who have been married for
decades, and still have sex more days than not, sometimes more than once
a day. And why not? It's my favorite thing in the world. I like it better
than food, or beer. I eat food every day, and it's pretty unusual for a day to go by that I don't have at least one drink.
Skipping a day is OK though, and because of my schedule, Sundays and Tuesdays
are usually off days. It makes it extra good the next time. That saying about,
"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou," seems like a given, if you can get
it. What puzzles me is why anyone would choose otherwise, unless maybe they
find their spouse physically unattractive. Less than 3 times a week, and I'd
be grumpy. The couple of years before my son started school, I actually felt
some resentment toward him because alone time was scarce.

--Bryan

On 20/02/2013 5:22 PM, Bryan wrote:

> I get lots. I was nice this morning. I had woken up in the middle of
> the night, and my wife told me she'd had insomnia, so this morning I didn't
> wake her up early. There are plenty of folks who have been married for
> decades, and still have sex more days than not, sometimes more than once
> a day.

Not more than one a day any more, but 40 years married and two years
living together before that. Things slowed down for a while after heart
surgery, but I am glad to say we are still in that small percentage of
couples that are still like bunnies.



And why not? It's my favorite thing in the world. I like it better
> than food, or beer. I eat food every day, and it's pretty unusual for a day to go by that I don't have at least one drink.
> Skipping a day is OK though, and because of my schedule, Sundays and Tuesdays
> are usually off days. It makes it extra good the next time. That saying about,
> "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou," seems like a given, if you can get
> it. What puzzles me is why anyone would choose otherwise, unless maybe they
> find their spouse physically unattractive. Less than 3 times a week, and I'd
> be grumpy. The couple of years before my son started school, I actually felt
> some resentment toward him because alone time was scarce.
>

I used to wonder why my parents sent us to Sunday School. It wasn't
until years later that I realized it was probably play time for them.

On 2/20/2013 4:53 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:45:50 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> It's important to check that, too. But what I'm talking about,
>> the money never gets TO the charity. Those fundraising companies
>> keep the lion's share, and the charities know about it. They're
>> just happy they get anything without having to work for it.
>
> In most cases the executives of the charities usually have a financial
> interest in their "outsourced" fund raising companies.

That would be flat out fraud. That can't happen!

nancy

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:31:19 AM UTC-7, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:13:21 -0700, "graham" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Calgary Co-Op supermarkets do that. However, I always ask what the
>
> > charity is before donating as I give only to secular charities.
>
>
>
> They always name the charity and they are not obscure.
>
==
My SIL worked for W**M*** for a few months and she resented management
nattering to her about forgetting to ask customers about making a donation
to THEIR favorite charity. Some customers were quite rude and said NO so
my SIL hesitated to ask.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:44:17 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:21:30 -0500, James Silverton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of worthy charities to which I contribute but it seems
>>> that the requests for money tend to come earlier and earlier each year.
>>> This amounts to a sneaky attempt to get a larger annual contribution. I
>>> wonder if they realize that if I put the requests aside I will probably
>>> forget them completely.
>>
>> Magazine subscriptions use the same tactic,
>>
>Don't they just! I renewed a sub in December and had an e-mail offer 2 days
>ago to renew!

I set up my Tracfone just two days ago and as soon as I turned it on
before going into town today I'm already getting requests to
upgrade... I haven't made the first call yet... I don't want any
stinkin' upgrade

On 20/02/2013 5:55 PM, Roy wrote:

>> They always name the charity and they are not obscure.
>>
> ==
> My SIL worked for W**M*** for a few months and she resented management
> nattering to her about forgetting to ask customers about making a donation
> to THEIR favorite charity. Some customers were quite rude and said NO so
> my SIL hesitated to ask.
>


Maybe it's time for customers to start being more forceful about our
objection. I have no qualms about telling them no, but I am sure that a
lot of others are easily intimidated. I don't mind them having some sort
of jar or something for people to put their change in for the charity of
the week, but I really resent being asked to donate $2 to a charity of
their choice. I had a hard enough time with a charity that I worked with
when they wanted me to donate. I told them flat out. I am giving you
10-15 hours a week of my time. I should not have to pay to do that.

On 2/20/2013 6:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/02/2013 5:55 PM, Roy wrote:
>
>>> They always name the charity and they are not obscure.
>>>
>> ==
>> My SIL worked for W**M*** for a few months and she resented management
>> nattering to her about forgetting to ask customers about making a
>> donation
>> to THEIR favorite charity. Some customers were quite rude and said NO so
>> my SIL hesitated to ask.
>>
>
I don't have a problem saying a polite "No", but I can well imagine some
folks might get rude about it. It shouldn't be part of a WM employee's
job to solicit for charity. What, Wally World doesn't have enough money
to donate without making employees hit up the customers?

> Maybe it's time for customers to start being more forceful about our
> objection. I have no qualms about telling them no, but I am sure that a
> lot of others are easily intimidated.

Intimidated by a checkout clerk? Will wonders never cease!

> I don't mind them having some sort
> of jar or something for people to put their change in for the charity of
> the week,

I've got no problem there, either. I often throw a handful of change in
those jars *if* it's for a cause I care about. (That would usually be
something animal-welfare related.)

> I had a hard enough time with a charity that I worked with
> when they wanted me to donate. I told them flat out. I am giving you
> 10-15 hours a week of my time. I should not have to pay to do that.
>
You were a volunteer! They shouldn't also expect your money.

Jill

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:46:07 -0600, Spotted Dick >
wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:04:57 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:57:38 -0600, Linus Van Pelt
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> And you
> >> don't even see the half of it since I have you blocked. You have to
> >> look at the group using your other alternate Facebook identity -
> >> otherwise how would you even know I post there?
> >
> > Clueless, as usual.
>
> Well, most of us know how RFC on Facebook and blocking works, so
> saying I'm clueless is just showing you're the one who's full of shit.
>
> It just KILLS you to know that I generate a lot of the conversation on
> RFC Facebook and get along just fine. Of course I do it all just to
> **** you off. I am THAT Evil <snork>.

Evil has nothing to do with it. You were a brat when you were a kid,
you continue to be socially immature as demonstrated by this
sub-thread and if you didn't give a rat's ass, then nymshifting would
never enter whatever it is you call a mind.
>
> OTOH, I never mention your (or anyone else's) Facebook participation
> because I couldn't give a rat's ass about you. You're just an
> pathetic instigator.
>
You obviously DO care. Grow a pair and kill me here - even better,
try never nymshifting. I know you can't do it because you have
absolutely ZERO will power, so flushing you out is as easy as shooting
fish in a barrel.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:00:00 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:56:05 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> I set up my Tracfone just two days ago and as soon as I turned it on
>> before going into town today I'm already getting requests to
>> upgrade... I haven't made the first call yet... I don't want any
>> stinkin' upgrade
>
>I always get one "Welcome" message of some sort (this last time it
>inexplicitly came from AT&T). And maybe once every three weeks I get
>some sort of promotional text message telling me to buy a 120 minute
>card and get an extra 20-30 minutes for free. Never got a phone
>upgrade message. Maybe they only do that for the really
>bottom-of-the-barrel phones.
>
>Don't be surprised when you get a lot of people calling whoever had
>your that phone number before you. My newest number used to belong to
>a guy in San Marcos who sold quite a bit magic mushrooms and
>apparently ran some escort girls. I would answer calls that I didn't
>recognize as, "Austin Police Department", and answer text messages
>telling people I've given their cell phone number to the police
>department (among other responses). This went on for 6-9 months
>before the word finally got around.

I don't think I will be getting too many calls when it'll be very rare
this phone is turned on. I think some are missing that I really meant
it when I said this phone is strictly for emergency use.

On 2/20/2013 7:11 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

> How to alienate donors: use all the money they sent you on constant
> mailings and free labels. Just so you know you threw money down a
> hole.

I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out self
addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they are
only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.

On 2/20/2013 9:19 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 7:11 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> How to alienate donors: use all the money they sent you on constant
>> mailings and free labels. Just so you know you threw money down a
>> hole.
>
> I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out self
> addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they are
> only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.

They try to guilt you into sending money, and it only encourages
them to send more stuff, from what I can tell. A vicious cycle.

nancy

On 2/20/2013 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

> Don't be surprised when you get a lot of people calling whoever had
> your that phone number before you. My newest number used to belong to
> a guy in San Marcos who sold quite a bit magic mushrooms and
> apparently ran some escort girls. I would answer calls that I didn't
> recognize as, "Austin Police Department", and answer text messages
> telling people I've given their cell phone number to the police
> department (among other responses). This went on for 6-9 months
> before the word finally got around.

LOL! I love free entertainment.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:55:57 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 2/20/2013 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> > Don't be surprised when you get a lot of people calling whoever had
> > your that phone number before you. My newest number used to belong to
> > a guy in San Marcos who sold quite a bit magic mushrooms and
> > apparently ran some escort girls. I would answer calls that I didn't
> > recognize as, "Austin Police Department", and answer text messages
> > telling people I've given their cell phone number to the police
> > department (among other responses). This went on for 6-9 months
> > before the word finally got around.
>
> LOL! I love free entertainment.

Gee, I wonder why he needed a *new* number in this day and age of
porting? <snork>

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:08:47 -0600, Brown Betty >
wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:43:30 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > Evil has nothing to do with it. You were a brat when you were a kid,
>
> You must have one of those backwards crystal balls. One that tells
> the past rather than the future.
>
> > You obviously DO care. Grow a pair and kill me here - even better,
> > try never nymshifting.
>
> Oh, I have plenty of people in my killfile. But you're just too fun
> to **** with.

Yeah, right. LOL! You have no balls what so ever and just proved it.
>
> > I know you can't do it because you have
> > absolutely ZERO will power, so flushing you out is as easy as shooting
> > fish in a barrel.
>
> You're accusing *me* of having "ZERO willpower" yet you can't keep
> yourself from responding to every post I make when I morph just to get
> your attention. More pegging of the Irony Meter.

Absolutely no irony... You can't stop nymshifting and have proven
every point I made.
>
> OTOH, if you want to call me a glutton for Positive Reinforcement,
> then I won't argue with you on that. Because you're always a good
> sucker.

You seem to be spluttering, numbskull. I got you good and it's
obvious that you have absolutely NO will power.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/20/2013 7:20 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I will never have to buy address labels again!! I receive them from
>>> charities I've never had any dealings with. It doesn't make me want to
>>> give them money. Seems they're spending it rather foolishly.
>>
>> I used to get a lot of those and greeting cards too. But they pretty
>> much
>> quit sending them. The last batch of labels I got say Ms. on them. I
>> don't
>> think too many people go by Ms. these days but I could be wrong. I don't
>> care. I'll still use them but daughter dislikes that label.
> (snip)
>>
>>
> How silly. They were free. Why does it matter if your daughter doesn't
> like the address labels?

She objects to me using Ms. since I am married.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 20/02/2013 8:26 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 2/20/2013 7:20 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I will never have to buy address labels again!! I receive them from
>>>> charities I've never had any dealings with. It doesn't make me want to
>>>> give them money. Seems they're spending it rather foolishly.
>>>
>>> I used to get a lot of those and greeting cards too. But they pretty
>>> much
>>> quit sending them. The last batch of labels I got say Ms. on them. I
>>> don't
>>> think too many people go by Ms. these days but I could be wrong. I
>>> don't
>>> care. I'll still use them but daughter dislikes that label.
>> (snip)
>>>
>>>
>> How silly. They were free. Why does it matter if your daughter doesn't
>> like the address labels?
>
>
> Poor Jill, You fell for it. That was Julie's opportunity to make it about
> her dysfunctional daughter's dislikes.

No. I am sure she is not the only one who dislikes the label of Ms. I have
not actually heard it used since the 70's.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> Mea culpa! Apparently it's also extremely important *everyone* in the
> household have their name on the labels. It couldn't possibly be as
> simple as last name + address.

Well I wouldn't just put the last name. I have to send stuff to Drs. that
is from me or from her. If I have a label with each of our names on it,
that makes it easy for them.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:20:52 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>> order some though. Needed some with daughter's name on them and with all
>> of
>>
>> our names on them. The ones that I have that have all of our names on
>> them
>>
>> lost their sticky. I don't know why but a lot of them do that with time.
>>
>> And they're not that old. Maybe a couple of years.
>
> Best thing to order is just a plain label with only the last name. Fits
> all occasions and doesn't blast your name to the world.
>
> As to those received from fundraisers, I use em in lieu of staples when I
> need to attach a two papers and not create an upper left hand metal
> mountain on the stack.

But to some of the people I am sending things to, there is more than one
Bove.

On 2/21/2013 2:21 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mea culpa! Apparently it's also extremely important *everyone* in the
>> household have their name on the labels. It couldn't possibly be as
>> simple as last name + address.
>
> Well I wouldn't just put the last name. I have to send stuff to Drs. that
> is from me or from her. If I have a label with each of our names on it,
> that makes it easy for them.
>
>
What, the person opening the mail can't figure out from whatever form,
paperwork, etc. whether it relates to you or your daughter? Of course
there is always the option of *writing* the return address with the
appropriate name on the envelope.

Jill

On 2/21/2013 2:20 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 20/02/2013 8:26 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2013 7:20 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I will never have to buy address labels again!! I receive them from
>>>>> charities I've never had any dealings with. It doesn't make me want to
>>>>> give them money. Seems they're spending it rather foolishly.
>>>>
>>>> I used to get a lot of those and greeting cards too. But they pretty
>>>> much
>>>> quit sending them. The last batch of labels I got say Ms. on them. I
>>>> don't
>>>> think too many people go by Ms. these days but I could be wrong. I
>>>> don't
>>>> care. I'll still use them but daughter dislikes that label.
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How silly. They were free. Why does it matter if your daughter doesn't
>>> like the address labels?
>>
>>
>> Poor Jill, You fell for it. That was Julie's opportunity to make it about
>> her dysfunctional daughter's dislikes.
>
> No. I am sure she is not the only one who dislikes the label of Ms. I have
> not actually heard it used since the 70's.
>
>
No. I don't care if it says Ms. on the label. I'm not the one paying
for them. The ones I've gotten (free) over the years don't specify
Ms./Mrs./Miss.

Jill

On 2/21/2013 2:22 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:20:52 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> order some though. Needed some with daughter's name on them and with all
>>> of
>>>
>>> our names on them. The ones that I have that have all of our names on
>>> them
>>>
>>> lost their sticky. I don't know why but a lot of them do that with time.
>>>
>>> And they're not that old. Maybe a couple of years.
>>
>> Best thing to order is just a plain label with only the last name. Fits
>> all occasions and doesn't blast your name to the world.
>>
>> As to those received from fundraisers, I use em in lieu of staples when I
>> need to attach a two papers and not create an upper left hand metal
>> mountain on the stack.
>
> But to some of the people I am sending things to, there is more than one
> Bove.
>
>
If they (presumeably the doctor's you mentioned upthread) can't figure
out which is which it's time to change doctors.

Jill

On 2/20/2013 11:34 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:55:57 -0500, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2013 7:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> Don't be surprised when you get a lot of people calling whoever had
>>> your that phone number before you. My newest number used to belong to
>>> a guy in San Marcos who sold quite a bit magic mushrooms and
>>> apparently ran some escort girls. I would answer calls that I didn't
>>> recognize as, "Austin Police Department", and answer text messages
>>> telling people I've given their cell phone number to the police
>>> department (among other responses). This went on for 6-9 months
>>> before the word finally got around.
>>
>> LOL! I love free entertainment.
>
> I also told a few people that he died in a horrible accident, had his
> head sliced off in car accident. I was getting pretty bold there for
> a while, making up all sorts of stuff. I'm kinda sorry it stopped.
>
> -sw
>
Might not have been too far off the mark

Jill

On 2/20/2013 9:19 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 7:11 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> How to alienate donors: use all the money they sent you on constant
>> mailings and free labels. Just so you know you threw money down a
>> hole.
>
> I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out
> self addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they
> are only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.
I've seen those too of course and I can't remember whether they use real
44 cent stamps or the special charity ones.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 20/02/2013 7:43 PM, sf wrote:

>>
> You obviously DO care. Grow a pair and kill me here - even better,
> try never nymshifting. I know you can't do it because you have
> absolutely ZERO will power, so flushing you out is as easy as shooting
> fish in a barrel.


You should know by now that he lives for the attention and that he gets
that from your your responses. Kill files can be a good thing if you
don't want to be faced with temptation to stoop to his level, but you
have to learn to try to ignore that same idiot under his aliases. You
don't even need to bother filtering the new names because the pathetic
fool will have a new one by the time the other one is in your filter.

On 20/02/2013 9:19 PM, Cheryl wrote:

>
> I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out self
> addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they are
> only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.


I prefer them to affix stamps. I can steam them off and use them on
other mail.

On 2/21/2013 2:22 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:20:52 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> order some though. Needed some with daughter's name on them and with all
>>> of
>>>
>>> our names on them. The ones that I have that have all of our names on
>>> them
>>>
>>> lost their sticky. I don't know why but a lot of them do that with time.
>>>
>>> And they're not that old. Maybe a couple of years.
>> Best thing to order is just a plain label with only the last name. Fits
>> all occasions and doesn't blast your name to the world.
>>
>> As to those received from fundraisers, I use em in lieu of staples when I
>> need to attach a two papers and not create an upper left hand metal
>> mountain on the stack.
> But to some of the people I am sending things to, there is more than one
> Bove.
>
>
I have an ink stamp; they don't cost much, last for a long time and
don't have me looking for those tacky stickers.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 2/21/2013 8:56 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 9:19 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 2/20/2013 7:11 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> How to alienate donors: use all the money they sent you on constant
>>> mailings and free labels. Just so you know you threw money down a
>>> hole.
>>
>> I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out
>> self addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they
>> are only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.
> I've seen those too of course and I can't remember whether they use real
> 44 cent stamps or the special charity ones.
>
I don't remember the type of stamps but I'm sure they get a bulk-mail
discount. Many years ago I worked for an insurance company and we'd
send out mass mailings (it group insurance, so it went to subscribers at
the annual re-enrollment, not blind solicitations). In order to do bulk
mail we had to pre-sort everything, first by state then by zip code.
IIRC we got the bulk rate because we did all the sorting work.

Jill

On 2/21/2013 8:58 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/02/2013 9:19 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't understand that tactic, either. And the ones that send out self
>> addressed stamped envelopes. Not the postage paid one that they are
>> only charged for when they're used, but real stamps.
>
>
> I prefer them to affix stamps. I can steam them off and use them on
> other mail.

BTDT! A few weeks ago I got some solicitation addressed to my father.
I didn't pay any attention to what it was for. The envelope they mailed
it in had a clear window showing they'd enclosed a dollar bill. I
gladly accepted the dollar and threw the rest in the trash.

Jill