In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
money in.

Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.

On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>

I've never seen a trial anything that did not involve sending a bill or
charging a CC later. If it is a free trial, there is the fine print.

I hope she canceled in the allotted period or still can.

Please, nothing is free. Anyone giving you something free is looking
for something in return. Same with the free samples at the supermarket.
They want you to like the item and feel obligated to buy it. Extended
trials have a "if you don't cancel we will charge you" clause in there.

A little skepticism and cynicism can save a lot of trouble and money.
Hope she learned a life lesson from it.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
> > In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> > Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
> > for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> > money in.
> >
> > Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> > magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
> >
>
> I've never seen a trial anything that did not involve sending a bill or
> charging a CC later. If it is a free trial, there is the fine print.
>
> I hope she canceled in the allotted period or still can.
>
> Please, nothing is free. Anyone giving you something free is looking
> for something in return.

No, it wasn't a free trial, just a deep discount,

She did not like the magazine well enough to subscribe. She gets
one cooking magazine -- Saveur.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:53:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> She did not like the magazine well enough to subscribe. She gets
> one cooking magazine -- Saveur.

I don't know why I haven't ever subscribed to Saveur because I like so
many of their recipes that I see on the internet.

--

sf

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:53:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
>> > In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>> > Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
>> > for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>> > money in.
>> >
>> > Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> > magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>> >
>>
>> I've never seen a trial anything that did not involve sending a bill or
>> charging a CC later. If it is a free trial, there is the fine print.
>>
>> I hope she canceled in the allotted period or still can.
>>
>> Please, nothing is free. Anyone giving you something free is looking
>> for something in return.
>
>No, it wasn't a free trial, just a deep discount,
>
>She did not like the magazine well enough to subscribe. She gets
>one cooking magazine -- Saveur.

Saveur is my all time favorite and go to food magazine.

koko

--

Food is our common ground, a universal experience
James Beard

koko > wrote in
news
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:53:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>>
>>She did not like the magazine well enough to subscribe. She gets
>>one cooking magazine -- Saveur.
>
> Saveur is my all time favorite and go to food magazine.
>
> koko
>
> --
>
> Food is our common ground, a universal experience
> James Beard
>

I'm a Saveur fan as well. I think of it in the same terms men used to use
to justify subscribing to Playboy. "Oh, I don't get it for the recipes. I
just get it for the articles!"

> wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
>> > In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to
>> > Cooks
>> > Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>> > signed up
>> > for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get
>> > the
>> > money in.
>> >
>> > Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> > magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>> >
>>
>> I've never seen a trial anything that did not involve sending a bill or
>> charging a CC later. If it is a free trial, there is the fine print.
>>
>> I hope she canceled in the allotted period or still can.
>>
>> Please, nothing is free. Anyone giving you something free is looking
>> for something in return.
>
> No, it wasn't a free trial, just a deep discount,
>
> She did not like the magazine well enough to subscribe. She gets
> one cooking magazine -- Saveur.

I like Cook's Illustrated but I don't like every issue. In fact, I rarely
buy it. The price of most magazines is so insane now that I buy very few.
I do actually get a lot that I so not pay for. Ed would object if I said
they were free. I get them through Mercury magazines. I am not sure how I
got hooked up with them. Perhaps through a survey site or something. All I
know is that I don't pay anything for them.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>> signed up
>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>> money in.
>>
>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>>
>
> I've never seen a trial anything that did not involve sending a bill or
> charging a CC later. If it is a free trial, there is the fine print.
>
> I hope she canceled in the allotted period or still can.
>
> Please, nothing is free. Anyone giving you something free is looking
> for something in return. Same with the free samples at the supermarket.
> They want you to like the item and feel obligated to buy it. Extended
> trials have a "if you don't cancel we will charge you" clause in there.
>
> A little skepticism and cynicism can save a lot of trouble and money.
> Hope she learned a life lesson from it.

Why?

It's a superb magazine.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 6:40:25 PM UTC-5, cibola de oro wrote:
>
> Why?
>
> It's a superb magazine.

I subscribed to Cook's Illustrated shortly after it first started. I liked the way they tested and wrote up their methods. The recipes I tried usually gave excellent results. However, I cancelled the subscription because I couldn't stand their attitude. They considered themselves perfect (probably still do), their method being the only good one. They also slammed several methods which later they had to admit were OK. This "holier than thou" attitude was just too much.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-5, Helpful person wrote:

> I subscribed to Cook's Illustrated shortly after it first started. I liked the way they tested and wrote up their methods. The recipes I tried usually gave excellent results. However, I cancelled the subscription because I couldn't stand their attitude. They considered themselves perfect (probably still do), their method being the only good one. They also slammed several methods which later they had to admit were OK. This "holier than thou" attitude was just too much.

Just like rec.food.cooking, then.

Cindy Hamilton

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-5, Helpful person wrote:
>
> > I subscribed to Cook's Illustrated shortly after it first started. I liked the way they tested and wrote up their methods. The recipes I tried usually gave excellent results. However, I cancelled the subscription because I couldn't stand their attitude. They considered themselves perfect (probably still do), their method being the only good one. They also slammed several methods which later they had to admit were OK. This "holier than thou" attitude was just too much.
>
> Just like rec.food.cooking, then.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Not quite. At least Cook's Illustrated don't insist on using incorrect terms and claim them to be correct!

http://www.richardfisher.com

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-5, Helpful person wrote:
>
>> I subscribed to Cook's Illustrated shortly after it first started. I liked the way they tested and wrote up their methods. The recipes I tried usually gave excellent results. However, I cancelled the subscription because I couldn't stand their attitude. They considered themselves perfect (probably still do), their method being the only good one. They also slammed several methods which later they had to admit were OK. This "holier than thou" attitude was just too much.
>
> Just like rec.food.cooking, then.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

DING!!!!!~

Yes.

Helpful person wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 6:40:25 PM UTC-5, cibola de oro wrote:
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> It's a superb magazine.
>
> I subscribed to Cook's Illustrated shortly after it first started. I liked the way they tested and wrote up their methods. The recipes I tried usually gave excellent results. However, I cancelled the subscription because I couldn't stand their attitude. They considered themselves perfect (probably still do), their method being the only good one. They also slammed several methods which later they had to admit were OK. This "holier than thou" attitude was just too much.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

Yet for some reason you reside and post here in Sanctimony Central, the
world's greatest collection of self-righteous, my way or the highway
assholes ever assembled under the pseudonym of one allegedly enjoyable
pass time - COOKING!

The hypocrisy is delicious, you total nutbar!

> wrote in message
...
> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed
> up
> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.

I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them if they
send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>> signed up
>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>> money in.
>>
>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>
> I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them if
> they send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.
>
> Cheri

I had trouble with books through Good Old Days. A couple of books arrived
and they were ones that I never would have sent away for. When I called,
they tried to say that I had agreed to get automatic shipments of these and
they were tied to their "specials". They put out a monthly magazine but
also some seasonal specials. Odd thing is that nobody else I know got these
books and they got the specials. In the end, they let me keep the books for
free.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:58:44 -0800, "Cheri" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed
>> up
>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>> money in.
>>
>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>
>I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them if they
>send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.

TOO many people DON'T READ the 'fine print'.

Almost all trial subscription programs nowadays include auto-renewal.

"The New Other Guy" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:58:44 -0800, "Cheri" > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>>> signed
>>> up
>>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get
>>> the
>>> money in.
>>>
>>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>>
>>I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them if
>>they
>>send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.
>
> TOO many people DON'T READ the 'fine print'.
>
> Almost all trial subscription programs nowadays include auto-renewal.

Sure, but I didn't see *even if you cancel two or three times we will
continue to send books* in the fine print.

Cheri

On 1/10/2016 2:33 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "The New Other Guy" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:58:44 -0800, "Cheri" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to
>>>> Cooks
>>>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>>>> signed
>>>> up
>>>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please
>>>> get the
>>>> money in.
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>>>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>>>
>>> I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them
>>> if they
>>> send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.
>>
>> TOO many people DON'T READ the 'fine print'.
>>
>> Almost all trial subscription programs nowadays include auto-renewal.
>
> Sure, but I didn't see *even if you cancel two or three times we will
> continue to send books* in the fine print.
>
> Cheri

At least you got them to stop! That was truly an attempt to scam you.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who get a bill and simply pay
it. My mother was like that in later years. When I got here one of my
jobs was to oversee the monthly bill payments. I found she was
frequently being double-billed by a local company she used for lawn
service. Since I was the one reconciling the checkbook I knew she'd
already paid for those service dates. If I hadn't been here to call and
give them "what for" she'd have simply written them another check.

The first time it happened I was willing to accept it was simply a
mistake on their part. The second time, what's wrong with you? The
third time, you're just trying to take advantage of my mother. That was
something I wouldn't stand for. I cancelled the service and found
anothe outfit to do the lawn care for her.

Jill

On 1/10/2016 11:30 AM, The New Other Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:58:44 -0800, "Cheri" > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed
>>> up
>>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>>> money in.
>>>
>>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>>
>> I've had that happen with the Jerry Baker books. I finally told them if they
>> send one more book, I will keep it and not pay them, they stopped.
>
> TOO many people DON'T READ the 'fine print'.
>
> Almost all trial subscription programs nowadays include auto-renewal.
>

It's just like the ads you see on TV for various things. We'll send you
the first [whatever] FREE! The fine print on the screen (which is hard
to read read no matter how big the television) indicates they'll
automatically send whatever on a regular basis. Naturally they're going
to start charging you unless you cancel within the first 30 days.

Jill

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:39:04 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 1/10/2016 11:30 AM, The New Other Guy wrote:
> >
> > Almost all trial subscription programs nowadays include auto-renewal.
> >
>
> It's just like the ads you see on TV for various things. We'll send you
> the first [whatever] FREE! The fine print on the screen (which is hard
> to read read no matter how big the television) indicates they'll
> automatically send whatever on a regular basis. Naturally they're going
> to start charging you unless you cancel within the first 30 days.
>
I like the ones where "all you pay" is shipping and handling. They're
sending two, so you get to pay it twice.

--

sf

On 2016-01-09 4:22 PM, wrote:
> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>


I think it is too common to see negative option billing. Rather than
paying up front and renewing at the end of the subscription period, they
give you a free sample and don't really tell you that the reason they
want your credit card information is that they will automatically bill
you until you cancel.

My wife fell into that with ancestry.com. I had been interested by
opted not to do the negative option thing in case I forgot to cancel.
She usually handles the credit card bills and does not question my
charges. This past summer I looked at the MasterCard bill and saw a
charge for over $100 for Ancestry.com. I called the CC company to
dispute it and learned it had been going on for four years and they gave
me the number of Ancestry.com. After dealing with them I had to discuss
it with my wife. She thought she had applied for a free trial and had no
idea they were going to charge us... over and over again. If I had
known that we were paying for it I would have used it.

My wife also buys annual subscriptions for a couple magazines as gifts
for some family members. We ended up cancelling a couple of them
because of their marketing ploys. She would order and pay for a yearly
subscription, and then 2-3 months later they would start sending her
bills for renewal. I guess they figured that people don't keep track of
when they buy an annual subscription and that they can suck you into a
premature renewal.

On 09/01/2016 3:11 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> My wife also buys annual subscriptions for a couple magazines as gifts
> for some family members. We ended up cancelling a couple of them
> because of their marketing ploys. She would order and pay for a yearly
> subscription, and then 2-3 months later they would start sending her
> bills for renewal. I guess they figured that people don't keep track of
> when they buy an annual subscription and that they can suck you into a
> premature renewal.

The same thing has happened to me but I ignored them. When the renewal
notices came one year, I had a dickens of a time trying to renew online
so I started *new* subscriptions instead - and they turned out to be
*cheaper!*
Ever since then, I've always cross-checked to see which is the better
deal. This last November, one magazine was significantly cheaper as a
new sub, the other wasn't.
Graham

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:11:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> My wife also buys annual subscriptions for a couple magazines as gifts
> for some family members. We ended up cancelling a couple of them
> because of their marketing ploys. She would order and pay for a yearly
> subscription, and then 2-3 months later they would start sending her
> bills for renewal. I guess they figured that people don't keep track of
> when they buy an annual subscription and that they can suck you into a
> premature renewal.

That's what I hate about subscriptions - guess that's the real reason
why I stopped all of them. First it's just a couple of months ahead
so you can get your renewal in without interrupting your subscription,
then it's a couple of months ahead of when you sent in your already
timely renewal... it's ridiculous.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:11:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> My wife also buys annual subscriptions for a couple magazines as gifts
>> for some family members. We ended up cancelling a couple of them
>> because of their marketing ploys. She would order and pay for a yearly
>> subscription, and then 2-3 months later they would start sending her
>> bills for renewal. I guess they figured that people don't keep track of
>> when they buy an annual subscription and that they can suck you into a
>> premature renewal.
>
> That's what I hate about subscriptions - guess that's the real reason
> why I stopped all of them. First it's just a couple of months ahead
> so you can get your renewal in without interrupting your subscription,
> then it's a couple of months ahead of when you sent in your already
> timely renewal... it's ridiculous.

What I hate about subscriptions is that I get my copy far after they are out
for sale in the store. I recently started getting OK magazine for Lina
(former home owner) and I got the same old issue two weeks in a row. Just
got another one yesterday. It was the one that was in the stores last week.

If I am not paying for the magazines, I won't complain. But if I am paying,
I want them on time!

On 2016-01-09 5:47 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:11:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> My wife also buys annual subscriptions for a couple magazines as gifts
>> for some family members. We ended up cancelling a couple of them
>> because of their marketing ploys. She would order and pay for a yearly
>> subscription, and then 2-3 months later they would start sending her
>> bills for renewal. I guess they figured that people don't keep track of
>> when they buy an annual subscription and that they can suck you into a
>> premature renewal.
>
> That's what I hate about subscriptions - guess that's the real reason
> why I stopped all of them. First it's just a couple of months ahead
> so you can get your renewal in without interrupting your subscription,
> then it's a couple of months ahead of when you sent in your already
> timely renewal... it's ridiculous.
>


My father in law belonged to some book of the month club and kept
sending books... and bills... for several months after he died. They
were notified, but kept sending them. They deluded themselves into
thinking they would get paid for the extra books they sent.

On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed up
> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.

That's how most magazines I get operate, automatic renewal. If you
don't want to renew, you cancel.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/9/2016 4:22 PM, wrote:
>> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
>> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had
>> signed up
>> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
>> money in.
>>
>> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
>> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.
>
> That's how most magazines I get operate, automatic renewal. If you
> don't want to renew, you cancel.
>
> nancy

Pay by check instead of credit card is my method.

Cheri

Cheri, I always pay by check...and keep track of my payment
religiously.

N.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri, I always pay by check...and keep track of my payment
> religiously.
>
> N.

I think that's the best way for sure with subscriptions.

Cheri

None of my 4 subscriptions operate on an auto renewal basis.

Nearly all trials can be cancelled within 30 days with a written notice. When
they send the first invoic e or statement, you write "cancel" on it and send it back. No
problem. Every trial offer I have seen has operated in this fashion.

I just renewed my Midwest Living...paid $19.97 (6 issues a year) for TWO years,
plus TWO years of Martha Stewart Living FREE. It was a special offer because
my subscription ends in March or April of this year, and I have ignored all
notices to renew so far.

I don't ever buy Living, but I will take two years free. I think it publishes six
times a year, too. That makes 24 issues total for $20.

N.

wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to
> Cooks Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she
> had signed up for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she
> should please get the money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.

Send in a cancel notice.

--

> wrote in message
...
> In response to a come-on, my wife took out a trial subscription to Cooks
> Illustrated. Now they sent her a "bill" saying that because she had signed
> up
> for their Six Months Automatic Renewal program, she should please get the
> money in.
>
> Did anyone ever run afoul of this? She never would have tried the
> magazine had she known she was signing up to subscribe in perpetuity.

Yes but not with that magazine though. It was back in the 70's. I sent
away for a free trial of some magazine and a bill arrived before I even got
the trial issue! When I called, they claimed that I was supposed to have
opted out after a certain number of days or some such thing but it made no
sense. How can you try something if you haven't even gotten it yet?

More recently I have been getting an ever increasing number of magazines
with the name of Lina on them and the last name of the woman who owned this
house prior. Her name is Angelina. She is also older than me. And many of
these magazines are not the type that an older woman would get. So that's
just weird. I got to the point where I just recycle the ones that I don't
want to read. I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:06:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
> hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.

Why don't you cross out the name and either say moved or the more
effective: deceased, and send them back?

--

sf

On 1/9/2016 11:30 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:06:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
>> hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.
>
> Why don't you cross out the name and either say moved or the more
> effective: deceased, and send them back?
>

Yes, that's effective, but you don't even need to return the magazine.
Just cut out the label and mail that, along with the message you
suggested. I think the Post Office even has post cards to use for
forwarding addresses, and that could be used for this purpose. It would
be a waste of time to make a trip to the Post Office for every magazine,
but it would be easy to pick up several and keep them on hand if this is
a frequent occurrence.

MaryL

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:33:18 -0600, MaryL
> wrote:

> On 1/9/2016 11:30 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:06:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
> >> hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.
> >
> > Why don't you cross out the name and either say moved or the more
> > effective: deceased, and send them back?
> >
>
> Yes, that's effective, but you don't even need to return the magazine.
> Just cut out the label and mail that, along with the message you
> suggested. I think the Post Office even has post cards to use for
> forwarding addresses, and that could be used for this purpose. It would
> be a waste of time to make a trip to the Post Office for every magazine,
> but it would be easy to pick up several and keep them on hand if this is
> a frequent occurrence.
>
It's just as easy to not put any effort into it at all and keep the
magazines. She didn't order them and her name isn't on them. They'll
stop eventually.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:33:18 -0600, MaryL
> > wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2016 11:30 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:06:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
>> >> hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.
>> >
>> > Why don't you cross out the name and either say moved or the more
>> > effective: deceased, and send them back?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that's effective, but you don't even need to return the magazine.
>> Just cut out the label and mail that, along with the message you
>> suggested. I think the Post Office even has post cards to use for
>> forwarding addresses, and that could be used for this purpose. It would
>> be a waste of time to make a trip to the Post Office for every magazine,
>> but it would be easy to pick up several and keep them on hand if this is
>> a frequent occurrence.
>>
> It's just as easy to not put any effort into it at all and keep the
> magazines. She didn't order them and her name isn't on them. They'll
> stop eventually.

Right. Also, the person moved from here over 11 years ago and the post
office won't forward magazines. Sadly, I learned this when I moved.

On 1/10/2016 12:30 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:06:30 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I did manage to cancel a couple of them but it took me many
>> hours of phone calls to do so and it's just not worth it.
>
> Why don't you cross out the name and either say moved or the more
> effective: deceased, and send them back?
>
sf! I guess she never heard of "Return to sender: Addressee Unknown".

Jill

Sqwertz wrote:
> I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.
>
> -sw
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

Sqwertz wrote:
> I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.
>
> -sw

Your woman abuse is literally endless!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw


"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw


"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.

-sw

You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
written down the once you realized you liked it.

-sw

Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
spite.

-sw

Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.

[High Five]

-sw

Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.

-sw

You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.

-sw

You tell him Julie!

<snort>

-sw

That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
explain why the proposed solution won't work.

Same 'ol song and dance.

-sw

<snip rest unread>

-sw

So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
have been your direct experience with the New York public school
system in the early 2000's?

-sw

What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
world.

-sw


Again, only in YOUR house.

-sw



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 1/11/2016 12:23 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.
>
> -sw


Your woman abuse is as grotesque, unprovoked, and ugly as anything
anyone in this medium has ever done.

You are a pathological woman-hater and a deeply disturbed and wounded
little man:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw


"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw


"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.

-sw

You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
written down the once you realized you liked it.

-sw

Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
spite.

-sw

Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.

[High Five]

-sw

Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.

-sw

You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.

-sw

You tell him Julie!

<snort>

-sw

That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
explain why the proposed solution won't work.

Same 'ol song and dance.

-sw

<snip rest unread>

-sw

So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
have been your direct experience with the New York public school
system in the early 2000's?

-sw

What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
world.

-sw


Again, only in YOUR house.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++