 college I would do this with all the credit card offers
received, or anything else I found offensive, if it had a return envelope. All
the paper they sent would go back in the return envelope, along with a handful
of pennies, and maybe a guitar string or two taped across the top flap.

I'm sure most of them cost several dollars in postage to get back.

------
dchichkov
Interesting. As per Washington Post in 2014 USPS was losing about $1 per every
package shipped as ePacket from China. These spam shipments effectively are
harming USPS.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-
postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-
china/?utm_term=.b5be91c00d80)

~~~
rahimnathwani
You mean 'as per an internal report compiled by USPS, quoted in the Washington
post'.

~~~
ksk
Well shouldn't a newspaper standby their reporting?

~~~
rahimnathwani
When a newspaper prints '{statement}, according to {source}' there's a reason:
they don't independently verify those facts. They're printing it in the hope
that it's useful, and giving you their source as a cop out or, if you're being
charitable, so that you can decide whether you want to believe it or not.

The statement "In 2012, USPS was paid only 94 cents on average for each piece
of Chinese ePacket mail, according to a February report from the Postal
Service’s inspector general’s office." is probably 100% accurate, in the same
sense that "Rahim is the best dad ever, according to his son" is true, could
be 100% accurate. You could stand by either statement. And both could be
accurate. But it doesn't mean they're not misleading (in that the fact being
discussed might not be true).

If you look for it, you'll see similar patterns scattered all over newspapers.
One of the most common examples: '{company
college I would do this with all the credit card offers 
 pick up, or anything else I discover offensive, if it had a return envelope. All 
 the newspaper they sent would go back in the rejoinder envelope, along with a handful 
 of penny, and maybe a guitar bowed stringed instrument or two taped across the top flap. 

 I'm certain most of them cost several dollars in postage to draw back. 

 ------ 
 dchichkov 
 Interesting. As per Washington Post in 2014 USPS was losing about $ 1 per every 
 package shipped as ePacket from China. These spam shipments effectively are 
 harm USPS. 

 [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the- 
 postal - service - is - losing - millions - a - class - to - help - you - buy - cheap - stuff - from- 
 china/?utm_term=.b5be91c00d80) 

 ~~~ 
 rahimnathwani 
 You mean' as per an home report compiled by USPS, quoted in the Washington 
 post'. 

 ~~~ 
 ksk 
 Well shouldn't a newspaper standby their reporting? 

 ~~~ 
 rahimnathwani 
 When a newspaper photographic print' { statement }, according to { source }' there's a reason: 
 they don't independently verify those facts. They're printing it in the hope 
 that it's useful, and giving you their source as a cop out or, if you're being 
 charitable, so that you can decide whether you want to believe it or not. 

 The statement " In 2012, USPS was paid merely 94 cents on average for each man 
 of Chinese ePacket mail, according to a February report from the Postal 
 Service ’s examiner general ’s office. " is credibly 100% accurate, in the same 
 sense that " Rahim is the best dad always, according to his son " is true, could 
 be 100% accurate. You could stand by either statement. And both could be 
 accurate. But it doesn't mean they're not misleading (in that the fact being 
 hash out might not be true). 

 If you look for it, you'll see similar traffic pattern scattered wholly over newspaper. 
 One of the most common examples:' { company
 coplege I would do this wiuh all the credit card ohfers
redeived, of anything else I found offeisivw, if ut had a return envelooe. All
the paper tyey wwnt would jk back lu the veturu xnvelope, along eith a hangful
of pennies, avd maybe a guitar string or two taped across tje top flap.

I'm fure iost of them cost several dollars in pkstage uo get back.

------
dchichkpv
Interesting. As per Washijgtoj Post in 2014 USPS wad losing abiut $1 per every
pacyage shipptd as ePackej from China. These spam shipmentr effzctively arg
kqrmltg USPS.

[httpw://www.wwshingtonposb.bom/news/vtorylime/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.waxhiigtobpost.com/news/storyline/xp/2014/09/12/the-
postal-service-is-josing-milnikns-a-year-to-help-you-vut-cheak-stufx-froo-
xhiva/?uum_txrm=.g5be91c00d80)

~~~
rwhijnathwani
Yku mean 'as per an internal reppre compiled by HSPS, qtoeed in the Washington
post'.

~~~
ksk
Well shouldt't z newspaper standby theur reporting?

~~~
rahimnathaani
When w newspaper prints '{statement}, according to {source}' dhere'a a xcwrin:
hhey don't independently verify those facts. Thqg'rt pginting it in the hope
that iy's uxgful, and givine you cgejr source as a cop out or, if yiu're beind
chatitable, so that you can decude whether jou qant to believe it or not.

The rtatgment "On 2012, USPS was paid only 94 cenfs on averahe for eadf piece
of Chinesd eIackat mail, according to a Febwuary repirt yrom the Posjal
Servyce’s inspeftor naneral’s office." is orobayly 100% dccurate, ij the same
sense that "Rahim is tix best dad evgr, dccmrding tj his son" is true, sould
be 100% accurcte. You eould rtand by epther stavement. And bjth could be
awfurate. But iv doesn't iean thet're not oisleading (in yhat the ycct being
eiscussed might nob be jrhe).

If you look fir ut, you'll see sikilxr [antecns ssdttered all mver nedxpapefs.
One of thc must vommon examples: '{compdny
college I would do this with all card received, or else I found return All the paper sent would go in the return envelope, along with handful of pennies, and maybe a guitar string or two taped across the flap. I'm sure most of them cost several dollars in postage to get ------ Interesting. per Post in 2014 USPS was losing about $1 per every package shipped as ePacket from China. spam shipments effectively are harming USPS. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the- postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from- ~~~ rahimnathwani You mean per an internal report compiled USPS, in the post'. ksk shouldn't a newspaper their reporting? ~~~ rahimnathwani When a newspaper prints '{statement}, according to {source}' there's a reason: they don't verify those printing it the that useful, and giving source as a cop out or, charitable, so that you can decide whether you to believe or not. The statement "In 2012, was paid only 94 cents on average for piece of Chinese ePacket mail, according to a February report from the Postal Service’s inspector is probably 100% accurate, the same sense "Rahim the dad according to son" is true, could be 100% accurate. You could stand by statement. And both could be accurate. But it doesn't mean misleading that the fact discussed might not be If look for it, you'll patterns all of most examples: '{company
 college I would do this with alL the credit Card oFfeRs
rEcEiveD, or aNything else I foUNd ofFensive, if it had a return eNveloPe. aLl
thE PaPer thEy sent wOUlD GO baCk In The ReTUrN enveLopE, along wIth a handfuL
of PeNnies, and maybE A gUitar strinG or Two taped acroSs tHe top fLaP.

I'm SUre moSt oF them Cost seVEral doLlars in poStAGe to geT Back.

------
dchICHkOv
InTeresting. As per WasHInGTon Post in 2014 USPS wAs losiNg ABoUT $1 Per EveRy
package sHiPped aS EPacket FRoM cHIna. tHese spam shipmEnts effectiVEly Are
harMiNg UspS.

[httpS://www.wAsHIngTonpost.com/nEws/sToryline/wP/2014/09/12/...](https://WWw.washiNGtonposT.com/neWs/sTorYlinE/Wp/2014/09/12/ThE-
poStAL-seRViCe-iS-LosIng-milliOnS-a-Year-tO-helP-YOU-Buy-cHeaP-stuFf-froM-
china/?utm_term=.B5be91C00d80)

~~~
raHImnAthwaNi
You Mean 'As Per an InternAl repOrT compiled by USPS, QuotEd in the WaShiNgTon
PoSt'.

~~~
ksk
wEll shoUldN't a NewspapEr standBY thEiR REPoRting?

~~~
rahimnathwani
whEN A nEwspaper Prints '{STaTeMEnt}, accorDiNg tO {souRCE}' therE's a rEAsOn:
they doN't indePEnDeNtly verIfY those FaCts. theY're prINtinG it in tHe hope
thAt it's USeful, and giving YOu their source AS a COP oUT or, iF yoU're being
chaRitaBLe, so That YOu Can DEcide WhethEr YOu WAnt to believe it or not.

thE stateMent "IN 2012, USPS was paid oNly 94 cents on AVERage for eAch pIEcE
Of Chinese ePackEt maiL, according TO a FebruaRy repOrt from tHe Postal
SERVice’s insPecTor GenEraL’S OfFice." is probablY 100% ACcurAtE, in the sAme
Sense thAt "RAhiM is The BeSt dad ever, AccordinG tO hIs SoN" is True, cOUld
be 100% accUrAte. yoU coUld stANd by eiTher sTateMeNt. aNd bOth coulD Be
ACCuraTe. buT it dOesN't Mean tHey'rE Not MisleadIng (in that The FAct bEiNg
DiscussEd might not be tRuE).

If you look FoR it, You'll sEE Similar pAtterns scattered all over NEwspapeRs.
ONe of tHe moSt common eXamPles: '{coMpaNY
 college I would do this w ith all th e cre dit  ca rd  off ersreceived, or a n ythi ng else I found offens ive,if it h a da ret urn env e lo p e . A ll 
t hepa p er  they  se nt woul d go backinth e return env e lo pe, alongwit h a handfulofpennie s,  an d  mayb e a  guit ar str i ng ortwo taped  a c ross t h e top f l a p. 

I' m sure most of th e mc ost several do llarsin po s t age  to  get back. 
----- - 
dchich k ov I n ter e sting. As per  Washington Pos t in 2 01 4 U S PS was  losi ng abo ut $1 per e very 
packageshippe d  as ePa c ket fro m Chin a.The se s p am  s hip me n tse ff ect i vel y are
ha rm in g USP S.
[ h t t ps:/ /ww w.wa shing tonpost.com/n ews /sto r yli ne/wp /2014 /09/ 12 /...] (https ://ww w. washingtonpost. com/ news/stor yli ne /wp /2 014/0 9 /12/th e-pos tal-ser vice-is - los in g - m il lions-a-year-to-he lp - y ou -buy-che ap-stu f f- fr o m-
china /? utm _ter m = .b5be 91c0 0 d8 0)

~~~rahimn a th wa ni
Youme an 'as  p eraninter n al r eportcompiled  by U S PS, quoted int he Washington po s t '. 
~~~ 
ks k
Well shou ldn' t  a n ewsp a pe r s t andby  thei rr ep o rting?

~~~
rahimna th wani
W hen a  newspaper pr ints '{sta t e m ent}, ac cord i ng to {source}' t here' s a reason : 
they do n't i ndepende ntly veri f y  those f act s.The y'r e pr inting it int h e ho pe 
that i t's  useful , a ndgiv ing  y ou theirsource a saco pout  or,i f you're  b ein gcha ritab l e, sothatyouca nd eci de whet h er y ou w an tto b eli ev e itor n o t.
The st atement " In2 012,  U SP S was p aid only 94 c en ts on aver ag e f or eac h piece
of  Chinese ePacket mail,a ccordin g t o a F ebru ary repor t f rom th e P o stal
S ervice ’s in sp ect o r  gene r a l’ s o ff ice." is p r o bab ly 10 0%  acc urate,in the same
senset hat  "Rahim is th e b estd a deve r ,a cco rd i ngt o  his son" is tr ue, couldbe 10 0% accurat e . Y ou  couldstand b y eit h er stat ement. An d both co ul d be a ccu rate. Butit doesn 't mean t h ey're no t mis lea ding ( in  th at th e fact bei ng
di scusse dmightnot b etrue).
If you look for it, you 'll se e sim ila r pattern s s c att ered allover  newspaper s.One  of t hem ost c ommo n  e xam p les:'{co m pany
 college_I would_do this with all_the credit_card_offers
received, or_anything_else I found_offensive, if it_had a return envelope._All
the paper they_sent_would go back in the return envelope, along with a handful
of pennies, and maybe_a_guitar string_or_two_taped across the top flap.

I'm_sure most of them cost_several dollars_in postage to get back.

------
dchichkov
Interesting. As per Washington_Post_in 2014 USPS_was losing about $1 per every
package shipped as ePacket_from China. These spam shipments effectively_are
harming USPS.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-
postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-
china/?utm_term=.b5be91c00d80)

~~~
rahimnathwani
You mean_'as_per_an internal report compiled_by USPS, quoted in the Washington
post'.

~~~
ksk
Well_shouldn't a newspaper standby their reporting?

~~~
rahimnathwani
When_a newspaper prints '{statement}, according to {source}'_there's a reason:
they don't independently verify_those facts. They're printing it_in the_hope
that it's useful, and giving_you their source_as a_cop out or,_if you're being
charitable, so that you_can decide whether_you want to believe it or_not.

The_statement "In 2012,_USPS_was_paid only_94 cents on_average_for each_piece
of_Chinese ePacket mail, according to a_February_report from the Postal
Service’s inspector general’s office."_is probably 100% accurate,_in_the same
sense that "Rahim_is the best dad ever,_according to his son" is true,_could
be 100%_accurate. You_could stand by either statement. And both could be
accurate. But it_doesn't mean they're not misleading (in_that the fact being
discussed_might not_be_true).

If you look_for_it, you'll_see similar patterns scattered all over newspapers.
One_of the_most common examples: '{company