Patterico's Pontifications


The Answer Is No

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Humor — Patterico @ 7:37 pm

The Los Angeles Dog Trainer sent us another free copy of the paper yesterday.

Which we didn’t ask for.

Do the stalking laws apply to newspapers?

12 Responses to “The Answer Is No”

  1. The dog is being delivered tomorrow.

    DRJ (d0ada6)

  2. Can we get Greenpeace behind this? They are cutting down trees for their fishwrap.

    nk (6e4f93)

  3. Littering laws.

    Al (b624ac)

  4. Trespass, too. “Six cents” rule, though.

    nk (6e4f93)

  5. Do the stalking laws apply to newspapers?

    Difficult enough to get them applied to stalkers.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  6. You know, it is interesting how close your behavior really is to stalking.

    You hate her, but you follow every one of her moves. You criticize her, yet she is the focus of so many of your thoughts and posts. You say you don’t trust her and are better off without her, but damned if you will leave her alone. You say you can do better than her, but you haven’t moved on.

    Who is the stalker?

    nosh (53dd5b)

  7. I had the same problem with the San Jose Mercury News. After I called and stopped service, the deliveries stopped but a couple of weeks later the rag was littering my driveway yet again.

    A second call threatening a legal complaint for littering did the trick.

    I do have to share Nosh’s observation. Too many blogs devote too much space to MSM idiocies. My policy is to avoid them and ignore them – that is a far worst punishment than continuing to allow them to be the center of attention.

    Whitehall (bea526)

  8. Having delivered papers for a while a few years back, I noticed something interesting: subscribers would go on ‘vacation’ and never ever resume taking the paper. Some were kept on the books for months. Also, the farther out a customer lived, the more heavily his subscription was subsidized. Possibly, the incredible shrinking newspaper readership has actually shrunk even further than anyone thinks. Remember the fiasco in Chicago where advertisers were being charged rates based on papers that were being destroyed? If they keep throwing it on your driveway, regardless of whether or not you want it, are you still being counted as a subscriber?

    oldirishpig (104338)

  9. I got an offer in the mail from the Times. One year of home delivery, Thursday thru Sunday and a $20 gift card to Best Buy, for $39.95.

    I was tempted to take the deal, but regained my composure and feed the coupon into the shredder.

    TakeFive (2bf7bd)

  10. It took me almost a year, and a litany of emails and letters to get the local paper to quit delivering the paper to my home. They would quit for a short period of time, and would then start back up. That was not so horrible, until they started billing me for papers that I never asked for.

    JD (edb511)

  11. Perhaps The Los Angeles Times has decided to charge based on its real value.

    Dana (3e4784)

  12. I don’t think this is an isolated incident at all. Newspapers generally report circulation numbers based on the papers that get delivered, not the papers that get paid for.

    It’s actually pretty reasonable, since an advertiser doesn’t care whether or not you paid for the paper. But if the paper goes straight from your lawn to the recycling bin it’s not clear to me the advertisers are getting value for their money.

    Eric (09e4ab)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0878 secs.