??? 15/12/2002 3:59:48 ??, ?/? Robert Newson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??????:
<snip> Hi Robert, Actually you now have what we used to call in the philatelic world (were I was working for the longest time) a "rarity". Better hang on to the envelope as it will fetch a decent price in the future. For postal purposes: 37 cents is the first class local mail franking. 80 cents is the overseas airmail rate for the size of envelope I suppose you are talking about. 37 + 12 =(49 cents is the surface mail overseas rate btw) That's actually a freak of nature (in philatelic terms). What probably happened is that one of these overworked and underpaid postal workers didn't pay too much attention... why should they really -they do but that's another story... see below-? (With benefits being chopped off soon to be announced for gov't employees as well... private employees are already dead in the water thanks to GWB, why anybody should give their 100%.). However, postal workers in the US are a very reliable class. Compared with my experience from around the world (and I have a lot when it comes to postal services given my philatelic background) these guys are REALLY good at their work. I only had no lost package (only one destroyed two weeks ago actually and that was probably because of bad weather) in 4 years from the post office in the US (and 10-15 in Europe in the same time - Ask Malcolm!). I had in the same time countless destroyed, delayed and lost packages from UPS, FedEx and their likes. >Incidently, cases a. and f. are both already covered by c. (In the case of > a., length/height = 1 < 1.3; in the case of f. length/height < 1 < 1.3 - >does this say something about the math [as opposed to the maths that we >learn] they teach in the USA that the people over the pond can't work out >cases a. & f. from c.?) Hehe, it may seem silly (actually it is VERY silly from a logical point of view but makes ABSOLUTE sense in a judicial context) but you are judging with the wrong set of standards. The rule here is better be safe than sorry, which includes the most verbose warnings, labels and usage explanations you've ever seen in your life. For the most part of this attitude, none other is to blame than Great Britain and the heritage of the common law system it left in the US (for the most part... a couple of states use Civil Law). (Cheesman, "Business Law", 2000, introduction Pp. III-IX). Since probably some poor man lost his very important mail, instead of reforming the whole lot of governing rules which is a b***h to do given the form of the government, they just added one more explanation to their label. (To thwart precedent...)... That's the same reason why a specific brand of paint stripper with Butane gas heat on it mentions in one of its warnings additionally to the general warning: "It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner other than its intended use" it has the (very creative) following: "This product must not be used as a hair styling device" :-) Well you get the idea :-) All the best, Phoebus
