Text 12782, 95 rader
Skriven 2010-12-01 15:03:28 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 12750 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Mailboxes
=================
01 Dec 10 07:53, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Monday November 29 2010 at 11:09:

 RW>>>> i.e. we don't have locks on street-side mail boxes because hardly
 RW>>>> anyone ever bothers with it. (there's not much there to steal that
 RW>>>> will be worth the effort anyway)

 RB>>> I find that last comment surprising in vew of the heavy use of
 RB>>> checks in the USA. If anything, it would seem that places that
 RB>>> don't use checks (or use them much less - EU and apparently
 RB>>> Australia) would be less vunerable to mail theft simply because
 RB>>> fewer "valuables" are sent through the mail.

 RW>> You probably weren't paying attention to the part of the above that
 RW>> stated that the Postal Investigation police persue such matters.

 RB> The police investigate stolen cars and burglaries, too. So what? That
 RB> doesn't mean they don't occur or say anything about the conviction
 RB> rates.

The US postal service has a conviction record of 97% or better.

 DD>>>>> I pay the bills online.

 RW>>>> I used to do that. It was a free service, but I didn't like doing
 RW>>>> it.

 RB>>> Why? Any special reason?

 RW>> It's much easier to fill out a few numbers in a computer program
 RW>> that is able to print checks.

 RB> The bigger problem is getting your printer to work with the checks.

At first, maybe. But if you follow the directions and pay attention, you
can get it right in a few minutes.

 RB> American checks are long and very narrow,

LOL! Says who? Mine fit in a #6 3/4 envelope (3 5/8 x 6 1/2"). Business
size checks fit in a #10 envelope (4 1/8 x 9 1/2").

 RB> in contrast to German checks, which are shorter but broader. I had no
 RB> problems using my laser printer for German checks, but when I once
 RB> tried to print an American-size check, I couldn't do it - the check
 RB> was too narrow and the non-printable border on the printer (0.5 cm if
 RB> I remember correctly) too wide. Maybe that works better with an
 RB> inkjet printer, but then you have the problem that the ink is soluble
 RB> and can smear if wet.

In the software I use, there is a choice one can make in the size of the
check. Business or personal is about all you need, but there is also a
customized setting if your checks don't fit.

 RB> Or do you have a special check printer?

I have an HP 6500. It's a copier and fax all in one printer. It uses
8x11.5 paper. My checks come from Office Depot in that same format, 4 to a
page.

 RB>>> All the bank does is send a check to the company/person whose
 RB>>> address you supply, same as if you had done it yourself. (Only in
 RB>>> exceptional cases (utilities, government bills) do the banks in the
 RB>>> USA do a direct transfer of funds.)

 RW>> Yeup. But there's no paper trail. I want a paper trail.

 RB> You mean the cancelled check. Yes, my sister has noticed that problem
 RB> too. No proof when the check was cashed and you can't see the
 RB> endorsement.

I don't get the check returned. I must go to my bank's website and print
the cancelled check GIF here if I want a paper copy. It's enough to know
that it's there if I need it.

 RB> Such a pity that direct account transfers by private persons are
 RB> unavailable in the States

They're available. I paid my bills online and if required, I could make a
payment to a private citizen if I wanted. I don't often write checks to
purchase anything from a private citizen. Most want cash anyway.

 RB> - that would solve most of these problems (and have the advantage
 RB> that bill payments wouldn't make the USPS rich).

You would rather the banks get rich? You pay for their service, one way or
the other. If the PO goes broke, who's going to deliver all that junk
mail!?

                R\%/itt

 "Peltier was responsible for the close range execution of FBI agents..."
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)