To the Subscription Department of the New York Times:

I have received your third letter requesting remittance for my New York Times newspaper home delivery. I’m disappointed that you have threatened to cut off delivery of my daily paper, especially in light of my continued efforts towards compliance within the agreed framework of the subscription contract.

Soon after my daily subscription started, I received a bill from the NYT. I immediately complied with this request for payment by sending in $0.25. While this was not a “full” payment (as defined by you), it was clearly a signal that I intended to comply within the structure of our mutual agreement. This was followed up a week later by an additional $0.25 payment; once again, a clear indication that I was conforming to your demands. However, although I was paying for my newspapers, you seemed to indicate that the level of compliance was out of step with what we agreed to. In response to this, I accelerated my payment schedule to $1 a week. Granted, this was significantly less than the “total” newspaper cost, but I think you’d agree that progress is being made.

In your letter, you also indicated that you would submit my name to a collection agency to recoup losses from papers already delivered. I view this as an unreasonable escalation on your part, which can only lead to mutual hostility between us. Furthermore, it is unsupportable when viewed next to my continued compliance as I’ve noted above.

However, if you continue to feel that such drastic action is required to ensure my full compliance with the subscription contract, I’m going to have to demand that you get permission from the editors of Le Monde and Pravda before moving forward.

Best,

Eric