My post last week, "Who Told AARP About My Birthday?" brought a quick response from "AARP Staffer."  I would let you know who this mysterious AARP staffer is, but unfortunately, he or she was too shy to leave a name or a working "reply to" email address.  Generally this degree of anonymity would cause me to dismiss any comments as meritless, but I do believe that "AARP Staffer's" intentions were good, even though dialog was cut off. 

Regardless, "AARP Staffer's" comments did offer some clarity on the company's situation and marketing intentions.

I understand that there are services that scan the Internet for any mention of their clients'.  Apparently, AARP employs such a service, as I seriously doubt if "AARP Staffer" is a regular reader of my blog.  (I posted the message at 7:24 PM and "AARP Staffer" left a comment at 8:41 AM the next day.)

You would think that after going to all that trouble to find my blog and respond, they would leave a means for follow-up.  Usually, I would not approve a comment from a nameless writer with a non-working "reply to" email address.

This brings up another point.  Yes, I do review all comments and exercise discretion over which messages get added for you to read and which are deleted.  This is not to imply that I censor comments made to my blog, but I do want to make sure that all responses are worthy of your time.  Yes, I have deleted SPAM messages submitted as comments, plus I will generally deep-six anonymous submissions.  After all, if a person is hiding behind their computer, then why should we bother to listen?  Lastly, I understand that sometimes profane or inappropriate statements are made in comments; rest assured I will shield you from those as well.

What about succumbing to the temptation to dump unflattering responses?  I suppose it could happen, but I don't want to stifle free-speech, just purge irresponsible communication.

Anyway, let's see if "AARP Staffer" has anything to say about this post.  Check back tomorrow to find out.