P.S. Docket No. While Respondents contend that they were deprived of the opportunity to introduce evidence of industry standards concerning puffing, such evidence was neither offered by Respondents nor rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. Respondents' Motion did not establish that the information they were seeking pertained to industry standards relating to puffing or that it was in any other way relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Thus, Respondents' discovery motion was properly denied and Respondents were not deprived of the opportunity to present relevant evidence. Respondents next argue that enumeration of error 3 was denied because the Judicial Officer improperly applied the ordinary reader test to their advertisements even though there was no evidence that anyone other than discriminating purchasers ever received, or would receive, their solicitations.
Respondents misread the Postal Service Decision.
Thus, the proper standard was applied and the evidence supports the conclusion reached. Respondents finally contend that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the conclusion that Respondents Vernon Frazier and Adco Marketing Corp., are persons engaged in the conduct of the promotion which is the subject of this proceeding. Respondents' arguments to the contrary on reconsideration are not persuasive that the evidence was erroneously evaluated. Accordingly, Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Motion to Modify Order Respondents contend that False Representation Order No. 87-71 is overbroad and vague because it prohibits Respondents from receiving any mail with respect to the sale of their books even if the sale is unrelated to the alleged misrepresentations found in the Postal Service Decision.