What does stamp collecting lead to?

To avoid another thread that included a story about how today's perveyers of porn were previously obsessive stamp collectors. Those of us here would certainly refute that argument.
So what does stamp collecting lead to?
A common theme among posts seems to be a development of interest in the subjects of stamps. I have related that I have investigated various people that have been on stamps that I didn't know about (Kathe Kolwitz for example). Also collecting stamps of places I have visited. I know Bob
Ingraham seems to make pages for stamps which investigate the subjects thoroughly. Same can be said for Victor with some of the SNA issues he has created and the art stamps he has researched. Mette has concentrated on the art of Slania's engravings. This can be summed up as intellectual stimulation.
Now the argument certainly can go to... are the members representive of stamp collections? That goes into another direction of course.
By the story as presented, I don't fit into and never have the argument as presented by the professor. How many do?
I have taken statistics as part of a course in epidemiology. The trouble with statistics is they can be manipulated to lead to whatever you want them to. I have seen studies that were so narrow as to be incapable of coming to anything but the conclusion sought.
True there are topical collectors who collect stamps depicting nudes/nudity. Does this lead to addiction to porn or are these stamps (often of art) just an part of a collection, nothing more?
Stamp collecting is a healthy hobby, more so if shared with others or within a family. Factors other than stamp collecting may influence other interests. The stamps themselves are innocent. Many interests in my life are quite seperate and never influenced by stamp collecting. Quite likely the same within our group here.
Logical questions would include:
Is this group statistically significant?
Do any members fit the profile?

I leave it to the group for further comment, leaving it here before I begin writing silly things myself (if not already).

Like some of the black frame "retro" glasses that they wear these days. Fashion, fad and all that.

I have, though, since that time, found some women look nice with these particular glasses. Not many, but some. I think that some women wear them to look unattractive. :^)

Anyway, I'm wearing my glasses while scanning postal cards... So - back to work!

On another train of thought... what does stamp collecting really lead to?

1. Empty wallet/bank account after a philatelic spending spree!

2. Dental problems due to gnashing teeth over disturbed gum, hinge marks, short perfs., etc., etc.

3. Desire to give stamps away to addict others in your own addiction with stamps.

4. emptyspaceophobia

5. spending more money on mounts than stamps

6. Cumpulsive collecting disorder trying to complete every omnibus issue.

Feel free to add more. This thread needs to lighten up.

.......aah! Thank you for pointing out that someone down under has kept an archaic, olde version of a nasty wasty word. :^P

According to the pundits, we're all cycling through young ones.

Anyway, stamp collecting has not led me down the path to some other illegal, immoral, or unethical path. Not yet, anyway. YMMV.

In my case it leads to an insatiable desire to absorb trivial information which I can then trot out on the most inappropriate occasion to the boredom of everyone in earshot. Just ask my wife............!
Seriously lets not take ourselves too seriously.
Lets agree that we are not all paedophiles or sex-maniacs whatever else we may be.
However to be serious for just one minute - however unhinged ( bad pun ) we might think the good professors theory may be perhaps we do have an image problem ?

Hey Peter, why not let it die? I said she was ugly and I wrote the cheer, nobody else. So what? Let it go, I did.

Not sure what her "_______" is, but once again read what I said -- "(note I
NEVER sais you)" <typo left in for accuracy)

Prove something I didn't say? Huh? Once again read what I said -- "(note I
NEVER sais you)" <typo left in for accuracy)

Apparently not. Read what I said -- "(note I NEVER sais you)" <typo left in for accuracy)

I did not reply to anything you said or didn't say about her. I responded to your comments to the prior poster and pointed out that you changed the meaning of the words and reacted to the changed meaning.

But I didn't. Once again read what I said -- "(note I NEVER sais you)" <typo left in for accuracy)

Ah, now we have the classic "any firend of an enemy is my enemy" thinking. I like you Tracy, alwasy have. I respect you, Tracy, always have. You are a fellow collector. As are all other collectors. The only "fighting for her side" I've done is point out that the attacks on her looks rather than debunking her theory are inappropriate. And that no-one established the woman was the author of the piece that generated such hatred in here.

Once again read what I said -- "(note I NEVER sais you)" <typo left in for accuracy)

Hopefully, nowe I've stated miultiple times that I never said you you can stop taking offence and realise the wisdom of attacking an opponents theories is not the same as attacking an opponents looks (the poitn I was making in another thread, not with you) and that taking offence after changing the meaning of words is also quite useless (the point I was trying to make with you). As for what I believe about anyone's theories regarding stamp collectors, you could just ask.

That's me too........... we should be neighbours

The more appropriate question may be,
"What does <not> collecting stamps lead to?"
Goodness, If I hadn't taken up this hobby, I would never had been the owner of this fine pair of 1" thick bi-focals.

......aah! I see the americans have adopted another lazy spelling of a beautifully constructed word, Paedophile.

I thought you were suggesting you did a lot of cycling....

Points well taken. I had not thought of propaganda stamps as many of those depict an agenda that ranges from racism to every form of hate as well as those that feature the beasts of Humanity that have been depicted on stamps (Hitler, et. al.). My comment of a innocent nature to stamps was very broad and general. Even stamps that are essentially innocent may be objects of dirision in this overly sensitive politically correct world. I can only await the day when some judge decides that Christmas stamps must be discontinued because some individuals are offended. Several U.S. stamps have been objected to in RCSD due to their subjects.
I do see a broad spectrum of personalities within this group (even the trolls though wether they even collect stamps is subject to conjecture).
Collecting interests often reflect life's interests.

Indeed. My collecting Italy and colonies does not make me a fan of Mussolini (or even Hitler - I have nine Italian stamps with Hitler and Mussolini, never mind several from the colonies)!!!

sample that hooks the potential user (and therafter customer). I know you give stamps away for goodness sakes! I have too and probably so has quite a number of collectors to entice new recruits (AKA addicts) to our hobby.
Now I wonder if I should write a paper on this and submit it to the
University of Toronto?

Fear of retribution? I believe our well-known troll has targeted me with one of his diarreah-like meandering and pointless diatribes. Better ignored since you can't spray or have the cat kill it.

I suppose that nobody commented so far (at least on my NG server) because this interesting posting covers quite many subjects. So I will limit myself just to a small part of them.

I doubt that those who collect nudes on stamps are mostly inclined to some porn, are addicted, etc. Personally, in what concerns stamps, I take it with some humor, like on my known, old page (if you take a look at it please be patient till it fully loads):
http://www.values.ch/nudes.htm

Not all stamps are innocent, therefore generally speaking they aren't. Even if most of them looks so, some can hide rather horrible things. See an example (just one among many others) here:
http://www.marci-postale.com/Romania/History/Farming/ farming.htm

Now in what concerns the statistical significance of this group, the good question is "significance for what"? My comments:

- Does RCSD represent the stamp collectors worldwide? Yes, in what concerns their hobby, in the sense of sharing the same one. No, when we speak about any particular stamp collector. Even if they are members of this forum, boB isn't Victor and rotciV isn't Bob. I appreciate his work, but I don't share some of his ideas, and vice-versa. This is life, la la la la la

- IMO, there isn't such a thing as a typical profile of a stamp collector.
Just to mention that as well some very bright and positive but also some horrible persons of the 20th century were known as stamp collectors.

Maybe so. I've had my reasons for not publishing a photo of me in that "condition" I want my audience standing at the side, clapping their hands and hooraying whenever they see me ...

You mean lenses, glasses and magnifyers at the same time? At least this what I use -- but not in "public";
sometimes good with computer screen distances ...

A bit touchy there, Tracy. He said "often". A totally accurate statement and most definitley no a stereotype. And a far cry from people putting down a woman based on her looks because she may be theauthor of a disagreeable and easily refuted opinion. And all shoudl remember "may be". To date no-one has dmeonstrate that the local lady being mocked is the author of the disagreeable piece.

As for your leap from his opinion to takig offence at accusations of pedophila, etc. I'll put it down to a bad coffee and cinammon bun and move on.

There. Now we're all done, yes?

Because you keep defending yourself against a claim I've never made. In fact, as I've stated ad nauseum now, I clearly stated I didn't include you in the group that attacked her looks.

Then stay offended. At this point, it matters nothing to me. A clue: the actual words are in the message above. Not too hard to find. You'll have to stop reacting long enough to actually read them though.

See above.

<snip of relatively useless stuff>

Oh sure do.
I always found ladies that wore glasses, disarmingly attractive, .......still do.

CORRECTION WITHIN THE QUOTE---->
Georing. That is about all I share in common with the fat Reichsmarshal.

Dave (any further corrections necessary?)

She is indeed the author of both pieces wether you believe it or not.
But I began this thread to remove discussion from her "theory" and her (appearence included).
But what comes up in this thread is the hair-trigger some people are on to be offended (no offense Tracy, please).

No. Though it has zip to do with your response to whick I was replying.

Once again (read slowly if it helps), he said "often". Not "always". Not
"EVERY". You really need to chill.

Yes. "Often" does not mean "always" or "every". Check a dictionary if you need authoriative proof.
seems - you already have.

The only one leaping to conclusions is you, Tracy. And you're even substituting words to justify your leaping. Not a good sign.

A poll to prove what? That the original words were inaccurately reacted to by you? No need. Reading the actual words and your responses does that.

Stats, or STATS have nothing to do with whether or not the woman who's looks were mocked by some (note I NEVER sais you) is or is not the original author.

Let me remind all who reacted by attacking this woman that it is not for me to prove that she is not the original author, but for the claimants to prove she is.