V.M. posted: From:
Schweizer Briefmarken Zeitung (Swiss Stamp Magazine), 9/99, p. 471-472.
Translated from French:
"New Issues, Israel
4/18/99 Personalities... 90 ag Emile Durkheim,
sociologist; 90 ag Paul Ehrlich, immunologist;, 90 ag Norbert Wiener,
mathematician; 90 ag Martin Buber, philosopher; 90 ag Rosa Luxemburg,
Socialist, an important and useful profession
Interestingly enough, for the sixth stamp in
the set, 90 ag Sigmund Freud, no profession is mentioned. Even if
contested today, he was an important physician, neurologist, and founder
Posted the 9/8//99 on
Kaleb S. Keithley answered: You don't think I picked
Keynes by accident do you? And as professions go, I wondered (and I still wonder) where Keynes
profession might fit in a socialist's hierarchy of useful professions. A
question you avoided answering in your response. That's okay, it was
sort of a rhetorical question.
< Luxemburg, Rosa (1871-1919), was a politician. IMO to be a
socialist is a philosophical choice and not a profession.>
Where, in the press release you quoted, did it say that the captions
listed were their professions?
Can people be known for something other than what they are or were
"paid" to do? Can anyone ever contribute to society in a
meaningful way that doesn't necessarily involve what they do or did for
a living? Apparently the Israeli post office thinks so.
Perhaps some day, if they haven't already, the Israeli post office will
issue a stamp for Keynes. Will they caption it "Economist",
"Capitalist", or "Socialist?"
answer to Mr. Keithly: Let
us see again the quotation:
Israel. 4/18/99. Personalities... 90 ag Emile Durkheim, sociologist; 90 ag
Paul Ehrlich, immunologist;, 90 ag Norbert Wiener, mathematician; 90 ag Martin
Buber, philosopher; 90 ag Rosa Luxemburg, socialist.
After Merriam-Webster a profession "is a calling requiring
specialized knowledge and often long academic preparation".
If sociologist, immunologist, mathematician, philosopher are not
professions, then I wonder what they really are. Because they are
professions indeed, then from the enumeration above "socialist"
should be taken as a profession too. But it isn't - please see below why.
To define again what we are talking about, after the same M-W, socialism
is "a theory of social organization based on government ownership,
management and control of means of production and the distribution and
exchange of goods".
Because socialism is a theory, any person (and any member of any
profession), can accept it or not and can or not call himself a socialist
accordingly. To become a socialist does not require a "specialized
knowledge and often long academic preparation", therefore it isn't a
A long study of the socialist theory does not create a socialist
professional either. Proof (just one exception invalidates the idea): the
long study of socialism hasn't made from me a socialist, quite the
Because the quotation from the top was taken from a _Swiss_ Philatelic
Journal, it is less relevant what the _Israeli_ post could possibly think
The definition of "profession" does not speak about something to
be made for a living or for a pay. Apparently it is not relevant too.
I have already answered the question concerning the profession of Mr.
Keynes. He was an economist and it is that what I would put in a stamp
catalog. The question of his ideology is interesting, but the answer does
not belong to this group.
And now it is the time to go back to my stamps. :-)
Posted the 9/10/99 on
posted: On September 15 Canada Post has issued a set containing 68 (!)
different stamps. These stamps can be bought as included in the so called
"Millennium Collection". I suppose that this way Canada has
surpassed the Gulf States and some banana republics in the number of
stamps contained in a set.
Please notice that "due to popular demand, all 68
stamps featured in The Millennium Collection will be made available for
sale in souvenir sheets of four different stamps beginning in January,
2000" . Don't rush, "a total of 17 souvenir sheets will be
produced in quantities of 1 million each..." (quoted from Canada's
Stamp Details, Vol. VIII No 4, 1999).
The number of 17 souvenir sheets, to be issued on the
same day, too, approaches the record set (pun not intended) by some Ajman
or Dubai. Today it looks like the Gulf States P.As. were a kind of
forerunner, being 20-30 years in advance and setting trends for the
I wonder how much time it will take till the 100 stamps
limit in a set will be outrun. Less than another Millennium, I suppose...
Note: One known problem with large sets with different
subjects is that, quite often, only a reduced number of stamps of a given
set are interesting for a collector. This way the collectors are either
"forced" to buy more than they need (a problem especially with
foreign stamps, that cannot be recycled on an envelope) or to renounce to
have them, what can be frustrating and consequently bad for our hobby.
Posted the 9/18/99 on
Dave Joll answered: Actually, it was outrun even before
the Gulf States got in on the act! Turkey issued a set of 134 stamps
featuring various towns in Turkey, during 1958 - 1960.
My answer to Dave:
A couple of weeks
ago we had a discussion about the difference between sets and series on
this newsgroup. I have proposed then the following two definitions:
- A set consists of stamps with a similar subject and design, which were
all issued the same day.
- Series are successions of sets, issued on different dates.
The reactions to these definitions were quite positive (if you are
interested, you can find them here
). Therefore, in my opinion:
1. The Turkish stamps that you have mentioned make up a series, not a set.
The longest of these Turkish sets (Scott 1378-1423) has 46 stamps.
2. A 100 stamps set hasn't been issued yet (fortunately).
Note: Two days later I have completed one definition,
because the unique country condition has been proved to be not
self-evident, as I have thought initially.
- A set consists of stamps with a
similar subject and design, which were all issued the same day by a given
- Series are successions of sets, issued on different dates.
Paul wrote: I
found an unusual quote lately--`Down with the greedy Stamp Bourgeoisie!
Long Live the Red Philatelic International, leader and guardian of the
world's working class philatelists and numismatics! Proletarian stamp and
coin collectors, Unite!' -- from the soviet publication `Red Philatelist'
1924, cited by Ross and Kathryn Petras in `The 776 Stupidest Things Ever
Said', isbn 0-385-41928-7
paul, not used to philately being quite so strident....
Deadly strident indeed, and also very logical for that philosophy. The
bourgeoisie is after Marxism-Leninism intrinsically bad and greedy and
therefore should be fought in all domains, including the philately, by the
working class, who holds the right knowledge automatically, due to its
sound proletarian origin. That's why especially the earlier stamps of the
USSR displayed workers and soldiers and peasants, considered their
"natural" allies (and a lot of Lenin's portraits). Stupid,
of course, but how many believed and still believe in this intrinsic
knowledge of good and bad, based on "class" membership.
Posted the 10/8/99 on