Why Do Some People Have To Be Negative?

Speaking only for myself, I don't complain about Facebook because I refuse to use it. I have a profile that I have to maintain for work purposes, but I rarely every post on it, and certainly nothing about my philatelic interests. I have all email notifications disabled so I never get nagged.

I learned early on that "social media" in the modern sense is a potentially dangerous quagmire I do not want to participate in, and that has only been reinforced by the mob mentalities and impact of the last several years. No thanks.

My first "holy crap" moment was many years ago when I naively set up a MySpace account (remember that platform?) and after posting on it for a few weeks discovered that MySpace was linking me with and suggesting connections with people that I did in fact know... but had not had communication with in almost a decade, and that I did NOT want to communicate with. How did MySpace make the connections? What part of my information was it using?

No, there's all sorts of nefarious algorithms at work "under the hood" with social media that I want to be no part of.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go adjust my tin foil hat.

Very provocative post Don. Thank you.
Revenue collector: when you have 2 stamps certified without faults and equal with respect to being used, unused, OGPH or NH, I disagree with your statement that there could be any other basis for a grade besides centering. This obviously was what I was referring to—and we have all seen this, in my opinion only, more with PSE as opposed to PF.

Like anything else, facebook should be used judiciously. I mostly use it to keep in touch with people, plus belonging to a few groups which interest me. And to blow off steam sometimes. It is not at all necessary to broadcast a lot of personal info, or to get involved with clickbait, using it just takes a bit of common sense.

It seems this 'debate' is going in the wrong direction.

Instead of arguing the real question put forth, people now argue if the two stamps were indeed perfectly genuine using various 'supportive' arguments like years of collecting and 'expert credentials'.

If you look at the original post, he was arguing against unwanted critical 'expert' opinions on his posts on Facebook. (Just look at the title of this thread)

This behaviour is common to most/all online platforms, Facebook probably being the worst.

Frankly, at this point the big time advertiser firms which sell info know so much about most of us already that whatever they learn now won't change much. They have been collecting it for decades already, and can make pretty good guesses about how to use it. It's really only the young people who add serious info to their coffers.

My attorney advised me long ago to not use social media.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. There is always some amount of subjectivity to stamp grading, not to mention paper quality and freshness of color. For example, a paper inclusion isn't universally considered a fault/flaw, but could be used to "knock it down a peg".

It's not just centering.

Grading isn't science, no matter how some people wish that were the case.

People post images on the "US Stamps for Advanced Collectors" facebook page in order to get responses, that is the point of posting. The original post was "Here's another little gem.". This invited responses as well; clearly the problem was that the response was not oohs and ahs at the "gem", but was an honest opinion about the item shown. Which I backed up with visual evidence. If one does not want an honest opinion, then one should not post the image with a remark that is clearly looking for responses.

As the original poster, I was not looking for affirmation or response. I was simply sharing a stamp which is in my collection and which I thought others would enjoy seeing.

No other reason.

Please refrain from making statements about why I'm posting. It would be greatly appreciated.

Then perhaps you should refrain from disparaging my ability to recognize what I am looking at. Or from stating it for the education of others.

My two cents. This forum has some real experts and they can provide great feedback. revcollector is absolutely one of those. Frankly, if he gives an opinion, you should definitely pay attention. I'm sorry that feelings were hurt etc. My suggestion is to use this place to get real feedback. Here the membership is generally made up of people genuinely interested in philately and for the most part people are courteous. The specific issue on this stamp is pretty easy to see. I hope the OP sees it as well and understands what's being said here.

Friction (and drama) is almost always generated when anyone makes assumptions about another person's motives; this is true in this community and in the rest of life. The truth is that no one is inside of anther person's head and knows what the other person is really thinking. This community, and the world, would be a better place if we all refrained from comments about the motives of others. Disagree? No problem. But where can you take a discussion or debate when the other person questions your motives? To the back alley?

When we debate or have a difference of opinion with another hobbyist we should always keep in mind that at the end of the day our common ground is our hobby. If we stick to the facts of the debate and topic, stay away from motives, and remember that we all enjoy our hobby then I think these kinds of threads could be reduced or eliminated.
Don

Here's a different take on the matter. I don't actively collect US, so really have no interest in any of the comments and back & forth about is it, or is it not.

Had I been in the shoes of the original poster, I would have simply said something like "thanks for your feedback. appears you are knowledgeable. here's the address of the Philatelic Foundation so you can volunteer your expertise." Of course, as a "bowling alone" collector; I rarely show any of my stuff.

Since I already do, that was not necessary.

No one is disparaging your knowledge. By the same token, you should take into consideration that perhaps I'm knowledgeable as well.

I did take what you said into consideration, revcollector, as evidenced by my going back and reexamining the stamp. I've done all the due diligence I can and, having done that, I'm comfortable with it.

Despite my explaining the steps I've taken to verify the soundness of the stamp, you insisted I was wrong and you were right.

I've gone back and reexamined this stamp more than I have any other stamp in my collection. I am trying VERY hard to ensure an absolute minimum of weeds in my collection, so if this was one, I would want to know. As I've explained before, I've put it through watermark fluid: nothing shows on the back of the stamp. I've examined it under a microscope: I can find no evidence of a difference in paper grain or any area which shows even the slightest evidence of tampering. I asked the PF if it needed a new certificate and was told to wait until I was ready to sell.

Other than agreeing with you, what else would you do if you were in my shoes? That's a rhetorical question, just to be clear.

Although I know you won't agree, it might just be possible that the stamp is sound.

Again, I have not disparaged your expertise. As someone who expertises stamps, you've earned that level of respect.

It would be nice, however, if an experienced collector disagrees, to let it go. You've stated your case, I've stated mine. At the end of the day, if I'm incorrect, I'll be the one who has to suffer the consequences and I'm comfortable with that.

I hope this explanation and post will appease you so that we can both move on and remain cordial.

Greg