An intro of myself and a request for 411 on S.D.

[Derleth]

But ya gotta admit, Chron-guy, a thread full of obsolete code is rather annoying. This thread really is not so bad, but some threads are so full of <BLOCKQUOTE> and <IMG SRC…> tags it’s hardly worth it to drag them back up. Visually jarring, you understand. I won’t go into people boosting threads with inflammatory comments in them. And seeing a WallyM7 post is … disconcerting, even so long after his passing. I’m all for boosting relevent threads even if they are real antiques. But some things really should be left in the root cellars.

[Chronos]

Gee, Derleth, you’re really having a hard time with us moderators tonight, aren’t you? First Alphagene was “Arnie Winkie”, and now Coldfire is “Chron-guy”?

I would also add, by the way, that when resurrecting an old thread, it’s usually a good idea to mention in your post that it is, in fact, an old thread. Less confusing that way, for everyone else.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
Why do some people think we have rules about how old a thread may be to still be resurrected legally?
The answer is: we don’t. If a newbie is smart enough to use the search engine, and finds a thread that is related to what he wishes to know, but does not answer his question, then what is the problem in asking it then and there?

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Anything older than about 2 months, start a new thread and link to the old thread. Say, "I know this has been discussed before but…"

Where did this come from, exactly?
There are no strict guidelines for this. If a resurrection post adds fuel to the discussion, it’s valid. No matter how old the thread is. **

Eh, I don’t recall ever saying, “These are the rules for resurrecting old threads,” but I do recall saying, numerous times, “These are the rules of thumb for resurrecting old threads.” There’s a difference.

But, hey, Coldfire, I’m flattered that you think my word carries enough weight that I could be accused of laying down rules for old threads. “Bow down before the Holy Duck, whose judgement is true and whose word is law.”

I disagree that it’s always okay to bump a thread if you think you have something to add, no matter how ancient the thread is. I personally don’t appreciate seeing some of those old wars get resurrected and refought, and sometimes it’s hurtful to see the names of good posters who stomped away, angry, and haven’t been back since.

I also didn’t appreciate seeing Tracer’s Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer GD thread from summer of 1999 get bumped. If somebody wanted to discuss that, and had used Search to find it, surely Spoofe’s thread would have come up, too.

If the poster then didn’t want to add to Spoofe’s 800-page Russian novel, (an understandable reaction) why not start a new thread? As it is, all we got to see was a few contributions before David locked the thread. Should David have left the thread open, so we could continue a discussion that was begun way back when we were all still wondering whether the world was gonna end in 6 months?

I still think it’s better to leave the antiques up in the attic.

But I agree, this particular ATMB thread here is problematical. Wolfstu wanted to know what “books”, so he bumped it. I spoke out of exasperation at having scrolled all the way through the dern thing, only to realize that the OP, whoever he may have been, was long gone.

And I’ll admit that after stumbling across the SDMB last spring, it took me a while, too, to tear my keyboard away from the MB and make my way to the Home Page and realize what these “books” were.

[Coldfire]

What I’m worried about is the fact that in this particular case (wolfstu) people have been dropping advise left and right (some well meant, like DDG here, and some a little confrontational, like Esprix in the Pit) to educate the newbie in what’s the right way to go about posting (or not posting) to old threads.

In reality, these are (as DDG points out) rules of thumb rather than rules carved in stone. The official answer is and will always be: it depends. And while I enjoy seeing regs trying to point out certain “faux pas” to newbies, it sort of annoys me when those “faux pas” aren’t based on official rules, but rather on personal preference. That’s not exactly helping a newbie like wolfstu. For all I know, he’s been lurking for two weeks, and got the impression that reviving an old thread is the thing to do when it covers the topic you wish to discuss. And I couldn’t blame him for that, because there’s enough people referring to old threads when a newbie asks a question out of the blue.

See what I mean?

I guess the bottom line is: cut the newbie some slack. He’s trying to be a good citizen, untill proven otherwise. He did nothing wrong, and will get the hang of it in due time.

[Esprix]

How related is “what are these books?” to “give me the 411 on the SDMB?” Could have easily been a new thread, IMHO.

I’m waiting for someone to read the OP, post a “welcome!” message, and then go “D’oh!” One of the many reasons reviving such old threads bothers the heck out of me (obviously).

Esprix

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
“Bow down before the Holy Duck, whose judgement is true and whose word is law.”
**

All Hail the Mighty Triple-Waterfowl. Fear her mighty, Goose-like wrath. Cower in fear as her downy wings blot out the sun! Worship not false fowl, only the Goose speaks Truth!

<I always wanted to belong to a personality cult. Hey DDG! If you do start a cult, can I be the thuggish kneebreaker-guy who punishes unbelievers? >

Fenris

[The_Ryan]

At least the OP’s name is appropiate…