“Brainss” - unfunny. But some of the zombie allusions i’ve read have fit the specific thread subject in an amusing and clever way and woken me up to the age of the thread with a small smile instead of only self-annoyance that I had not already noticed. Sure a clever zombie joke may be a notable sighting … but they are sometimes seen in the wild.
(Okay I can’t recall any specific ones … )
OK, try this one.
2008 thread about Full Metal Jacket, resurrected by a seagull(fly in, shit on us, fly away). TruCelt posts a very subtle and clever zombie joke (specifically, naming the resurrection but also answering the question – the character in the scene in question had a bandaged face – by indirectly making it a “mummy post”. Plus providing a link to replace the OP’s original badly bitrotted link.
Clever, helpful, subtle, but definitely a zombie joke.
Zombie joke haters: do you hate that example?
Related thread: I’m working up a poll. I’d like some input from each of you.
for historical reference -
(underline added)
Needed? Are any posts “needed”, or even required? Someone felt like responding to a zombie thread. Someone else felt like responding to that post with a humorous/snarky post. Readers may have laughed, chuckled, smiled, ignored it, or were offended.
From reading this thread, it also appears that a lot of people do not find them annoying. Decisions, decisions. Should forum policy/rules be changed? If so, what should that change be based on? Facts? Opinions? Feelings? An opinion poll, perhaps?
In this thread, some members have requested more information pertaining to the loss of newbies specifically due to a humorous/snarky response they received for resurrecting a zombie thread. Unfortunately, no hard data seems to be available at this time. If someone wishes to convince others to alter their behavior, isn’t the burden of proof on those wishing change?
Of course, there are other ways to change rules. Those in authority can simply make a rule change. Their circus, their monkeys. Personally, I only want to know what the rules currently are.
Do I count as a hater? I don’t hate that example. That must have been amusing to the insiders. But I would like to point out that while it might have amused the regulars, it also confused people – someone had to explain a few posts later the point of the zombie reference.
Thank you! 
Actually, I accidentally somehow double posted. This was meant to be the only post, and was formulated as an example for this thread.
It “had to be explained” because of this thread, not because I personally think it’s necessary.
It was clever and subtle, but would have actually been much better had it added anything but snark to the thread.
It added a link to a higher-definition video snip which clearly showed the answer to the original question.
Ah, good point, I sit corrected.
Yes, like that. Even ones that do not actually answer the original question but are clever ways to allude to zombie in a way that references the OP and yet still contributes to or acknowledges what the new poster stated are fine.
I think what would insult a new poster who stumbled in by way of a search is not a moderately in-joke as part of a response but having their contribution ignored.
That said, fairly few zombie references hit that mark and some seem to think that just the words “zombie” or “brains” are clever in and of themselves. And not.
There’s a flip side to that coin. You’ve posted quite a bit in this thread, started two more and presumably going to start at least a third one to create a poll. That’s a lot of posts to show how unannoyed you are.
I’m trying to help the group reach a consensus on how to proceed. What are you trying to achieve?