# Post subject/ continuation question **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 24, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-subject-continuation-question/83571 "2001-09-24T22:42:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-subject-continuation-question/83571/1 "2001-09-24T22:42:24Z")
Okay, Question for the mods: I originally opened a thread a few days ago in the Pit: [Is anybody else worried about this wiretap thing?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87702) And now that Ashcroft has revealed the full scope of the Anti-terrorist act, I have even more major problems with it than the wiretap issues. (Search and seizure issues, etc) So, my question is, do I continue the same thread, despite the tangent to only related issues, or do I start a new one? I’m not entirely clear on the policy for continuation, especially relating to a slight change in vector on the topic. But I had noticed that it was a problem in a couple of areas, so I figured I’d ask _before_ I screwed up. Thanks! -Stil ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-subject-continuation-question/83571/2 "2001-09-24T23:52:51Z")
IANA Mod, but… Well, do you wanna talk about wiretapping, or about the Anti-Terrorist Act? If you wanna discuss the Anti-Terrorist Act, and not wiretapping, then start a new thread with a descriptive title. And it would be polite if you included a link to your wiretap thread, so if stuff comes up that was discussed previously, everybody’s on the same page. The main reason to start a new thread is that since the original thread title deals with wiretapping, it will be difficult to get anyone to come into it to discuss the Anti-Terrorist Act. We aren’t mind readers–“hmm, Miss Cleo knows that Stiletto has bumped his wiretapping thread, so that means that he really wants to talk about the Anti-Terrorist Act…” 🙂 Starting new threads for tangential topics is more of a problem in General Questions, which is SO crowded, and every new thread bumps a potentially wonderful question off Page 1 into the depths of Page 2. But the Pit doesn’t usually have that problem. Indeed, sometimes we’re all grateful to see some Pit threads slide off into oblivion. ---
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-subject-continuation-question/83571/3 "2001-09-25T00:46:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*IANA Mod, but… \*\* Nonetheless, you have obviously been around for a while. I thank you for the info. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \*\*\* > Well, do you wanna talk about wiretapping, or about the Anti-Terrorist Act? > > If you wanna discuss the Anti-Terrorist Act, and not wiretapping, then start a new thread with a descriptive title. And it would be polite if you included a link to your wiretap thread, so if stuff comes up that was discussed previously, everybody’s on the same page. \*\* That’s about what I figured. But I had seen different points of view on starting a new thread vs. continuing an old one, so I thought it would be safer to ask first, rather than just forge ahead and screw up. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \*\*\* > The main reason to start a new thread is that since the original thread title deals with wiretapping, it will be difficult to get anyone to come into it to discuss the Anti-Terrorist Act. We aren’t mind readers–“hmm, Miss Cleo knows that Stiletto has bumped his wiretapping thread, so that means that he really wants to talk about the Anti-Terrorist Act…” \*\* Right. 🙂 I had actually figured that part out. Was planning on referencing the original thread, if I started a new one. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \*\*\* > Starting new threads for tangential topics is more of a problem in General Questions, which is SO crowded, and every new thread bumps a potentially wonderful question off Page 1 into the depths of Page 2. But the Pit doesn’t usually have that problem. Indeed, sometimes we’re all grateful to see some Pit threads slide off into oblivion. \*\* _nod_ Makes sense. Again, thank you for the info. I will go ahead and start a new thread, which was my first impulse, but I’ll keep in mind that for GQ I may want to tread more carefully. 😃 -Stil