# Resurrected Threads **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 2, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956 "2003-04-02T14:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/41 "2003-04-13T10:10:06Z")
A serial resurrectionist. Anyone told th’ mods, yet? ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/42 "2003-04-13T10:12:07Z")
Second thought – they’re within the 3 month window. Is it _really_ a problem, folks? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/43 "2003-04-13T10:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ice Wolf \* > \*\*A serial resurrectionist. Anyone told th’ mods, yet? \*\* Not I, I just noticed it this morning. And I’m not sure that the serial-resurrection part is worth getting worked up about–it’s really annoying, but not necessarily breaking the rules. What did occur to me, though, is that maybe **cletus** is a sock for someone who got banned in early March, since he seems obsessed with threads that ended around that time. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/44 "2003-04-13T13:40:49Z")
Talking of rules and FAQs, isn’t calling another poster a sock also frowned upon? Just report your suspisions and let them that know deal with any problems. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/45 "2003-04-13T14:02:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tapioca Dextrin \* > \*\*Talking of rules and FAQs, isn’t calling another poster a sock also frowned upon? Just report your suspisions and let them that know deal with any problems. \*\* What [rule or FAQ](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106617) are you referring to, **Tapioca**? There is a rule against calling someone a troll: > [@](#): > > Q: What should I do when I see a user “trolling” at the SDMB? > > A: Do **not** publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB. Use the “Report this post to a moderator” facility below the “trolling” post. And there are rules against announcing who is on your “ignore” or “buddy” list: > [@](#): > > Ignore list - after much deliberation we decided to keep the ignore list (and buddy list) available to members. Part of the reason we were hesitant is because we didn’t want to see flame wars caused by PosterX telling PosterY “you can say whatever you want to me, I don’t care because you’re on my ignore list.” Hinting that any particular person or group of people is on your ignore list is very strictly frowned upon. **Revealing the usernames of people on your ignore list is forbidden at this board.** > > Corollary - the same applies to buddy lists. Try and be discreet about who’s on your buddy list, and don’t use it as a tool to irritate / hurt the feelings of other members. But I don’t know of any rule against suggesting that someone is a sock. (If there is such a rule, then I am happy to follow it.) There is a rule that > [@](#): > > If you have a question about bannings / banned users, the staff prefer that you e-mail a staff member (administrator or moderator) rather than asking publicly on the board. But my question is not exactly about a banning or a banned user, it is about an active member whose behavior is strange. Again, if I am not following the rules here, I seek education, so I will ask for advice from a Moderator. ---
**Author:** ![Juniper200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@Juniper200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Juniper200)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/46 "2003-04-13T14:35:35Z")
If I were to take a guess, **brianmelendez** , I’d say he’s jumped back a good number of pages in the thread listings and is reading his way through until the present day. Some people do that; I remember a newbie a year or so ago who brought up the Melin Incident by starting a new thread saying, “I noticed that on page 15,500 (don’t remember real number, obviously) of MPSIMS there was a reference to someone named Melin and a big fight…” and it turned out he was going through every single thread in the forum from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/47 "2003-04-13T14:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Juniper200 \* > **If I were to take a guess, brianmelendez, I’d say he’s jumped back a good number of pages in the thread listings and is reading his way through until the present day. Some people do that;** You’re probably right. I did it myself when I joined, just to get a feel for the Board, without posting to the old threads. It occurred to me that **cletus** might be doing the same thing, but posting. I dismissed the idea, though, because I was thinking that the time increments for a backward search were fairly gross increments–like the regular Search feature, where the increments are yesterday/a week ago/2 weeks ago/a month ago/3 months ago. There wasn’t any increment that would get you from mid-April back to early March, about six weeks. But I just checked and the in-forum thread search uses different increments than the full-board search: last 10 days/last 20 days/last 30 days/last 45 days/last 60 days. So it looks like you may have hit it, **Juniper200** : maybe **cletus** is searching back 45 days, and posting to the threads that interest him. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/48 "2003-04-14T05:30:22Z")
No, no, you’re all wrong. **Cletus** is obviously some kind of time traveler. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/49 "2003-04-19T23:51:47Z")
Sometimes it’s a catch-22: Do I resurrect an old thread, or start a new thread on a topic already talked about? This happened to me on a Final Fantasy board. I asked a question, which immediately got locked by a moderator with a note, “This topic was already discussed in such-and-such thread.” So I reposted my question to that thread (which was over six months old), and _that_ thread got locked, with a warning, “Don’t resurrect old threads!” :smack: P.S. Sorry for resurrecting this thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![syncrolecyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@syncrolecyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syncrolecyne)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/50 "2003-04-20T07:50:26Z")
I wanted to add something, but I will wait until August 16, 2005. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/51 "2003-04-20T12:08:18Z")
Will this thread ever die? **KGS:** I believe the SDMB recommended method is to start a new thread saying “This thread [link] discussed [whatever], but I no-one mentioned [something else], on which I have the view that [post]” (and IMHO is the most sensible method) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/52 "2003-04-30T12:49:41Z")
This needs to be bumped, just to remind people that we find it annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Velma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/85e7bf/32.png) [@Velma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velma)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/53 "2003-04-30T13:10:39Z")
See, there is a benefit to bumping sometimes, I missed this one the first time around!😃 Sometimes I like it when a good thread gets resurrected, but I wish there was a way to tell from the beginning if it was an old one (everyone chime in now - check the date. Shut up. I don’t usually check the date right off unless I get deja vu or see a banned poster from yore in the thread, ok?). I wish there was a way to get the thread to show up in a different color after 3 months or something, that would be neat. Someone get working on that for me, ok? Side note: The other day someone resurrected a thread that **poohpah chalupa** had posted in and it made me sad - I didn’t realize it was an old one until then. It was just a little shock to see him there without expecting it. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/54 "2003-05-02T06:15:40Z")
I don’t get it. Nobody here has explained exactly why you think there’s anything wrong with this. You just take it as given. > [@](#): > > Newbies have been bitched out so many times about “Why are you starting a NEW thread about this, SHEESH!!! Search the Archives, there are lots of OLD threads about this, add your comments to one of those!!” > [@](#): > > I asked a question, which immediately got locked by a moderator with a note, “This topic was already discussed in such-and-such thread.” So I reposted my question to that thread (which was over six months old), and that thread got locked, with a warning, “Don’t resurrect old threads!” So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Why bother writing anything here at all? Might as well forget the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/55 "2003-05-02T06:43:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Skogcat \* > \*\*This needs to be bumped, just to remind people that we find it annoying. \*\* Gee, I guess I shouldn’t have bumped [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=127604) even though it was new information which shed some light on the topic being discussed in the thread, and of little interest outside of that thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/56 "2003-05-02T14:06:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > > > [@](#): > > > > asked a question, which immediately got locked by a moderator with a note, “This topic was already discussed in such-and-such thread.” So I reposted my question to that thread (which was over six months old), and that thread got locked, with a warning, “Don’t resurrect old threads!” > > I don’t get it. Nobody here has explained exactly why you think there’s anything wrong with this. You just take it as given.So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Why bother writing anything here at all? Might as well forget the whole thing. As for the latter example, I don’t have links to the threads in question, but I can see three possibilities: 1. The question had been answered in the old thread, but the poster failed to read it and simply reposted the question. Justified lockdown. 2. The question had not been answered, but the first mod thought it had been. The second mod didn’t know about the first mod’s advice and locked the second thread. Error on the part of the first mod. 3. The question had not been answered, but , the first mod didn’t think that several months was too old. The second mod didn’t know about the advice and locked the thread. Mods need to determine how old is too old for resurrections. A primary problem with resurrecting old threads is when they bring up issues that are long past - the uproar over **Melin** , I think it was **Ginger** or someone who had an old relationship problem thread brought up to the alarm of many who thought she was in trouble, the occasional old “troublemaker” thread that comes back up (I’ve seen threads by **Satan** and **Wildest Bill** get brought back). And then there’s just the stupid ones, like the one that got brought back yesterday where someone just had to post a one-sentence “go get em” response to a joke mod-bashing thread from 2000. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/57 "2003-09-27T15:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 1920s Style Death Ray \* > \*\*This needs to be bumped, just to remind people that we find it annoying. \*\* I was thinking to myself this morning that this thread would not be complete without a reference to you-know-what, but then I see it already here. Can I take it that name changes are retroactive? ---
**Author:** ![Thylacine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thylacine/32/1143_2.png) [@Thylacine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thylacine)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/58 "2003-09-27T23:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Newbies have been bitched out so many times about “Why are you starting a NEW thread about this, SHEESH!!! Search the Archives, there are lots of OLD threads about this, **add your comments to one of those**!!” this is where I think the problem lies, I do not think the last part I bolded is ever said though I can understand why newer folks may feel it is implied. I think it is generally thrown to mean _this has been discussed before as you will see if you search the archives, please come back to this thread if you have anything substantially new to add to the topic that may interest us enough to get a new discussion going_ Perhaps folks need to say something like that instead of the quoted example (without the bolded bit). Face it, some folks are eager to add their words to a topic no matter what so surely it is better to spell it out to start with rather than needing the pit threads the offenders likely never see or admonishing and embarrassing the newbies in the zombie threads themselves after the event. ---
**Author:** ![Thylacine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thylacine/32/1143_2.png) [@Thylacine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thylacine)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/59 "2003-09-28T00:04:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Newbies have been bitched out so many times about “Why are you starting a NEW thread about this, SHEESH!!! Search the Archives, there are lots of OLD threads about this, **add your comments to one of those**!!” this is where I think the problem lies, I do not think the last part I bolded is ever said though I can understand why newer folks may feel it is implied. I think it is generally thrown to mean _this has been discussed before as you will see if you search the archives, please come back to this thread if you have anything substantially new to add to the topic that may interest us enough to get a new discussion going_ Perhaps folks need to say something like that instead of the quoted example (without the bolded bit). Face it, some folks are eager to add their words to a topic no matter what so surely it is better to spell it out to start with rather than needing the pit threads the offenders likely never see or admonishing and embarrassing the newbies in the zombie threads themselves after the event. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956/60 "2003-09-28T01:23:39Z")
Anyone else see the irony in the bumping of a nearly 5-month-old thread about people bumping old threads? :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resurrected-threads/165956.md?page=4)