First let me apologize that I still have not gotten the hang of creating links, so I cannot give you a direct link to the thread I am talking about. Someone told me how to do it once and I do not remember.
If someone will explain it to me one more time I will get the hang of it, I promise.
But I am wondering why moderator Rico locked down the thread about why humans have a sense of humour. It seemed to me to be a very interesting discussion. Now, I realize that a couple of posters started in with a few jibes like “I am still here and you are still nuts” butg for goodness’ sake, is that a reason to close it down? Surely a few jibes and barbs are a normal part of any discussion? How thin-skinned are we?
Highlight the address bar by clicking on it. Go to edit, scroll down, click on ‘copy’. Move your cursor to the spot in the text where you wish the link to be. Click. Go to edit, scroll down to copy, click on ‘paste.’ Be sure that there is a space on either side of the address. Like this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7933092
Zombie threads are only allowed in Cafe Society. If you look at the OP, it’s from 2002. Thus, this thread was “dead” and was reanimated today, much like a zombie. That’s why it was closed.
The guy who bumped that thread is a fucking jackass. He thinks that it’s the height of hilarity to come back here every once in a while and bump very old threads that mention his name. One of the problems with “zombie” threads is that often there are people who posted to it who are no longer active and can’t continue the discussion.
What kind of stupid fucking rule is that? (I hope Cecil himself didn’t come up with it.)
An ancient thread that isn’t more than a page long can provide alot of worthwhile information without forcing pages and pages of often worthless shit to be read.
(I only swear in the pit, but feel I have to in order to really do it right.)
a thread in which a poster has been insulted can open old wounds (either for that poster or for a friend of that poster if the insulted person is no longer a member);
a thread in which a fight was ongoing may start that fight up, again, particularly when someone does not immediately realize that the dates are in the distant past;
a thread in which a poster no longer a member has posted may provide an opportunity for another poster to take a cheap shot by criticizing the absent poster in a way to which the absent poster may not respond.
Now, it is also possible that none of these things will come to pass. However, rather than requiring every Mod to examine every post in every zombie thread to see whether old arguments or old sores are being re-opened (relying on an exhaustive knowledge of every poster who has engaged in a feud with any other poster along with the dates that various posters may have been frineds or enemies), we simply shut them down and suggest that anyone who wishes to provide new comments on the topic open a new thread with a link to the original.
I guess I’ve been confused for years about the zombie thread deal, because if you start a thread about something that’s already been done, you’ll get at least five posts linking to the zombie thread with snarky remarks about “that’s already been done”.
Thanks for your help Contra. I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, but highlighting, copying and pasting the URL is something I already know how to do and sometimes use (see my Napoleon thread in Great Debates).
What I am wondering is how they create those links where it just says one word or two like here .
When you hit ‘reply’, you’ll see a toolbar at the top for formatting and such. There is a symbol with a globe and a chain link. Click on that once. Type in the word you want to show up in your text as a link. Hit enter. Paste the web address in the new blank. Hit enter again.
See: Guidelines and Etiquette on the SDMB and note Post #4… which basically says what tom already says, but note that it’s up there in the PLEASE READ section of Rules, Manners, etc.
There’s nothing wrong with reading old threads, or linking to them—only with posting to them.
I admit, I’ll sometimes post a link to an old thread in which “we’ve already done this.” If so, I try not to be snarky about it nor to imply that the thread-starter is to be blamed for not knowing about the older thread (and I never do it if there are already four or more links to it).
If a thread asks for factual information or the answer to a question, I might link to an older thread in which that question has already been authoritatively answered. If it asks for advice, opinions, debate, personal anecdotes, etc., and I remember an older thread in which good advice or etc. was given, I’ll link to it, for the benefit of the asker and anyone else who’s interested, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t post to the new thread if they have something to contribute.
Really? I’m not being snide; I really have not seen the “been there, done that” comments in a while and was not aware that anyone was still engaged in that juvenile behavior. I have seen some exasperated statements when the 4,328th thread is started by a newbie who just knows that s/he has found the definitive “proof” that evolution is a false religion created by Satan, but I have not noticed a general trend of “We don’t want to talk about that and why did you bring it up?” regarding old topics. And I do not remember ever seeing that when the OP actually provided his or her own link to previous threads.
I don’t know much about Nickrz, but I do notice that while he doesn’t post often, a lot of his postings are waking up two, three or five-year-old zombies to give a contentless answer to someone. And I agree that he should stop. He knows better than that, wasn’t he a moderator at some point? I think he should have been warned for that last stunt.