[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/24/2018 5:28 AM, wrote:
I am sick and tired every time some slack-jaw comes along
and interjects "this is an old thread", or, "that post is 10-20-however
many years- old".

I think that it's OK to re-answer certain old questions - there might be
new answers, and a new user might be turned on to an old technique.

I realize that when someone comes to this newsgroup for the first time,
stumbles across a question (the first post in a thread) and says "Oh, I
know that," he's eager to participate and fires off an answer. But (and
this should be required reading before posting here (or on any newsgroup
with a long memory) first, you should look through the thread INCLUDING
THE DATE OF THE INITIAL POST!!!!!!! and know what's already been said.

It's a waste of electrons to post "Do you still have the Frambulizer
2874? I've always wanted one" when it was offered for sale 14 years ago.
And if it's a real discussion, look at what's already been said and how
relevant your answer will be. And if you really want to improve the
signal-to-noise ratio here, check to see if the original poster is still
a current poster. People come and go and there's only a handful of us
who have been here for the long haul, and it's usually us that you're
bugging.

Maybe we should be more tolerant of dead posts rolling over in their
graves. Or if a new discussion springs up from an old thread, maybe we
can think of something better to contribute than "this is a 20 year old
thread."



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then