Before criticizing the revival of what you consider to be an 'old thread'...

[[email protected]]

THINK:

1. Does that old post contain information that might be valuable
to someone other than yourself?
2. Does it interest someone other than yourself?

3. Would it make a change in the life/lives of anyone
besides you?

4. Does it reasonably condense or bring together dialogue
or information about a particular subject, vs. creating
multiple new threads or posts about the same thing?

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".

Think about someone ELSE for a change, outside of your own
narrow little world, before contributing negatively to a conversation
that others, beside yourself, might find helpful or useful. And
if you have nothing to contribute to the dialogue besides "dude,
you're replying to a old thread" - keep that to yourself, and scroll
the F- along.


Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this.

[John Williamson]

On 24/01/2018 13:28, 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".
>
In the vast majority of cases, these new posts about items that have
long ago disappeared from most usenet servers come via Google Groups,
and are offering information to someone who stopped posting on usenet
many years ago, with the poster obviously not realising they are
responding to a message that is years old. Letting the poster know that
the problem has either been solved long ago or no longer exists is a
service to the community.

Occasionally, they ask a question that gets answered in due course.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[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

[John Williamson]

On 24/01/2018 14:29, Mike Rivers wrote:

> 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.
>
Maybe we should lobby Google to limit the age of posts shown in a
search to a few months unless the searcher specifies a larger age limit.

Mind you, their search feature is apparently slowly getting less and
less usable as time goes by, so maybe this will happen automatically.




--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[jtees4]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:28:23 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>THINK:
>
>1. Does that old post contain information that might be valuable
>to someone other than yourself?
>2. Does it interest someone other than yourself?
>
>3. Would it make a change in the life/lives of anyone
>besides you?
>
>4. Does it reasonably condense or bring together dialogue
>or information about a particular subject, vs. creating
>multiple new threads or posts about the same thing?
>
>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".
>
>Think about someone ELSE for a change, outside of your own
>narrow little world, before contributing negatively to a conversation
> that others, beside yourself, might find helpful or useful. And
>if you have nothing to contribute to the dialogue besides "dude,
>you're replying to a old thread" - keep that to yourself, and scroll
>the F- along.
>
>
>Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this.

I agree with you. I do it personally on lots of forums, for the simple
reason that I don't pay attention to posting dates. I think they're
are irrelvant...if I am posting it is still of interest and on topic
for me. And often, it leads others back into a discussion that me be
relevent for newer people.

[geoff]

On 25/01/2018 2:28 AM, wrote:
> THINK:
>
> 1. Does that old post contain information that might be valuable
> to someone other than yourself?
> 2. Does it interest someone other than yourself?
>
> 3. Would it make a change in the life/lives of anyone
> besides you?
>
> 4. Does it reasonably condense or bring together dialogue
> or information about a particular subject, vs. creating
> multiple new threads or posts about the same thing?
>
> 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".
>
> Think about someone ELSE for a change, outside of your own
> narrow little world, before contributing negatively to a conversation
> that others, beside yourself, might find helpful or useful. And
> if you have nothing to contribute to the dialogue besides "dude,
> you're replying to a old thread" - keep that to yourself, and scroll
> the F- along.
>
> Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this.
>

Dear Mr Sick And Tired,

I take it you are referring to my light-hearted and humorous (remember
humour - or humor if one is a yank) response to that deeply historical
post the other day.

Certainly, if the post is about something useful, asks or answers a
question that remains relevant, or isn't already answered in the ancient
thread - a thread that nobody would ever come across unless searching
for the subject specifically.

Makes a change from flat line hyper-compression whinges at least (BTW we
nearly all loathe that abomination).

geoff

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

You HAVE a Frambullzer!!!!!!!?????