Chiff and Fipple Forums

say i've been doing a lot of searching on a certain topic, and found a thread that was discussing exactly what i was looking for... from the year 2006, and it so happens i've some things to add or to comment on on that thread, my question is, is it illegal to unbury such ancient posts? will C&Fers take some kind of offense at seeing some relic from the past? or is it even possible to do that? i've come across a few of such topics of interest from 2+ years back, but so far, refrained from adding anything to old posts... for fear of scorn

With something that old, I think it's more
polite to start a new thread and include
a link to the old thread. That cuts down
on confusion for readers.

Yeah, I agree with that too.

that wasn't that long ago

as long as it isn't about ring flutes

Denny wrote:that wasn't that long ago

as long as it isn't about ring flutes

or nose flutes

Nothing is ancient here, the past is just a click away.
I love those "unburied" posts, shows all these people who once been active, and a few who still are....

hans wrote:I love those "unburied" posts, shows all these people who once been active, and a few who still are....

Yeah, but then you think "Holy carbuncles, Cranberry is back!!! Oh wait... damn you zombie thread!!!!!!"

Denny wrote:that wasn't that long ago

2006? Well, you have to admit that upon exhumation the corpse would hardly be warm.

Nanohedron wrote:

Denny wrote:that wasn't that long ago

2006? Well, you have to admit that upon exhumation the corpse would hardly be warm.

Still plenty of bones to be picked though!

hans wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:

Denny wrote:that wasn't that long ago

2006? Well, you have to admit that upon exhumation the corpse would hardly be warm.

Still plenty of bones to be picked though!

Bone appétit.

There's no anti-Frankenthread law that I'm aware of.

No, no law, but my Mod preference is strongly with Nano and fearfie. People don't always notice dates, then spend time and effort engaging with posters who are long since vanished.

so just 'cause they left ya quit talkin' to 'em?

I 'spose that would cut down on the traffic some

It's not so much the talking to them as the expecting answers from them.

Some people have died over the years too.

Practical solution is to leave a link to the other article in the opening post of a new thread. It is polite, allows others to see the information that might be restated, and allows for a continued discussion.

Would that be a bad rule/suggestion/mod mod? If you look at the number of threads named "test" it is not like there is a problem with duplication of thread names. Mods could hack offending necroposting or possibly find a way to auto hack date jumps, but mention to the posters please do "blank".

I am being too serious

MTGuru wrote:It's not so much the talking to them as the expecting answers from them.

I do try not to expect too much from them.

I.D.10-t wrote:If you look at the number of threads named "test" it is not like there is a problem with duplication of thread names.

just text, the thread is known by it's number....this thread is 78945