Why the old threads being resurrected?!

I think it's because nobody was putting new threads on. I kept the site on my computer all day yesterday and there wasn't much activity. Todays better anyway.

It's not rocket science.

No It's ROCKET MICK, our Spiritual Leader

Al Jarvis wrote: Well, people should start new threads themselves then. Come on kids, use some imagination.

If people want to know what people's Top 10 Bands are they don't need to spend 3hrs going back through the archives to see if it's been asked before. They should take a bold step, and ask it for themselves. It's not difficult.

then you run the risk of people saying WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE!#@!!@#!@#!@#!!@#!@$$%@#!$

Can't win for losing ;)

fuck knows.

i'm blamin that Owens chap

sure it wasn't shug? you know what his memories like!

john kershaw wrote: fuck knows.

i'm blamin that Owens chap

So am I.

ChrissMari wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote: Well, people should start new threads themselves then. Come on kids, use some imagination.

If people want to know what people's Top 10 Bands are they don't need to spend 3hrs going back through the archives to see if it's been asked before. They should take a bold step, and ask it for themselves. It's not difficult.

then you run the risk of people saying WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE!#@!!@#!@#!@#!!@#!@$$%@#!$

Can't win for losing ;)

Exactly. I had this before and if I remember corretly it was you Mr Jarvis that said it to me!!

Guilty Partner wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote: Well, people should start new threads themselves then. Come on kids, use some imagination.

If people want to know what people's Top 10 Bands are they don't need to spend 3hrs going back through the archives to see if it's been asked before. They should take a bold step, and ask it for themselves. It's not difficult.

then you run the risk of people saying WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE!#@!!@#!@#!@#!!@#!@$$%@#!$

Can't win for losing ;)

Exactly. I had this before and if I remember corretly it was you Mr Jarvis that said it to me!!

I seem to recall someone having a wee rant about it a coupla weeks go during the main thrust of the top3 thread invasion, may even have been some of the wags above.

BTW Liam, for once you and I are in totl agreement

some of those old threads have posts from me from a year or so before it says i registered.

i'm playing with your minds!

Yes, I admit I've resurrected a few old threads.

It's because I find it interesting to look back at what people were saying 3 or 4 years ago. Sometimes, I've felt I have an opinion that can be added to the thread.

Al Jarvis wrote:

Interesting to who exactly?

Me.

Al Jarvis wrote:

Explain it in words of one syllable so that we can all understand. WHY ON EARTH do you need to know what any of us were doing with our social lives - re: what gigs have you got coming up? - thread from three years ago. That's one hell of a pointless exercise Mr Owens.

You said you'd forgotten about the Glastonbury play. I'd remembered it getting good reviews. By chance, I found it being mentioned in an old thread. So now I can ask someone about it, and I can read what people thought of things at the time.

To you, Mr. Jarvis, it may be pointless. That's fair enough. But to me, I find it interesting to read things like this. It's a version of history, one that is rarely discussed in history textbooks.

Christopher Owens wrote: Yes, I admit I've resurrected a few old threads.

It's because I find it interesting to look back at what people were saying 3 or 4 years ago. Sometimes, I've felt I have an opinion that can be added to the thread.

get a bird and do some goosin.

that's why i never log on, on the weekend!!

To be honest who really gives a fuck what threads are posted. Tescos, Top 3 or whatever I don't mind. Its only a messageboard ffs.

Al Jarvis wrote:

So why feel the need to resurrect it? I come on here for a bit escapism. I don't need to be reminded what I was doing, or who with, three or four fcuking years ago. That should be of no interest to you whatsoever. Or what anyone here was doing with their lives. If you're interested in seeing what gigs people are going to, you started a new thread, you don't waste half your day going back over old threads to see if someone's asked the same question again, surely.

What you were doing 3 or 4 years ago is not of interest to me. It is the threads that deal with opinions from the time that is of interest to me.

For example, there were threads about Doves, where people were asking if they were going to be huge. I find things like that interesting. Views from the time. It would probably be different nowadays. Probably the same with an Interpol thread, or the book thread.

You mentioned the George Michael thread. I thought there were some cracking replies on that thread. So I put my own in. Saved time from starting another thread, and kept all the witty replies.

You come onto NOOL for escapism. That's fair enough. But I want to explore the history of it a bit more.

Al Jarvis wrote: As for the Glastonbury thread, it didn't even open in the end did it? I thought it was an abject flop and never toured. New Order certainly didn't wish to be associated with it in the end and pulled out of any collaboration after dismal reports.

Then I must have been thinking of something else then. I stand corrected.

Snoopy wrote: To be honest who really gives a fuck what threads are posted. Tescos, Top 3 or whatever I don't mind. Its only a messageboard ffs.

The voice of reason.

and here i am, thinking lickmodem from tampa had actually returned.

Although, to be fair Christoper, no one really cares about what you think about threads of 4 years ago.

Take a chill pill guys...

Maybe the resurrected threads are bringing back memories people want to forget, maybe that's the problem....

Snoopy wrote: Tescos

Opps nearly forgot, yesterdays news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4619358.stm

Uncle Liam wrote: Although, to be fair Christoper, no one really cares about what you think about threads of 4 years ago.

Ah, Liam. I was wondering when you were going to rear your head.

You once used the term 'I don't seek popularity' and I think that applies here.

I don't care what you think about anything. Case closed.

Yes, but you see the thing is, i dont post constant shite or offer my opinions on a football transfer from 3 and a half years ago.

If your going to bother posting at least try and say something that is relevant in the slightest.

And if you think that anything of the threads that you posted on from 2002 are of any king of historical relvance, then you need yer head seeing to.

Uncle Liam wrote: Yes, but you see the thing is, i dont post constant shite

You are priceless.

For fucks sake, it is a messageboard. It's not a life or death situation.

And if you think that anything of the threads that you posted on from 2002 are of any king of historical relvance, then you need yer head seeing to.

What's the reference to KING ? I hated that band

Al Jarvis wrote:

One Brain wrote: Resurrecting old threads is evil, annoying and pointless. Perhaps Nicolas could create a function to automatically lock threads with no activity in the past, say, six months.

Good point. Well made.

All this for resurrected threads?

Just have

Thanks to Mr. Jarvis for using the image.

OK...lemme see if I have this straight.....

Repeating a question already asked=bad (not just here, that's basic netiquette, search, read, ask) Posting the previously asked question=bad.

So fundamentally, the answer to the re-discussion of topics is..... "you shoulda been here foo!!!"

Is posting intermittant shite anything to boast about.

Steve Campbell wrote: OK...lemme see if I have this straight.....

Repeating a question already asked=bad (not just here, that's basic netiquette, search, read, ask) Posting the previously asked question=bad.

So fundamentally, the answer to the re-discussion of topics is..... "you shoulda been here foo!!!"

Is posting intermittant shite anything to boast about.

Good point.

Steve Campbell wrote: OK...lemme see if I have this straight.....

Repeating a question already asked=bad (not just here, that's basic netiquette, search, read, ask) Posting the previously asked question=bad.

So fundamentally, the answer to the re-discussion of topics is..... "you shoulda been here foo!!!"

Is posting intermittant shite anything to boast about.

That's what I'm getting outta it. :(

And because my brain is so dead from being at work, I didn't even notice the 2002 on the date, which is a bit of a giveaway for being an old thread, before I added my comments to one...I shall pay more attention in future, try to get my brain back in gear, maybe even do some work now! :\ohwell: And I missed the o/t bit, another giveaway really........my brain hurts!!

Did i have a job , a LIFE and hair then?Thought not! THREADS DEAD.

Al Jarvis wrote:

Guilty Partner wrote: Exactly. I had this before and if I remember corretly it was you Mr Jarvis that said it to me!!

Bollocks.

If you can dig out the thread, then I'll stand corrected. But I usually leave the "We've Heard All This Before" shit to other old-timers.

As it is, some of the threads that have been resurrected are just plain pointless. The George Michael one anyone? Hardly topical is it? And as for "What gigs have you got coming up" you really don't need to wade back three years ago to find if someone's asked that before. Unless you're a complete and utter moron.

Like I said, some of us haven't just joined here so I don't know why our thoughts, no matter how trivial they seem, need to be resurrected.

Nice...

I don't know why I bother with this board sometimes. If you don't want to read the post, don't. The reason there is a subject line is so you can make an educated decision.

I think from reading my posts an explanation could be given why he has done such a thing. Anyone who knows me knows what that explanation is.

Get a life. Get a job!

Al Jarvis wrote: Sensible answers please. If any of the uber-posters on this forum are capable of that.

al, i know you despise me. and it's pretty clear that steve and christopher piss you off, as well. but is it fair to make such a generalization about everyone who chooses to make frequent posts on BCD?

Can we not just bring back a few of the old posters instead?Save the badgers please.Gosh we need some Pringles at a time like this!

I don't even know how to look for an old thread.How do you do it?.I tried the Google site search a few times but got nowhwere.What are you doing ,Christopher, going back page by page?!!!.

Couldn't find my old memmbership from 2001 could you?.I went under the same name ,Johnny.But i had ".g" after it.Well .com and the net was all new then and it seemed a funny idea.

i just wish these really old threads were allowed to rest in peace. if a topic becomes relevant agai, by all means start a new topic.

Al Jarvis wrote: As for my sweeping generalisation, you have to admit an awful lot of shit gets posted here some days. An awful lot. You can start a topic on one subject and two people will gleefully hijack it with their own personal conversations mildly related to the subject. Apologies if you thought it was untoward though.

yes, i'll allow you to respond, al. i apologize for that statement i made this summer. it was made out of extreme anger and frustration--there were extenuating circumstances (which you were unaware of and which had nothing to do with you) that added to the anger and hurt i already felt.

i do agree that there has been a lot of thread-hijacking and it is very annoying. but i also think there are a lot of good people on this site (some whom i have met or otherwise corresponded with) and i enjoy reading their posts.

Seeing some of these unfamiliar names in old threads makes me realise people do eventually move on from this place.Odd to think that someday i too ,may never come here anymore.

Johnny wrote: Seeing some of these unfamiliar names in old threads makes me realise people do eventually move on from this place.Odd to think that someday i too ,may never come here anymore.

expecting evangeline to come knocking at our door, are we?

Yeah .And we're going to live happily ever after on a deserted island where there are no computers and i'll never post on here again:D

I understand your rage, but I didn't want to abuse the forum with the same threads all over again. I reckon it was quite a noble aim. While the avalanche of resurrections is morbid indeed. You should think that people really miss something here if they go back in time

Rocket's 'scared that I might miss a thread' syndrome

Al Jarvis wrote:

Christopher is just a child.

Is that right, grandad?

Al Jarvis wrote: He appears to lack common sense. Like I said, a couple of those threads struck a chord. One of them was basically me entirely chatting about e-males to Huntsman. Another reminded me that I went to see the Fast Show and Peter Kay with my ex wife. I didn't expect to wake up today and be reminded of that. There was absolutely no need to drag up these threads.

The threads I resurrected were things like 'Recommend a book' and 'Gigs coming up'. General threads. I wasn't interested in your personal life, and it was certainly not the reason why I resurrected the threads. If it has caused offence, then I'm sorry, but they were GENERAL threads, not specific ones.

Al Jarvis wrote: Maybe he just enjoys playing Devil's Advocate with his choice of bands or his continual knocking off Low-Life, just when you least expect it.

You're suggesting that I post ideas of mine to piss people like you off? You find it strange that someone has different ideas than yours? The world doesn't revolve around you, Mr. Jarvis.

BTW, I remember I devoted a thread to LowLife, saying why I didn't like the album. You asked me to explain why, and I did. You STILL couldn't get your head around that, and started asking me why I liked NO.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Uncle Liam wrote: I think from reading my posts an explanation could be given why he has done such a thing. Anyone who knows me knows what that explanation is.

Get a life. Get a job!

This from the person who calls me an idiot because I don't like an album he likes.

Liam.

No, thats one of a multitude of reasons why i think your an idiot.

Christopher Owens wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote:

Christopher is just a child.

Is that right, grandad?

Al Jarvis wrote: He appears to lack common sense. Like I said, a couple of those threads struck a chord. One of them was basically me entirely chatting about e-males to Huntsman. Another reminded me that I went to see the Fast Show and Peter Kay with my ex wife. I didn't expect to wake up today and be reminded of that. There was absolutely no need to drag up these threads.

The threads I resurrected were things like 'Recommend a book' and 'Gigs coming up'. General threads. I wasn't interested in your personal life, and it was certainly not the reason why I resurrected the threads. If it has caused offence, then I'm sorry, but they were GENERAL threads, not specific ones.

Al Jarvis wrote: Maybe he just enjoys playing Devil's Advocate with his choice of bands or his continual knocking off Low-Life, just when you least expect it.

You're suggesting that I post ideas of mine to piss people like you off? You find it strange that someone has different ideas than yours? The world doesn't revolve around you, Mr. Jarvis.

BTW, I remember I devoted a thread to LowLife, saying why I didn't like the album. You asked me to explain why, and I did. You STILL couldn't get your head around that, and started asking me why I liked NO.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Well, I think that proves a pint - sorry, point!

Christopher in fairness, you are taking things WELL out of proportion here. Words said in the heat of the moment etc etc... You don't have to agree with anyone to be right or wrong. We are ALL entitled to opinions. And this forum is supposed to be the one where you may have only 1 common factor - NO - but post isn't NO related - well, isn't it?

Wino wrote:

Christopher in fairness, you are taking things WELL out of proportion here. Words said in the heat of the moment etc etc... You don't have to agree with anyone to be right or wrong. We are ALL entitled to opinions. And this forum is supposed to be the one where you may have only 1 common factor - NO - but post isn't NO related - well, isn't it?

You're right, but I did find it strange that Al would suggest a theory that I post topics about bands that I love to annoy people.

Uncle Liam wrote: No, thats one of a multitude of reasons why i think your an idiot.

Oh really?

Then please explain.

Poor old Liam.

Al Jarvis wrote:

The threads weren't exactly 'general'. The 'gigs coming up' thread died a death over three years ago. Why feel the need to resurrect it? What sort of weirdo goes sniffing back on threads from three years ago anyways? This isn't even a New Order related forum either, so it's not like you're trying to increase your knowledge of the band. What purpose did it serve, exactly?

As previously explained:

It is the threads that deal with opinions from the time that is of interest to me.

For example, there were threads about Doves, where people were asking if they were going to be huge. I find things like that interesting. It would probably be different nowadays. Probably the same with an Interpol thread, or the book thread, where people can recommend books they loved to others.

You may think it's weird. I'm not particularly worried.

Christopher Owens wrote:

Wino wrote:

Christopher in fairness, you are taking things WELL out of proportion here. Words said in the heat of the moment etc etc... You don't have to agree with anyone to be right or wrong. We are ALL entitled to opinions. And this forum is supposed to be the one where you may have only 1 common factor - NO - but post isn't NO related - well, isn't it?

You're right, but I did find it strange that Al would suggest a theory that I post topics about bands that I love to annoy people.

Well, as much as it grieves me to say this....sometimes, 'one' is best to leave things unsaid, undone, think things, but don't say them - especially when you know the reaction you will receive. This is something I have learned anyway..........at the Wednesday Wine Club.:) Serious point, attempted to be put across in a friendly way?:)

Wino wrote:

Well, as much as it grieves me to say this....sometimes, 'one' is best to leave things unsaid, undone, think things, but don't say them - especially when you know the reaction you will receive. This is something I have learned anyway..........at the Wednesday Wine Club.:) Serious point, attempted to be put across in a friendly way?:)

So why didnt you just read them?

Uncle Liam wrote: So why didnt you just read them?

As others have said, I felt it would be handier than starting a new thread, then getting cries of 'Oh no, not this again...'

Christopher Owens wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: So why didnt you just read them?

As others have said, I felt it would be handier than starting a new thread, then getting cries of 'Oh no, not this again...'

That wasn't exactly what the cries said though, was it?

Learn some manners.

Christopher Owens wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: So why didnt you just read them?

As others have said, I felt it would be handier than starting a new thread, then getting cries of 'Oh no, not this again...'

i think people don't mind starting new threads, as long as it's done in moderation and not every week (as has happened before).

Look it's half 3 in te friggin morning and I hate getting up at half 3 in the morning (well I been up since 3), cos it makes me depressed and shitty. And I thought this place would be worth checking on for some entertainment, WRONG ! :D

I don't understand all the rage here guys. I think what Chris did was silly, and pointless.....but good $DEITY guys, save us from a world devoid of silly pointless things (or is anyone going to tell me the deep spiritual and psycho-political import of "i've got a cock, it's like the M1"). I'd have thought a measured response woulda been to call him a plonker, have a laugh and see if he makes a habit of it.

I mean I thought my enforced reduced presence (I read the animated wallpaper on my machine and watch Babylon5 instead now...along with emails asking where I am) would cheer Liam up, now that I am now longer a threat hanging over NO, but he's still mean and nasty.

And Al, you;ve been as touchy as ME for a coupla weeks dude, be mellow, say "OM" a hundred times, spend a day in Hyde Park or something. And while my "woman hater" comments last week were out of order, they were based on my taking BIGINOIL the wrong way (and being elsewhere for a long time therefor not noticing instantly), an appropriate and deserved apology was issued to all concerned.

FWIW, I've met Chris, and he's neither a goth nor a total plonker. Obviously, he has some kind of brain disorder when it comes to lowlife, but there are people on here who dislike all sorts of wonderful NO music...I myself don't much care for Electronic beyond a coupla tunes....that's the way things are, it's how they are meant to be.

What fucking hope is there, really, for humanity as a species of bunch of reasonable,educated folks as specifically grouped and linked by common interest as ourselves, can't avoid marching to war at the drop of a spacebar.

Steve Campbell wrote: What fucking hope is there, really, for humanity as a species of bunch of reasonable,educated folks as specifically grouped and linked by common interest as ourselves, can't avoid marching to war at the drop of a spacebar.

Well said Steve.

Guilty Partner wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: What fucking hope is there, really, for humanity as a species of bunch of reasonable,educated folks as specifically grouped and linked by common interest as ourselves, can't avoid marching to war at the drop of a spacebar.

Well said Steve.

Don't stick a medal on me yet. Sooner or later SOMONE here was bound to make sense, it's basic statistics. I am as shocked and horrified as you that it was me.

Al Jarvis wrote: One of them was basically me entirely chatting about e-males to Huntsman.

Ironically, I'm now keen to check this thread out as I missed it first time around. I'd like to know more about the book and I'm interested in what both of them had to say about the process.

I can see where Al's coming from because it's dredging up some stuff he'd rather forget and some of the rehashing seems a little pointless. But as he also implies, this whole forum is dominated by pointless threads.

Liked One Brain's(?) idea that you should still be able to refer to the relic threads, but not reply to them. A reasonable compromise?

:\pimp3:

[orange]depthcharge[/orange] wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote: One of them was basically me entirely chatting about e-males to Huntsman.

Ironically, I'm now keen to check this thread out as I missed it first time around. I'd like to know more about the book and I'm interested in what both of them had to say about the process.

I can see where Al's coming from because it's dredging up some stuff he'd rather forget and some of the rehashing seems a little pointless. But as he also implies, this whole forum is dominated by pointless threads.

Liked One Brain's(?) idea that you should still be able to refer to the relic threads, but not reply to them. A reasonable compromise?

:\pimp3:

Got a copy of Allen's novel via Amazon this week.

One word review: debauched.

:D

Jeez, is he still getting royalties or what?

Guess I should help his monthly sales at Amazon too.

:\pimp3:

Hi Alan. Thats the picture on the button of my coat. Penguin Original. Nice. Its a donkey jacket - very Miners strike. I like it though. Well made.

Clockwork C wrote:

Its a donkey jacket

You youthful folk are not about to start a Dexy's revival are you ?

Wear one everyday for work , keeps the cold out and good for stowing tapemeasures and pencils .

As others have said, I felt it would be handier than starting a new thread, then getting cries of 'Oh no, not this again...'

so? why not just delete everything after one week? everybody has time to make new memories. there are some brilliant lines written. give a nod for the week's/month's best lines. then delete eveything. Move on. Think of the disc space saved.

i think people don't mind starting new threads, as long as it's done in moderation and not every week (as has happened before). --- hopefully we all can change and have new fresh vibrant ideas. if it's a repeat constructive concept then so be. for example- will anybody wear a viking hat to the Man vs. Cancer? don't think that it is a good idea. people sharp objects someones gonna lose an eye. get a glo-band and put it on your arm. you all are too special.

with the different time zones and some being up in the nite there's bound to be/got to be some snooping along the line of what up ?
-- it's just creepy to check into what was said even a couple of month's ago. to this day I can't even write a note to my mum because she's saved eveything that I've written since I was seven or something. ( parents divorce when I was three)._

So why feel the need to resurrect it? I come on here for a bit escapism.--- classic example I am sorry. argh. -I'd been away for a week looking out for a friend's place and her cats while she's in Thailand-lucky poo- and am just dropping in now. am amazed at how this stuff is still around. escapism- I was bashing me head against a wall over not being able to drive down to Seattle for Hooky's gig and obviously not being able to go to your 28th so I came over to nool. then painted most of the apartment. wow. amazing what you can get done when you shut off the thinking brain. wasn't going to key with painty fingers and limited the damage to the mouse. yay. except for today- wow- it's been raining - big raining here for almost eight weeks straight. off to look after the friend's cat's. they are such hams !
Oscar Wilde: Life is too serious to ever be taken seriously.