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.
Dates
· UTC
Why the old threads being resurrected?!
Archived80 replies · 1,680 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Behind Closed Doors
Showing posts 31–60 of 81
↑ First post
Latest post ↓
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!! 
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.
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.
Oh, please, everything is so fcuking black & white in your world.
If someone can point me in the direction of one decent 'discussion' Mr Owens has resurrected then so be it. But the George Michael thread?! And the one about which gigs we were all attending three years ago?! Or even top 10 bands (which we all had three years ago?). I've said this already, but obviously need to repeat myself for the harder of reading, but what exactly is their worth and why should Christopher feel the need to resurrect any of this.
Sensible answers please. If any of the uber-posters on this forum are capable of that.
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.
hibster wrote: 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!
You'll be happy to know it's no longer the case.
AgentWood wrote:
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?
Whoah! Am I actually allowed a response to this Christy? Seeing as you posted on this very forum that I was not allowed to post in response to any of your topics on this, or on World In Motion and, if I did, you would have such threads locked? Remember?!
Steve doesn't piss me off, as such, though some of his comments last week on the Barney's Angels thing were very nearly unforgiveable. Woman haters indeed. Way below the belt. But I've met him in the flesh and can make an informed judgement that he's an ok kind-of chap.
Christopher is just a child. 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. I don't know Christopher, and to the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone here who's ever met him either. 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. But obviously a lot of people here do post a certain amount of personal shit. And it shouldn't be resurrected 3+ years after the event. Why people fail to understand that is beyond me.
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.
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.
Well, I wanted to delete most of the old threads at one point, and Sebastien convinced me to keep them because of the memory and everything.
What I could do is move them an an archive forum, but once again, if I can one day finish the search page, those will be useful ;)
Spotnick wrote: Well, I wanted to delete most of the old threads at one point, and Sebastien convinced me to keep them because of the memory and everything.
What I could do is move them an an archive forum, but once again, if I can one day finish the search page, those will be useful ;)
The idea was just to lock the old threads, not to delete them. People should be able to read them, if they're bothered to do it.
But, please, don't create another forum.
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 
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.
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.
