People killing your thread dead by posting a link to another thread that was a bit similar, only from two years ago or something, and scaring anyone off from posting on your thread because the messag

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So, a topic has been covered before. As long as it wasn't last week or something, big fucking deal...

― tic toc, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

The idea is to ADD to the thread that's been done before.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:23 (twenty-two years ago)

BORING

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

C/D Big threads that take forever to load.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

recursive thread! woo hoo!

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

classic or dud: not making use of settings?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic -- it keeps things streamlined and uncluttered.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

If you're not interested in what people said about it before, why bother posting a new thread in the first place?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

If your thread can be killed by something as basic as linking to a previous thread with a similar topic, it probably deserves a silent death -- keeping in mind that it served the valuable purpose of giving people ready access to earlier genius. Therefore, classic.

― Evanston Wade (EWW), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

meh.. a lot of the time people link to earlier threads with like two posts. or ones that aren't actually equivalent to the current thread.

usually dud, especially if you are fairly new.

― don (don), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:42 (twenty-two years ago)

classic. YIELD.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

reviving ancient threads: classick or irritating?
Running around posting on very old threads like sprinkling life force onto old skeletons and watching them dance Classic / Dud?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

you are naughty

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i am reminded of the old usenet posting question.....

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I say classic, because the whole "my" thread/"your" thread bit is nonsense: there is "a" thread about it already, not "somebody else's" thread

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

It was inevitable.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

John D spoke my mind.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Links to older threads are also a part of the Binding of All Pertinent Subjects (BAPS), which is mandated in the I Love Everything foundational charter.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

hey Tracer, get my mail t'other day?

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

And jaymc gets the "most obvious joke post of the week" award.

"If you're not interested in what people said about it before, why bother posting a new thread in the first place?"

Well, most threads are simply jokey conversations for bored people in offices. If you are truly seeking out new information, well yes, that's different.

― tic toc, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow, I just noticed that my navel is absolutely fascinating today. Excuse me one moment...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm interested in your navel too, @d@ml! Please tell us about it.

― tic toc, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Unless it's been done before, of course...

― tic toc, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

No fluff yet. Will report back soon, maybe on my blog.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Inny or outy?

― tic toc, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Inny.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Outies are freakish, sorry.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Freakish.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Selfish whiny meglomaniacal poutiness: classic. The entertainment value is much needed.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Nicole, OTM.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah the idea that anyone owns threads = dud.

if you're new, use the search feature first and if you find a good discussion about what you were going to post on, revive and contribute.

whiny bitches.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

stevem: now i have

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i didn't see nicole's post above so my 'whiny' comment wasn't piggybacking on hers.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel like only HALF my ride's been pimped.

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Hm. Sometimes the "search" feature doesn't work. And sometimes you stumble onto an old thread whose original subject was about something you'd like to discuss but the topic of discussion ended up going way off-course and you're not sure if you should actually bring up the original topic of discussion because it might seem as though you're not continuing on with where the thread was leading to and you note the dates and wonder if it's even proper to be adding something to a thread that was two or three years old and it all ends up to be quite the mess.

Not that, um, I have any personal experience with this sort of thing, nosiree. Ok, I have. There are about a hundred threads I've stopped myself from adding something to because I've felt they were either ancient history or the topic of discussion had gone so far off course that it wouldn't have seemed right to add something in regards to the original topic of discussion or even something that was brought up early on in the thread. I'm more apt to add something to a newer thread because it doesn't feel as though I'm adding something useless to that thread and because I think the topic is still relevant around here if it's just beginning to be discussed.

― Those Beautiful Lines (Dee the Lurker), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 22:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(Am making up for the overuse of the comma in other posts I've submitted, I am. *wink*)

― Those Beautiful Lines (Dee the Lurker), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

John is OTM. The threads belong to ILX, not to their original posters. If you have some petty sense of ownership over anything on ILX then you're a fool. FOOL.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay that was needlessly narky.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:29 (twenty-two years ago)

And you've spelled "fule" incorrectly. FULE.

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not so much that he misspelt it, it's that there was a misspelling.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought it was spot on.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It's pretty hard to come up with something that hasn't been covered in some way on ILX before. Unless it's 'ripped from the headlines.' This is especially true of ILM, unless it's a new release or some ridiculously obscure band.

So, dud. If you want to talk about it, start a thread. Threads have flows and go off in unexpected directions. When I ask, 'what toothpaste do you use?' I don't really care what toothpaste you use. I just want to see how people react. So, it's annoying to get somebody linking to 'Dental Hygiene: What's your routine?'

― Debito (Debito), Thursday, 13 May 2004 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Why though? Seriously.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:06 (twenty-two years ago)

So, a topic has been covered before. As long as it wasn't last week or something, big fucking deal...

Google doesn't do ILx searches properly anymore either. Two weeks ago it was hit-o-rific, but now it doesn't return anything at all. As a result I'm too scared to create threads too.

― Autumn Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:07 (twenty-two years ago)

So, it's annoying to get somebody linking to 'Dental Hygiene: What's your routine?'

Like it's not annoying to hear some restate the same question that's been asked 10 times before.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Is there really a shortage of random threads like that we could post to? Please only start a thread if you actually think it will be a good one. Thanks.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I only gave the dental hygiene example for yucks. i wouldn't actually post that.

― Debito (Debito), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:10 (twenty-two years ago)

For fuck's sake.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, sorry Debito. If you just want some kind of instant reaction from people use AIM or something. Like Nicole said it's kind of annoying that people don't bother to search for what they're interested in. There really is no problem adding onto a really old thread. It doesn't matter in the slightest! If you feel like what you're saying doesn't "warrant" a thread revival, though, it probably also doesn't warrant a whole new thread, either. There are TOO MANY of the fuckers in the first place. But duplicate threads don't actually bother me that much. If I post a link to a similar topic it's because I assume the original poster is actually interested. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or anything, and I don't see much of that kind of attitude from anyone else, either.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

GOTCHA!

― VengaDan Perry The Unhelpful Bastard (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Is there really a shortage of random threads like that we could post to?

I think the thinking might be that there isn't necessarily a shortage of threads but rather that so many things seem to have already been talked to death that maybe starting new threads might rejuvenate conversations and allow people who weren't around here at the time these older threads were being posted to to feel like they're welcome to throw their own $0.02 into the ring. (I know, mixed metaphors, bad me, etc.)

Also, if you haven't been around here for that long, it's hard to gauge if a topic of discussion has been brought up several times previously. The vast number of older threads (hell, I'm convinced there are thousands of threads on this forum I haven't read yet) makes it rather difficult to discern the historical precedence of discussion topics here.

― Those Beautiful Lines (Dee the Lurker), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Or I could just be reading waaaaaay too much into the subject. ;)

― Those Beautiful Lines (Dee the Lurker), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:31 (twenty-two years ago)

WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH REMEMBERING THINGS GAAAAAHHHHH

(Haha I love that I just said "go use AIM or something" when it was me who started the men's pubic hair thread.)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

i love seeing old threads revived. except when they're ones i posted stupid things to. but otherwise, yeah, don't be ageist, those threads got started so people could post on 'em and there's no statute of limitations on that. they shouldn't go to the thread graveyard the second they leave new answers.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan I could have done without the memory of that link burned forever into my mind. Although it makes me very glad that these two threads are forever conjoined.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:43 (twenty-two years ago)

This actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. Thanks.

(Ha, don't be surprised if I decide to go revive-crazy.)

― Those Beautiful Lines (Dee the Lurker), Thursday, 13 May 2004 01:45 (twenty-two years ago)

MEAT!!!

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 13 May 2004 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it has to do with volume/popularity. More people posting more often. [...]

-- bnw (rilke...), November 18th, 2003 3:14 AM.

Adapt or die, bnw! Just like the bugs and the little fishies of the sea.

-- Tracer Hand (tracerhan...), November 18th, 2003 5:07 AM

― bnw (bnw), Thursday, 13 May 2004 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

{burn!]

― bnw (bnw), Thursday, 13 May 2004 02:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Huh?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 13 May 2004 09:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It depends on the type of question too. If it's somebody asking for advice, posting links to other threads with similar questions could be helpful to the person asking for advice. (exception to the rule: hair dye advice, in which case they deserve all the darn linking they get)

― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 13 May 2004 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)

yes I love older threads b/c they often reveal great old posts I've forgotten or newer people have never said.

Dee, you're thinking about it way too much.

The search function while disabled in the past, has worked fine for me the past few months.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Thursday, 13 May 2004 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

John is OTM. The threads belong to ILX, not to their original posters. If you have some petty sense of ownership over anything on ILX then you're a fool. FOOL.

From the FAQ:

Do I have copyright over things I post on ILx?

Yes.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 13 May 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer: I said "the board is too big now" you said "Adapt or die" ....months pass... you say "the board is too big now" I says "ha! I caught tracer hand like a duck in a noose." You says "huh?" I feel dumb. The end.

― bnw (bnw), Thursday, 13 May 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

We are better than you, and we were here first. Deal with it.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 13 May 2004 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

tom, copyright over your posts and original questions, yes.

however, ownership over a discussion that follows from one of your questions (and permission to act like an ass and dictate how the discussion should go) does not equal copyright protection.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Thursday, 13 May 2004 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

he said "anything," pardon my literalism

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 13 May 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

nah, but I'll pardon your pedantry.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Thursday, 13 May 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.