Bringing back old threads

[Madrigal]

Sometimes people don't like it when someone brings back an old thread. But I don't think you can apply the same criteria for each case. I was thinking maybe we can enumerate the pros and cons of bringing back old threads.

Reasons not to bring back old threads:


Lots of members in those threads may be gone and they aren't around to defend their old positions.


Sometimes, depending on the nature of a thread, a the person who started it, or even those who posted in it, don't want to see their threads dug up. Over time, people change their opinions, attitudes, or simply feel embarassed by certain things they revealed at some point or other. In other words, posters tend to mature throughout their Board life, and usually prefer not to go back in time. I once wanted to bring back an old thread made by someone else, it was kind of personal so I asked her first if she would mind. Even though she gave me permission, I decided not to.


The forum adopts a different tempo and different characteristics over time. Bringing back old threads sometimes brings back an outdated style; could be good or bad, depending on the nature of the thread.


Issues are often debated differently in different periods, because events provide new tools to argue certain points. It could be more worthwhile to start a whole new thread on a recurring topic than to bring back an old one.


Bringing back old threads is lazy. Maybe starting a fresh new topic (and trying to be creative about it) would contribute more to the forum. Instead of cluttering the forum with old stuff.


Damn it and it just makes me sad. I see a lot of people who are gone. *pout*


Reasons to bring them back:


Sometimes there are threads that have a timeless quality about them. I think these are the ones mainly selected as Classics. It's nice to see a bit of forum history, recall certain forum events and stuff.


I can't think of anything else.


Reccomendation:

If you're a newbie, please don't bring back old threads. Because you still need time to get used to the forum, its style, its members, its written and unwritten rules of conduct. Bringing back old threads could be a good idea, but you probably won't understand when, why and how to do it.

So just take a few months to get used to things first. In case you didn't know, most people don't think it's proper forum etiquette to bring back old threads. Especially not on a regular basis.

[Wolf]

The gravedigging is getting on my nerves, too.

[Kathara]

Ok, ok

[Madrigal]

Ok, ok

Maybe you just didn't know about this before, so I can understand - but people have hinted they weren't happy about it and you disregarded the hints.

Do you understand now, or are you just going to forget about this later? Don't mean to make this a huge flame against you, but you are the reason this thread was started.

[LongSilence]

Damn Madrigal, your wrath sure has shaken its leash recently. This thread totally outdoes my 'Enough is enough' one :).

[Madrigal]

Damn Madrigal, your wrath sure has shaken its leash recently. This thread totally outdoes my 'Enough is enough' one :).

New Year's makes me moody. :ph34r:

[Jennywocky]

It's a lot like the Monkey's Paw to me: Don't call the dead out of their graves... or at least send them straight back to their rest once you hear their shuffling muffling groans upon the doorstep.

[LowEnd]

Anyone ever thought about an ancient thread archive?

'Read only' for instance.

[Kathara]

Maybe you just didn't know about this before, so I can understand - but people have hinted they weren't happy about it and you disregarded the hints.

Do you understand now, or are you just going to forget about this later? Don't mean to make this a huge flame against you, but you are the reason this thread was started.

Ok, ok. Anyways, the threads were not personal ones, so I dont feel like I have offended anyone.

[Madrigal]

If we can agree that it's in bad taste to delete your own posts after some time, then it's only polite to let other people's posts rest in peace unless there's a good reason to bring them back. It's only fair.

Do unto others etc.

[Google Monster]

Sometimes people don't like it when someone brings back an old thread. But I don't think you can apply the same criteria for each case. I was thinking maybe we can enumerate the pros and cons of bringing back old threads.

Reasons not to bring back old threads:

Lots of members in those threads may be gone and they aren't around to defend their old positions.
Sometimes, depending on the nature of a thread, a the person who started it, or even those who posted in it, don't want to see their threads dug up. Over time, people change their opinions, attitudes, or simply feel embarassed by certain things they revealed at some point or other. In other words, posters tend to mature throughout their Board life, and usually prefer not to go back in time. I once wanted to bring back an old thread made by someone else, it was kind of personal so I asked her first if she would mind. Even though she gave me permission, I decided not to.
The forum adopts a different tempo and different characteristics over time. Bringing back old threads sometimes brings back an outdated style; could be good or bad, depending on the nature of the thread.
Issues are often debated differently in different periods, because events provide new tools to argue certain points. It could be more worthwhile to start a whole new thread on a recurring topic than to bring back an old one.
Bringing back old threads is lazy. Maybe starting a fresh new topic (and trying to be creative about it) would contribute more to the forum. Instead of cluttering the forum with old stuff.
Damn it and it just makes me sad. I see a lot of people who are gone. *pout*
Reasons to bring them back:

Sometimes there are threads that have a timeless quality about them. I think these are the ones mainly selected as Classics. It's nice to see a bit of forum history, recall certain forum events and stuff.
I can't think of anything else.
Reccomendation:

If you're a newbie, please don't bring back old threads. Because you still need time to get used to the forum, its style, its members, its written and unwritten rules of conduct. Bringing back old threads could be a good idea, but you probably won't understand when, why and how to do it.

So just take a few months to get used to things first. In case you didn't know, most people don't think it's proper forum etiquette to bring back old threads. Especially not on a regular basis.

I remember you getting after me when I brought back some old threads when I first joined. Like me welcoming Div in his introduction thread. :P

Still mad at teh noobs!! :mad:

[Madrigal]

Ok, ok. Anyways, the threads were not personal ones, so I dont feel like I have offended anyone.

You have offended a lot of people, who have pointed it out. You've brought back too many old threads for me to sort through the personal and non-personal ones. I just saw one started by a very old forum troll named swift, which was a big fat piece of flamebait to get people all worked up. That's the one that prompted me to start this, but there were just so many others.

I simply don't think you can say, "I don't feel I've offended anyone", because we've been nudging you for quite a while. Maybe you have something to say in your defense, but it isn't that.

I really don't think you have bad intentions, just that you chose to ignore people's annoyance on this point.

[Noses]

Got it. Good.

[Hexchild]

If we can agree that it's in bad taste to delete your own posts after some time, then it's only polite to let other people's posts rest in peace unless there's a good reason to bring them back. It's only fair.

Do unto others etc.

Who are you to decide what is a good reason, though?

If you can't handle the fact that things you have posted earlier, and with which you no longer agree, might be fuel for further discussion and development of new ideas, then why post in a forum which is public (or in some cases semi-public) in the first place?

[Jennywocky]

Who are you to decide what is a good reason, though? If you can't handle the fact that things you have posted earlier, and with which you no longer agree, might be fuel for further discussion and development of new ideas, then why post in a forum which is public (or in some cases semi-public) in the first place?

True, people sometimes think that they believe what they believe and that it won't change (or otherwise they wouldn't post)... but realistically, opinions DO change over time.

I think the madmins need to be involved with the process, because they are responsible for maintaining the thread continuity. Otherwise reading the threads would be like reading a book with half the pages torn out.

But sometimes there's personal information embedded in a thread or a complete change in one's outlook that might necessitate some post removal. (I can't specify what it would be, it's a "case by case" thing.) In that case, the poster and the madmins will work together to accommodate everyone's needs. We already do permit deletion of blogs.

[outmywindow]

Yeah, it's annoying, but not enough for me to freak out about it.

Honestly, I think it's hilarious when people dredge up old flamebait and post a scathing reply to some member who's long been sent packing. The delay tickles me and I just end up imagining someone shouting in an empty room at someone who left a good hour earlier, then being surprised that they receive no reply.

[Madrigal]

Who are you to decide what is a good reason, though?
I started this thread so we could debate that, not to provide a universal truth. However, I'm not gonna act like I don't believe my own opinions.


If you can't handle the fact that things you have posted earlier, and with which you no longer agree, might be fuel for further discussion and development of new ideas, then why post in a forum which is public (or in some cases semi-public) in the first place?

Well, that argument would be all good if we were programs, but we're actually human beings. Some people mature or simply change over time. Maybe you don't; maybe you were born perfect, or maybe you're a static entity. But most people aren't. Their views and feelings are constantly evolving. By all means, we should think before we post, but one thing doesn't negate the other.

You make a deal with the forum: it traps your posts, and you try not to post bullshit or things you'd wish to delete later. It's only polite to try not to abuse that understanding by digging up people's personal e-corpses.

And it was only one reason I gave against thread-necromancy. *pat on the back* if it doesn't apply to you.

[Hexchild]

Some people mature or simply change over time. Maybe you don't; maybe you were born perfect, or maybe you're a static entity.

Neither. My views and feelings certainly evolve as well, but I accept that being human, I make mistakes. That I don't agree with some of my old posts doesn't make them any less valid or deserving of existance. Simply by virtue of being ideas, it is my opinion that they should be made available to all regardless of circumstance.



And it was only one reason I gave against thread-necromancy. *pat on the back* if it doesn't apply to you.

I'm trying to make you see the flip side of it, though. It actually bothers the hell out of me everytime I see someone delete old posts, edit them in an attempt to change their original meaning or try to keep people from replying to them.

[Rhu]

I fully approve of the practice of thread necromancy. In fact, I often sometimes think things along the lines of:

"Rhu, my lad!" I often address myself endearingly and in strange accents, and, yes, even sometimes by my username. Unlike what we're experiencing now, though, my thoughts don't tend to require explanation while I'm having them, and instead flow about in every direction. It sometimes gets to be difficult to track linearly, and even more difficult to write as such.

"Why don't you take every thread in the Relationships subforum and lump it into one megasuperthread? That should send a message about all the weepy issues... Or...

"Or better yet... I could copy/merge posts from across dozens of threads across time and still have something that reads coherently, though no two posts came from the same thread. Hey! Madrigal's silly complaint thread gave me a good idea. I knew there was a reason that the constant votes to ban her never seem to be able to be pushed through the madmin council. I should work on that project right away, or maybe send Madrigal a thank you. Nah. I probably won't send anything; I'm busy keeping to myself."



One thing I don't want to see is another link to the same online test or 'funny' article. I don't want to see the same people saying the same things about the same book or movie again. I'd rather not hear another alogical "philosophical" emotive hairsplitting discussion on the same subject. If the old threads rise from the dead, so much the better! No one needs to reiterate their unshakable positions.

Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0yspBiQT2Y) of the dead needs to spread.

[songbird36]

If we can agree that it's in bad taste to delete your own posts after some time, then it's only polite to let other people's posts rest in peace unless there's a good reason to bring them back. It's only fair.

Do unto others etc.

How about when it's a state of rigor mortis? i.e. where there have been one or two more recent posts? Revive, but do not quote old posters?

Oh and I'd like to add that the Mods sometimes merge a new thread with an old one if it's on the same topic :P

[Stoned_Rider]

Oh and I'd like to add that the Mods sometimes merge a new thread with an old one if it's on the same topic :P
That is mostly done with online tests and general topics (like the cognitive functions test, political orientation, etc...), for the sake of organization... and not so much - probably not at all - with threads of a personal nature.

[outmywindow]

"Rhu, my lad!" I often address myself endearingly and in strange accents, and, yes, even sometimes by my username. Unlike what we're experiencing now, though, my thoughts don't tend to require explanation while I'm having them, and instead flow about in every direction. It sometimes gets to be difficult to track linearly, and even more difficult to write as such.


But I digress. :grin:

[C.J.Woolf]

Honestly, I think it's hilarious when people dredge up old flamebait and post a scathing reply to some member who's long been sent packing. The delay tickles me and I just end up imagining someone shouting in an empty room at someone who left a good hour earlier, then being surprised that they receive no reply.
I think of members of Congress on C-SPAN speaking to an empty room.

[xNTP]

Pro: If your opinions have changed maybe there's a good reason for it. Sounds like good fodder for a conversation. I don't really get why someone would be bothered by the fact that their opinions have changed. If you don't feel like defending an old position (or a new position) just say you're over it. I think that's pretty reasonable.

Con: It's disorienting. It's hard to jump into a thread that isn't new and get a feel for the dynamics, groups, and opinions that are flying around.

Pro: Some threads (e.g., your favorite word) aren't classics, but there's no harm in resurrecting them. Users don't have to get situated before posting since posts are generally insular.

Con: It pisses off Madrigal.

Pro: It pisses off Madrigal.

[MacGuffin]

I like it when good and/or funny threads are resurrected.

There is a lot of knowledge to be found if you know where to look.

[Ivy]

now I feel bad for resurrecting that Trackball thread yesterday. *snif*

[MacGuffin]

And how do people get confused?

The little button takes you to the most recent unread post. If you scroll up, can't one read a timestamp?

[kuranes]

I like it when good and/or funny threads are resurrected.

There is a lot of knowledge to be found if you know where to look.

I agree completely.

Going further - occasionally I'll use someone's words from the past to poke fun at them if they are grandstanding while disagreeing with me, and perhaps even contradicting their earlier selves while doing so; but my reviving an old thread is normally not intended for these purposes.

[Avengardh]

Yeah, stop bringing back my old threads, I get confused n00bs.

[Kathara]

So, just how much can I go back? Is 2007 ok?

[kuranes]

So, just how much can I go back? Is 2007 ok?

You can go back as far as you want. I'm not aware of any rule that says not to.
Be thoughtful about bringing a thread back, just as you would be thoughtful about starting a new thread. Personally, I often read all the posts in a thread before posting, but this is difficult to do in the really long ones. Sometimes the reason those threads got so long is because the arguments began to go in circles, partly because even back then people were not attending to what had already been said, or too caught up in "splitting hairs". That, coupled with an extremely provocative statement or question ( verging on bait ), is what sometimes causes these threads that drag on. I imagine that we all cringe at least a little when we see one of those monsters being revived.

I wonder if Madrigal is thinking mostly of a certain thread about dreams ? ;)

[xNTP]

So, just how much can I go back? Is 2007 ok?

Fine, nothing before 2004, ok? I mean it. Don't make me mad. You wouldn't want to see me get mad.

*eyes glow*

[WhiteRaven]

I, personally, would prefer to see a new thread started when one has been dead so long that most of the people who posted in it are no longer active with a link back to that thread in the starting post acknowledging that it has been previously discussed. Or even if the thread is somewhat similar, to give credit to what may have spurred you into starting it, or at least to show that you took the time to do a search to see if it has already been done if you thought you had an original thought.

I don't see this as any different than splitting the "What We Look Like" thread.

WR

[amazingkae]

I wish mods would close posts after a certain number of replies. The conversation can be continued with a link in the new thread right at the beginning so people who want to read back through, can.

It would avoid old threads being revived but would allow new insight commentary.

If a thread is more than 3 months cold or has more than 500 replies, nix it and make it forum policy that someone who wants to resurrect has to start a new thread and quote the link to content in the OP.

HINT TO NEW POSTERS: If you see a thread with Meshou in it, start a new thread because the topic is now cold. She's my timeline cutoff (not here to defend herself and the most notable absence to know). Meticulum, FranG or CTG are gone also--and personally, I don't know of anyone who feels a pressing need to re-read or argue about anything posted by those.

[Hayquipa]

I have not been here that long, so my opinion probably don`t count. But, anyway, I just wanted to offer my opinion nonetheless:

First of all, this is the internet and people should be caoutious when posting something of a personal content. Most of the posts on this forum is official and open to everybody and people should be aware of this before posting.

Secondly, it does not seem like the mods/admins are very clear on this subject and as long as there is no clear rule, do as you like. Of course, had there been a clear rule one should adhere to this. Informal rules are bullshit, really. They are often vague and difficult to understand, especially on a forum.

Thirdly, opinions do change, yes, but we all know this. People should also be aware of this before posting, that their opinions may change. The people digging the threads up, knows this also, so this is not much of a problem, really. People should have no problem admitting that their opinions have changed.

And, kathara, if the mods/admins have not given you clear instructions to stop this necromancy, I would encourage you to continue. Some of the threads you have digged up have been an interesting read.

[Night]

Secondly, it does not seem like the mods/admins are very clear on this subject and as long as there is no clear rule, do as you like. Of course, had there been a clear rule one should adhere to this. Informal rules are bullshit, really. They are often vague and difficult to understand, especially on a forum.




Censorship (http://forums.intpcentral.com/faq.php): There is no censorship of ideas, no matter how distasteful, apart from the obvious: This includes but not limited to porn, links to porn, offensive images, spamming/trolling, illegal software links, advertising, and links that don't follow the conversation at hand. These posts may be edited or deleted by a mod, and in all cases, the mod will mark this in the post or thread itself and sign off.

Personally, I find little wrong with resurrecting old threads, so long as context is preserved.

[amazingkae]

And, kathara, if the mods/admins have not given you clear instructions to stop this necromancy, I would encourage you to continue. Some of the threads you have digged up have been an interesting read.

For some unknown reason I just really wanted to quote this... I don't agree with it because I believe in term searching for old issues and reading dead threads quietly and respectfully (unless you errantly respond because you thought the thread was new because you were not watching the date stamps).

When I was fairly new, an old personal thread by MacGuffin popped up on the "New Posts" section... and I was not paying attention to the date. I wrote a very serious PM to him in response, and rightly so he thought I was either a lunatic or an idiot for expressing concern. Maybe both, but I was baited into an emotional response by a pressing and provocative argument (someone obviously deeply struggling). The rub was that he had been deeply troubled but had LONG SINCE resolved the issue.

The other problem is linear history affects conversations. While references to current events may be subtle, when you do read non-personal threads without the ongoing benefit of external event context, opinions that may appear to be changed are actually referring to circumstance judgments made in different context.

Take, for example, right now in the INTP parent thread. The OP has a two year old and E wife with baby on the way. He's talking about parenting issues. Ivy has answered that she had many of the same perspectives when she only had one child. Now that she has two kids, her opinions have changes. That is not a waffle--it is an adaption to having more experience and a whole new pool of information to contextually analyze.

As forum personalities, our posts reflect who we are. If we are talking today, ultimately what we write reflects current knowledge and context. Ten years and two kids from now many of our current posters will have entirely different pools of knowledge to wade through in the formulation of their opinions.

Personally, I would like to know how people think today about a certain topic or issues rather than spending my time rereading old posts so I can distinguish irregularities of opinion. To resurrect to do this as humor or scald can be accomplished with a link--otherwise you are re-dredging and pointlessly nit picking.

Old posts, when we have changed our life circumstances, simply don't make sense to drag out other than to read to understand the evolution of our own character--they just happen to be housed on a public forum... and why can't new members use the search feature like the rest of us and their brains to research if they want to get a historical picture about the responses and contributions of a specific poster?

Yep--I say close cold posts and limit the numbers of pages we have to wade though to get to current information. A philosophy discourse is different because it involved timeless concepts and a preference poll can go on forever if it is not written aimed at a target situation. The rest of this thread stuff changes with the years and seasons.

amazingkae argues on behalf of keepin' it real...

[amazingkae]

I blame today on my blondeness, but this is exactly why I hate old open threads poppig up in the new threads active today sections.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=794316&posted=1#post794316

Now, see? I quoted it and all and anybody who WANTED to read it and laugh could have gone back to it without dredging it.

[s0978]

Secondly, it does not seem like the mods/admins are very clear on this subject and as long as there is no clear rule, do as you like. Of course, had there been a clear rule one should adhere to this. Informal rules are bullshit, really. They are often vague and difficult to understand, especially on a forum.What are you, some SJ? Welcome to P-land- the fewer rules, the better.


[...]
To NTs, all this is really not that big a deal, though. I'd recommend paying a little more attention to the post dates.


Everyone should just use their intuition and good reasoning. If you think a thread topic might have been done already, use the search function (as shitty as it is, it does work), check out, taking note of date stamps. If the posts in that thread seem interesting enough to resurrect, do it. Maybe also if the topic never really took off. If the discussion was unsatisfactory in content/ direction somehow, played out, derailed, topic beaten to death, whatnot- start a new one. Extra points if you courteously include a link to the old.

Simply put, assess how relevant old thread is to what you want to discuss and current forum context.

And big deal if a mod overrides and merges to old. As Rhu notes above, this is usually done for topics where there is either benefit to coherence/ continuity/ organization (baby pics, WWLL, what you're reading) or where no one is listening anyway (online test links and results). Threads where actual discussion is minimal. Or, in the case of What We Look Like, discussion should be minimal.

[Madrigal]

I'll get back to this - sorta ran out of energy half way through.

*takes a big gulp of Gatorade*

[Kathara]

We need rules. That much we can all agree on. Specific rules.

[Madrigal]

*takes a big gulp of Gatorade Haterade*

Fixed.

[s0978]

We need rules. That much we can all agree on. Specific rules.

No. This is not a board for Sensors. Go to MBTIc.

[s0978]

Fixed.

excellent.

[Kathara]

No. This is not a board for Sensors. Go to MBTIc.

Disagree. The lack of rules tends to let the F out ("you might hurt feelings, some people might feel embarassed"). I find basic rules to be indispensable. S, I have seen, simply tend to let things go out of hand.

The way I see it we can either:

a)crete specific rules for when/if a thread can be brought back.

or

b) create a special Sub forum in which threads older than 1 year go directly when they are re- actualized.

[MacGuffin]

Disagree. The lack of rules tends to let the F out ("you might hurt feelings, some people might feel embarassed"). I find basic rules to be indespansable. S, I have seen, simply tend to let things go out of hand.
I thought you were joking earlier!

[Kathara]

I thought you were joking earlier!

Im afraid I wasnt. Basically because I have been attacked by several people for bringing back old threads when there are no specific rules againt it.

[MacGuffin]

Im afraid I wasnt. Basically because I have been attacked by several people for bringing back old threads when there are no specific rules againt it.
Those people are just easily confused and embarrassed by their confusion.

[amazingkae]

I have a brilliant idea or stupid question and I am not sure which one. I agree with reading more carefully, but isn't there a way on the "New Posts" page to indicate the origination date of a thread without having to click in to open it? We list the date and time of the last post--why can't the start month/year be posted into the title section somehow for each thread? Then, it would not bother anybody ever.

Just wondering.

[MacGuffin]

I have a brilliant or stupid question and I am not sure which one. I agree with reading more carefully, but isn't there a way on the "New Posts" page to indicate the origination date of a thread without having to click in to open it? We list the date and time of the last post--why can't the start month/year be posted into the title section somehow for each thread? Then, it would not bother anybody ever.

Just wondering.
How are you navigating the forum?

When someone revives an old thread, the little down arrow graphic next to the title takes you to the latest "marked unread" post in the thread. All the posts above it or on previous pages are from the past - either 10 minutes ago, last week, or 2004.

If you click on the title, it takes you to the OP. I'd check the timestamp then.

[amazingkae]

How are you navigating the forum?

When someone revives an old thread, the little down arrow graphic next to the title takes you to the latest "marked unread" post in the thread. All the posts above it or on previous pages are from the past - either 10 minutes ago, last week, or 2004.

If you click on the title, it takes you to the OP. I'd check the timestamp then.

I click the thread to rescan for continuity if I've been involved with a post so I remember what all has been said or not said. Occasionally, I will hit the bottom only. Not being forum savvy, I have never clicked on the little arrow--and somehow I missed the manual for n00bs and just dove right in... I think the tendency to hit the arrow may be why so many threads seem to have absolutely nothing to do with answering the original topic. It is my guess the mods are driven half mad trying to keep content together and having to split thread posts... and that the job seems thankless. You guys work your butts off here... it would just seem easier to keep continuity if threads were closed.

CON--the thread for the last post here would actually have a defined winner... and that's just not fun.

[Thanks Mac.]

[charred_heart]

Disagree. The lack of rules tends to let the F out ("you might hurt feelings, some people might feel embarassed"). I find basic rules to be indispensable.who are you? :thelook:

[Kathara]

who are you? :thelook:

I said BASIC rules! Language is a sign of freaking rules, and so are computers and so on!:P

[digesthisickness]

I said BASIC rules! Language is a sign of freaking rules, and so are computers and so on!:P

for the love of god, will you stop saying the word "rules"?

[Kathara]

for the love of god, will you stop saying the word "rules"?

Only if you admit I'm the greatest noobie ever!

[digesthisickness]

Only if you admit I'm the greatest noobie ever!

that's okay.

[s0978]

Disagree. The lack of rules tends to let the F out ("you might hurt feelings, some people might feel embarassed"). I find basic rules to be indispensable. S, I have seen, simply tend to let things go out of hand.

The way I see it we can either:

a)crete specific rules for when/if a thread can be brought back.

or

b) create a special Sub forum in which threads older than 1 year go directly when they are re- actualized.

Are you paying attention to the forum culture at all? why others resurrect old threads, how often, how discussion proceeds (or doesn't) when they do? It's generally not a problem. You've been called out because you've done it a lot and it's unclear in many of the cases why you have. No one has said you are a bad person or s/he doesn't like you. No reason to take the criticism so personally, and just please use a little more iNtuition.

[Kathara]

that's okay.

A small price to pay, huh?

[digesthisickness]

A small price to pay, huh?

yeah, that's what i meant, all right.

[Kathara]

No one has said you are a bad person or s/he doesn't like you. No reason to take the criticism so personally, and just please use a little more iNtuition.

I did not say that. Just because I have a looong thread in the Troll Box and several in the Purgatory when people have called me out for answering too many (new) threads, does not mean that I am not well liked.

Basically, I am outspoken. If I need to say something about a particular topic, my strongest impulse is to answer the said subject. Now, the unspoken rule of INTPc is to let sleeping dogs lie. I am basically split between speaking my mind and conserving the harmony of the forum. I said I would stop, I am mindful of your sensibilities, so as far as I am concerned the subject is close for me. I will try to be opinionated only on current topics.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I did not say that. Just because I have a looong thread in the Troll Box and several in the Purgatory when people have called me out for answering too many (new) threads, does not mean that I am not well liked.

Basically, I am outspoken. If I need to say something about a particular topic, my strongest impulse is to answer the said subject. Now, the unspoken rule of INTPc is to let sleeping dogs lie. I am basically split between speaking my mind and conserving the harmony of the forum. I said I would stop, I am mindful of your sensibilities, so as far as I am concerned the subject is close for me. I will try to be opinionated only on current topics.

There is nothing wrong with reviving an old thread as long as there is a POINT to it. It's just hard to imagine that given the number of posts you have revived lately, that a person could possibly have that many great points to make.

Also, I think what you are engaging in is attention whoring, which is fine as long as there is something entertaining to it and the posts have some redeeming value to them. When I jump on the live posts and see a whole lot of Kathara down the line, it annoys me, it's like your big head is in the way and you're blocking my view of more legitimate posters.

Also when you've been called out before about this and other things, your responses made in your defense have always come across to me as disingenuous. Which annoys me further.

I think if you were to tone it down, read more, show some consideration for the culture here instead of forcing yourself on it, and if it ever got ugly, you doing so may even contribute to your longevity here. I'm not sure if you are that bad or not yet, I don't pay much attention to you.

You seem to actually enjoy all the attention you generate, often seemly bragging about it at times, which isn't going to work in your favor in the end. I wouldn't think.

[Kathara]

I am not going to curb myself just to gain appreciation.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I am not going to curb myself just to gain appreciation.

You might consider doing it for your own self preservation then, they ban people here you know.

I've seen it happen.

[Kathara]

You might consider doing it for your own self preservation then, they ban people here you know.

I've seen it happen.

Well, if they do ban me, then the would break the "r word" injustly so. INTPs are supposed to care about what is fair or not. Expecting me to go for an "unspoken" "r-word" is unfair.

Like I said, I'll stop doing it. There is a lot of fuss going on because of me , I see. I do not enjoy this kind of attention.

[venerationOFrabbits]

What's an r-word?

[Kathara]

What's an r-word?

Go back one page!

[venerationOFrabbits]

Go back one page!

you mean I have to re-read your posts again? :p

[Kathara]

you mean I have to re-read your posts again? :p

:P

[Night]

:P

You've generated almost 13% of your total post count in the last 48 hours.

What's truly the matter, Kathara?

What are you avoiding?

[Kathara]

You've generated almost 13% of your total post count in the last 48 hours.

What's truly the matter, Kathara?

What are you avoiding?

A boring life, I'm afraid.

[Night]

A boring life, I'm afraid.

I don't think that's it.


Take care, Kathara. I mean that. What interactions we've had, I've enjoyed.

[Kathara]

I don't think that's it.


Take care, Kathara. I mean that. What interactions we've had, I've enjoyed.

This sounds so final.

Take care as well.

[s0978]

Just because I have a looong thread in the Troll Box and several in the Purgatory

oh, I did not know that. I guess you are a bigger problem in the forum than I realized.

[Kathara]

oh, I did not know that. I guess you are a bigger problem in the forum than I realized.

I would not call myself a problem. The troll Box thread was started by RainFall out of the blue, and the threads in Purgatory were mostly created by the admins, when I started lightly arguing with some other poster.

[amazingkae]

Rainfall was expressing himself clearly and with a conscience. He went out of his way to point out his concerns without trying to be inflammatory. Just so everybody knows... he did not start the conversation out of the blue. The madmins did a good job, too.

[Kathara]

You know what? I have had enought. I will have another thread that I will post tomorrow in which I will explain the things that I have learned during these 3 months, and then I will stop from posting altogether.

[xNTP]

You know what? I have had enought. I will have another thread that I will post tomorrow in which I will explain the things that I have learned during these 3 months, and then I will stop from posting altogether.

What's with all the drama? Just chill. I think you're fun. Not everyone is going to like you. Whatever... If you're not having fun, fine. But a few bumps in the road isn't the biggest deal.

[songbird36]

What's with all the drama? Just chill. I think you're fun. Not everyone is going to like you. Whatever... If you're not having fun, fine. But a few bumps in the road isn't the biggest deal.

Yeah. I've had bumps the size of Mt Kilimanjaro and I'm still here :devil:

[amazingkae]

I'm just defending rainfalls post intent and reasoning--not his assertions.

EDIT ADD LINK

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=26394&highlight=kathara+troll

People can make their own judgements, but when you slide stuff past everyone and make a sidewinder attack against rainfall (who tried to help you) or the mods (who have to deal with the issues affecting the forum), then someone ought to say something.

Be glad.

They would ban me, too, if they could for being too perky. I blame coffee.

[xNTP]

Yeah. I've had bumps the size of Mt Kilimanjaro and I'm still here :devil:

5318008








(turn monitor upside down)

[jhf]

You know what? I have had enought. I will have another thread that I will post tomorrow in which I will explain the things that I have learned during these 3 months, and then I will stop from posting altogether.

Don't go, I enjoy reading yer posts and from what I gather quite a few other people do as well!

[Hayquipa]

What are you, some SJ? Welcome to P-land- the fewer rules, the better.

Obviously this is not the case. There are lots of informal rules here and they are rules as well. Formal rules are better than informal rules. Informal rules only creates confusion.

I agree with you that the best would be if people would just relax and don`t bother if old threads are revived, but obviously a lot of people are bothered. This is a problem, would you not say?

[Titania]

Obviously this is not the case. There are lots of informal rules here and they are rules as well. Formal rules are better than informal rules. Informal rules only creates confusion.I don't know, I always liked a place where you went with the flow and let culture sort of dictate direction. Although I guess that can lead to a lot of drama. All about balance.
I agree with you that the best would be if people would just relax and don`t bother if old threads are revived, but obviously a lot of people are bothered. This is a problem, would you not say?Yeah, I suppose. I'll avoid reviving old threads since it annoys people, and they can go easy on this poor n00blet who hasn't been around for long enough to absorb the culture, and then we can braid each other's hair and have pillow fights.

[jhf]

I'll avoid reviving old threads since it annoys people, and they can go easy on this poor n00blet who hasn't been around for long enough to absorb the culture, and then we can braid each other's hair and have pillow fights.

It's almost tempting though to get a rise out of people isn't it? :devil:

[Titania]

It's almost tempting though to get a rise out of people isn't it? :devil:It's no good if you go the easy route. Wait till this thread's been dead a year and then post a "O, HAY GUYS" lolcat so you can get the annoying-equivalent of a triple word score on "Quartzy."

[Ivy]

This here Titania, THIS is a quality n00b.

[Wolf]

This here Titania, THIS is a quality n00b.
Aww, so cute and funny that I would almost think the n00b is a sock. *pinches cheek*

[Ivy]

Aww, so cute and funny that I would almost think the n00b is a sock. *pinches cheek*

I'd pick a less NFy name for my sock.

[Titania]

Aww, so cute and funny that I would almost think the n00b is a sock. *pinches cheek*Wow. You're an unpleasant and bitter man.

[Wolf]

Wow. You're an unpleasant and bitter man.
Passive-aggressive, too. Adorable.

[C.J.Woolf]

Wow. You're an unpleasant and bitter man.
Ivy is right; you are a quality noob.

I'm looking forward to re-reading these posts after the thread gets necromanced. :grin:

[Titania]

Passive-aggressive, too. Adorable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

That does not mean what you think it means. :mellow:

[outmywindow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

That does not mean what you think it means. :mellow:
:popcorn:

[Titania]

OK, sorry, I will be good.

[Rhu]

OK, sorry, I will be good.
Being good is for the weak-willed. Your goal should not be acceptance, but utter annihilation of all that oppose you.

[LongSilence]

Being good is for the weak-willed. Your goal should not be acceptance, but utter annihilation of all that oppose you.

I think your badassness is aiming too high.

[Titania]

Being good is for the weak-willed. Your goal should not be acceptance, but utter annihilation of all that oppose you.You're opposing me.

That, you will look back upon as your second mistake.

[songbird36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

That does not mean what you think it means. :mellow:

Yeah - I didn't detect any passivity about the aggression :)

Wolf: what is your problem with women? Speak now or forever hold your piece..

[outmywindow]

Wolf: what is your problem with women? Speak now or forever hold your piece..

Accident, or excellent pun? We ask you, the viewer, to decide.

[Rhu]

You're opposing me.

That, you will look back upon as your second mistake.
:highfive:

That's the attitude we need to see!

[songbird36]

Accident, or excellent pun? We ask you, the viewer, to decide.

Would I do this by accident, ask yourself?

Now I'm even spelling "color" right too :grin:

[outmywindow]

Now I'm even spelling "color" right too :grin:

Heh, I keep throwing 'U's in "behavior' without even thinking about it.

[LastRailway]

I'd try to find out what the heck is everybody talking about, but I think I won't.
So, to the OP: I think bringing back old threads is better than starting lots of threads with the same subject.
Oh, anyway, whatever.

[Limey]

O' HAY GUYZ, I'm L8 to da fred, lulz


There is nothing wrong with reviving an old thread as long as there is a POINT to it. It's just hard to imagine that given the number of posts you have revived lately, that a person could possibly have that many great points to make.

Also, I think what you are engaging in is attention whoring, which is fine as long as there is something entertaining to it and the posts have some redeeming value to them. When I jump on the live posts and see a whole lot of Kathara down the line, it annoys me, it's like your big head is in the way and you're blocking my view of more legitimate posters.

Also when you've been called out before about this and other things, your responses made in your defense have always come across to me as disingenuous. Which annoys me further.

I think if you were to tone it down, read more, show some consideration for the culture here instead of forcing yourself on it, and if it ever got ugly, you doing so may even contribute to your longevity here. I'm not sure if you are that bad or not yet, I don't pay much attention to you.

You seem to actually enjoy all the attention you generate, often seemly bragging about it at times, which isn't going to work in your favor in the end. I wouldn't think.


heh, "your big head is in the way"
WILLIAM! move yer HEED!
HEED! MOVE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=varaAADgC84

[Ivy]

Yeah - I didn't detect any passivity about the aggression :)

With my feeble wimmin's brain I think (after a fashion) that the idea was that I had to hide behind a sock puppet (Titania) to make accumasations, making them of the passive sort. On Titania's part they were quite straightforward.

[songbird36]

With my feeble wimmin's brain I think (after a fashion) that the idea was that I had to hide behind a sock puppet (Titania) to make accumasations, making them of the passive sort. On Titania's part they were quite straightforward.

OK but I'm still calling Wolf out on his anti-wimmin stance.

It's only far after what Madrigal's been thru :)

[Ivy]

OK but I'm still calling Wolf out on his anti-wimmin stance.

It's only far after what Madrigal's been thru :)

It won't amount to anything, or it hasn't any of the times I've tried.

[songbird36]

It won't amount to anything, or it hasn't any of the times I've tried.

Right, he'll probably run and hide. No doubt I am wasting my time.

[Kathara]

I guess I'll stuck around a little more.

[Hayquipa]

I guess I'll stuck around a little more.

Good. You have been far less vocal the last days, thought you had left for good.

[songbird36]

I guess I'll stuck around a little more.

Please do. Don't let these Grinches and cowgirls with the blues get to you :)