Zone1 Why aren't old threads archived?

[1srelluc]

I see people digging up threads a year old or better all the time to make some obscure "I told you so" remark.

Why aren't older threads archived when they reach a certain age?

While older threads should be available for review folks should not be able to post in them but could link them for reference in a new thread they create.

It would seem to me anyone that wants to comment in a old thread should start a new, more relevant thread that speaks to whatever the subject is in today's time.

That and the old-ass threads get bumped to the top of the "What's new" page, knocking down more timely posts.

I think six months to a year should be any thread's limit before it's archived.

 

[sealybobo]

I see people digging up threads a year old or better all the time to make some obscure "I told you so" remark.

Why aren't older threads archived when they reach a certain age?

While older threads should be available for review folks should not be able to post in them but could link them for reference in a new thread they create.

It would seem to me anyone that wants to comment in a old thread should start a new, more relevant thread that speaks to whatever the subject is in today's time.

That and the old-ass threads get bumped to the top of the "What's new" page, knocking down more timely posts.

I think six months to a year should be any thread's limit before it's archived.

Sorry. A guy said to me "when have I ever accused Clinton of anything" and he insisted that I was lying and I needed to show him where he said it.

I think being able to bump old threads is great. Like for example, Republicans were soooo outraged about Al Franken and that picture. But today we see former White House Staff are coming forward and telling us they would not leave women alone with Trump for fear what might happen to them. Women were not unsafe around Al Franken. So I bump an old thread that was about Al Franken and ask the person who started the thread what they think about Trump.

You just don't want us digging up your old posts where you were wrong or a proven hypocrite.

I love being able to say I told you so.

 

[odanny]

Good suggestion, but whoever owns this place does not give a fuck and doesn't even read the threads here.

 

[1srelluc]

Sorry. A guy said to me "when have I ever accused Clinton of anything" and he insisted that I was lying and I needed to show him where he said it.

I think being able to bump old threads is great. Like for example, Republicans were soooo outraged about Al Franken and that picture. But today we see former White House Staff are coming forward and telling us they would not leave women alone with Trump for fear what might happen to them. Women were not unsafe around Al Franken. So I bump an old thread that was about Al Franken and ask the person who started the thread what they think about Trump.

You just don't want us digging up your old posts where you were wrong or a proven hypocrite.

I love being able to say I told you so.

Nah, I just don't think you have anything better to do.....Maybe get a life?

That observation aside you could have just linked the thread and provided the post number to prove your point and called the errant poster out in the flame zone......What's wrong, skeered?

 

[sealybobo]

Nah, I just don't think you have anything better to do.....Maybe get a life?

That observation aside you could have just linked the thread and provided the post number to prove your point and called the errant poster out in the flame zone......What's wrong, skeered?

So starting a new thread would mean I have a life?

Yes I will do it that way from now on. But man I hate starting new threads. It's so much easier to bump the old one. Here's why it's better to bump the old one. The people who were interested in that thread back then will see someone bumped it. And who cares? Who cares if I bump an old thread? I just don't get why anyone would dislike it other than it is a way to dig up where you were wrong or lied.

But you are right. I can do it another way. Thanks and sorry.

 

[1srelluc]

So starting a new thread would mean I have a life?

Yes I will do it that way from now on. But man I hate starting new threads. It's so much easier to bump the old one. Here's why it's better to bump the old one. The people who were interested in that thread back then will see someone bumped it. And who cares? Who cares if I bump an old thread? I just don't get why anyone would dislike it other than it is a way to dig up where you were wrong or lied.

But you are right. I can do it another way. Thanks and sorry.

I get it, the way it's set-up now does promote both laziness and the picking of old scabs.

Perhaps if folks had to "put in the work" of starting a new thread the picking of nits would be minimized.

BTW....Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness.

 

[sealybobo]

I get it, the way it's set-up now does promote both laziness and the picking of old scabs.

Perhaps if folks had to "put in the work" of starting a new thread the picking of nits would be minimized.

BTW....Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness.

I only said sorry so I don't get banned for 2 weeks by some right wing moderator. LOL.

It's not lazy. I think people who start a lot of new threads are losers. Then what we have is 10 different threads about pretty much the same thing.

What would my thread title be? Hey Republicans, you were so ready to say Al Franken needed to resign because he sexually harrassed a woman and took an inappropriate picture while she slept, but then you are going to vote for a convicted sex offender? And his own press secretary said she was afraid to leave young women alone with Trump? Women who Trump sexually harrassed?

'It Was Really Bad': Ex-Trump White House Press Secretary Details Harassment

Stephanie Grisham said then-President Donald Trump called in one staffer "so that they could look at her ass."

www.huffpost.com

 

[1srelluc]

I only said sorry so I don't get banned for 2 weeks by some right wing moderator. LOL.

It's not lazy. I think people who start a lot of new threads are losers. Then what we have is 10 different threads about pretty much the same thing.

What would my thread title be? Hey Republicans, you were so ready to say Al Franken needed to resign because he sexually harrassed a woman and took an inappropriate picture while she slept, but then you are going to vote for a convicted sex offender? And his own press secretary said she was afraid to leave young women alone with Trump? Women who Trump sexually harrassed?

'It Was Really Bad': Ex-Trump White House Press Secretary Details Harassment

Stephanie Grisham said then-President Donald Trump called in one staffer "so that they could look at her ass."

www.huffpost.com

Sorry to disappoint but I won't be voting for Trump in the primaries......I've maintained that for a while now.

 

[ReinyDays]

If the owners are made of money, then this is a good idea ... otherwise, would you be willing to pay a subscription here for a more feature-rich environment? ... I'd like to see a little chess server, maybe a bit of library space ... just the things we had with TELNET back in the 1980's is all ... is that asking too much? ...

Archiving threads is carbon-intensive ... you must WANT the oceans to boil off ...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Something I notice quite a bit on here, and on message boards in general, is that relevant news-worthy content often gets posted and then just ignored.

Then a couple of years later the consequences of the previously ignored reporting/content comes to fruition. And everyone largely acts liek it's all new news.

Backdrop is relevant. It's important. From an awareness perspective anyway. Without backdrop or an awareness of how things come to fruition, general awareness and standing just isn't possible and you're basically just wasting your time.

Too often we see the same old, worn out line invoked about ''well government did it like that before and nobody said anything or put up an argument.''

There's actually quite a bit one could say about that whole phenomenon.

But I don't feel like it.

Ultimately, there are folks in government and media and all over the web who would be more than content to continue just fortifying regime narratives without any means for people to look back and acknowledge/remind others how it all actually went down. How they got into the mes they're in now. Time lines are necessary and should be reflected upon from time to time.

 

[candycorn]

I only said sorry so I don't get banned for 2 weeks by some right wing moderator. LOL.

It's not lazy. I think people who start a lot of new threads are losers. Then what we have is 10 different threads about pretty much the same thing.

What would my thread title be? Hey Republicans, you were so ready to say Al Franken needed to resign because he sexually harrassed a woman and took an inappropriate picture while she slept, but then you are going to vote for a convicted sex offender? And his own press secretary said she was afraid to leave young women alone with Trump? Women who Trump sexually harrassed?

'It Was Really Bad': Ex-Trump White House Press Secretary Details Harassment

Stephanie Grisham said then-President Donald Trump called in one staffer "so that they could look at her ass."

www.huffpost.com

Franken should have resigned. I'm glad he did. I'm not making excuses for his behavior because on the whole it was disgusting But that picture was staged...

 

[Meister]

Sorry. A guy said to me "when have I ever accused Clinton of anything" and he insisted that I was lying and I needed to show him where he said it.

I think being able to bump old threads is great. Like for example, Republicans were soooo outraged about Al Franken and that picture. But today we see former White House Staff are coming forward and telling us they would not leave women alone with Trump for fear what might happen to them. Women were not unsafe around Al Franken. So I bump an old thread that was about Al Franken and ask the person who started the thread what they think about Trump.

You just don't want us digging up your old posts where you were wrong or a proven hypocrite.

I love being able to say I told you so.

Wouldn't need to bring the whole thread out of the mothballs, just a post.

 

[sealybobo]

Franken should have resigned. I'm glad he did. I'm not making excuses for his behavior because on the whole it was disgusting But that picture was staged...

Honestly, that's not nearly enough to get someone to resign. But if you are holding them all up to high standards, sure. Fine.

So then how did Trump win in 2016 when he got caught on tape saying he grabs women's pussies? Any Republican who says Franken should have resigned. Let's just say Trump shouldn't have won after that tape came out. Crazy it didn't matter to Republicans.

 

[1srelluc]

If the owners are made of money, then this is a good idea ... otherwise, would you be willing to pay a subscription here for a more feature-rich environment? ... I'd like to see a little chess server, maybe a bit of library space ... just the things we had with TELNET back in the 1980's is all ... is that asking too much? ...

Archiving threads is carbon-intensive ... you must WANT the oceans to boil off ...

Actually I would, on other forums being able to view archived threads (you can't post in them) is a perk of a paid membership.....From what I understand the owners of this board own (or maybe manage) several different boards.

Heck, as far as I am concerned threads a year old could be ozoned altogether here and it would not bother me. It's value is more on boards of a tech/mechanical nature where folks post tutorials and such.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I see people digging up threads a year old or better all the time to make some obscure "I told you so" remark.

Why aren't older threads archived when they reach a certain age?

While older threads should be available for review folks should not be able to post in them but could link them for reference in a new thread they create.

It would seem to me anyone that wants to comment in a old thread should start a new, more relevant thread that speaks to whatever the subject is in today's time.

That and the old-ass threads get bumped to the top of the "What's new" page, knocking down more timely posts.

I think six months to a year should be any thread's limit before it's archived.

You can always report older threads that were dormant that someone "bumps". Mods can "lock" them from further replies. We do have a rule about "necro'ing" threads, though.

As far as having the software auto lock them after a certain amount of time, I don't believe that is a feature. Great idea though!

 

[ReinyDays]

Maybe a great solution looking for a problem ... on other boards these zombie threads are more of a problem ... stuff from 10 years ago ... I really don't see this so much here, though admittedly I don't really haunt more than a few forums ...

 

[1srelluc]

Maybe a great solution looking for a problem ... on other boards these zombie threads are more of a problem ... stuff from 10 years ago ... I really don't see this so much here, though admittedly I don't really haunt more than a few forums ...

LOL.....I'll see people post in threads that were around long before I got here.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As far as having the software auto lock them after a certain amount of time, I don't believe that is a feature. Great idea though!

I think it's a horrible idea.

 

[Natural Citizen]

LOL.....I'll see people post in threads that were around long before I got here.

How does your personal join date make previous/ongoing discussions and any pertinent terms of controversy regarding them any less relevant to maintaining a proper record of the course of history?

Your way will only compartmentalize and fragment discussion to the point of irrelevance. It contradicts the very nature of functional dialogue.

And that's largely the problem with the electorate these days. Their will to finish anything, collectively speaking, only goes so far as the next shiny reality show that comes along. Or whatever new bouncy ball that gets arbitrarily thrown out there for people to predictably chase around and try to catch and hump.

 

[1srelluc]

How does your personal join date make previous/ongoing discussions and any pertinent terms of controversy regarding them any less relevant to maintaining a proper record of the course of history?

Your way will only compartmentalize and fragment discussion to the point of irrelevance. It contradicts the very nature of functional dialogue.

And that's largely the problem with the electorate these days. Their will to finish anything, collectively speaking, only goes so far as the next shiny reality show that comes along. Or whatever new bouncy ball that gets arbitrarily thrown out there for people to predictably chase around and try to catch and hump.

Oh horse shit, do you really need to remind yourself of your past positions? Do they change with the wind or some shit? If so then that's why nobody will remember your name.

Me, I find myself on pretty solid ground the majority of the time and don't need to harken back to see if my position was the same a year ago.

I simply don't care if it has changed and if by the rare chance it has changed then I'm fine with it and keep moving forward.

I mean what, do you expect folks to prostrate themselves before the board and say "oh dear, my position has changed, please forgive me".....Not fuckin' hardly.

And as far as what peeps here have to say about anything I always remind myself that they are, in the end, just nameless entities on a message board with their own opinion that I may or may not share.

I've yet to see one worth the effort to dig up a old-ass thread to say "I told you so".....It's just juvenile.