ingeon
New member
So it was pointed out to me that I might have done the Necro thing, which I had
to Google first.
I agree with the Highdefdigest Summary given here, and pretty much aligns with This here Jurisdiction
Since we are our own community, thought I`d open it for discussion "whistling:
to Google first.
I agree with the Highdefdigest Summary given here, and pretty much aligns with This here Jurisdiction
Since we are our own community, thought I`d open it for discussion "whistling:
Originally Posted by RandellG View Post
Well I myself have brought threads back alive only so I won't have to start a new one. I don't do it for the sake of arguing with anyone, but I see no reason to make duplicate threads when there is no need. Now if it was something to start a fight with I understand but I don't see how bringing old threads (the ones w/o arguments in it) is "problematic"
Most of the time people point others to old threads anyhow so they are saving their own skin IMO
Originally Posted by Jared View Post
Yeah, I agree with Randell. I don't think it should be considered "necro-threading" if you simply want to continue an existing discussion. Like, say you get an old catalog title from a firesale and you never saw the movie before and you just really want to discuss it. What is wrong with adding on to the old thread. That is just one example, but there are plenty of instances of bringing up a dormant thread which do not have any malicious intent. There are a few instances where I do agree, such as the current one that was about Paramount announcements from April 2007, before they went exclusive and now over to exclusive. It makes threads very misleading, of course. But in general, I don't think such a hard stance needs to be taken.
Last edited: