HoosierDaddy
Well-Known Member
No statute of limitation. If a site wants that they can lock threads that haven't been posted for x amount of time. Not even much downside since anyone wanting to continue a dead discussion can start a new thread and link to the locked one in the first post. And there would be no way to stop that.Just finished breakfast and I'm now hungry again....
I do have a question on forum etiquette. When you post something that has been discussed quite a bit because you fail to search for similar threads, you get told all about it...but then there are threads the get posted to like this that's years old and get told about it...mostly separate issues however the question is: What is the statute of limitations on reviving a dead thread on a topic you don't want to start over? I mean, most likely your contribution was already discussed and you just failed to read but what if the stars align and the seas part and you actually have a legit world saving contribution? Is a 1 year dead post still gonna net you replies of shame for reviving a dead thread? At what point is it better to start your own because people may have forgotten about all the coyote rattle threads? Not that I want to talk about rattles or any other nonsense but it seems like the haters are gonna hate no matter what you do. Soooooo the question again after this super wordy early morning likely waste of typing is: Per forum etiquette, what is an acceptable time to revive a seemingly dead thread vs. starting your own of the same topic?
Ugh....feel free to just tell me to shut up too and post more food lol.
I don't and never did think necro posting was a more serious problem than (for example) frogs asses bumping when they hop.
Sponsored

