Re-viving good and interesting topics

[Dundee]

Re-viving good and interesting topics is an advantage for a forum.
One should be congratulated for it.
And not getting  a warning.

That spoils the pleasure of writing in a forum.
If the staff is waiting all the time for such a dumb excuse to issue a warning.

[Paraselene]

I think it depends on the thread, but I have never received an official warning for reviving a dead thread.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Re-viving good and interesting topics is an advantage for a forum.
One should be congratulated for it.
And not getting  a warning.

That spoils the pleasure of writing in a forum.
If the staff is waiting all the time for such a dumb excuse to issue a warning.

You can revive any topic you like, but we have a rule against replying to threads that have been inactive for more than thirty days. There is nothing to prevent you from starting a new thread on the same topic.

And to be fair, you HAVE been informally advised about it before. I suspect that part of the reason for your warnings is that you chose to ignore that advice.

Boru

[Sal]

Re-viving good and interesting topics is an advantage for a forum.
One should be congratulated for it.
And not getting  a warning.

That spoils the pleasure of writing in a forum.
If the staff is waiting all the time for such a dumb excuse to issue a warning.

Why do you keep dancing around the rules?

[awty]

I think it depends on the thread, but I have never received an official warning for reviving a dead thread.

Nearly two years dead warrants a new thread if the topic is that important.

I don't see anyone giving a warning for a 30 day old thread.

[Rhizomorph13]

Jesus fuck! three different threads now where Dundee has whined about re-viving an old thread. Isn't talking about moderator action a bannable offense?

and to the OP, just take the warning and go start a new thread whyncha?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Necromancy is not allowed.

[awty]

Jesus fuck! three different threads now where Dundee has whined about re-viving an old thread. Isn't talking about moderator action a bannable offense?

and to the OP, just take the warning and go start a new thread whyncha?

It's a matter of how much attention is needed.

Maybe we can all just move on and let the OP have his little pity party by his lonesome.

[Dundee]

Re-viving good and interesting topics is an advantage for a forum.
One should be congratulated for it.
And not getting  a warning.

That spoils the pleasure of writing in a forum.
If the staff is waiting all the time for such a dumb excuse to issue a warning.

You can revive any topic you like, but we have a rule against replying to threads that have been inactive for more than thirty days. There is nothing to prevent you from starting a new thread on the same topic.

And to be fair, you HAVE been informally advised about it before. I suspect that part of the reason for your warnings is that you chose to ignore that advice.

Boru

As a said before: I did not "choose to ignore" a warning.
I did not see any.

--------------

That said - can somebody tell me what "harm" is done by re-viving an "old" thread, however old it might be?

---

When there are 3 different aspects to a case it is a good idea to have 3 threads.
No need to be personally insulting because of it.

It seems warnings are given here for un-importent small formalities.
How boring!
But not for grave personal insults.
That is the wrong way round.

And:
It seems some "atheists" are more into stupid little formalities than some religions!

[awty]

You can revive any topic you like, but we have a rule against replying to threads that have been inactive for more than thirty days. There is nothing to prevent you from starting a new thread on the same topic.

And to be fair, you HAVE been informally advised about it before. I suspect that part of the reason for your warnings is that you chose to ignore that advice.

Boru

As a said before: I did not "choose to ignore" a warning.
I did not see any.

--------------

That said - can somebody tell me what "harm" is done by re-viving an "old" thread, however old it might be?

---

When there are 3 different aspects to  a case it is a good idea to have 3 threads.
No need to be personally insulting because of it.

It seems warnings are given here for un-importent  small formalities.
How boring!
But not for  grave personal insults.
That is the wrong way round.

And:
It seems some "atheists" are more into stupid little formalities than some religions!

There are rules here that you don't like.  No one has to explain why the rules exist.  

You are quite the snowflake aren't you?  

Grave personal insults...pfft...you ain't seen nuthin' yet.