Why are threads that are years old, being dragged up?

[Digit]

Just curious?

Cheers,
Digit

 

[wnwall]

lol, I didn't even notice all the recent posts were not so recent at all. Weird

 

[WarEagle]

What's the statute of limitations on being able to respond to an open thread?

 

[HypnoToad]

Just curious?

Cheers,
Digit

Every once in a while, someone out of the blue will respond to half a dozen threads that are a year or more old. I don't see how it could be unintentional, but I have no idea why they do it.

 

[Lukaris]

Do some people dredge up threads that already have the question they would ask & yet want to remain hidden?

 

[Digit]

What's the statute of limitations on being able to respond to an open thread?

Well, I don't think there is one. But I also think it's probably correct in assuming the person who asked the question is no longer around here, given how we get such high traffic in this area at least.

Also some people invest a lot of time in responding to threads, and they do this because they think it will help the OP, which seems redundant when the OP made their post in 2002.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

My answer would be, why not?

If the subject / question is still of interest, why not tap into the previously expressed wisdom instead of repeating or possibly losing it?

Can you give an example?

 

[Digit]

My answer would be, why not?

And my reason is above.

If the subject / question is still of interest, why not tap into the previously expressed wisdom instead of repeating or possibly losing it?

Because the poster is no longer here and since they are the only non-Christian meant to be responding, it seems to serve little point. Unless we hope that a new comer to this area will read the post and get something from it, in which case I would say the search function is better, rather than dragging up year old threads.

Can you give an example?[/quote]
Of?

Cheers,
Digit

 

[heron]

I'll bet it's just one or two people respinding off of one page. of links. I checked page-o-link 11, and that's June 2007, so these 2003's would have to be waaaay back.

 

[ebia]

I'll bet it's just one or two people respinding off of one page. of links. I checked page-o-link 11, and that's June 2007, so these 2003's would have to be waaaay back.

It doesn't take much to check who is resurrecting them. Hopefully they'll take note of the objections raised here.

This is, after all, supposed to be for non-Christians to raise questions that are currently relevent to them, not for us to go searching for issues we want to pontificate upon.

 

[heron]

If the subject / question is still of interest, why not tap into the previously expressed wisdom instead of repeating or possibly losing it?

The same questions come up daily, so I see no problem with reviving threads... only if someone was struggling with a personal issue and never returned to the forum -- that would lean toward invasion of privacy.

 

[ebia]

The same questions come up daily, so I see no problem with reviving threads... only if someone was struggling with a personal issue and never returned to the forum -- that would lean toward invasion of privacy.

The issue, as I see it, is that it's Christians deciding what threads should be revived when the whole point of this particular subforum is for the non-Christians to raise whatever their concerns are. Reviving threads in this way crowds out genuinely current non-Christian interest with what somebody thinks they should be told; there are plenty of other avenues for that. By necessity it becomes about preaching, not about non-Christians being able to ask their questions. It becomes about what interests the Christian posters, not what interests the current inquirers. If someone asks a question similar to one that has already been covered there is no harm in providing a refering link to that old thread for them to read, with further responses being made in the new thread.

IMO, all threads here should be locked after a set period of inactivity, and only unlocked at the request of the original poster. Christians already do too much talking and not enough listening as it is; we need to be a bit more like Jesus on the Emmaus road and let those we are talking to ask their questions.

 

[Digit]

The issue, as I see it, is that it's Christians deciding what threads should be revived when the whole point of this particular subforum is for the non-Christians to raise whatever their concerns are. Reviving threads in this way crowds out genuinely current non-Christian interest with what somebody thinks they should be told; there are plenty of other avenues for that.

What he said.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[ContentInHim]

What I love are the new reports on these old resurrected threads!