HisChild Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not quite sure where to place this post, so I thought to start a new thread. Recently there has been a resurrection, if you will, of old posts. These posts often are not weeks old but YEARS old. Some will also respond to perhaps something a poster might have said, but on closer inspection that phatmass member hasn't been on any of the boards in years as well. It's actually quite confusing (and to be honest, annoying) to attempt to follow an old conversation when members are no longer active, links don't work, articles are no longer accurate due to updated information, etc.... and then realize the post is from 2006, for example. In the spirit of charity, if you are perusing the old posts either on vocation station or elsewhere, could you PLEASE be mindful of how old the thread is, and if the person you're addressing is still on here? It would also be incredibly helpful of the first person who's posting on an old thread to clue us in on that fact, as we usually are not in the habit of looking at the dates of the original post when clicking on a thread. I've seen some feelings hurt by these old posts as well as tempers flared by simple misunderstandings because of these posts and thought to post about the heart of the issue in order to resolve the tension caused over the past week or two. Should the members who have been doing so choose NOT to do this, as no one has to listen to me of course... fellow phatmassers, if you could be mindful of the new posts on the board. If something suddenly shows up with multiple responses, rather than automatically assume a topic has been busy while you've been away, it might be a good idea to look at when the thread was started to nip uncharitable posts in the bud instead of some of the biting responses we're reading. Have a peaceful rest of the week and a blessed second half of Lent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indwelling Trinity Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='HisChild' date='10 March 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1268231759' post='2070301'] Not quite sure where to place this post, so I thought to start a new thread. Recently there has been a resurrection, if you will, of old posts. These posts often are not weeks old but YEARS old. Some will also respond to perhaps something a poster might have said, but on closer inspection that phatmass member hasn't been on any of the boards in years as well. It's actually quite confusing (and to be honest, annoying) to attempt to follow an old conversation when members are no longer active, links don't work, articles are no longer accurate due to updated information, etc.... and then realize the post is from 2006, for example. In the spirit of charity, if you are perusing the old posts either on vocation station or elsewhere, could you PLEASE be mindful of how old the thread is, and if the person you're addressing is still on here? It would also be incredibly helpful of the first person who's posting on an old thread to clue us in on that fact, as we usually are not in the habit of looking at the dates of the original post when clicking on a thread. I've seen some feelings hurt by these old posts as well as tempers flared by simple misunderstandings because of these posts and thought to post about the heart of the issue in order to resolve the tension caused over the past week or two. Should the members who have been doing so choose NOT to do this, as no one has to listen to me of course... fellow phatmassers, if you could be mindful of the new posts on the board. If something suddenly shows up with multiple responses, rather than automatically assume a topic has been busy while you've been away, it might be a good idea to look at when the thread was started to nip uncharitable posts in the bud instead of some of the biting responses we're reading. Have a peaceful rest of the week and a blessed second half of Lent. [/quote] I agree fully with you His child... fooled once shame on you fooled twice, shame on me. Indwelling Trinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmaD2006 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I agree too ... I almost posted about this last night but you beat me to it. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightsadness Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilde Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Yeah, it's annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linnie Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Is there some way for threads that have not had responses in maybe 6 months to be available as "view only"? just a suggestion linnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlySunshine Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I totally agree. There is one poster in particular who I've noticed doing this, but at first I thought that they didn't look at the date of the original post. FYI--if you are searching for a topic, please look at the dates before posting a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laetitia crucis Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 +1, HisChild. I love you. I was pondering how to post what you did, but I know no matter how hard I tried, I would have lacked your charity and tact. Thank you SO much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChild Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 [quote name='laetitia crucis' date='10 March 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1268261345' post='2070589'] +1, HisChild. I love you. I was pondering how to post what you did, but I know no matter how hard I tried, I would have lacked your charity and tact. Thank you SO much! [/quote] Then I DID post with tact? LOL I was afraid I would come across as abrasive. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilde Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 No I don't think it was abrasive. Another thing is voting on old polls. When someone does that the thread is bumped, and it's not possible to find out who it was. It's usually confusing when old thread emerge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth09 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I hate that. I want to post something and I really do not know where I should put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 [quote name='Hilde' date='11 March 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1268271654' post='2070666'] No I don't think it was abrasive. Another thing is voting on old polls. When someone does that the thread is bumped, and it's not possible to find out who it was. It's usually confusing when old thread emerge. [/quote] I hate that too. When you click on New Content, the last poster show up, but they obviously weren't the last poster because the last one was whoever took the poll, usully without posting anything. so it might look like someone who has been gone for months, has posted something recently. It is weird, and I really wish the old threads would be locked or something after a period of time and then people could start new ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Apparently you ladies in VS fight more than we do on the Debate table. I had no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 March 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1268342565' post='2071195'] Apparently you ladies in VS fight more than we do on the Debate table. I had no idea. [/quote] Who are you calling a 'lady' you, you, you... 'gentleman' you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 [quote name='nunsense' date='11 March 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1268342717' post='2071196'] Who are you calling a 'lady' you, you, you... 'gentleman' you! [/quote] That would be you, ma'am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now