What is it some folks have against additions to “old” discussions?
If you don’t want to re-join, don’t. The only negative effect that is apparent to me seems to be a piddlingly small amount of screen real estate under “Recent Comments” for a short period of time.
Also, I didn’t actually contribute any flaming (no tearing down of anyone else’s suggestions or behaviors). Only an attempt at a constructive solution to a recurrent problem that no one else seems to have suggested yet.
I agree that adding to old discussions isn’t in itself bad, and that you didn’t contribute to any flaming. What bothers me is there’s a chance that others will read the thread and feel the need to respond, and then things might balloon.
If you don’t want to re-join, don’t. The only negative effect that is apparent to me seems to be a piddlingly small amount of screen real estate under “Recent Comments” for a short period of time.
So if I post a “Make Money Fast” ad every day, that is OK because the only negative effeect is a piddlingly small amount of screen real estate for a short period of time every day?
Yes, I see a difference. And agree with you that GGGGGP was an attempt at constructive posting.
When I saw your argument of the second paragraph of GGGP, I became worried that it would encourage people to lower their posting standards and consequently over time drive busy thoughtful readers away. And the first refutation of your argument that occured to me was to point out that the argument could be used to justify spam as well as to justify your comment.
What I neglected to notice is that the tone of my comment and the fact that I implicitly compare you to a spammer had a high probability of making you conclude that I do not welcome you here. That’s not true, and please forgive my clumsiness.
I voted this comment down because it wasn’t good enough to justify digging up an old flame war.
What is it some folks have against additions to “old” discussions?
If you don’t want to re-join, don’t. The only negative effect that is apparent to me seems to be a piddlingly small amount of screen real estate under “Recent Comments” for a short period of time.
Also, I didn’t actually contribute any flaming (no tearing down of anyone else’s suggestions or behaviors). Only an attempt at a constructive solution to a recurrent problem that no one else seems to have suggested yet.
I agree that adding to old discussions isn’t in itself bad, and that you didn’t contribute to any flaming. What bothers me is there’s a chance that others will read the thread and feel the need to respond, and then things might balloon.
I guess you fear other folks wasting their time via flaming each other more than I do.
I would hope we get to worry less about that sort of thing on this site.
Upvoted. Thanks for the explanation.
So if I post a “Make Money Fast” ad every day, that is OK because the only negative effeect is a piddlingly small amount of screen real estate for a short period of time every day?
Depends. Can I do it from home, part time?
Yes. And you can be your own boss and set your own hours, too.
You don’t see a distinction between attempts at constructive posting and spam? Or you just felt like being snarky?
Yes, I see a difference. And agree with you that GGGGGP was an attempt at constructive posting.
When I saw your argument of the second paragraph of GGGP, I became worried that it would encourage people to lower their posting standards and consequently over time drive busy thoughtful readers away. And the first refutation of your argument that occured to me was to point out that the argument could be used to justify spam as well as to justify your comment.
What I neglected to notice is that the tone of my comment and the fact that I implicitly compare you to a spammer had a high probability of making you conclude that I do not welcome you here. That’s not true, and please forgive my clumsiness.
To paragraph 2: Point taken. To paragraph 3: Forgiven-and-forgotten and appreciated. Thanks for clarifying.