• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Necromancy - why does it bother me?

McBell

Unbound
There is a new member who is replying to threads that died out back in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with it so far as I can tell.

Other than for some unknown reason, I am unreasonably irritated by it.

Any thoughts as to why?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
There is a new member who is replying to threads that died out back in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with it so far as I can tell.

Other than for some unknown reason, I am unreasonably irritated by it.

Any thoughts as to why?
No idea.
But I find it laudable to first look if a topic has been discussed already before posting a new thread for n-th time.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a new member who is replying to threads that died out back in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with it so far as I can tell.

Other than for some unknown reason, I am unreasonably irritated by it.

Any thoughts as to why?

I find it annoying for 2 reasons, maybe they'll resonate with you:

1) I have to read through often pages of an ancient thread to get the context of what's being discussed.

2) Many of the members who participated in very old threads haven't been on the site in years. So it's like starting up a conversation with ghosts.

And also

3) It implies that nothing more recent is worthy of their attention. Like, really? No thread in the past 10+ years of site content is worth a reply, huh? How many pages of threads did they have to sift through to get to that one?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
There is a new member who is replying to threads that died out back in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with it so far as I can tell.

Other than for some unknown reason, I am unreasonably irritated by it.

Any thoughts as to why?

Lot of new information over the last 16 years that make a number of the old debates obsolete.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I don't mind it. Sometimes when a new member comes, they go browsing topics. They can either be unaware of the date, and not know that threads are dated, or they never had their chance to put in their two bits. I've seen threads go on pause for a couple of years, and then get renewed when a new person posts.

OTOH, if they're responding directly to a member who is no longer active, then perhaps we could politely point it out to them. No point in talking to the dead.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a new member who is replying to threads that died out back in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with it so far as I can tell.

Other than for some unknown reason, I am unreasonably irritated by it.

Any thoughts as to why?
Its like if dogs could use cell phones. Thank goodness they can't, because there would be no end to the barking.
 

McBell

Unbound
I don't mind it. Sometimes when a new member comes, they go browsing topics. They can either be unaware of the date, and not know that threads are dated, or they never had their chance to put in their two bits. I've seen threads go on pause for a couple of years, and then get renewed when a new person posts.

OTOH, if they're responding directly to a member who is no longer active, then perhaps we could politely point it out to them. No point in talking to the dead.
I suspect they replied to a thread topic that caught their interest.
I do not usually pay attention to the dates when I reply.
So it isn't that their replying to dead threads is a problem anywhere I can see other than it is an admitted unreasonable irritation on my part.
 
Top