Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Maybe it's looking annoying but I just got the access to these threads after
my provider finally was able to reconfigure its own servers. Is that really
bad somehow? I didn't expect that the threads are having some kind of
time-to live.

Just D

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Btw, you just started a new thread and I'm expecting a lot of people will be
using it to ping, kick, punch, etc. me using you as an example. Am I
right? I even know a couple of people from this NG who never miss threads
like these.

Just D.

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Just D wrote:
Maybe it's looking annoying but I just got the access to these
threads after my provider finally was able to reconfigure its
own
servers. Is that really bad somehow? I didn't expect that the
threads
are having some kind of time-to live.

Just D

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Thread age has little to do with info value. If your server
still carries the thread and you have something to add, do so!
Threads are not read ONLY by the participants - and some threads
clearly indicate that the participants are in want of learning
;-0)

Ignore such clearly illegitimate dicta.

And yes, Jerry's inappropriately snipped comment has begun a new
thread of at least this depth!

"Just D" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's looking annoying but I just got the access to these
threads after
my provider finally was able to reconfigure its own servers. Is
that really
bad somehow? I didn't expect that the threads are having some kind
of
time-to live.


Yes is it is very annoying, some of those who you are replying to
have not posted to the group since the date of the thread, also your
rational is poor - if I was to clear this group and re-download it's
headers should that give me the right to reply to message that were
posted 6 months ago.

I would suggest that, unless you are up dating information supplied
by yourself (in other words the original information was incomplete
or wrong) you shouldn't be replying to messages older than a couple
of weeks maximum. If you wish to raise a fresh point / issue, start a
fresh thread and outline a context to your remarks.

"Bill's News" wrote in message
...
snip


Ignore such clearly illegitimate dicta.

Take your own advice!

Jerry,

Yes is it is very annoying, some of those who you are replying to
have not posted to the group since the date of the thread, also your
rational is poor - if I was to clear this group and re-download it's
headers should that give me the right to reply to message that were
posted 6 months ago.

If you set TTL to two weeks on your PC, which is a default one, then it's ok
for you and you can ignore all these messages if you don't see the original
thread and if it's required for you to understand what I'm writing about. I
answered several old messages just because it was interesting for me and
this thread was still available on my server. As you maybe noticed I didn't
answer any messages written last year...) So what makes it so hard for you?
You want me to start a new thread and at the same time I need to quote the
text from the previous messages and doesn't seem to me more correct that
you're offering. If people don't want they usually skip the thread, but if
they are interested, then they will read a new message related to the thread
dated with a September date. Especially if this thread was ended with
nothing serious to be really finished.

Yes is it is very annoying, some of those who you are replying to
have not posted to the group since the date of the thread, also your

The messages that I write are related to hardware, not to people. And
anybody can join and re-join. But I don't like the personal messages in the
NG as well as flame, that's why this message is the very first and at the
same time last in this key.

rational is poor - if I was to clear this group and re-download it's
headers should that give me the right to reply to message that were
posted 6 months ago.

Well, this should be interesting for the moderator if it exists, but since
this NG is not moderated, many people are trying to share its
responsibilities on their own sometimes taking the wheel too hard.

Just D.

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...

Yes is it is very annoying, some of those who you are replying to
have not posted to the group since the date of the thread, also your
rational is poor - if I was to clear this group and re-download it's
headers should that give me the right to reply to message that were
posted 6 months ago.

If you have something to add, why not?

Some newsgroups typically contain posts with a short shelf life. This isn't
one of them. If JD's post helps, I'd rather see it than not.

Jerry wrote:
"Bill's News" wrote in message
...

restored snip

Just D wrote:
Maybe it's looking annoying but I just got the access to these
threads after my provider finally was able to reconfigure its
own
servers. Is that really bad somehow? I didn't expect that the
threads
are having some kind of time-to live.

Just D

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Thread age has little to do with info value. If your server
still carries the thread and you have something to add, do so!
Threads are not read ONLY by the participants - and some threads
clearly indicate that the participants are in want of learning
;-0)

Ignore such clearly illegitimate dicta.

And yes, Jerry's inappropriately snipped comment has begun a new
thread of at least this depth!

/ restored snip


Take your own advice!

And may I ask, how was I not?

You may be reading challenged; my advice was to ignore your
pomposity.

"Bill's News" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
"Bill's News" wrote in message
...

restored snip

Just D wrote:
Maybe it's looking annoying but I just got the access to these
threads after my provider finally was able to reconfigure its
own
servers. Is that really bad somehow? I didn't expect that the
threads
are having some kind of time-to live.

Just D

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Why are you bothering to reply to *long dead* threads?...

Thread age has little to do with info value. If your server
still carries the thread and you have something to add, do so!
Threads are not read ONLY by the participants - and some threads
clearly indicate that the participants are in want of learning
;-0)

Ignore such clearly illegitimate dicta.

And yes, Jerry's inappropriately snipped comment has begun a new
thread of at least this depth!

/ restored snip


Take your own advice!

And may I ask, how was I not?

You may be reading challenged; my advice was to ignore your
pomposity.