hardyboy
alabamabondfan
Posts: 23MI6 Agent
Well,I'm new to this board but I cannot imagine how you could close the topic and tell me to refer to an already existing thread.
Since most of these movies are decades old, wouldn't ALL the threads on this board be redundant???
What is the point of a message board if you decide what I should post and where I should post it?
I promise you if you'd have pinned that previous thread at the top I would have added to that discussion.
How hard is it to just not respond to a thread if you are bored with it? Or not interested in it....
?:)
I enjoyed JFF's response, though I didn't agree with a word of it. Who cares if its redundant?
Since most of these movies are decades old, wouldn't ALL the threads on this board be redundant???
What is the point of a message board if you decide what I should post and where I should post it?
I promise you if you'd have pinned that previous thread at the top I would have added to that discussion.
How hard is it to just not respond to a thread if you are bored with it? Or not interested in it....
?:)
I enjoyed JFF's response, though I didn't agree with a word of it. Who cares if its redundant?
Comments
And Hardy's just trying to make the forums a better place, he means well, really! We love him here.
As for JFF's reply, when someone takes the opportunity to make the same case every time someone mentions a particular film, it gets a bit old. But you're new here. You'll learn.
Even I agree with him on this one, I guarantee you will tire of me fast when anyone slanders AVTAK, GE or brings up how good CR or LTK are.
I'm a bit antagonistic but I think liked at the same time, when not going all AVTAK-preachy that is... hopefully.
I got your point hardy, I actually haven't even looked at the individual forums on this site, this is the only forum I've ever been to. Now I understand.
I was just coming back in here to edit the post and try to make it sound a little better. Didn't expect the quick responses. Sorry for the hostility.
But only a bit old... right?
Riiiiight B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not at the moment, but they will be. Sometimes they are removed if they remain on the front page of any forum after a week or so.
I was just wondering, it would be kinda weird to see a huge collection of locked threads while digging through older posts.
I know I had mentioned merging threads way back when, but I have only the faintest idea of how those get organized...
My honest take is that if there's an old, duplicate thread, just trash it. It's not like what we post is going to save the world or something. We have plenty of current conversation to keep us sated, IMO.
I think in most cases of duplicate threads (ie, the twin cousin is buried on Page 13 where no one tends to look), tacking one behind the other would work fairly smoothly.
And why do I get the feeling this one will soon get it's own padlock?
The idea would be to keep the forum fresh and continually revolving, I know most people don't look past certain pages... It's only an idea and I'd like your thoguhts on it.
Gadzooks, Si, I hope there'd be exceptions! I can't imagine Izzy Stuff being only four pages long! That's like shrinking a centerfold to a wallet-sized photo!
Plus, when the one-off members come here and post a topic that has been discussed to the nth degree, we can't say "Go to this topic if you want to discuss it".
That is true. There are considerable new members everyday. Although sometimes they don't post at all or they just sign up to ask a single question.
...Okay, I'm a sucker for nostalgia, what can I tell you? I just don't want this forum to become like all the other dictatorship forums out there that lock a thread after it has been around for a week or two. Or the ones that close every thread once it becomes inactive, telling people to start new ones. What's the point in that?? IMO, with all those duplicate locked threads, they look ridiculously cluttered. Not to mention, it gives a rather claustrophobic feel to a site, like you're confined to just the first few pages. You also have the sites that delete all old threads--those sites look empty, like just another of the thousands of Ghost Town forums. Either that or they look like very young forums that are just starting up. I think we should strive not to look like a new startup, since this site goes way back...
I'm sorry if I got carried away, but I've been to countless other forums that practice these very policies and none of those sites are as good as this one. Currently (and probably for a long time), this site is the only forum I consider myself a member of. I just don't want to see it change.
Can I humbly second both these thoughts....
Thats because you haven't given due thought to them - ie. can I place all these in one, or an existing, topic ?
Remember that bandwidth costs money.
. . .And the people who sent PMs and post reports to the mods complaining about your topics know who they are, too!
I tried to explain in the easiest and nicest terms possible. However, if you prefer this approach, then so be it.
@merseytart
(It might help him get out more {:) )
Congratulations Hardyboy! {[]
I believe you are the first to reach this milestone. -{
It'd be interesting to know how many posts you have devoted to trashing LALD. )
-Roger Moore
Congratulations Hardyboy! {[] It really is a stupendous feat. Out of curiousity, what was your 10,000st post?
And, Dan, Post #10,000 was "New Craig Interview" in the Bond 22 forum.