Thread: I really hate it when people scoff at my interesting in lucid dreaming

You shouldn't revive threads that are "dead"? Where does it say this? Surely that's a pointless rule if someone's got something new to bring to a conversation?

Originally Posted by Bobblehat

You shouldn't revive threads that are "dead"? Where does it say this? Surely that's a pointless rule if someone's got something new to bring to a conversation?

Well, this isn't bringing anything new to the conversation now, is it? ^_^
Anyway, i'll edit it out of my post.

Originally Posted by Bobblehat

You shouldn't revive threads that are "dead"? Where does it say this? Surely that's a pointless rule if someone's got something new to bring to a conversation?

It's called necro posting and your not supposed to do it.

If a thread has served it's purpose and some one has something to add than they can start a new thread.

Originally Posted by dakotahnok

It's called necro posting and your not supposed to do it.

If a thread has served it's purpose and some one has something to add than they can start a new thread.

My question, "Where does it say that?" wasn't a rhetorical question. It genuinely WAS a question - I wanted to know where it said you shouldn't revive an old thread. So there was no need to do the sticky-out tongue thing. I'm still confused though: how does one decide that a thread has, "Served its purpose"? How long does a thread have to existed until it's declared a "dead" thread? And I'm not sure why someone should start a new thread if they have something to add to a discussion.

I agree with Puffin that this thread shouldn't have been revived. I try to ensure that my views, values and opinions are in constant flux. (Not that anyone could know that!) My views have changed since I made this thread. However, I can't imagine there ever being a time when I will have a great deal of respect for someone who ridicules me and my interests in a social setting to try to make other people laugh at me and make themselves look good.