Darth Tedious wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:
BTW: appealing to this site's authority should warrant an instant demerit. Anyone who thinks threads here are sources of good information is an idiot.
Appeals to authority of any kind are bad.
However, there has been a lot of stuff being brought up lately that has already been debated (whether it was disproven or not) long ago. Given that site policy requires people to present their own arguments and not appeal to authority, there is little left to debate on such points. It's impossible to present your own argument when you are merely +1ing an argument from a thread 8 or 9 years ago. Even if it was a valid, salient point, it's already been done. The Darkstar page on the Rise asteroid is a classic example. It has been torn to pieces multiple times over the years. I think this is why many ST vs SW questions simply get referred to the search function.
I think what you illustrate above is where a lot of forums on both sides of the fence including this one fall down, rather than allowing potential newbies to bump heads in these threads and enjoy the arguments afresh older members tend to charge in and with a one line comment that says it has been done and almost always includes a insult that ends the enjoyment of the discussion for others.
I wonder if these are the sort that took delight and a false sense of importance and power telling small children the truth about Santa when they were younger.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.
Oh, and spoiling the sex talk is much better than killing Santa.
I kinda think of referring to the search and huge ass long threads is a kind of filibustering, and arguably, thread necromancy.
Actually, let's briefly discuss thread necromancy. We all know PR11: "Let Dead Threads Lie. Do not post in old, inactive threads (eg- no activity for more than a month). If you want to resurrect an old subject, it is preferable to make a new thread with a URL reference to the old one."[/qoute]
I asked you to read, not post moron, thus no necromancy. You asked for evidence and where something had been debunked, I showed you the way.
1) It makes out-of-date stuff appear new; the causal reader might miss the date on the earlier posts, assuming they are fresh since it's at the top of the list. This is bad because it leads to confusion. The new thread suggestion avoids that confusion.
Nice strawman moron, nobody asked anybody to post in that thread and if somebody's too stupid to read dates then we mock them. See motto above.
2) Since it's old, the context is out of people's minds; without drawing attention to the date, the posts might not make any sense. A separate link draws attention to the fact that it's not necessarily current.
The thread I link contains all the context it needs, again, nice strawman.
3) It's likely long... meaning people will have to read through a huge pile of out of date crap to be caught up. I don't know if Mike had this in mind when he wrote the rule, but long threads have a higher barrier to entry than new ones, like Lord Helmet said. By requiring someone to read an old thread as entry into the new thread, isn't that reviving the old thread in all but name? (Reviving the old discussion is a different story though, since that has a low barrier to entry. You can always summarize the old discussion in the new thread.)
You asked for proof, I don't have to break it all down for you if I don't want to.
A new thread linking to an old has that stuff available, but it isn't required to be read; the context important to the new thread should be in the new thread. This is suggested in the context of news threads in PR15: "Reference News Sources. If you create a thread about a news article, always provide a link or a text reference to the source. Also, provide enough text excerpts from the source to permit meaningful discussion even if readers don't visit the URL."
I think that same idea makes sense with any link. I'm always annoyed with youtubes becuase I generally won't watch videos. They are long, very distracting from my other life activities, hard to scan, and don't work in my (normal) browser anyway. If someone says "here's what happened and why it's relevant to this discussion", good, then they just provide the source so the rest of us have the option of checking their interpretation.
It ought not to be required though - part of making your argument is actually discussing your sources! Demanding someone else read through a long, rambling, irrelevant diatribe before we can continue is pretty much the definition of filibustering, which isn't a very polite tactic, at least.
I provided the link to my source, I don't give a shit if helmet reads it or not when you haven't.
Oh, so your browser sucks and you're still lazy. A youtube video is just as valid as a text breakdown of the contents of said video. If you can't be assed to watch then get out of the debate. You don't get to ignore evidence that you don't like.
Oh, so you're just being lazy again. You always like to make the don't have time for this claim when you're losing.