Originally Posted by doc
Sadly, I'm increasingly inclined to agree that it may well in fact be "Time for a moderator in this forum"
-Mark
Well, if we could agree to stop resurrecting dead threads it might help.
If I might ask (and I am asking, not arguing), what point is served by dragging up 47 old posts on an unrelated issue simply because the "moderator" word was used in the title? Now folks have to wade through all that old stuff (and some probably got their blood pressure pumped up reliving
that old squabble) before getting to the "new" material.
Is there some good reason a new thread was not begun instead? It's not saying that what happened in the old thread had led directly to this one, is it?
If there
was something in the old thread of general relevance (i.e., the fact that the general issue had been raised before), wouldn't it have served just as well to do a lead-in with link somewhat as follows:
Sometimes it seems that when adult supervision is not present some folks here tend to go off the rails, and that leads others to follow, sort of exacerbating the whole mess. A while back it was suggested that, when Randy leaves the building, it might be wise to have a baby-sitter available who can throw cold water on heated tempers before critical mass is reached, sort of like sliding in the graphite rods when a reactor starts to boil over. {put link here.}
Well, based on the last two weeks it might be time to revisit that suggestion.
See. Is that so hard? That way if someone was interested in the dead past and wanted to go down memory lane, he has a link he can use to go on his archeological expedition without dragging everyone else along (and chewing up bandwidth).
Is something of value lost if we do it that way?