Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom
If it was a new thread I would just post 'I agree', there is no problem. If I were to post on an old topic I wouldn't quote him at all but since I agree with him I would share my opinion (same as him) and why. I don't think those necroposters have time to explain why they agree, they just want to increase post count.
|
Bravo! If the thread is active, then 'I agree' posts are not spam, but if the thread is old, then it IS a spam!? Wow, what a way of thinking. Thanks to it one might understand that there's absolutely nothing wrong to post all the 'I agree' and other pointless posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom
This way you REVIVE the thread for others and PUT A VALID ARGUE for your opinion. Hell, 5 straight necroposters could revive a thread saying I agree citing only one guy.
|
So, and 1 person might necropost 5 dead threads with their pointless posts, where each thread might become alive thanks to other members.
The chances of your lame example to happen aren't bigger than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom
Reviving an old post VIA necroposting is a bad habit and should be stopped. revive it with an argument, it's fine.
|
Reviving with an argument is fine huh? Recently I stopped believing in that.
The Geisha --- is it art? thread explains it. It wasn't buried 5 pages back (the whole J-art section has only 8 pages), but it is old, not full three months have pasted before GkScott revived it with his good argument, and the thread was alive again, but you and that burkhar...whatever didn't bother to post something relevant, yours are completely pointless. And this just proves that it doesn't matter if the thread is revived with a good argument or with another pointless post. If, after that, people want make their comments, they'll post them, no matter will their posts be relevant or not.
Besides some pointless posts ThirdSight and nobora added their arguments to the topic. Since both didn't quote GkScott's post I understand that they just replied to the OP's question, and because of that it would be interesting to know: would they still post their arguments if GkScott's post was completely pointless, or would they ignore it just because of that?