The Eligibility Thread (Seattle, document, Hawaii, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, did I miss the board rule that requires us to post in only the thread that a moderator on this board who has the right to make
a sticky wants us to post in?
And, to re-state my original question, What is WRONG with having more than one thread on a subject? Who or what, exactly, does it hurt? Others have already pointed out that much continuity is lost when threads are merged. This, to me, is an argument for NOT merging threads into one. So far, I haven't seen any reasons FOR merging etc.
Help me out here?
You read the rule in the first post of this thread.
As to what does it hurt? People who want to look for other subjects now have to scroll through dozens of threads all on the same subject all about the same thing. It's just like spam.
You read the rule in the first post of this thread.
I saw no rule there. Just a statement from Ibginnie that threads would be merged, and giving reasons why we should post here (mostly that such confined posting would minimize the damage done by the merging).
Quote:
As to what does it hurt? People who want to look for other subjects now have to scroll through dozens of threads all on the same subject all about the same thing. It's just like spam.
Whereas after those dozens of threads are merged, people who want to look for a certain post or thread, have to scroll through sometimes HUNDREDS of other posts and threads or thread fragments, in hopes of finding the one they wanted to answer... or finding answers to a certain post.
I don't see this as a "better" way.
If all those "dozens" of original threads were still active, doesn't that mean that people are still interested in each thread, and are actively posting to them? Threads that aren't being posted to, soon scroll off the bottom of the page (can take a matter of minutes on this board), and shortly wind up many pages down. This "natural" method of getting rid of threads, is much more effective, and useful, than cramming them all into one thread and letting people search through them all, every time the want to follow one train of posts (former thread), isn't it?
I guess I still don't understand the obsession with disrupting the natural flow of info on this board and jamming a few sensible threads in with dozens of others, mixing them up to the point where they are un-followable.
With the onslaught of new BIRTHER threads, I'm creating a sticky for your viewing and posting pleasure. Feel free to post all things about President Obama's eligibility here. Any threads about the birth certificate, Orly Taitz, anything that has been in the news, or just your thoughts and/or feelings on the matter belong in here. All threads about President Obama's place of birth that are begun hereafter will be merged into this thread. Be aware, if you do not post here, and your thread is merged, posts in merged threads are in chronological order. There may be no continuity whatsoever. That is the best reason to post in this sticky.
I think this should protect The Man about as well as anything. I know that I won't be posting anything about his qualifications again knowing that it will end up here. I just don't care for that lumping practice. I am sure I am alone.
Okay, did I miss the board rule that requires us to post in only the thread that a moderator on this board who has the right to make
a sticky wants us to post in?
Besides being a redundant NON ISSUE, it's also technically spam. I'd think putting up a teabag thread would be a good idea too. We don't need 24 threads about the same thing.
I think this should protect The Man about as well as anything. I know that I won't be posting anything about his qualifications again knowing that it will end up here. I just don't care for that lumping practice. I am sure I am alone.
Why not? This thread is for you guys to post your conspiracy theories all day long. You've been given a platform, and a spotlight. Isn't that what you wanted? A sticky thread at the top of the page? What are you complaining about? You wanted attention, you were just given it, even though everybody knows is a totally bunk issue. Are you angry now that you can't hijack every other thread with this? Is that what the real issue is?
On Hannity forums they have "The One and Only Obama BC thread" which now
has 23854 posts, nobody is bellyaching there about having the topic confined to
a single thread....btw new threads aren't merged there they are deleted.
Besides being a redundant NON ISSUE, it's also technically spam. I'd think putting up a teabag thread would be a good idea too. We don't need 24 threads about the same thing.
On Hannity forums they have "The One and Only Obama BC thread" which now
has 23854 posts, nobody is bellyaching there about having the topic confined to
a single thread....
Excellent. Then can we expect the people who like such tactics HERE, to migrate to THERE, and stay?
Then both the people who like being confined to one huge thread, and the people who don't like it, will be happy.
To put it more simply: What is WRONG with having more than one thread on a subject? Who or what, exactly, does it hurt?
It's pretty simple: loading up the board with multiple threads that make essentially the same bogus, unfounded claims over and over trashes up the place and makes the entire forum less useful for those of us who come to discuss a variety of issues.
Putting it all in one sticky thread keeps the rest of us getting our time wasted by birther spam.
I saw no rule there. Just a statement from Ibginnie that threads would be merged, and giving reasons why we should post here (mostly that such confined posting would minimize the damage done by the merging).
Whereas after those dozens of threads are merged, people who want to look for a certain post or thread, have to scroll through sometimes HUNDREDS of other posts and threads or thread fragments, in hopes of finding the one they wanted to answer... or finding answers to a certain post.
I don't see this as a "better" way.
If all those "dozens" of original threads were still active, doesn't that mean that people are still interested in each thread, and are actively posting to them? Threads that aren't being posted to, soon scroll off the bottom of the page (can take a matter of minutes on this board), and shortly wind up many pages down. This "natural" method of getting rid of threads, is much more effective, and useful, than cramming them all into one thread and letting people search through them all, every time the want to follow one train of posts (former thread), isn't it?
I guess I still don't understand the obsession with disrupting the natural flow of info on this board and jamming a few sensible threads in with dozens of others, mixing them up to the point where they are un-followable.
It's already been explained to you. People looking to post about certain issues(any other than Obama's birth certificate) will now not have to scroll through dozens of birther threads to find something they want to post in.
The last paragraph isn't really the point of the stick, but simply a consequence, and obviously(or at least in the opinion of the moderators) is worth it to keep a birther thread from popping up every 5 minutes until they clog up all the pages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.