yeah ! my power have increase, i am no able to write in a closed thread ... or is it just that your power have decreased Jamie ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No powerdoc it's because I said J/K which stands for Just Kidding
I think my thread on the state of rumor mill knowledge in FH was different enough from the general "new powerbooks" thread to which you resigned my post. While the movement to kill redundant threads is admirable, the over-reaction to force all related (but not identical) threads is not good for the health of discussion. People who may have already expressd their thoughts in the new powerbook threads might have a different opinion on Motorola's chips themselves, for example, or might be one of the techies around here who can explain things like this.
But seeing a long, and involved thread about a more generalized subject will not attact their notice, thus dampening the chance that discussion will take place.
Since this thread started out in General Discussion, imagine my amusement to see it locked this morning....eventually tracking it over here.
Actually I'll have to agree with Yet Another Registration about the way that some threads have been locked...and here's why:
We all know that a thread wanders off-topic, normally by the time it hits two pages. Most of us try to stay on-topic, but the forces of entropy will eventually have their way with any subject.
At some point, a member is inspired by the conversation to take a new slice at the same subject. They find a particular aspect of the discussion that has DEVELOPED OUT OF the general drift of conversation and decided to yank that idea up by the roots, knock the dirt off of it and put it up on the table IN A NEW THREAD. And here's why that is a GOOD THING.
It advances the conversation on a subject.
It is the "child" of the former topic.
If I come onto a board and a thread has 6 pages devoted to it, I'm going to assume that it has wandered far afield from the original topic. What if that thread's topic doesn't interest me....say it's about the color of the new iMac. If discussions are to be contained to similar threads, how will I know that someone has posted a discussion of a new plastic casting process that may be used for the coloring of the new iMacs which may affect the entire line of Apple products? That for-instance should spawn a new thread shoudn't it?
Okay here's a real for-instance:
I've read a lot of the PDA-related threads in Future Hardware. They all spin off into side discussions at some point. I was discussing the battery-life of the iPod with someone recently and got to wondering what kind of battery life we could expect from an Apple-branded PDA if it took on the same size factor as the iPod. So I started a thread on that subject, hoping to shed some light on how realistic such a device might be through the interpolation of the real-life performance of the iPod.
So I started a thread.
The next time I came back to check on it I saw that it had been locked. For the first time EVER (to memory) I'd had a thread locked! I was so surprised about this actually emailed Jamie asking him which thread I should have posted this discussion into...and he suggested that I search through any number of the existing threads for which to post this discussion.
Now how is anyone going to know that a discussion of the iPod's batter performance in regard to a new PDA is taking place in a thread with an entirely different thread topic...its only relation being the general discussion of PDA's?
So yeah, upon contemplation I'd say that perhaps some of these thread lockings/movings have been carried out a bit too hastily and without consideration of how threads spawn new threads that take an idea and expand that idea into a new area, along a different vector.
Just think about that guys.
Your terrible swift swords are sometimes used too hastily.
<strong>Since this thread started out in General Discussion, imagine my amusement to see it locked this morning....eventually tracking it over here.
Actually I'll have to agree with Yet Another Registration about the way that some threads have been locked...and here's why:
We all know that a thread wanders off-topic, normally by the time it hits two pages. Most of us try to stay on-topic, but the forces of entropy will eventually have their way with any subject.
At some point, a member is inspired by the conversation to take a new slice at the same subject. They find a particular aspect of the discussion that has DEVELOPED OUT OF the general drift of conversation and decided to yank that idea up by the roots, knock the dirt off of it and put it up on the table IN A NEW THREAD. And here's why that is a GOOD THING.
It advances the conversation on a subject.
It is the "child" of the former topic.
If I come onto a board and a thread has 6 pages devoted to it, I'm going to assume that it has wandered far afield from the original topic. What if that thread's topic doesn't interest me....say it's about the color of the new iMac. If discussions are to be contained to similar threads, how will I know that someone has posted a discussion of a new plastic casting process that may be used for the coloring of the new iMacs which may affect the entire line of Apple products? That for-instance should spawn a new thread shoudn't it?
Okay here's a real for-instance:
I've read a lot of the PDA-related threads in Future Hardware. They all spin off into side discussions at some point. I was discussing the battery-life of the iPod with someone recently and got to wondering what kind of battery life we could expect from an Apple-branded PDA if it took on the same size factor as the iPod. So I started a thread on that subject, hoping to shed some light on how realistic such a device might be through the interpolation of the real-life performance of the iPod.
So I started a thread.
The next time I came back to check on it I saw that it had been locked. For the first time EVER (to memory) I'd had a thread locked! I was so surprised about this actually emailed Jamie asking him which thread I should have posted this discussion into...and he suggested that I search through any number of the existing threads for which to post this discussion.
Now how is anyone going to know that a discussion of the iPod's batter performance in regard to a new PDA is taking place in a thread with an entirely different thread topic...its only relation being the general discussion of PDA's?
So yeah, upon contemplation I'd say that perhaps some of these thread lockings/movings have been carried out a bit too hastily and without consideration of how threads spawn new threads that take an idea and expand that idea into a new area, along a different vector.
Just think about that guys.
Your terrible swift swords are sometimes used too hastily.
I just started a thread (in Suggestions) about this very thing (well, I hope that's how it came across). I wish you had started a new thread with the above post before I started mine. You explained it so much better than I did. Basically all I said was the moderators should keep the length of the old threads in mind when locking a new thread on the same subject. I meant to say what you said, though. I swear .
just as a side note--you know you can change the displayed name to whatever you want... so if you wanted you could still be called socfuldot or whatever or there is no G5 or whatever you want... I used to be psantora, now I am Paul.... its in the preferences...
I just reviewed the thread about the price drop on iMacs, and I'd have to agree with the original poster. A rumored price cut is not future hardware in the narrowest sense, but traditionally it's been allowed under the umbrella of "future changes to a hardware product line."
<strong>I just reviewed the thread about the price drop on iMacs, and I'd have to agree with the original poster. A rumored price cut is not future hardware in the narrowest sense, but traditionally it's been allowed under the umbrella of "future changes to a hardware product line."
Just FYI. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, just me being pedantic and anal as usual.
TING5, your thread is now back where it came from with a hug and a kiss from me.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> this feature has been changed.... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> any reason Jon? sorry about getting your hopes up..
Comments
<strong>
Don't give me any ideas, Jonathan
Threats against admin staff are not taken lightly. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> This thread is CLOSED.
J :cool:
PS J/K EmAn, let's see who can shoot him first <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Threats against admin staff are not taken lightly. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> This thread is CLOSED.
J :cool:
PS J/K EmAn, let's see who can shoot him first <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah ! my power have increase, i am no able to write in a closed thread ... or is it just that your power have decreased Jamie ?
<strong>
yeah ! my power have increase, i am no able to write in a closed thread ... or is it just that your power have decreased Jamie ?
No powerdoc it's because I said J/K which stands for Just Kidding
J :cool:
/me ducks thrown rotten vegetables
ting5/jet/yar
<strong>I think the adminning and modding is a little too zealous.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you say that? I'm open to any criticism.
**ducks to avoid rotten criticism
J :cool:
<strong>
Why do you say that? I'm open to any criticism.
**ducks to avoid rotten criticism
J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think my thread on the state of rumor mill knowledge in FH was different enough from the general "new powerbooks" thread to which you resigned my post. While the movement to kill redundant threads is admirable, the over-reaction to force all related (but not identical) threads is not good for the health of discussion. People who may have already expressd their thoughts in the new powerbook threads might have a different opinion on Motorola's chips themselves, for example, or might be one of the techies around here who can explain things like this.
But seeing a long, and involved thread about a more generalized subject will not attact their notice, thus dampening the chance that discussion will take place.
ting5/yar/Jet/SdC/etc.....
<strong>Who were the old Admins?
I remember Eugene being one. Who else was an admin back in the good-old days? PowerDoc, were you one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mark, EriMac, robo, seb.
Actually I'll have to agree with Yet Another Registration about the way that some threads have been locked...and here's why:
We all know that a thread wanders off-topic, normally by the time it hits two pages. Most of us try to stay on-topic, but the forces of entropy will eventually have their way with any subject.
At some point, a member is inspired by the conversation to take a new slice at the same subject. They find a particular aspect of the discussion that has DEVELOPED OUT OF the general drift of conversation and decided to yank that idea up by the roots, knock the dirt off of it and put it up on the table IN A NEW THREAD. And here's why that is a GOOD THING.
It advances the conversation on a subject.
It is the "child" of the former topic.
If I come onto a board and a thread has 6 pages devoted to it, I'm going to assume that it has wandered far afield from the original topic. What if that thread's topic doesn't interest me....say it's about the color of the new iMac. If discussions are to be contained to similar threads, how will I know that someone has posted a discussion of a new plastic casting process that may be used for the coloring of the new iMacs which may affect the entire line of Apple products? That for-instance should spawn a new thread shoudn't it?
Okay here's a real for-instance:
I've read a lot of the PDA-related threads in Future Hardware. They all spin off into side discussions at some point. I was discussing the battery-life of the iPod with someone recently and got to wondering what kind of battery life we could expect from an Apple-branded PDA if it took on the same size factor as the iPod. So I started a thread on that subject, hoping to shed some light on how realistic such a device might be through the interpolation of the real-life performance of the iPod.
So I started a thread.
The next time I came back to check on it I saw that it had been locked. For the first time EVER (to memory) I'd had a thread locked! I was so surprised about this actually emailed Jamie asking him which thread I should have posted this discussion into...and he suggested that I search through any number of the existing threads for which to post this discussion.
Now how is anyone going to know that a discussion of the iPod's batter performance in regard to a new PDA is taking place in a thread with an entirely different thread topic...its only relation being the general discussion of PDA's?
So yeah, upon contemplation I'd say that perhaps some of these thread lockings/movings have been carried out a bit too hastily and without consideration of how threads spawn new threads that take an idea and expand that idea into a new area, along a different vector.
Just think about that guys.
Your terrible swift swords are sometimes used too hastily.
Thanks.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>
<strong>Moving to suggestions...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cha?ching $$$! Jonathan is racking up money for MacWorld. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Since this thread started out in General Discussion, imagine my amusement to see it locked this morning....eventually tracking it over here.
Actually I'll have to agree with Yet Another Registration about the way that some threads have been locked...and here's why:
We all know that a thread wanders off-topic, normally by the time it hits two pages. Most of us try to stay on-topic, but the forces of entropy will eventually have their way with any subject.
At some point, a member is inspired by the conversation to take a new slice at the same subject. They find a particular aspect of the discussion that has DEVELOPED OUT OF the general drift of conversation and decided to yank that idea up by the roots, knock the dirt off of it and put it up on the table IN A NEW THREAD. And here's why that is a GOOD THING.
It advances the conversation on a subject.
It is the "child" of the former topic.
If I come onto a board and a thread has 6 pages devoted to it, I'm going to assume that it has wandered far afield from the original topic. What if that thread's topic doesn't interest me....say it's about the color of the new iMac. If discussions are to be contained to similar threads, how will I know that someone has posted a discussion of a new plastic casting process that may be used for the coloring of the new iMacs which may affect the entire line of Apple products? That for-instance should spawn a new thread shoudn't it?
Okay here's a real for-instance:
I've read a lot of the PDA-related threads in Future Hardware. They all spin off into side discussions at some point. I was discussing the battery-life of the iPod with someone recently and got to wondering what kind of battery life we could expect from an Apple-branded PDA if it took on the same size factor as the iPod. So I started a thread on that subject, hoping to shed some light on how realistic such a device might be through the interpolation of the real-life performance of the iPod.
So I started a thread.
The next time I came back to check on it I saw that it had been locked. For the first time EVER (to memory) I'd had a thread locked! I was so surprised about this actually emailed Jamie asking him which thread I should have posted this discussion into...and he suggested that I search through any number of the existing threads for which to post this discussion.
Now how is anyone going to know that a discussion of the iPod's batter performance in regard to a new PDA is taking place in a thread with an entirely different thread topic...its only relation being the general discussion of PDA's?
So yeah, upon contemplation I'd say that perhaps some of these thread lockings/movings have been carried out a bit too hastily and without consideration of how threads spawn new threads that take an idea and expand that idea into a new area, along a different vector.
Just think about that guys.
Your terrible swift swords are sometimes used too hastily.
Thanks.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: drewprops ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just started a thread (in Suggestions) about this very thing (well, I hope that's how it came across). I wish you had started a new thread with the above post before I started mine. You explained it so much better than I did. Basically all I said was the moderators should keep the length of the old threads in mind when locking a new thread on the same subject. I meant to say what you said, though. I swear
Hopefully,
ting5
Sheesh.
I should change my name to "Yet Another Thread Moved for Little or No Reason"
TING5
<strong>And I'm still waiting.
Sheesh.
I should change my name to "Yet Another Thread Moved for Little or No Reason"
TING5</strong><hr></blockquote>
just as a side note--you know you can change the displayed name to whatever you want... so if you wanted you could still be called socfuldot or whatever or there is no G5 or whatever you want... I used to be psantora, now I am Paul.... its in the preferences...
<strong>And I'm still waiting.
...
I should change my name to "Yet Another Thread Moved for Little or No Reason"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry if you are still waiting, I fail to see where you asked me a question.
As for the thread which I moved today, I'm pretty sure that the iMac is classed as 'Current Hardware'.
Jamie
Just FYI.
<strong>I just reviewed the thread about the price drop on iMacs, and I'd have to agree with the original poster. A rumored price cut is not future hardware in the narrowest sense, but traditionally it's been allowed under the umbrella of "future changes to a hardware product line."
Just FYI.
Ok, just me being pedantic and anal as usual.
TING5, your thread is now back where it came from with a hug and a kiss from me.
J :cool:
<strong>just as a side note--you know you can change the displayed name to whatever you want...</strong><hr></blockquote>How do you do that?
- T.I.
<strong>How do you do that?
- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> this feature has been changed.... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> any reason Jon? sorry about getting your hopes up..