sorry if this was answered in the past, but i searched and came up empty handed looking for an answer but its been bugging me for some time. how old is to old for a topic to be replied to? is there a set time limit or just some other way of deeming a post "too old"???

I think generally if it'* beyond page 2, unless you have something solid to add to the conversation, it may not be worth bumping.


Generally.

If you're not the original poster, a couple months. I've personally dusted off a few of my own when I eventually got around to fixing it. But if you have a problem and do a search and find a related thread, provide a link to it in your new thread.

i was wondeing cause i found a post about linux
http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...ighlight=linux

its been idle since oct 16th and i didn't want to ruffle any feathers for bringing a old post up or make another one up and have it labeled a "repost"

who cares, why is it such a crime to reply to a 2 or 3 month old thread..

lol, digging up old threads or reposting...



user discretion I guess? There'* no set rule

cause the minute i do all the mods are going to complain about post digging. ( i understand thats their job and i don't blame them for making sure everything is honky dory)

it'* not as big a concern in the lounge

I'm with u. Why is it such a big deal. MAybe a newbie can shed some light on something and others MAY just care once or twice. I dunno. It'* like that on lotsa boards I go to. If you bring up an "old" topic they get all huffy. I could see 1 year or maybe even 8 months but geesh on a 3-5 month old one.

I wouldnt' knock the mods/admins, they do a lot of work here and I think that gives them the right to be picky about whatever they choose. I think the idea about reposting is that we'd prefer you went searching before you go about posting something that'* probably been suficiently covered at least once. But, if it'* a new thing on the same topic, its more likely then not worthy of its own thread.