Fairly straightforward Why should it not be? It's a resurrection of a two year-dead discussion that no current reader can understand. Who is it about? What does the topic post refer to? Unfortunately, with so little information and a dead-end hyperlink, one must infer from a later post who the discussion is about. So let folks take notes on that; links often break, so sometimes it helps to include actually relevant information in posts. If we add to that situation that the thread was resurrected by a first-time poster who appears to be writing advert copy for a publishing house, the whole thing looks even more lame. I would remind, as a general concept, that the "free" part of Free Thoughts does not suggest that people's posts and threads should lack any substantial value. In that sense, the whole thread in question ends up being pretty useless, either in its time or now, two years later. To the other, that's just what I see. If the moderators see fit to advise, we'll go with their line.
Who said it shudnt... i jus ask what the reason was... i suspected it mite be because it was so old... an if that was the case i woud know not to brang up a old thred.!!! Thats the only "usless" thred in free thouts.??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:xctd:Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
