We need branching threads

Dis · May 14, 2002, 21:50

I haven't seen a post supporting branching threads recently. so here we go.

It will make Apolyton look so much prettier

discuss

Triped · May 15, 2002, 04:08

You're no fun...if there were branching threads, how would we threadjack?

Besides, the way people post here it's easier to just scroll down the page reading, and not have to click on any links.

http://www.battlereports.com/forum/

That is a site that needs branching threads, and a damn good one too.

MattHiggs · May 15, 2002, 06:48

They'll never bring back branching threads.

Skanky Burns · May 15, 2002, 07:32

Branching threads suck.

Provost Harrison · May 15, 2002, 08:05

...like a hole in the head.

MattHiggs · May 15, 2002, 09:12

Doesn't a hole in the head lead to more oxygen to the brain or something.

Aparrantely some people drill a hole in their skull to get 'natural' highs.

Immortal Wombat · May 15, 2002, 10:00

Branching threads work...

... when a forum has < 20 posters

Solver · May 15, 2002, 10:10

I hate branching threads. You can't just sit down, scroll and read, you got to click on all those links all the time... hate them

.

TCO · May 15, 2002, 13:06

Branching threads lead to better discussion. Good thoughts are saved longer.

Triped · May 15, 2002, 13:24

I'd rather see a threadjack than a good discussion any day.

Lefty Scaevola · May 15, 2002, 15:07

Bannana threds? I once had a very fine Filippino shirt made of bannana tree fibers.

Provost Harrison · May 15, 2002, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MattHiggs
Doesn't a hole in the head lead to more oxygen to the brain or something.

Aparrantely some people drill a hole in their skull to get 'natural' highs.

Yeah, but what if you are washing your hair and you get shampoo in there? That can't be good

Hueij · May 15, 2002, 18:35

Dissident is a DL of GP? Or the other way around?

tniem · May 15, 2002, 18:42

How do you propose branching threads?

Will I have to click a ton of links?

Or will everything be on the page, only threaded?

Give more details. Or point us to a site that you believe does a good job with it that would be comparable to how Apolyton would use it.

DarkCloud · May 15, 2002, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Branching threads lead to better discussion. Good thoughts are saved longer.

...They are also impossible to read for gaining any understanding whatsoever of any topic whatsoever. It takes HOURS to browse a branching thread forum for any pertinent or relevant issue... and if a topic is popular, the forum just goes out of hand with its branches.

Quote:

Dissident is a DL of GP? Or the other way around?

GP's like Mao and EVC- mass DL... Restricted when the ten of them need to go to a Sci-Fi Convention for a couple of months or something of that sort.

MattHiggs · May 15, 2002, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Yeah, but what if you are washing your hair and you get shampoo in there? That can't be good

OUCH! That has really made me feel quesey thinking about that!

Gatekeeper · May 16, 2002, 03:36

Dissident, et al.:

Thumbs down to branching threads.

Gatekeeper

Alexander's Horse · May 16, 2002, 03:47

Ah yes - the old branching threads troll.

-1/10.

Hydey · May 16, 2002, 04:40

How surprising

the general opinion has not changed at all over the years.

Skanky Burns · May 16, 2002, 05:05

That was quite generous of you, AH.

Scouse Gits · May 16, 2002, 05:39

-5/10

No - not with as active a forum as this ...

SG[1]

spartak · May 16, 2002, 06:51

But what do SG[2] & SG[3] think?

And AH was being far too generous. -6/10. This was funny at first but its a tired argument these days...

Scouse Gits · May 16, 2002, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Spartak
But what do SG[2] & SG[3] think?

First comer - gets the vote

SG[1]

Lonestar · May 16, 2002, 16:44

Dear Lord, is this insulting to Humanity...

Andemagne · May 16, 2002, 19:48

no, we don't need branching threads.
I like my Apolyton the way it is.

Lonestar · May 16, 2002, 20:58

Right-o.

Dis · May 17, 2002, 01:34

well considering how many people took it seriously, I think I need a better rating

. Rating should be based upon how many posters take the original post seriously.

I figured it was a long time since I seen a thread asking for branching threads. Perhaps if I waited another 6 months or a year, hardly anyone would remember the originals. Well except for those die hard posters who will never leave apolyton. Kind of scary some of you guys- and probably myself will be posting when we're 60 years old.

DarkCloud · May 17, 2002, 19:30

Quote:

Perhaps if I waited another 6 months or a year, hardly anyone would remember the originals. Well except for those die hard posters who will never leave apolyton. Kind of scary some of you guys- and probably myself will be posting when we're 60 years old.

I don't think so. I remember GP has tried this once or twice in the time that even I've been here (and I'm a relative newbie)

I'll be posting here in 60 years still if it still exists! And of course, if I still exist.

Immortal Wombat · May 17, 2002, 20:28

Can you prove you even exist now?

DarkCloud · May 17, 2002, 20:56

You wonder why I deserted that argument- because

1.) I can prove that I exist because when I kick you, you hurt. Therefore through experience I exist (at the very least- I exist subjectively in both YOUR world and mine)

The only way technophile was arguing was so that it was impossible to argue against. It wasn't a 'stupid' argument, in fact he thought his answers out. However his argument was based upon the assumption that anything a human being OR EVEN ALL HUMAN BEINGS think is innately wrong because 'some' observations are wrong.

But are those observations really wrong?
If 100% of people, or even 98% of people (including the 2% who are insane or just lying) see something as being prickly, then it is prickly- it does not matter what the 2% think... If the 2% touch it and are pricked it is obviously prickly.

IF somehting happens 100% of the time, such as a cactus pricker pricking someone hwen they touch it- it is obviously true until it is iproven GUILTY of being NOT TRUE.
(The "american" system)

Something is TRUE until it is DISPROVEN.