[ElRae]

Are they deleted once they are older than 2003? That's kinda sad. I mean... if so... that means my entire escapade with the secret service is now gone forever, into internet history. Or Wlonh. All that stuff. Why is 2003 the earliest date? Do you guys not have enough storage space?

[turtle777]

Well, there's always Waybackmachine.org. Not sure if MacNN is archived there.

Anyways, have a good one, Rob.

-t

[Randman]

Let the past rest in peace. That or save your epic threads.

[Maflynn]

I think the majority of people, probably could care less about threads that were started in 2003. As turtle said, you waybackmachine to reminisce if you wish but there's little need or desire to keep old threads hanging around the server IMO

[Chuckit]

Scroll all the way to the bottom of the forum listing. I think there might be something there you didn't see.

[reader50]

Other than inappropriate material, threads & posts are never deleted. Some can be hard to find for a few reasons.

1. Several retired forums never got moved to the archives. Members can find posts in some of them by searching in All Forums, others can't be reached today because of permissions settings.
2. During the UBB -> vB upgrade, an import error happened. A large number of old posts got unlinked from their user accounts. The lost posts are present, and they show the proper author's name. But they are labeled as having been made by a guest.
3. There have been a handful of other account glitches over the years, resulting in more unlinked posts. Cipher13's original account vanished for example, the current one is a recreation. If all his old posts were still linked, he'd be pushing 30K.

#1 is easy to fix, and will be done presently. #2 and #3 are a lot trickier, and #2 is the likely reason why Rob's old posts are not coming up. If someone remembers the date range, you could find that incident in the Lounge Archives. Or recall some keywords from the thread, and search for the content.

I might go after #2 and #3 some day, it would require some complicated name-matching scripts. The complicated part would come from safety checks to prevent error matches.

[Dakar the Fourth]

The admins' sense of humor always kills me. It seems all of cash's questions always get answered after the ban.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

The admins' sense of humor always kills me. It seems all of cash's questions always get answered after the ban.

Does it matter ?

After the ban is before the ban.

-t

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Does it matter ?

In what sense? I found it humorous, therefore I made the observation. Is this a problematic concept for you?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

In what sense? I found it humorous, therefore I made the observation. Is this a problematic concept for you?

I thought you meant it in a "that doesn't make sense because once he's banned, he doesn't need an answer anyways" fashion.

-t

[Ω]

For those wanting to know

See how helpful I am giving out useful links!

=D

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I thought you meant it in a "that doesn't make sense because once he's banned, he doesn't need an answer anyways" fashion.

-t

That's why it's funny.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

That's why it's funny.

Yeah, well, except that it wasn't really, because he is never really gone.

-t

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I think the majority of people, probably could care less about threads that were started in 2003. As turtle said, you waybackmachine to reminisce if you wish but there's little need or desire to keep old threads hanging around the server IMO

This belongs in the Misspellings That Give You Headaches thread.

USAGE NOTE couldn't care less
Couldn't care less is the correct and logical phrasing, not could care less —e.g.: “The American people could care less [read couldn't care less ] who's White House Chief of Staff.” (George Will, on “This Week with David Brinkley”; July 3, 1994.) If you could care less, you’re saying that you do care some. Invariably, though, writers and speakers who use the phrase mean that they don't care at all. Although some apologists argue that could care less is meant to be sarcastic and not to be taken literally, a more plausible explanation is that the -n't of couldn't has been garbled in sloppy speech and sloppy writing. As American linguist Atcheson L. Hench explains: “A listener has not heard the whole phrase; he has heard a slurred form. Couldn't care has two dental stops practically together, dnt. This is heard only as d and slurring results. The outcome is I c'd care less.” ( American Speech, 159; 1973.) — BG

[turtle777]

Thanks, Tiresias, but I could care much less.

-t

[Simon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Thanks, Tiresias, but I could care much less.

You could?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You could?

Yes, but I decided not to

-t

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

This belongs in the Misspellings That Give You Headaches thread.

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and people understand it.

If anything, you should be picking on the grammar in the title of this thread. Who cares how long an archived thread is. I do care about the length of time that threads are archived though.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

This belongs in the Misspellings That Give You Headaches thread.

No, it belongs in the ‘could care less’ thread that spent five pages dissecting (and yet never agreeing on) why that usage is or is not wrong and will or will not beat your grandmother over the head with a wet badger.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and people understand it.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and people understand

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and people.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Randman 

You missed the joke.

[Randman]

I got it but still worth doing a heads bash over it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Randman 

I got it but still worth doing a heads bash over it.

You mean a head bash and repeating the joke 11 times.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Irregardless, it is commonly used that way and people understand it.

That doesn't make it rite now does it.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If anything, you should be picking on the grammar in the title of this thread. Who cares how long an archived thread is. I do care about the length of time that threads are archived though.

Not to mention the comma splice, I really hate those.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

That doesn't make it rite now does it.



Not to mention the comma splice, I really hate those.

I intend to bring the semicolon back into common use; not that many people know how to use it correctly.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Now that was just stupid.

-t

[Randman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You mean a head bash and repeating the joke 11 times.

Yes, the bastardization of regardless should not be used, even as a joke. Too many people, like turtle perhaps, will not realize the difference and use it some day.

You gave your pet peeves, I have mine.