I was on the opposite side from Miss Chicken in this debate when it happened, but I have to say that resurrecting a four-year-old thread in large part just to scold someone for not representing your views is pretty poor form. You're talking to her like you expect her to just pick up the conversation from where it left off four years ago like nothing has changed in the meantime or she's still got the points she made on this issue fresh on her mind.
Some mods may allow you to to (rarely) resurrect a topic if you have something substantial to add to the discussion, and you certainly did add something substantial, but was it really important enough to resurrect just to say that not all Tasmanians feel the same way on this issue? I think that would be a given.
What you're doing though isn't a rare resurrection to add something important, you're purposely digging through the archives looking for old conversations you find interesting and then resurrecting lots of them. That's a no-no. Lots of the people who participated in the old discussion might not be around anymore, some people's views might have changed and they don't appreciate having their old opinions dredged up, and you're bumping new, active discussions out of the way on the main forum page in favor of ones that died a natural death ages ago.
If something you read from the old thread archives looks interesting, nine times out of ten the better option is to just start a new thread with the same premise. That way if new people want to join the conversation they don't have to wade through 20 pages of old discussion to get up to speed and can just read the discussion from the start.
I was on the opposite side from Miss Chicken in this debate when it happened, but I have to say that resurrecting a four-year-old thread in large part just to scold someone for not representing your views is pretty poor form. You're talking to her like you expect her to just pick up the conversation from where it left off four years ago like nothing has changed in the meantime or she's still got the points she made on this issue fresh on her mind.
Some mods may allow you to to (rarely) resurrect a topic if you have something substantial to add to the discussion, and you certainly did add something substantial, but was it really important enough to resurrect just to say that not all Tasmanians feel the same way on this issue? I think that would be a given.
What you're doing though isn't a rare resurrection to add something important, you're purposely digging through the archives looking for old conversations you find interesting and then resurrecting lots of them. That's a no-no. Lots of the people who participated in the old discussion might not be around anymore, some people's views might have changed and they don't appreciate having their old opinions dredged up, and you're bumping new, active discussions out of the way on the main forum page in favor of ones that died a natural death ages ago.
If something you read from the old thread archives looks interesting, nine times out of ten the better option is to just start a new thread with the same premise. That way if new people want to join the conversation they don't have to wade through 20 pages of old discussion to get up to speed and can just read the discussion from the start.
Whhhoooaaaa there. You may be a moderator but please do not attribute to me the motives you speak of. As someone new to the site, as I was when I started writing posts there is a simple explanation for why I was looking through old posts. As a newbie going into a discussion on a topic I quickly realised that I had to go to the last number of pages to read the new replies. When I went into, and anyone could do this, "New Posts" and did the same thing, i.e. Went to the last page I didn't realise I was going to much older threads. I mistakenly resurrected at least three threads. One was The needs of the Many, one was Insulting Remarks, and the other this thread.
Firstly, I was thanked by a poster to drawing to his/her attention to The Needs of the Many, a thread they had missed earlier. It was an excellent small Star Wars clip and it also allowed me to speak to the main actor, a fellow Australian. Others have since watched that clip.
The second, I thought was an existing thread, after all, it was in "New Posts". Insulting Remarks was about weight and health issues and, had I known it was old, I wouldn't have gone there. However, it is a subject that is generating some debate as it's always a current topic.
Now to this one. I was still looking at the last page of New Posts when I replied. As with the Needs... I was pretty keen to have a conversation with a fellow Aussie. I'm originally from Tassie and work on the Mainland of Australia when I have to. I still did not realise at this time it was an old thread. I wasn't really looking at dates as everything was new to me and I hope you trust my explanation that it was my stupidity rather than malice which prompted my reply.
As to my remarks. I don't believe that one has to be for or against someone in a post. As a reasonably intelligent person, with lots of formal writing behind me (apart from my knowledge of this site) I love it when I read different perspectives and start to hear the comments of others, then adjust my thinking. It's crucial to the writing I do.
Yes, I was hard on Miss Chicken, but as Tasmanians we are often the butt of jokes about our heritage. We were formed as a Penal Colony when the English invaded and virtually wiped out every full blooded aborigine they could find. The line still exists and some of us are still glad to consider ourselves Aboriginal People. Many others don't see us this way as we are not black. That's because the males in particular were massacred in one of the most thorough attempts at genocide ever attempted, including a "Black Line" of soldiers and settlers throughout the whole state, equidistant apart to capture or kill any aboriginal person found. On top of that, due to limited free settlers, the population was small and inbreeding took place. It was uncommon but still occurred thirty years ago, and may still for all I know. Australia was settled because it was declared "Terra Nullis" - no living people. In many people's lifetime, Aborigines were counted as "fauna" - less than fifty years ago. Every Tasmanian over thirty knows this history. I am sick of hearing that Tasmanians are born with two heads by other Australians. People think they are funny when they come up to me and look for the stitches where the other neck hole in my suit was closed. Funny to some.
So, when I saw Tasmanians being once again regarded as different to the population I was annoyed as it seemed to add to the perpetual myth which I find when I stay in some other Australian capital cities. My interpretation was that once again we were being labelled as different, lacking emotion, moronic. I abhor stigmatisation, and was dismayed to read others saying, on top of losing my culture, that we, as a group were different. That arrow has been shot and I personally want to move on from this perception of Taswegians as different. We are a richly diverse state in recent years, many welcoming refugees.
As to starting a new thread, it seems most people have their own opinion and it seems to have had its day. You know, it's a big thing for some people new to a site to start a new thread without reading a lot of others. I'm one of those people. I'd like to settle into this site without my motives being misinterpreted. I was going to reply to Miss Chicken as I wrote the post feeling pretty wound up, but I dare say she may read this reply and see where I was coming from. At least, please, aquit me of malice.
uses our stereotype of being slow 
dim witted 
emotionally challenged in-breeds 
from convict stock 
the whole of Australia is laughing at us 
- officially now. 
