Another Logical Argument About Double-Post Merging
OK. Look at my merged post here: Our DJ Talk - DJ Help and Resources Chat!
You can see that I had posted "*sniff*," and then some other cool stuff.
Now, Big Head Dan THANKED my "*sniff*" comment, but he might not approve of what I posted after it; however, the point would be moot in most cases, because people don't always return to THANKED posts to make sure that another post has or has not been merged into it.
Not only that, but I would love for people to read my words of wisdom, but those who have already read my "*sniff*" posting will not read my merged posting unless, perhaps, somebody else posts after me; even then, they might not notice that my POST has become FATTER & LONGER.
Then, it makes me want to resort to starting a new thread, just so people can see my post which would otherwise have been merged. So, this pet peeve of double-posting turns into one of somebody making too many threads.
And, on top of all that, I upset Patrick!
OK. Look at my merged post here: Our DJ Talk - DJ Help and Resources Chat!
You can see that I had posted "*sniff*," and then some other cool stuff.
Now, Big Head Dan THANKED my "*sniff*" comment, but he might not approve of what I posted after it; however, the point would be moot in most cases, because people don't always return to THANKED posts to make sure that another post has or has not been merged into it.
Not only that, but I would love for people to read my words of wisdom, but those who have already read my "*sniff*" posting will not read my merged posting unless, perhaps, somebody else posts after me; even then, they might not notice that my POST has become FATTER & LONGER.
Then, it makes me want to resort to starting a new thread, just so people can see my post which would otherwise have been merged. So, this pet peeve of double-posting turns into one of somebody making too many threads.
And, on top of all that, I upset Patrick!

