I signed up for a forum three years ago.  I had completely forgotten about it.  I just now got an email saying that someone had replied to a thread I subscribed to.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=2291987#post2291987

What idiot replies to a three year old thread??

Idiots who don't read and have no concept of time.

Someone whose system clock is 3 years delayed? :P

"Gee, so many posts in the future. Forum software must be borked."

lol

years from now this thread will be bumped.

It has already been bumped!

I can't help but notice the irony in life.

BUMP! [:P]

*hip bump*

Hm.

This could get annoying real quicklike.

dhromed:

"Gee, so many posts in the future. Forum software must be borked."

Similarly, dates of posts that are posted here appear slightly "advanced" with respect to my system clock which was synch with the server time, even though I already set the appropriate timezone...

As of this writing, the latest post in the The Daily WTF forum is 9:18 AM, but my system time is only 8:36 AM and clicking the thread states that the latest post was posted 22 minutes ago... uh, what???

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

This action actually has a name - "Threadomancy" and people who realize they're responding to a very old post will use it somehow.

I've seen it happen in a number of circumstances and about 75% of the time it actually is appropriate (trying to bring an outstanding issue to conclusion, saying thanks for a solution that actually worked, etc.) and the other 25% of the time is because someone was too lazy to see if there was a newer thread.

EDIT - ~facepalm~
Yeah, I just looked at the dates on the original posts.  Um... threadomancy?

MrsPost:

This action actually has a name - "Threadomancy"

No, "Necroposting".

Zagyg:

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

 

best bump ever!   When I read that post I was like, OMFG, I remember posting that.

CDarklock:

MrsPost:

This action actually has a name - "Threadomancy"

No, "Necroposting".

 

While I generally believe that necroposting has its excuses, can you still actually call it "necro" if the dead topic in question is already buried under several layers of limestone? I propose "archeoposting" for such occasions.

tster:

Zagyg:

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

best bump ever!   When I read that post I was like, OMFG, I remember posting that.

Only question now is how long do we wait till the next one. I'm thinking... 2012

DOA:

tster:

Zagyg:

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

best bump ever!   When I read that post I was like, OMFG, I remember posting that.

Only question now is how long do we wait till the next one. I'm thinking... 2012

It can't happen after 2012, anyway.

Zagyg:

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

 

 <hands clapping>

 Well played, Sir.

Zagyg:

tster:

years from now this thread will be bumped.

Wow, you were right!!

You just couldn't wait the requisite 3 years, could you?

CDarklock:

MrsPost:

This action actually has a name - "Threadomancy"

No, "Necroposting".

As a lv 55 Threadomancer I feel it is my obligation to Necroposting is simply one of the many disciplines of threadomancy.  Now just stab yourself in the heart with this here dagger and I'll make sure your necroposting in no time. Soon my army of Undead threads and posters will rule the world!!!! MWUA HAHAHAHAHAHA.

dhromed:

It has already been bumped!

I can't help but notice the irony in life.

Do you guys remember the day when posting in a thread which hadn't been active in 3 days was considered a bump on these forums?

tster:

dhromed:

It has already been bumped!

I can't help but notice the irony in life.

Do you guys remember the day when posting in a thread which hadn't been active in 3 days was considered a bump on these forums?

Is it 2012 already?

bjolling:

Is it 2012 already?

Yes.

welp.

Nice try, guys.

tster's younger self from 3 years ago:

When I read that post I was like, OMFG, I remember posting that.

In contrast, I don't remember posting in here before. WTF?

PSWorx:

In contrast, I don't remember posting in here before. WTF?

March '09. Happens after you've been around a while...

Since this thread was originally from 2006, and revived once in 2009 before lying dormant 3 more years until now, does that make it a double necropost?

ekolis:

Since this thread was originally from 2006, and revived once in 2009 before lying dormant 3 more years until now, does that make it a double necropost?

If you count the post the OP referred to, which apparently was from 2003, that would make it a triple necropost.

Ben L.:

bjolling:

Is it 2012 already?

Yes.

 

PSWorx:

Nice try, guys.

tster's younger self from 3 years ago:

When I read that post I was like, OMFG, I remember posting that.

In contrast, I don't remember posting in here before. WTF?

I forgot about this one too. Still, I blame Ben L.  :p

I blame me too.

Well, I don't agree that the people who necropost are to blame. I think it's an obvious usability flaw, the software should either show a message when a thread hasn't had replies in X days, or lock/archive it (and that's not just Community Server's fault, most forums still don't do this). I personally would color-code the age of posts, and allow "bump-less" replies too (in case you just want to add some information to an old thread for some reason).

Of course that is an inherent problem of the "forum" format. People come and go, and they still want to discuss things that were discussed 6 years ago, so you either have the same thread being created once every few months or the same thread being bumped once every few months.

tofu:

I signed up for a forum three years ago.  I had completely forgotten about it.  I just now got an email saying that someone had replied to a thread I subscribed to.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=2291987#post2291987

What idiot replies to a three year old thread??

Don't you think the whole UNIX thing might last more than just three years...? There could be some useful information there.

tofu:

What idiot replies to a three year old thread??

Someone who has an answer to it!

I'm tempted to go bump the original thread, but I think I'll wait until 07-18-2013.

spamcourt:

until 07-18-2013.

 

Damn, 2013 has over 18 months?

Cassidy:

spamcourt:

until 07-18-2013.

 

Damn, 2013 has over 18 months?

Damn, the 18th month of 2007 has 2013 days?

Ben L.:

Damn, the 18th month of 2007 has 2013 days?

 

He's from one of those other solar systems we found.

dhromed:

He's from one of those other solar systems we found.

 

And he comes in pieces.

dhromed:

Ben L.:

Damn, the 18th month of 2007 has 2013 days?

 

He's from one of those other solar systems we found.

Pedantic dickweed time: There's only one solar system because there's only one star named Sol. All other star systems have different names or no names at all.

Ben L.:

Pedantic dickweed time: There's only one solar system because there's only one star named Sol. All other star systems have different names or no names at all.

 

No.

dhromed:

Ben L.:

Pedantic dickweed time: There's only one solar system because there's only one star named Sol. All other star systems have different names or no names at all.

 

No.

Yes. Oh and by the way, the earth is flat.

galgorah:

Oh and by the way, the earth is flat.

promise?

 

dhromed:

Ben L.:

There's only one solar system because there's only one star named Sol. All other star systems have different names or no names at all.

 

No.

OK.  Then explain the origin of the word solar.

 

El_Heffe:

dhromed:

Ben L.:

There's only one solar system because there's only one star named Sol. All other star systems have different names or no names at all.

No.

OK.  Then explain the origin of the word solar.

It that makes you feel better...

solar (adj.)

mid-15c., from L. solaris "of the sun," from sol "sun" (see sol). Meaning "living room on an upper story" is from Old English, from L. solarium (see solarium). Solar power is attested from 1915. Solar system is attested from c.1704. Solar plexus (1771) "complex of nerves in the pit of the stomach," apparently so called from its central position in the body. Solar cell attested from 1955. Solar panel is from 1964. Solar wind is from 1958.

...of course...

How many solar systems are in our galaxy?

So far, astronomers have found more than 500 solar systems and are discovering new ones every year. Given how many they have found in our own neighborhood of the Milky Way galaxy, scientists estimate that there may be tens of billions of solar systems in our galaxy, perhaps even as many as 100 billion.

If we accept the original dickweedery, I suppose you could pedantic dickweed out of it by taking a page from blakeyrat and say that our solar system is also taking a page from Walt Whitman: "I am large, I contain multitudes."

boomzilla:

" from sol "sun" (see sol)

 

boomzilla:

If we accept the original dickweedery, I suppose you could pedantic dickweed out of it by taking a page from blakeyrat and say that our solar system is also taking a page from Walt Whitman: "I am large, I contain multitudes."

The original statement was correct and not really pedantic dickweedery. .  Solar system should only refer to our system due to the origin of the word solar.  However, in all fairness, solar system is one of those phrases that has become so common and well known that it has become generic in usage, largely because nobody ever calls the sun "sol" -- it's just "the sun"..  It's like saying "filming a movie" even though no film is involved.  "Digitally videoing a movie" just doesn't sound right.  Or "dial the phone" even though almost no phones have dials any more.  Everyone knows what you mean so we just continue to use it even though it's wrong.  And that's OK.  As long as people understand what you mean there's really no problem.

El_Heffe:

boomzilla:

" from sol "sun" (see sol)

 

boomzilla:

If we accept the original dickweedery, I suppose you could pedantic dickweed out of it by taking a page from blakeyrat and say that our solar system is also taking a page from Walt Whitman: "I am large, I contain multitudes."

The original statement was correct and not really pedantic dickweedery. .  Solar system should only refer to our system due to the origin of the word solar.  However, in all fairness, solar system is one of those phrases that has become so common and well known that it has become generic in usage, largely because nobody ever calls the sun "sol" -- it's just "the sun"..  It's like saying "filming a movie" even though no film is involved.  "Digitally videoing a movie" just doesn't sound right.  Or "dial the phone" even though almost no phones have dials any more.  Everyone knows what you mean so we just continue to use it even though it's wrong.  And that's OK.  As long as people understand what you mean there's really no problem.

No, it was totally pedantic dickweedery, unless the year is 1912 instead of 2012.

You must be really upset that your computer isn't a woman with an abacus. Come to think of it...I'm kinda upset that mine isn't, either.

El_Heffe:

nobody ever calls the sun "sol" -- it's just "the sun"

Except for those people in whose languages the word for "sun" is "sol", or course.

But it's not like Spanish (or Portuguese for that matter) are among the most widespread languages, so who cares?

Zecc:

...

Is your job title Grand Nagus by any chance?