# Merging Threads



## Flying_Monkey (2 Sep 2010)

Hi - there are now three threads on 'gay Tories' in P&L. I already asked for the second to be merged into the first, without any success. How about merging all three or simply deleting the extra ones?


----------



## Shaun (2 Sep 2010)

Merging is a fairly inexact science and often leads to very disjointed threads. It would be better to close two of the three threads, so discuss it amongst yourselves and let me know which two you all agree should be closed.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## 661-Pete (2 Sep 2010)

There are often excellent reasons for starting a separate thread rather than appending to the one already running. Especially in P&L! The longest of the threads FM refers to ... well I haven't read it through but it looks to have got very 'cliquey' and way off topic. Not that that bothers me so much (it would be more accurate to say, I've had it to here with 'bothering' about such things! ), but some P&Lers would understandably like to steer clear. I would suggest, leave well alone unless there's a very strong reason for merging threads!


----------



## theclaud (2 Sep 2010)

661-Pete said:


> There are often excellent reasons for starting a separate thread rather than appending to the one already running. Especially in P&L! The longest of the threads FM refers to ... well I haven't read it through but it looks to have got very 'cliquey' and way off topic. Not that that bothers me so much (it would be more accurate to say, I've had it to here with 'bothering' about such things! ), but some P&Lers would understandably like to steer clear. I would suggest, leave well alone unless there's a very strong reason for merging threads!



The additional threads weren't some sort of considered objection to the direction the other was taking - they were simply lazy OPs started without bothering to check what was already being discussed. I'd suggest that the two later ones (started by OTH and The Jogger) are closed...


----------



## 661-Pete (2 Sep 2010)

Blimey! I never expected to get stalked by The Claud(ine) even as far off the beaten track as _Site Feedback_! Antipathy towards *any* instance of my letting slip the 'C'-word must run deep!


----------



## theclaud (2 Sep 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Blimey! * I never expected to get stalked by The Claud(ine)* even as far off the beaten track as _Site Feedback_! Antipathy towards *any* instance of my letting slip the 'C'-word must run deep!



You flatter yourself, Pete! Not only am I something of a fan of Site Feedback (and a couple of other even more obscure corners of the forum), I'm also a devotee of the "New Content" button. For someone that's "not bothered" about something, you spend a fair bit of time dwelling on it, if you don't mind my saying so...


----------



## Shaun (2 Sep 2010)

Erm ... hello ... it says *Feedback* on the door here!!!  

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## theclaud (2 Sep 2010)

Ooops. Sorry, Chief!


----------



## Crackle (2 Sep 2010)

theclaud said:


> Ooops. Sorry, Chief!



Back up your stick you!


----------



## 661-Pete (2 Sep 2010)

Oops, sorry chief (for my part), too! Although my first comment on this thread *was*, sort of, 'feedback'y. Enough!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (2 Sep 2010)

Admin said:


> Merging is a fairly inexact science and often leads to very disjointed threads. It would be better to close two of the three threads, so discuss it amongst yourselves and let me know which two you all agree should be closed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shaun


So you want us to have a discussion about the proliferation of unnecessary discussions?




Thanks but I think I'd rather sandpaper my testicles...


----------



## mangaman (2 Sep 2010)

As a non-contributing reader to all 3 - logic would suggest closing the 2 that were started latest (ie The Jogger and OTH's). I agree with Claud that the 2nd 2 threads weren't started with a radical new agenda - just that the person hadn't noticed the 1st thread.

Dell's thread has attracting some controversy and stern tut-tutting.

It has, of course, meandered off on tangents - which isn't necessarily a bad thing in small doses.

If there is one thread it makes it easier to guide the thread back on topic, which is where the thread should ideally be focussed around.

Although this particular one has veered around so much I've developed vertigo just reading it.


----------



## Shaun (2 Sep 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> So you want us to have a discussion about the proliferation of unnecessary discussions?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but I think I'd rather sandpaper my testicles...



Nope, I just wanted you to point me in the direction of the two threads you thought needed closing.

Nevermind though, I've sorted it now.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

