It seems that there is an unwritten rule on this forum that you should not reply to old threads. When someone does it he usually gets flamed and a moderator closes that thread. I would just like to know why that is? What is wrong with replying to an old thread if you have a useful comment or question to add to the discussion? It seems more efficient to simply rewive the old discussion instead of start a new one.

More often than not, we got new members that reply to threads with questions that have long since been answered. In cases like you are stating--adding and continuing the discussion--it depends on the moderator. Depending on the age of the issue, sometimes it IS better to start a new thread. In many cases, if the post is a well thought out post that does indeed add a new angle to the dead discussion, we let it stay open. It's just very rare that that happens. You feel me?

The rule is not unwritten, it's in the user guidelines - about time you read them?

I will also add, that if a member feels that a discussion need to continue on a thread older than three months, they can start a new thread and provide a link to the old one. But that is only in cases such as new information that the older discussion has not covered.

TS