splittin' topics

[brian]

i split some topics up this morning, something i have done in the past. one of the splits was requested and another one just seemed logical.

let me ask again, to please start new discussion under new topics. if you want to radically alter the nature of what is being discussed, feel free to link to the original topic but put it in a new topic so the original discussion doesn't get derailed. its considered basic bb etiquette, even though we have traditionally been pretty lax about it on here.

thanks!

brian

[outdeep]

I did request that the George relocation thread be split.  I know that the Assembly BB has been used to talk about every subject imaginable and that is fine because there just isn't the Assembly news anymore so this board has become a general forum for the few of us who still hang around.

However, I was excited to see Margaret's post about George's relocation and was interested in seeing what folks said about it since it was relevant Assembly news.

I was disappointed when it got buried under unrelated comments about lawyers.

[Joe Sperling]

Dave---

I completely understand that split off of topic. The discussion of lawyers out of nowhere was a bit like the guy chiming in about icebergs during a car discussion (as I mentioned below) .  I was referring to when a whole section of posts gets split off because it doesn't happen to match the Main Title of the thread for a time. I believe this takes away from the flow of conversation that takes place, and may remove information that makes posts before and after  that grouping of posts relevant.

--Joe