Help...

[UK_Eliter]

Dear RokChild …

Please look at the time stamp of posts before typing a direct answer. The post you're reacting to is over five years old, and the poster hasn't visited the board for more than two and a half years. He isn't going to read what you wrote.

Aww, he might! But, OK; I didn't look at the stamp, and indeed RokChild isn't likely to read it. But no harm done, right? I'm unlikely to have overburdened the servers. .

[Commander McLane]

But, OK; I didn't look at the stamp, and indeed RokChild isn't likely to read it. But no harm done, right?

That depends. Looking at time stamps is the only way of avoiding pointless thread necromancy. And while we're not having a policy against thread necromancy, and it happens (too) often, the moderators don't exactly like it.

And at the very least it's pointless to make an argument in a debate that ended over five years ago.

[UK_Eliter]

But, OK; I didn't look at the stamp, and indeed RokChild isn't likely to read it. But no harm done, right?

That depends. Looking at time stamps is the only way of avoiding pointless thread necromancy. And while we're not having a policy against thread necromancy, and it happens (too) often, the moderators don't exactly like it.

And at the very least it's pointless to make an argument in a debate that ended over five years ago.

McLane, if I may: What's wrong with such 'necromancy', then? Solely that it is pointless? Yet it is not wholly pointless. For people other than the original participants might read it - although admittedly perhaps that is unlikely. So/anyhoo - and as Zaphod Beeblebrox might say - let's just relax, OK? Still: 'necromancy' is a widespread term of disapprobation on the web. So perhaps - but on the assumption (to quote Orwell's 1984) that 'sanity is statistical'? - maybe it does have something wrong with it. . .

Or we could look at things as follows (if this is different). I had a spare moment, I logged onto the board, I found something I found interesting, I made a comment (safe in the knowledge that this was 'the frendliest board . .' etc.). . And, er, that's it.

[Cholmondely]

Thread Necromancy

(2007) Is there any cheats for this game, I would really like to upgrade my ship, but it always takes so long to get the funds together in the first instance...

Several response, some in 2007, some in 2011 & 2012

(2012) Dear RokChild

If you can kill or scoop-and-sell many thargoid robot fighters, then you will make lots of money. At least if you end up in a situation where there are lots of them in an inactive state, and you've lots of patience. And at least if you have a ship that can repair itself (and getting that capacity does admittedly cost a lot of money). My OXP InterstellarTweaks might help you to scoop/destroy many of those fighters. Might . .

Dear RokChild …

Please look at the time stamp of posts before typing a direct answer. The post you're reacting to is over five years old, and the poster hasn't visited the board for more than two and a half years. He isn't going to read what you wrote.

But, OK; I didn't look at the stamp, and indeed RokChild isn't likely to read it. But no harm done, right?

That depends. Looking at time stamps is the only way of avoiding pointless thread necromancy. And while we're not having a policy against thread necromancy, and it happens (too) often, the moderators don't exactly like it.

And at the very least it's pointless to make an argument in a debate that ended over five years ago.

McLane, if I may: What's wrong with such 'necromancy', then? Solely that it is pointless? Yet it is not wholly pointless. For people other than the original participants might read it - although admittedly perhaps that is unlikely. So/anyhoo - and as Zaphod Beeblebrox might say - let's just relax, OK? Still: 'necromancy' is a widespread term of disapprobation on the web. So perhaps - but on the assumption (to quote Orwell's 1984) that 'sanity is statistical'? - maybe it does have something wrong with it. . .

Or we could look at things as follows (if this is different). I had a spare moment, I logged onto the board, I found something I found interesting, I made a comment (safe in the knowledge that this was 'the friendliest board . .' etc.). . And, er, that's it.

Just to say, I think that UK_Eliter is spot-on in his comments! The amount of useful material tucked away on this BB is quite phenomenal. From my perspective, here in 2023, the advice is good (especially if eg. Galactic Navy is installed) and the fact that the debate had ended 5 years earlier is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is now even more information here for me to read as I browse this thread. Much better to keep it in the thread then to scatter everything around (and make it even harder to find).

[cbr]

Thread Necromancy


Just to say, I think that UK_Eliter is spot-on in his comments! The amount of useful material tucked away on this BB is quite phenomenal. From my perspective, here in 2023, the advice is good (especially if eg. Galactic Navy is installed) and the fact that the debate had ended 5 years earlier is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is now even more information here for me to read as I browse this thread. Much better to keep it in the thread then to scatter everything around (and make it even harder to find).

Well said Supreme Necromancer.
You found me some nice niche ships in the process...