Ok, thanks, that answered my questions just fine, even if only in an indirect way: You're crying for others to accept your point of view, but you're not willing to let those others have theirs. As for 'attacking', it should have dawned you a long time ago that it's you who committed the 'attack out of the blue' on May 1st. Once again (for the last time), even if you can't follow that train of thought personally, you should at the very least see that there are others who feel that way. No matter whether you can understand the reasons or not. Last, but not least, I'm not going to comment on that childishness about 'ban me already' as it just shows how we're talking completely different directions.

Ok, thanks, that answered my questions just fine, even if only in an indirect way: You're crying for others to accept your point of view, but you're not willing to let those others have theirs. As for 'attacking', it should have dawned you a long time ago that it's you who committed the 'attack out of the blue' on May 1st. Once again (for the last time), even if you can't follow that train of thought personally, you should at the very least see that there are others who feel that way. No matter whether you can understand the reasons or not. Last, but not least, I'm not going to comment on that childishness about 'ban me already'.

You have a very narrow way of viewing things to your own perspective Mr Creosote. Nothing happened that way. I'm also not the one who said that everyone oppinion is different, I'm simply turning back the very own argument which been served to me.

Seriously, I'm the one being attacked here for no good reasons. To be frank to you I don't quite care if you agree with me or not, and this has really gone a long way from the HOTU talk the thread started with. All this talk about "new news" or "old news" make no sense whatsoever. If you guys have a problem with me, why don't you just say it straight out or just ban me or something?

Being banned would be just as uncalled for, but at least it would make more sense.

Arguments? Let's recap how this discussion went:

-EoF: "My definition of what's new and old is X and it's the only logical and valid one and so I have to shout it out no matter whether others tell me they disagree."
-Me: "There are countless definitions of that, and they're all equally valid."
-EoF: "Oh, but everyone's opinion is different, so you can't tell me not to claim mine is the one and only!"

Consistency? Seriously - let it die! The least you should have learned from this is that other people (for whatever incomprehensible reason) react negatively to someone telling them what to post and what not based on personal preferences.

Secondly, I told you about my definition of 'news'. I'm acknowledging that your definition is yours and that it's ok to stay yours. What about the other way round? If you let me have my opinion, please let me decide what I'd like to read about and don't try to dictate it by questioning the value of certain posts.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 12:41 on May, 21st 2006

Says the guest to a 4 years old regular member.

Anyways, if you guys don't have real arguments, I'd suggest we simply drop it. Telling me that I'm entitled only to my own oppinion also apply to everyone else including you, the guys or gal who is reading this post. So that's also not a real argument. It's also far from being the first time that we disagree on something like that. We all knows that we don't come from the same place and that differences arise all the time.

I think you're actually more of the 'Forum Troll' type. Needlessly rude, and reveling in the attention and argument that comes from it.

That says it all.

Can't agree more with Cypherswipe on that one!

For me, something is "new" for about 12-24 hours. After that, it's old news. Especially when it been said countless times in countless other places. Like it's the case on this scenario.

Frankly, I'm sick of reading about the newest "breakthru" of the HOTU. If you can call that a breakthru anyways.

There is no hard-set expiration date, but it's approximately 1 day, up to 2 days in a few cases (such as newspapers). Additionally, I do not consider everything in a newspaper to be new/current news. With the papers here in particular, stuff often fails to appear until 3 days or more after it happened. (..and I'm talking about local news here, so they can't claim that they had to wait for communications with their reporters or any such nonsense. The national/global news isn't much (if any) better, it's little more than a review of what was on the TV news 2 days earlier, or online a week or more ago.) This is one of the numerous reasons why I never waste my money on newspapers, they're a total joke.

Edited by Cypherswipe at 20:05 on May, 17th 2006

Cypherswipe: I hope you agree that what you see on TV in the evening is 'news'. Same with newspapers. What you see or read there is news, right?

Now, some breathtaking revelation: the journalists who wrote about it knew about these issues earlier than you did! In the case of papers, up to a day earlier.

So, acknowledging that, it shouldn't be news anymore once you are reading it, should it? Because... it's already 24 hours old - that's a whole day.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at: When does a piece of news 'expire' if there is an objective measure like you're claiming? I certainly can't say, hence my subjective definition.

Anyway²: Answering just 'old news' accompanied by nothing is rude in any case (and that's the main point), because all it implies is 'why did you post this?'. Why not? That's the most general rule of this forum: Post what you like unless it violates one of the (few) restrictions. The only valid answer is the one I gave: Why didn't you?

In the case of the new direction of home of the Underdogs, the problem that started this, it has been news two times.

First they changed the direction, but a time after it stopped working. When it started working again, a time after it stopped working and withouth any official information appearing any of those times, I said it.

Then, what is the new? If it has worked some time in the past it is not new that it is again working as it has been news in the past that it once worked?

I'm with EoF on this one. If it's new to you, then it's a new fact to you, but not neccessarily new news.
It is only news within a day or so after it happens, and only any new facts about it which occurred recently would still be considered "news". For example: If the first time the y2k bug was mentioned was on jan 1st 1999, it would no longer be news after jan 2nd 1999. If the local hardware store was mobbed on june 3rd 1999 by people getting candles in preperation for y2k, then that fact would be news until june 5th 1999, but y2k itself would still not be news any more (even if this store mobbing was the first you'd heard of it). It could be considered "news to me(you)", but not "new" news or just plain "news", because the even itself isn't new, merely your knowledge of it's existance is new.

Yes, if I didn't know about it before, I'd consider it news. That's exactly my definition of news, in fact, because as with every single piece of knowledge and opinion, there's no objective standard when something expires to be 'new', but just an unlimited number of subjective ones.

What you just said make absolutly no sense. A "news" is new at the date it begin. If someone learn about it 10 days later, it may be new for the person who didn't know yet but this doesn't make the old news new again.

If I tell you that in 2000 people were afraid of the "2k bug" and you didn't know about it, would you consider that news new? Absolutly not.

Wrong. Something is 'old news' to someone who has heard about it before. Before that, it's 'new news'. What you're doing is projecting your own level of awareness onto everyone else which is, as I said on May 1st, not necessarily right.

I agree with you, but my oppinion have nothing to do with it. What I said is that it was very old news which is, whatever you say, the truth.

"The truth" is not necessarily congruent with your random personal opinion. It's neither objectively "true" nor "false" that these news are interesting, so your nagging is pointless.

Sorry. In life there is two types of person: the diplomat one and the other type which prefer to tell the truth. I'm only the kind of person to prefer to tell the truth.

Then don't be rude to people who do care.

Because, frankly, I could not care less.