GREAT IDEA

[Maureen K Clifford]

Great idea to keep these seperate and also makes them easier to find to refer back to interesting discussions - we have some clever chooks in our group At first I thought it was going to be a fashion page - I no longer have any significant threads in my wardrobe sadly

[Neville Briggs]

I just wondered who decides what discussion is significant. And what makes a thread significant.

Do we assume that if our posts don't make it to the significant, that our contribution is insignificant.

[Maureen K Clifford]

Have you asked Santa for a bigger spoon Neville

[Neville Briggs]

As a member Maureen I thought these questions were reasonable.

[manfredvijars]

Thanks Mausie ....

Nevvie, YEP!! ....

[warooa]

Yes I like this idea of cutting through all the, shall we say, peripheral detritus - but should this not be locked - not the threads, although one is, but by allowing any one to add a new thread to these without it being officially registered as a bonafide "significant" thread, does that not dilute the said significance?

And perhaps a suggestion that we have a new subsection to debate the said "significance" as it would be at cross porpoises to debate such a trivial insignificant issue under the banner of "significance".

Marty

[Neville Briggs]

Have you been watching old episodes of Yes Minister.

[manfredvijars]

Good points Marty.

A number of great discussions/debates have fallen off the radar. Frequently, these same topics come up for repeated discussion. The thinking is that this is one way to review what was discussed and also refresh the topic as appropriate (or not).
I selected these topics by the hit numbers as an example.
This is your forum and you can propose what is 'significant'.
To move threads to this forum takes "Moderator" access and in my absence (or not) any of the moderators can move a topic to this forum.

Teddy bears and Rainbows ...

[manfredvijars]

Marty, do you recall which thread was locked?

[Bob Pacey]

Can bush poetry survive Manny .


Bob