Getting rid of the "one-thread" rule

[leagleaze]

I would suggest you create a policy on what threads you merge. You all (meaning the people who read the board) might make some suggestions to help.

For example, you might let people create separate threads on specific firms.

On the other hand, general gossipy sort of conversations such as the Tucker Max thread would fit well into the big board, I think.

You might create a thread for questions about job searches, and merge the inactive question in there, creating an easy place to continue the conversation, while also providing a place to discuss what is sure to be a common theme.

Just some thoughts.

Tyrone is, I think doing a great job trying to get this place into some order, it isn't easy finding a good balance between the features we have now and the linear system many of you were used to. But I think it makes sense to try to take advantage of some of the features we have here. It might help if you folks could offer him suggestions on some logical dividing points.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I would suggest you create a policy on what threads you merge. You all (meaning the people who read the board) might make some suggestions to help.

For example, you might let people create separate threads on specific firms.

On the other hand, general gossipy sort of conversations such as the Tucker Max thread would fit well into the big board, I think.

You might create a thread for questions about job searches, and merge the inactive question in there, creating an easy place to continue the conversation, while also providing a place to discuss what is sure to be a common theme.

Just some thoughts.

Tyrone is, I think doing a great job trying to get this place into some order, it isn't easy finding a good balance between the features we have now and the linear system many of you were used to. But I think it makes sense to try to take advantage of some of the features we have here. It might help if you folks could offer him suggestions on some logical dividing points.

I had been doing something of the opposite -- merging most discussions of firms and other job-searching-related topics into the General Discussion, and letting topics like Tucker and African American attorneys in the Valley stay on their own. There was no magic to this. I'm happy to try what leagl suggests.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I had been doing something of the opposite -- merging most discussions of firms and other job-searching-related topics into the General Discussion, and letting topics like Tucker and African American attorneys in the Valley stay on their own. There was no magic to this. I'm happy to try what leagl suggests.

I think you should stick with what you've been doing, Ty. Discussions of one firm tend to evolve quickly into discussions of other firms or firms generally, and I would keep those in the general mush.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think you should stick with what you've been doing, Ty. Discussions of one firm tend to evolve quickly into discussions of other firms or firms generally, and I would keep those in the general mush.

I think a good rule of thumb would be to merge law firm rumors, innuendos, general questions, or thoughts into the general discussion thread. However, if there is a confirmed event such as dissolution (Brobeck) , merger (Cooley), or mass layoff (take your pick) than it should be able to carry its own weight in a new thread. Ty, I think you have been keeping fairly true to this approach but I think we should continue to strive for a balance between information that may fall away within a couple of posts (general discussion) and those threads that will likely create at least 2 or 3 pages of thoughts (separate thread).

The Tucker Max thread is in a special category and is an example of where a separate thread is appropriate as it would have been a little messy in the general SV thread.

I'm absolutely amazed that this stuff is still even up for discussion. Have you people really never used BB software developed post-1985? Active threads stay on top; dull ones fade away. There's no need to be scared.

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by mdjd
I'm absolutely amazed that this stuff is still even up for discussion.

Obviously, you know better than everyone else.

It just so happens that even the hackers that run Defcon use the same board software for their forum. I dare you to post this:

Originally posted by mdjd
Have you people really never used BB software developed post-1985? Active threads stay on top; dull ones fade away. There's no need to be scared.

there as well.

Dude, your comments both here and on the Infirmation board are getting tiresome.

If you really want to take us out of the mid-1980's, set up your own site and show us what we're missing out on. Otherwise, shut up.

pc

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by mdjd
I'm absolutely amazed that this stuff is still even up for discussion. Have you people really never used BB software developed post-1985? Active threads stay on top; dull ones fade away. There's no need to be scared.

No, there isn't.

I don't think anyone is scared. They are simply dealing with a format with which they aren't familiar. And everything is up for discussion, we're lawyers

I've said it before, I'll say it again. People will get used to the format, begin to see there are benefits to it, and everything will settle down.

It will simply take a little time.

Originally posted by pretermitted_child Obviously, you know better than everyone else. It just so happens that even the hackers that run Defcon use the same board software for their forum. I dare you to post this there as well.

OMG, if you're unable to understand simple posts, how are you ever going to figure out how to use all of the confusing threads? My post isn't claiming that this software is dated, it's stating that idiots like you don't know how to use it! The defcon board is an excellent example of how to use the software properly. I'm glad you pointed it out. Take a look at how many threads/forum there are. MANY! That's how threaded discussion boards are supposed to work. You will never find a forum that has a single thread containing all posts. Such a forum would make absolutely no sense at all.

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
Dude, your comments both here and on the Infirmation board are getting tiresome.

Bring it.

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
If you really want to take us out of the mid-1980's, set up your own site and show us what we're missing out on. Otherwise, shut up.
pc

There's no need to set up another one; this forum is perfect. Again, the software here is state-of-the-art. We just need to figure out how to teach BB-challenged tools like yourself how to use it.

md(anyone know the billing # for "special education"?)jd

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by mdjd
My post isn't claiming that this software is dated,

So, the vagueness has been dispelled. Next time, when directing flames at "you people," you should proceed with caution. Also, precision in writing/speaking is a skill that is worth developing in your free time (when you're not stirring up shit).

Originally posted by mdjd
There's no need to set up another one; this forum is perfect. Again, the software here is state-of-the-art.

Ah. Clarity. There is hope for you yet.

Originally posted by mdjd
We just need to figure out how to teach BB-challenged tools like yourself how to use it.

"BB-challenged tool[]," eh? Funny . . . I don't think I said anything in my post that indicated that I had trouble navigating, posting, or otherwise using this site. In that case, whatever unflattering characterizations implied in the quote below,

Originally posted by mdjd
OMG, if you're unable to understand simple posts,

would also apply to you with just as much force.

Really, the best insults are those which have a basis in reality. (Poor thing...can't even craft a proper insult!)

md(anyone know the billing # for "special education"?)jd

Doctor, heal thyself.*

pc

* I'm assuming that the "md" in "mdjd" stands for "Medical Doctor". If it is something else, like "Maryland", please ignore that last sentence.

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
In that case, whatever unflattering characterizations implied in the quote below, would also apply to you with just as much force.

clever. i like the way you just spun that right around on me.

does it strike you as kind of odd that you not only didn't understand a simple post, but you linked to a site that strongly supported my position? why would i ever need to "craft a proper insult?" yer posts do that for me.

md(corndogs and retards . . . who can resist?)jd

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by mdjd
md(corndogs and retards . . . who can resist?)jd

With your charming bedside manner, how did they ever allow you to abandon the practice of medicine? Your patients must have been devastated.

p(*yawn*)c

again, nice one. right on point.

poor reading comprehension skills, technology-challenged, inability to stay focused, opposing counsel's wet dream..., i'm going to have to go ahead and ask (because everyone here is, i'm sure, wondering the same thing) -- Boalt grad?

md(hooya! go cardinals!)jd

edited for your enjoyment, pc (and to help you track me down): HMS '98, SLS '02
call if you need directions

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by mdjd
again, nice one. right on point.

poor reading comprehension skills, technology-challenged, inability to stay focused, opposing counsel's wet dream..., i'm going to have to go ahead and ask (because everyone here is, i'm sure, wondering the same thing) -- Boalt grad?

md(hooya! go cardinals!)jd

It took you over a day to come up with a rebuttal, huh? (And I see that you haven't developed any new material.)*

Really, there aren't that many MD-JDs in general, a fraction of whom work in SF/SV, wherein a fraction of that subgroup work in "biotech patent pros"**, wherein an even smaller fraction of that sub-subgroup are rabid cardinals fans -- and in this sub-sub-subgroup, few are as charming in their bedside manner as yourself.

If I were you, I'd shut up before I out myself any further.

p(I actually know a couple of MD-JDs in the Bay Area ... so that narrows the field even more.)c

* So, when are you going to edit your most recent post (like all the other ones) to include stuff that you've missed?
** You went to med school AND law school to churn out patent applications, which some non-attorney patent agent can do?

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
It took you over a day to come up with a rebuttal, huh? (And I see that you haven't developed any new material.)*

Really, there aren't that many MD-JDs in general, a fraction of whom work in SF/SV, wherein a fraction of that subgroup work in "biotech patent pros"**, wherein an even smaller fraction of that sub-subgroup are rabid cardinals fans -- and in this sub-sub-subgroup, few are as charming in their bedside manner as yourself.

If I were you, I'd shut up before I out myself any further.

p(I actually know a couple of MD-JDs in the Bay Area ... so that narrows the field even more.)c

* So, when are you going to edit your most recent post (like all the other ones) to include stuff that you've missed?
** You went to med school AND law school to churn out patent applications, which some non-attorney patent agent can do?

I say we split this thread into two. One that discusses thread splitting, and another that attempts to follow pc on his long, twisted journey toward paranoiaville.
md(we're gonna need 100mg haloperidol over here, stat!)jd

[c2ed]

We get it... you guys don't get along. Can this please be taken offline?

C(I'm gonna need aspirin soon)deuced