"Shaking if Off" - New York Times Opinion written by JT

[SlowBurn68]

I find it hard to believe it wasn't discussed here, search didn't bring any hits on this topic. Sorry if this is a repost (it is a year old):

 

 

http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/...70&emc=eta1

[Doug C]

Thank you for posting this. I found it to be quite interesting. I am excited for my wife to read it as she is a migraine sufferer. Nothing really seems to help her except Imitrex. But taking it so frequently is not healthy. Her neurologist and her GP both feel that the migraines will go away, or at least lessen in frequency and severity, after menopause (as was the case with jeff's mother). She is perimenopausal now. Fingers crossed.

 

Thanks again.

[Sparky speaks]

Here it is.....

 

http://forums.viachicago.org/index.php?sho...mes+jeff+tweedy

[Doug C]

Darkstar68, I am glad that you didn't find it when you searched. If you had found it and said, "Oh, since it was discussed a year ago, I'd better not post it", I wouldn't have read it, having missed it the first time. Thanks for assuming that you may not have been the only person that missed the original thread. Cheers.

[Guest Jules]

Darkstar68, I am glad that you didn't find it when you searched. If you had found it and said, "Oh, since it was discussed a year ago, I'd better not post it", I wouldn't have read it, having missed it the first time. Thanks for assuming that you may not have been the only person that missed the original thread. Cheers.

but he could have bumped the old thread, and you would have read it.

[Doug C]

but he could have bumped the old thread, and you would have read it.

I am not well versed computer-wise so I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain to me why starting a thread with the same topic as an old one is so frowned upon? I can understand when the original is still on the same page or is recent, but a year old? It just seems to me that it is unnecessary negativity. darkstar68 (and others) come upon, what is for them, a fresh topic and sincerely post a thread about it because they are genuinely interested and assume that others will be also. Posting a link to the original thread serves no purpose in my opinion but to say, "This already exists". The implication is that you made a mistake by posting your thread. Why risk turning a good-hearted person off for no good reason?

 

Again, I am not Mr. Technology. If there is a valid reason, please enlighten me.

 

Thanks.

 

P. S. Feel free to quote/discuss any of my post in the Random area.

[explodo]

I am not well versed computer-wise so I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain to me why starting a thread with the same topic as an old one is so frowned upon? I can understand when the original is still on the same page or is recent, but a year old? It just seems to me that it is unnecessary negativity. darkstar68 (and others) come upon, what is for them, a fresh topic and sincerely post a thread about it because they are genuinely interested and assume that others will be also. Posting a link to the original thread serves no purpose in my opinion but to say, "This already exists". The implication is that you made a mistake by posting your thread. Why risk turning a good-hearted person off for no good reason?

 

Again, I am not Mr. Technology. If there is a valid reason, please enlighten me.

 

Thanks.

 

P. S. Feel free to quote/discuss any of my post in the Random area.

I agree with this.

 

 

Also, I had not seen this article to my knowledge. Interesting stuff.

[MattZ]

I think the issue gets to the next person that wants to look for info on the topic (not the well-meaning creator of a second thread). If all the information relating to a topic rests in one thread, it's easier for people in the future to review and/or participate in the discussion. If more than one thread exists about the NYTimes piece, it becomes harder for someone to search and learn about (and thus participate) in a discussion. If an old thread gets bumped, all the people that missed it the first time would get to see it. You don't need to create a new thread for people to see something. I don't care about any of this, just offering up what I think is the explanation.

 

On a lighter note, I kind of wish that old thread didn't get bumped. I post some pretty cheesey stuff around here sometimes. I'd rather not be reminded of that.

[Guest Jules]

I am not well versed computer-wise so I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain to me why starting a thread with the same topic as an old one is so frowned upon? I can understand when the original is still on the same page or is recent, but a year old? It just seems to me that it is unnecessary negativity. darkstar68 (and others) come upon, what is for them, a fresh topic and sincerely post a thread about it because they are genuinely interested and assume that others will be also. Posting a link to the original thread serves no purpose in my opinion but to say, "This already exists". The implication is that you made a mistake by posting your thread. Why risk turning a good-hearted person off for no good reason?

 

Again, I am not Mr. Technology. If there is a valid reason, please enlighten me.

 

Thanks.

 

P. S. Feel free to quote/discuss any of my post in the Random area.

Not at all. Sometimes there is good stuff, other valuable opinions in the previous thread(s), regardless of age. I was just trying to point out that had he bumped the old thread instead of starting a new one, you still would have read the article. That's all. I don't have a point. Carry on.

[Sunken mountain]

On a lighter note, I kind of wish that old thread didn't get bumped. I post some pretty cheesey stuff around here sometimes. I'd rather not be reminded of that.

 

Agree.I remember this thread from time to time.Very helpful for sufferers.

[Mrs. Peel]

I'm a migraine sufferer too, and when I read this article for the first time I just remember thinking "thank god mine aren't that bad".

One of the reader comments says that they couldn't listen to the end of "Less Than You Think" because it reminded him of what happens when he's about to have a migraine or a panic attack. That's how it hits me too and I can't listen to it either.

[Preferred B]

Weren't people being jerks for awhile in the last thread on this topic? Maybe it's good that there's a new one.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Weren't people being jerks for awhile in the last thread on this topic? Maybe it's good that there's a new one.

 

 

As I remember assholery was abounding in that thread a year ago.

[phish907]

Thanks for the post. I wasn't lucky enough to read it the first time around. It was different to think about Jeff in the perspective that he put the story in. I for one sure hope he remains ok. I sure do enjoy the creativity it has sparked. I remember seeing Jeff in some shows around 97 to 98 looking really bad. Though the shows were very good, that had to be very difficult for him.

[pillowy star]

Thanks for the post. I had read it back then, but always wanted to read it again. Couldn't find it, so I am glad it's out there again.