Just wrote in a thread where I got a warning that the thread has not been responded to in 120 days…
I went and respond anyway >:D
Is it better to let old threads like that die or is the relevance good enough to resurrect? What does thee say?
I don’t care. A thread from 10 years ago could be more relevant than a thread created today. Could also not be.
Glad to be unspecific.
If you feel moved to respond or add something new to an old thread, then it obviously isn’t irrelevant, at least to you. So type away.
I’d rather resurrect the old smoking thread every time I attempt to quit smoking than starting up a new one, its better to resurrect rather than fill the space up with similar or duplicates.
If you have joined recently, like me, it gives me time to read the old threads. So I say if it is interesting do it.
A testament to the evil of nicotine: how often we resurrect that thread. I hope it will soon die due to not being required.
Yeah. If, as a general principle, reissue was preferred to resurrection, just think how annoyingly many Jesuses we’d have to put up with! 
'Luthon64
Allow it to go up in smoke…
Kill off an old flame…
sigh
Yeah, lighting up those old butts when you run out, right?
Heh, nope, this time around I cleaned out everything! And the S/O is attempting right alongside me, makes things easier although we’re both snappy.
The warning makes sense because I know from other forums that a typical newbie thing to do is search the forum based on topic, and respond to the most interesting threads, often thinking they are jumping into an active discussion when in fact the topic has either died years ago, or there have been several more recent threads on the same topic, but perhaps with less catchy titles.
The warning lets you know what you are doing, and you can reassess if it is not what you intended.