Not at all. I am not citing rules here, but rather factors. A moderator must consider all of them when making a decision, and any could be outweighed.

Why is that your decision to make? If somebody feels that they have something to contribute, why should they not have that right?

Pointless? They do it for a reason, whatever it may be. In some way they derive enjoyment or satisfaction from it, and they should not be denied without some positive reason.

I can use that same thing against you for your argument to keep this one open. This has no more factors to keep it open than any other topic that got closed (except for rulebreaking ones).

If the point was made, there really isn't anything positive to contribute. That is like:

[FAKETHREAD]

BOB: What's 2+2?

JOE: 4

BOB: Thanks, that's all i needed.

TOM: Did you remember to carry the 2?

BOB: WTF i already solved it, stop.

TOM: No I wish to use my right that kaimetsu claims I have to add to a thread.

BOB: Dang you Kai, dang YOU!

[/FAKETHREAD]

Give me an example of an instace where it's BETTER (Not equal to, or almost) to post a new topic on an existing thread, rather than starting a new one.

You only proved my point as I said. Please grow up. You will go no more posts from me on this topic (especially since I will be going home for 10 days and won't be around a computer).

Yay, I was right :)

Who said that I advocate all thread closures? If you want to use this against me, you need to give a situation where I have closed a thread unjustly.

Define 'positive'.

Depends on how 'new' the topic is. For example, proposing alternatives to using server options is really quite relevant to the matter discussed here. If somebody started a completely unrelated discussion then it would only be grounds for a thread split, not a closure.

you double posted.. i suppose you was going to click edit but you pressed post reply instead ( ^^ )

No, he did not double post. Get a clue before you make such assumptions.

beer goggles blind!

I would provide a screenshot that proves you wrong, but the two posts are so far apart that they do not fit on one screen...

post 2 than

No, I combined the two posts properly, but I forgot to delete the old one.

It might have been unelegant, but far from double posting.

No one did, nor implied you did, I just said that your criteria for this would have to be applied to all threads, and that this one should then be closed since others have been closed because they served their purpose and asked to be closed.
I'm geussing you mean in the context i used. I mean benefits that could be made from that topic from continued posting.
That isn't piggybacking a thread, that's continuing one. ANd yes, if the point was made, and soemone started an unrelated topic, it would be grounds for thread split, and then closing the one that served it's purpose.

Incorrect.

Of course.

What? What? Did you actually sit and think and come up with that logic? All I stated is that numerous factors need to be considered before a thread can be closed. Why should this one be handled according to the same protocols as were used in closing others? This is where you imply that I agree with those closures. If I don't, clearly I will not advocate reimplementing those standards.

Yes, the arguments I've used here should be applied to all threads. No, that doesn't mean we should collect every reason ever used in closing a thread and pretend their application would be valid in this case.

Benefits for whom?

Given that the term exists only within your own mind, I think I could be excused for misusing it. Of course, since I didn't use it at all...

And now we've come full circle, without you providing anything in support of your cause. Why should it be closed? Give me one positive reason (ie, anything that doesn't fit the form 'why not?').

I thought scripters were mature ._.

What is immature about debating?