Russ,

A couple of thoughts in response....

1. I wrote a long and, I think, really understanding response to a similar question about a week ago. I COULD go dig it up-- but I am crazy-busy today and will be for the next week, or more. Plus I am not sure now just where I posted it. You could find it in one of the threads Max ran in the last few weeks; there aren't many of those. Or use the Filter box to find his threads-- his name is in them.

Further thoughts--

2. You might WANT for folks to behave in the way you'd like them to behave, but you know, people are gonna be people and decide for themselves how to respond to a "new" thread.

3. A lot of folks around here seem to see the repository of old threads as a rich storehouse, full of one-of-a-kind treasures. What one person may take as dismissive [or rude, or whatever word you choose] may actually be meant as friendly, good-humored welcoming-- as an invitation to jump into the prior discussion as many of us have done, ourselves, many times, after long research through past threads.

4. A lot of those who respond with "merely" a link to old info may be people with no expertise in the topic of the request, but may ALSO be people who just want to give someone a hand finding what they are seeking... people who would not presume to offer the information from their own experience or from an old thread-- and really, it should not be up to folks to know what a seeker will find the most helpful.

5. Another good reason to check old threads is to gain a sense of which zoo members are solid, knowledgable, and ready to help. Sometimes going back to those old threads yields the seeker a new friend they can PM with detailed questions, or even someone in their own area to get to know and share music with in person.

6. One could summarize all of the above (and probably all the rest of the repsonses you'll get here) as, "it's the dynamic of Mudcat." It doesn't have perpetrators and victims-- it's just human bean soup. Whether someone thinks a thing is right or wrong doesn't really change what YOU ought to do-- you should (IMVHO) do what works for YOU, with emphasis on "WORKS" given the dynamic and realities you encounter here. We all have to work within how it actually is. It changes, of course-- but slowly, and by participation MUCH more than by "stated agreement."

7. There is no static membership as an entity here. The soup is whoever is present online in a given period of time, posting or reading-not-posting (AKA lurking). What occurs as you describe can occur in a thousand different ways on a thousand different occasions. That doesn't mean that you can't phrase an opening post to let people know what kinds of responses you will find most useful. (That's a cool feature of the "you-control-you" thing.)

8. ??? I dunno! I'm BUSY! :~)

Hope you stick around, though--

~Susan