I never understood the stigma against necroposting. On the spectrum of knowledge repositories, you have things which are dynamically changing and updated by all like wikipedia on the left, and then more controlled fact-checking sources such as textbooks on the right. This spectrum is important because you can get hard facts on the right, but they are less dynamic and less accessible..and you can get good hints on the left, due to being more collaborative and dynamic. Forum topics are on the "far left", and it is not uncommon that by searching forum databases I am able to figure something out that I couldn't get from other sources. This is usually when dealing with rare or seldom known topics, which by nature become old forum posts..but this does not mean that they are useless. Necroposting is a way of updating that knowledge to make corrections or to continue a timeless discussion. Even if the thread is as simple as one person asking a question, and then people years later repeatedly answering it...it does not matter that the OP will never see the answer, because the answer is not for them..it's for anyone with a similar question who pulls it up in search results in the future. The fact is that nobody would have revived the topic if they didn't feel they had something worthwhile to contribute, so why should they be disallowed? Nobody is disallowed from creating a new topic of their interest, and it only makes things more confusing if a new topic has to link to a dead thread. If the revived thread has become a nuisance, it can be manually locked...that's what moderators are for...but automatic locking only serves to prevent the proliferation of knowledge and openness. My 2 cents.