Originally Posted by ChrisV
Intentionally doing it to continue a conversation on purpose, or add content instead of starting a new thread seemes pretty much on the up and up. Responsing to a 3 year old question as if the original poster is here to get the answer can be construed an accident. Running around and deliberately bumping 2-3 year old threads just to prove a point or get back at someone seems childish at best.
Regardless, I was agreeing with VWhobo on this one.
There we go, that's exactly it. Responding to a 2-3 year old thread for the hell of it can be called post-whoring at best, which is wrong in itself, so we don't even have to talk about is it wrong or not to revive a thread. But, I agree.
Sometimes proving points have to be done though.