Ok. I tried to reply to this - apparently it didn't get delivered or something. I would not say that the rule is unfair. But I would say that something that this particular summary that comes from Forbes is not simply something that "happened a year ago." It is both a current problem and a problem that many people including Forbes have worked very hard to express over the past year and a half. And while the situation is somewhat fluid and evolving, what our very own user experienced here is sad.

I will work to find a more current article. But given the situation I do think that the article, which is a position piece is not "uncurrent" simply because it is 10 months old.

More to the point: this is a current problem as experienced by a member of our community who through no fault of their own, was excluded from reading news from a small but award winning newspaper.

The arguments expressed by the writer of the article are also not "out-of-date."

I don't say that a time limit is "fair" or "unfair." But this post did actually get upvotes. And there were no negative comments made about it.

I do see that 2 moderators have combined in this. But basically I think the idea of a "time limit" on an ongoing political controversy that clearly has repercussions in current time and clearly has negative ones and ones that affect our own users - right now, today, may not be justified.

It's not a question of "fairness." But more of judicious use of peoples' time.

A) We had a discussion going.

B) No one said anything overtly at least negative

I don't know how other subs handle this. But I think the word "current" ought to include important ideas about events that are themselves on-going especially the writers (the ones at Forbes) have worked so hard to express what the problems are.

Please consider either defining that "an on-going situation that affects our own users IS current." Or that "current means withein X number of months."

But in general, in the field of public discourse it is hard to see why this was excluded.

There is a user here who thought enough about this to write to me about the problem. Why can't what they're dealing with right now not be considered current?