In responding here, I'm assuming that the topic of the feature itself is closed (per Mark's exhortation), but that the meta-conversation about relitigating (as Mark put it) or bringing up old topics (as Barbara put it) is not yet closed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "bringing up old topics." But as Dano said, I think that newer people should make some effort to understand the issues, and gain some familiarity, when an already "litigated" issue comes up. A few people in this thread have jumped in to ask that people explain to them, here in beta, why a certain feature is the way it is, and then, before even understanding, jump in and state that they're for or against it. They are completely unaware of the months-long, unbelievably exhaustive debates that went on prior to their arrival, and Mark's ultimate decision.
You don't revisit every feature of a piece of software when someone new shows up. They're expected to make some effort to understand and gain familiarity before criticizing the work that went on before they got here. If someone has a great idea, I am *always* all for it, even if I turned out to be wrong, recently in the past.
Like Barbara, I also don't get tired of the "umpteenth new person" who brings up the "removed due to spam" issue. Because that is still an unresolved issue. But resolved, decided upon, EXHAUSTIVELY explored and debated issues in the past, about things that are basically working fine, and whose change are just a matter of opinion, and about which ALL possible opinions have already been explored (and they have - I defy anybody new here to come up with a new angle) - these issues are different. And people have been entering some of these threads very naively (I use the word in the best sense, although I will avoid Dano's term kindergarteners) and jumping in, asking "why" and expecting the old-timers to take the time to educate them all over again. It's very possible for them to look up these issues in past threads here, instead of simply and blatantly contradicting the status quo in a rootless way, and asking others to summarize what in many cases was a months long and highly complicated debate. I don't feel it's being a "dictator," as Barbara puts it, to ask, expect, or hope that they would do so before jumping in.
We are not talking about issues "aging well" or not. We are talking about issues from within the past two or three years.
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.