Mostly it seems to be "stories and posts of whatever seems vaguely relevant to Israel or to Palestine somehow."

Thus talk about the conflict, about beauty queens, about the Sinai, you know, just talk, no big whup.

Apparently press releases aren't acceptable, says Lithos. So... there's that, i guess.

I imagine including it as a part of a thread, rather than the OP of a thread would probably work? :shrug"

I've been involved in enough political campaigns to know that press releases are just that, press (aka news) releases, in unedited and the most direct and therefore faithful to the original meaning (being the origin).

I think it's to avoid having the group look like it's sponsoring particular organizations or whatever? Though, given how often holes like Gatestone Institute get cited here, I don't think there's much harm there...

Maybe Lithos will chime in.

I'm most concerned about my ability to post OPs using material from several years ago, in raw form. That is, not as reviewed by Haaretz or whatever, but direct from the source Haaretz would refer to.

Then who are you asking this question to? How will you read the replies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post89

Proper subject matter:

New Threads

New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.

All threads must be based on material originally published no more than 3 weeks ago. The "clock" does not restart if an article is republished. Exceptions will be allowed, if based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.

The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.

Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134287

Hopefully it can clear up your confusion.

By the way, I have "referenced it", many times.

old
əʊld/Submit
adjective
1. having lived for a long time; no longer young.
"the old man lay propped up on cushions"
....
2.
belonging to the past; former.

Should at least give you a rough idea. Not sure why you remain so confused.

I mean it's pinned there for a reason, isn't it?

It seems like most of the folks who post here on a regular basis do tend to follow them or at least use them as a general reference, as you indicated.

Why not do the same?

1.) the low noise level
2.) the views of certain of the other LTP (long term posters) here.

As near as I can tell anything to do with Jews, Palestinians, or Israel/Palestine is OK, but you don't have to post it down here unless you want to anymore.