I don't think the answer is to try to repost the content of someone else's old nodes, regardless of their rep.

I know you probably meant it tongue-in-cheek, but.... there will not be any new section for "classic posts". (And btw... "vroom" is now called gods.)

Now, part of the charm of PerlMonks is the deep, seemingly endless labyrinth of interesting stuff. Discovering it for yourself is one of the more enjoyable aspects of the site. The line — which at times seems quite blurry — between officially sanctioned content (i.e. PerlMonks FAQ) and user-contributed content can be fun to navigate. (Smack in the middle of that zone are Tutorials and Categorized Questions and Answers. I refer you to Understanding and Using PerlMonks in particular.)

But in general, there is a subtle but important principle which distinguishes PerlMonks from a blog site like use.perl: user posts are contributions to the site as a whole. Yes, you retain the right to edit and get credit (unless you're an anonymous coward); but every post reflects upon us all as community. Every post is a brick in the wall.

There is a place for each user to be lord of his own domain: his homenode (and scratchpads).

So some users might not ever see camel code? You know — that's not the end of the world. But any user who sticks around for a while and goes exploring will probably find it. Have faith.

And consider that there are already plenty of ways for users to find out about great old nodes, notably Selected Best Nodes.

I stand, very adamantly, by my assertion that reposting the content of someone else's node, just to bring attention to it, is inappropriate and should not be condoned. It would be one thing if he had added some kind of critical analysis, but he didn't even do that.