Your statements are contradictory.
Before you were saying that every1 should upgrade to sql server 2008
Nope, that's not what I wrote. Here is a quote (emphasis added, but words unchanged):
"that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset"
I never mentioned upgrading your database; I know that many companies have a policy or are using a third-party product that has not been certified for newer versions. If you work there, you are stuck with working with those versions for now - but if you are serious about your job, and your future job opportunities, you should still work on your skillset, so that your knowledge is not out of date when you ever need to find another job, or when your employer finally is able and willing to upgrade.
I also wrote (completely unchanged):
"This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions."
Do you notice the word "mainly" in there?
But to prevent further misunderstandings, let me put it in a different way: I expect all articles, snippets, questions, answers, blog posts, etc etc, that do not explicitly mention a version of SQL Server to apply to all current mainstream versions. At this point, that would be SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2. I don't think it's reasonable to expect authors to go and check for compatibility on all past versions - for where does it stop? If we include SQL Server 2005, why not SQL Server 2000? And 7.0? How about 6,5, 6.0, or even 4.2? Versions before that? (I wouldn't know them; 4.2 was my first SQL Server experience).
If a question is about a SQL Server 2005 feature that doesn't work anymore in SQL Server 2008, I expect the version to be included. If it's about a new SQL Server 2012 feature, I also expect the version included (even it the question runs after launch and release of SQL Server 2012).
If today's question had been run two years ago, I would have agreed that the version had to be included. But now? No.