So I am sitting there, having a brew while listenting to the various sailing topics from the booth directly behind me, and someone notes:
<hr noshade size=“1”>
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”> Doug has been editing many of his posts here on this entire forum. It seems that he has re-written, edited, deleted, and added to many of the posts that the some of us objected to in the first place. <hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”><hr noshade size=“1”>
Wow - I recall thinking that myself, quite a while ago, and at the time asked if it wasn’t possible to at least indicate “What was changed?” - to which a response was to the negative. Although it later (several times) was indicated the edits were allowed and were going to be used - for “spelling reasons”. I decide to continue to eavesdrop on the conversation at the booth behind me. Another at the booth remarks, “Yeah, I rememebr that topic.”
Two beers later - an alcoholic induced reminder pops up – “Hey ! Wasn’t someone else thouroughly chastised recently by that same individual for ‘removing’ posts, yet it is OK for him to edit (and perhaps remove portions) to change what he originally wrote? What the heck is that all about?” A remark from someone else “Aw, it’s OK for ‘HIM’ to do it - but not the rest of us!”
A suggestion was offered by someone else at the booth, that “maybe we need to start copying and saving the original posts so we can go back later and simply point out the changes that WEREN’T for spelling - but were made to change the original position or view posted.” A few grunted approvals were heard from the group at the booth.
Then - from a nearby table … “Overheard your suggestion, but I don’t think technology exists that would allow that much data to be stored on a hard drive. Keep in mind the number of posts he makes and it’s like herding cats! Good luck if you can do it!”
That comment from the other table seems to bring those in the next booth back to reality, and they simply agree that why waste the time. Let all of the edits stay as they are. Besides, would there be a moderator who would even risk an attack from someone no longer allowed to edit? Maybe there really was a self-analysis by the person making the original posts about half-truths and inuendos. Perhaps he saw in himself what he was criticizing others for doing?
At this point, a cell call reminded me of another appointment - so I was unable to stay to hear the remainder of the conversation. Perhaps others in the booth or at the near table can fill me in at what I might have missed.
I know many of us - myself included - have been chastised for going off topic - but seems nothing is said by administrator or moderator(s) about the constant changing (edits? - Ha!) of posts afterwards which helps contribute to off-topic posts later.