To the person who complained of "personal attacks": Pointing out that no one has the right to tell me how to use the edit function is not a personal attack. Had I maligned Billi's character or unstated motives (as mine had been unintentionally), you might have had a point. But the irony is that I *have* been attacked in precisely that way on mobileread and no one suggested the thread on which this occurred had run its course.
Originally Posted by Billi
I'm afraid I have not expressed myself properly, sorry. I'm not against editing a post, I use this function quite often myself and I don't wish to have it changed or disabled. What I am opposing are certain arguments pro editing and certain uses of this function. In my mind, they simply feel wrong. And I would feel to be dishonest if I would change a post that somebody already has answered to.
It's more reasonable to phrase the idea in terms of your own use and feelings about the meaning of an edit. We can talk about that because then no one is prescribing behavior.
The idea that editing = dishonesty has always struck me as curious. I would compare compulsive editing to the application of makeup. Some women refuse to be seen without makeup, while others never wear it at all. I could make any number of ad hominem arguments about which approach is normative, but in the end, it's not my business to tell anyone else how much makeup to wear, just as it would be wrong of me to project negative attributes on a woman who made either choice. Every person is unique and, therefore, so are their choices.
For me, extensive editing is a moral decision based on the belief in writing as well as I can, just as your choice seems rooted in the idea that spontaneity is the key to honesty. I disagree in the sense that a thoughtless comment can be less honest than a considered one, but I would never ascribe negative traits to someone else simply because their editing style and aims were different from mine.