29 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Only in a very few cases, and in even less cases in "serious" threads is a reply made within three minutes.

[Whitey]

Precisely as I would argue.

Now, let me put the, as Alias pointed out as very minimal, possibility of argument into a different perspective.

Person A posts.
Person B replies, quoting A.
A edits post within allotted grace period.
A argues that B misquoted.
B argues the opposition.

Regardless of the fact that B is correct, why is it that A cannot change what was written by his or her self. The words were A's to begin with, were they not? And if A wishes to make a change to those words for whatever reason, what is wrong with such a change taking place? Maybe something was said in the heat of the moment out of anger, or for whatever other reason? In reality, we can retract statements that we've made. The only difference is that with forums, those statements can be retracted from the origin instead of in a separate response. This is not abuse, it is efficiency. The decision to edit within a short grace period shows rationality and thought at work, not ill intentions.

-Rorschach

[Chyros]

Guys, the answer is no; is it that difficult to let it go?

[Ghostrider]

The Dr, on 20 Apr 2009, 17:46, said:

You could try to just read what your posting before you hit add reply, rather than after.

I'm with the Doc on this one, as it is VERY easy to proof read your posts (I do it every time).
On a side note, this thread is making my head hurt.

[Wizard]

Enough is enough. We have made a decision and we've explained our reasons. You can attempt to make your point to about 50 times it won't change the facts. No means no.

Edited by Wizard, 21 April 2009 - 08:05.