Don Muerto wrote:Bring edit back. Within the context of this board, none of the arguments against being able to edit posts holds water.
My immediate response is: if someone thinks their words may have future monetary value, then they shouldn't put them into the public domain.
However, I'd be interested to hear someone with experience in copyright law weigh in on this subject.
Don Muerto wrote:I agree there is a causal link between the grammatical errors in your posts and <edit Don Muerto>my</edit Don Muerto> editing them, but it isn't the one you are trying to posit.
Do we say "I can't stand him singing in the shower," or do we say "I can't stand his singing in the shower"? Well, you have to decide what you find objectionable: is it him, the fact that he is singing in the shower, or is it the singing that is being done by him that you can't stand? Chances are, it's the latter, it's the singing that belongs to him that bugs you. So we would say, "I can't stand his singing in the shower."
On the other hand, do we say "I noticed your standing in the alley last night"? Probably not, because it's not the action that we noticed; it's the person. So we'd say and write, instead, "I noticed you standing in the alley last night." Usually, however, when a noun or pronoun precedes a gerund, that noun or pronoun takes a possessive form.
If I were able to edit that post, the next individual to enter the conversation would see my post correct and you looking like a total ass or is that dear ass.
So in conclusion, having an edit function will not increase clarity
Don Muerto wrote: but trust me when I say I have no interest in an ongoing editing relationship with you.
Badger wrote: Would I be within my rights to ask that the words - my words - be removed/erase/retracted? I don't know. Perhaps this isn't the time to bring it up but I do think there are some tangential issues that come into play when we discuss 'ownership' of our words/thoughts/ideas.
antron wrote:simply applying using a technology to solve a social problem is a bad idea in most circumstances, and inhibiting editing is an excellent example.
deceptive or manipulative user abuse of editing is a social problem. the technical solution is to stop them from editing. unfortunately the blowback is bigger than the problem.
Don Muerto wrote:Cool, and that comes right after the reverse inverted one and a half twist QRT environment which I find really rectifies the sine-tweak on the subterranean optic graphic output, in A-minor, -usually.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest