As I said when I asked the question that started this strand, this issue has been talked about before on this list, and I think the consensus was that editing, in general, is a bad idea. I agree. >> This is an interesting idea, however, it might compromise the >> integrity of a list by making it so easy to delete messages. > Would you argue that moderated lists lack integrity? Just think of > editing and deleting archives as post-distribution moderation. When I post to, or read, a moderated list I'm expecting something different from an unmoderated one. "Integrity" may not be quite the right word, but it'll do: "post-distribution moderation" isn't the same thing at all, and it does change what I expect about the list. For one thing, I don't expect the listowner to clean up my mistakes. It might be absolutely necessary, as I think it was in the case I was dealing with, but I was unhappy even about that. For one thing, suppose someone _responded_ to that posting, and inadvertently included it in their response? Does the listowner now have to police that, too? And what does he do about responses to it that don't include it, and so a reader trying to make sense of it won't be able to figure out what was being responded to . . . I think, in general, an unmoderated list ought to be just that. I'm not _really_ happy to have the power to edit, though now that I have it I guess I'll keep it. But I'll keep it quiet. I really don't want everybody who has second thoughts about a grammatical mistake asking me to fix a post for them. -- Russ __|~_ Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ Professor of English St. Thomas University )_ __)_|_)__ __) PHONE: (506) 452-0424 Fredericton, New Brunswick | )____) | FAX: (506) 450-9615 E3B 5G3 CANADA ___|____|____|____/ [log in to unmask] \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.StThomasU.ca/~hunt/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~