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/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~