IT'S ALL A MATTER OF MODERATION. OR: 'CHANGE' ISN'T ALWAYS CHANGE...

Copyright relevant owner

A couple or so years ago I became, for a brief time, a member of a British comics forum.  The forum had an 'edit' option on its comments page, which meant that, however careful the writer had  been during composition, any errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar he'd missed could be corrected after submission. Naturally, it would be stated that the comment had been edited, and precisely when.

It's a handy thing having such a facility, and I've never tried to hide the fact that, on this very blog of mine, I continually edit and revise my posts - not only for the sake of clarity and conciseness, but also to make the overall shapes of paragraphs more aesthetically-pleasing to the eye.  In fact, I've seen myself revising a sentence and thereby reshaping a paragraph, more because it makes the result look better than because it makes it read better.

Most changes are mainly of style rather than of content.  When it comes to corrections, it varies.  If I notice a mistake, I usually just amend the text, rather than adding an updated footnote.  This is simply because any future readers might bail out halfway through a post, taking the error with them as fact.  If anyone draws my attention to an inaccuracy, I'll fix it, and acknowledge the contribution in the comments section.  I've even been known to do all those things at once:  fix the goof, add a footnote saying I've fixed it - and mention it in the comments section.

So back to the afore-mentioned comics forum.  If I spotted a typo or grammatical error in one of my comments, or just saw a way of saying the same thing in a clearer, shorter way, I'd sometimes 'edit' my comment.  Not to alter the meaning, but to polish the presentation.  I'm sure I wasn't the only one.  There was one lengthy comment I kept refining as, no sooner did I think it finished than something else occurred to me to say.  However, as it was in the early hours of the morning, it was unlikely to have been read (and it certainly hadn't been replied to),  so I continued to sculpt and to mould it 'til I was satisfied.  However, I didn't alter its tone or intent - no back-pedalling.

Now, as I was later advised by the site-owner, one of the moderators (by the name of ANDY BOAL) had never wanted me to be allowed to join in the first place, and was prejudiced against me.  He suspended the edit facility for every member, then tipped off another member that he'd done so because of me, scurrilously suggesting that I was retroactively altering the meaning of some of my comments, not just fine-tuning my phraseology.  When I enquired about the missing edit facility, the favoured member jumped in to say it was because I 'kept changing my comments', thus demonstrating that he had inside (though inaccurate) information.  The site owner later conceded it appeared obvious that the individual was being privately supplied with internal info.

Regular readers will know what eventually happened next, so I'll skip past all that to avoid repeating myself.  (Details can be found here.)  No doubt you'll be wondering why I'm airing the topic again  Well, about a year or so ago, I received an email from a comics-blogger who'd once been an editor at a prominent publishing company.  He explained that he objected to something I'd written and had taken the 'precaution' of taking a screen-grab, as I was 'well-known' for 'rewriting' my blog posts - 'something we all do', he later stated, seemingly unaware of the glaring absurdity of his inconsistent double-standards.

When I challenged him and asked him to provide even one example in support of his claim, he recanted and apologised, though his subsequent attitude caused me to doubt the sincerity of his apology.  However, I was left to wonder whether there was a link between his mistaken perception that I altered my posts for the unethical purpose of misdirection or deception, and the malicious misinformation promulgated by a disgruntled, disingenuous moderator on that other comics forum.   

So, I freely admit (and always have) that, in my fruitless quest for 'perfection', I edit, revise, correct, update and polish my blog posts, to make them as factual, informative, entertaining, and as visually appealing as they can possibly be, but I don't alter them to say the opposite of what I'd originally published in order to escape any potential embarrassment, consequence, or legal penalty which might ensue from anything I'd written.

And yes, I may well edit this post - if it occurs to me how to convey the exact same 'content' in a better, smarter, funnier (and shorter) way than I have.  However, the purpose of the post and the message contained therein will remain intact. Improvement of expression is no bad thing - so long as the original spirit or intention isn't compromised.  Some people would do well to bear that in mind before making unfounded accusations.

******

(And indeed, I've now pruned it back, as there was too much repetition of details provided in the link.)