|
I'm against it on general principle... sometimes what you post doesn't quite say what you thought it did, and when you realise that a bit later, it's nice to be able to go back and reword it. The reader may just dismiss your opinion/argument out of hand because of a typo or a later, correcting post can get overlooked.
On the pro side... you may react to a statement with a counterpoint or argument, and have member you're rebutting not see your post and go back and adjust his/her original post so that you are apparently arguing the same thing, as if you have no idea what their point really is. Not a very strong argument for it, I admit.
On the whole, I think the status quo is the best until someone can show a real on-going problem with it.
__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.
|