I ussually only read messages once, unless I feel compelled through further posts to go back and read it again.

If a message that i've already read gets edited, there would need to be some sort of flag telling me I need to read it again. Otherwise I would never know it was edited. If people start editing their posts for spelling errors, I would feel it a waste of my time to read it again, and probably wouldn't know what had been edited since the original, not percieving any difference.

I would prefer to have messages remain as typed with one exception. HTML errors can be a real pain and need to be edited. Justin has been very accomodating in the past with my goofs, and a quick email pointing to my goof and a resolution, has worked very well. This is labor-intensive for the moderator however and it would be easier for me to just fix it myself. So I see your point from the author's point of view. But from the readers point of view keeping track of edited messages seems to difficult. When reading from both my home computer and work computer complicates it even more, since I just have to remember where I left off when I left work.

So my vote fwiw is still to keep posts uneditable. sorry this is so long-winded.

-Steve G.