Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2009, at 3:14:42
In reply to Re: Never mind. It is because posts have replies., posted by 10derHeart on November 30, 2009, at 18:20:40
> > I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>.
>
> That's what the confirm this post step is for.Yes, and this would be a second chance.
> One suggestion I've heard is to hold posts that can be revised in limbo, so that they can be revised before they are posted. Sort of like confirm, but with a longer cooling off period.
Posters can always copy-and-paste a draft into a file on their computer, revise it there, and then copy-and-paste it back into a reply.
> honestly Dr. Bob, if you saw a post from someone who maybe didn't care for you overmuch in general, and that post sounded angry and offended, and you'd seen it had been edited, wouldn't it be just as likely that you would think that what had been edited out was pretty bad? Worse even than what might have actually been there? Well, you might not care, but I'd be incensed and certainly not have the reaction you propose. I'd wonder precisely what had been revised.
I'd wonder, too, but I'd appreciate it if they'd tempered their post.
> If I see a post written to me that is uncivil, I'll reply to it. I hope anyone who cares about my sanity will do the same for posts written about me.
That would seem to preserve as much incivility to you as possible?
> > Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
>
> They may have incomplete realities, but that's not the same as having different realities. If you need me to explain further I can.I need you to explain further. Couldn't deleting an original post be considered making a reality incomplete?
> What is an issue is that posting uncivil things, along the lines of attacks, not poor wording, reveals something about a poster. So does manning up and apologizing, or expressing regret. And so does pretending that it never happened and changing a post.
>
> Dinah> In addition, the idea of being able to replace a post by revising it, especially as a way to avoid incivility, reminds me of the defense mechanism of "undoing". Undoing is not usually viewed as a particularly adaptive defense mechanism. I don't think that it would be generally in the best interest to promote the use of more primitive mechanisms on a site that purports to be supportive of mental health.
>
> ggRevising a post isn't pretending it was never posted in the first place. Maybe simply deleting could be considered undoing, but revising is more like redoing.
> If I read something, then go back and it says something different, it would be crazymaking for me.
I could see that. But when you went back, it wouldn't say something different, it would be deleted and a different post would say something different.
> Also, Dr. Bob, the things that made Babble the very mature and interesting place that it is aren't unrelated to its structure. Babble is a better place, IMO, for encouraging people to think before they post.
I agree. This would encourage people also to think *after* they post.
> My suggestion was actually to allow revisions to be made at any time
>
> DinahWouldn't that be more crazy-making? And, as Scott said, take away from the flow of a thread?
> Doesn't it profoundly limit the poster's process of reflecting on a response and realizing that it doesn't adequately, or well, represent her views-as well as having the free chance to rethink and reword feelings-- which is lost if the person is now in the position of having to focus on an apology for some wrong-doing?
>
> why keep an unread, or unattended post permanent, without any chance for cool-headed reflection by the writer? Aren't we also truncating a potential learning experience of rethinking and revision of a response--and thereby becoming more aware of what one does or doesn't want to say, possibly learning how to write better first-draft replies?
>
> NadezdaNicely put, I agree.
> I can work around this. ... However, this is one more instance of something that has always been a big difference and advantage to me about Babble, and something I mention frequently as a reason I prefer Babble to other sites, changing. Babble is important to me, and I have expressed my feelings about something important to me, even vital to me, about someplace important to me. Something I've always found important about Babble, way back to the beginning.
I'm pleased that Babble is important to you, and that this has been an aspect of it that you've valued. This certainly would be a change, and anxiety is a natural response to change. Change can, however, be for the better. Thank you for being open to giving this a try and to working around it if necessary.
> In addition, yes, I do respect people who take responsibility for their actions rather than try to cover them up.
>
> DinahRevising something is a way of taking responsibility for it, too.
> > You saw that just the last post in the thread would be amendable, and those part of the flow up to that point wouldn't be?
>
> Can you explain some other way? ... what *is* the *last* post in a thread? Can't I post another post to any thread, any time?
>
> 10derHeartSorry, "last" = "most recent". If you post another post to the thread, what used to be the most recent post isn't anymore, and the new one is, so the old one wouldn't be amendable anymore, and the new one would be. Is that clearer?
> I see asynchronous Babble posts like voice mails. I tend to do this with my therapist sometimes. I call and leave a message, maybe angry, confused, upset, tearful, or just plain weird. Then I want to explain, so I call back - numerous times if I feel the need. It's awkward, but I know he has heard the first words, and I can't un-say them. Maybe there are VM systems where you can edit first (probably) but I have not used them, and probably wouldn't. I can see some value but...I can also see that maybe something richer even comes out of having ALL the words available. Even if this were a friend or relative, I think I would feel the same. I have left some not-so-great VMs over the years for those people,too, and had to (or wanted to) explain myself later. I survived it without permanent damage, I think.
Those who get more out of having all their words visible would be free not to revise them. It could be like not censoring one's thoughts in therapy.
> Dr. Bob just say right now if you have already decided this? I get the feeling as does Dinah, that this is a done deal.
>
> 10derHeartHave you already decided against this? :-)
I wouldn't say I've decided, but I think it's clear which way I'm leaning. I've valued your input and found it helpful in considering the potential pros and cons.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/927900.html