[jacquesm]

He did just that.

[ugwigr]

in the comment? how many people would read his comment versus the subject line?

Also the fact that he can fundamentally change what a user posts and then choose whether or not to disclose it in comment section is a flaw.

[batch12]

I wholeheartedly disagreed until I saw your point (I think). The post still has your name beside it and you disagree with someone changing your words. While I don't find it a big deal with this, I kinda agree in spirit. Maybe the poster name should be changed too. However, folks would then be upset about not getting their sweet, sweet karma.

[ugwigr]

ok. what did you disagree with if not my point? I do not care in the least bit about HN's karma

[batch12]

A better way of phrasing would be -- until I understood your point. I meant "saw your point" as in "I see your point".

[ugwigr]

got it. Makes sense.

[jacquesm]

Entitlement is a flaw.

[dangrossman]

That's how it's always worked here on HN.

[ugwigr]

does not mean it is right

[kjaftaedi]

It doesn't mean it's right, but on this site it is.

Allowing people to editorialize headlines and pick biased sources skews the discussion.

Since we want to limit multiple similar discussion threads but allow everyone to continue talking, this is a good compromise.

Giving too much credit to a biased source or blogspam post goes too far in the direction of skewing the discussion IMHO.

Also the link or headline might change multiple times. Best to just keep it simple.

[tptacek]

You're right, it doesn't mean that. But independently of that point, what HN does here is right.

[jacquesm]

And more than any other online forum would do, it's in fact an exercise in transparency, and super labor intensive to boot.

[ugwigr]

"more than any other online forum would do" - still does not mean it is right

"super labor intensive to boot" - it should be in the CMS code to show a flag if "edited".

[ugwigr]

in your opinion it is right, in my opinion it is wrong.