[eadmund]

For what it’s worth, that’s also exactly how I read your response, which was (to repeat) ‘That's fine! Our editions didn't erase any of the other editions you can find online and in print. You're more than welcome to select any edition that fits your reading preferences.’

I think that Standard Ebooks is a great-sounding project, but I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.

But — full disclosure — I also think that it would be a good idea to preserve the spellings found in the original editions you are digitising. So perhaps I inclined to feel the bite of your response more than someone who just doesn’t care.

[bentley]

> I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.

I didn’t read it that way at all. How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?

[eadmund]

> How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?

Something like ‘While we understand that some people would prefer to read the original texts (modulo typos, formatting errors and the like), we think that it is preferable to modernize spelling because X, Y and Z.’

In other words, the polite response to ‘I like most of what you’re doing, but I dislike this particular thing’ is not ‘Fine! You’re free to go elsewhere,’ with an implied ‘don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out,’ but rather to engage and explain.

Again, I have to admit my own bias against the policy and consequent bias in favour of the original poster.