I am addressing this to you since you raised an objection to my posts.
I'll begin my response with an anecdote – A woman would look at her neighbour's laundry, hanging out to dry, and think how dirty the laundry was, not realising that the laundry was actually clean, it was her own window pane that was dirty.
There is so much wrong with this thread -
1. A post of 159 words makes mention of "editing jobs other than rejection/ change of status/ reduction of points", not once, but twice – it starts and ends with it. So, whom was this post intended for? Also, was there not a recent post about not repeating the same points?
2. The thread calls upon members to "…be frank and true to ourselves". What does that imply?
3. The post addresses "learned members". That's full of sarcasm. Before, you dismiss it as me making much of an innocent comment I'd like you to discuss it with members on the 'editorial board' and take their opinion on how they perceive the term. It might surprise you!
Did I highlight failures? No, I responded to the thread based on its tone and tenor. If the question was posted 'decently' it would probably have not received a response from me. The post was offensive.
The two contexts look inappropriate to you because you do not notice the catalyst. I highlighted the threads to show that others too do not revisit their posts, not just those who complain.
"Is it required?" you ask. I ask if this was the only way to raise this issue with members?
Also, a person needs to be a genius, to be able to identify editorial intervention in the text of their thread, without it being pointed out. Can you imagine the kind of prowess that requires – one would need a photographic memory to remember what they wrote – word for word.
You give me too much credit if you think my comments could influence new members. My comments are far and inbetween – the everyday practices that are overlooked can prove to be more detrimental.
"A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak" - Michael Garrett Marino