>Users are allowed to edit their own posts until the time when someone physically replies. Users should only be able to post follow-up comments on their posts [which is the model for other forums], not modify a post that others have read but not responded. Once someone clicks 'send', he/she should not be able to change it. It's almost like able to change an email that you've sent.

Guilty as charged - I often fix my spelling, or a sentence which seemed oh so clear in Courier but mangled in Arial. Or (when technical) I see a flaw in the solution I proposed and just go ahead and remove what I think is technically wrong, and maybe add a paragraph with alternate solution. This is, IMO, better than having myself reply to myself in a confusing chain of fixes to my own messages.

>One forum member has taken so many liberties with this feature that it makes it difficult just to carry on a dialog. He has often posted 'ABC', I'll start typing a reply to 'ABC', and then the member changes his post to '123' [with a different meaning and spirit] before I click 'send' on mine...making my reply seem incongruous with the modified post.

But then there's the original message quoted in your message (you don't really trim your quotes, do you, and even if you do, you quote the relevant part), so in the next round you can clearly show the difference between the quoted text and the message as it is now. You score.

>Some would argue that I should paste all of the original comments - I feel that's unnecessary and perhaps makes it more confusing when someone comes along and reads the exchange. The original poster could simply claim that the reply contained a fabrication. This should be changed.

Anyone else involved in the dispute may also have seen the original message - and in case of dispute, I assume UT keeps the versions of a message somewhere, so this should be used to measure the authenthicity.

IOW, I was glad when this limited editing was introduced. It helps me fix my own errors before too many people see them, probably saving us all from unnecessary subthreads arising from that. Of course, just like any other software feature, it can be used in ways not initially intended. So let's not go overboard and ask for prohibition of something just because a few misuse it.

[update :)] If UT is keeping previous versions, maybe it would be a good idea to give us an ability to view previous versions of the message, or at least to have an "updated" indicator somewhere in the message header.