OK, I'm beginning to be persuaded that editing may be too clunky
to be worthwhile (although I still like the idea of allowing editing
of the most recent post). What about the case where the
moderator feels compelled to excise certain elements of a post
but would prefer to leave as much of it up as possible (out of
deference to the person whose post is being edited)? Wouldn't it
be nice to be able to leave most of the post in with a note
explaining why a bit had to be removed? Or would you prefer that
the moderate delete the whole post? In this case, *not* allowing
the moderator to edit does more damage to the conversation
trail than allowing editing, since there's an all-or-nothing choice.
