I didn't post the reply to your node after I noticed that you corrected yourself.

The more I look at this the more I can't figure out how you jumped to that conclusion after reading what I wrote. In particular, I said "then replied to my node based on a version from before your last update". If I had meant that you had posted after noticing my update, how would "[you] might want to check for updates [...] from others before replying" make sense? Or even "or, horror, wait a few minutes"?

What an odd thing to claim

Next time you think that, maybe you should delay replying to give your mind time to reflect and then re-read and see if your interpretation changes or your understanding improves.

but always before anyone replies

You can tell when some monk has started replying so that your silent updates don't make that monk's finished reply nonsense? Maybe you should consider having more patience before hitting "create" instead? Then there is just being polite to those who read your node before an update (and might be confused by a reply based on an update that they didn't notice, who might not want to reread your entire node doing a mental "diff" to figure out what you updated, or who didn't want to miss out on what you wrote since updates aren't (for good reasons) noted anywhere, etc.).

It'd be nice if "preview" showed the (up-to-date) node that you are replying to, such as below the input box (moving the relatively new "In thread" and "In reply to" headers down there as well). After I had composed my previous reply I checked for updates before actually posting (as I did with this reply, also checking that what I wrote actually makes sense with what was written). I'd rather throw away a composed reply than post a useless one. But it'd be cool if "preview" would make that a trivial task. Though this (or some other) distraction to delay me pushing "create" usually serves me well.

The more I look at this the more I can't figure out how you jumped to that conclusion after reading what I wrote.

Not sure what conclusion I'm suppoed to have jumped to. I'm talking about "I think it is unlikely that you started replying before my update was posted".

If I were to rewrite what I said using your words, it would be

I didn't start replying before your update was posted. What an odd thing to claim, since no one would gain from that. The delay was surely due to taking the time to verify that your solution didn't work before posting.

Next time you think that, maybe you should delay replying to give your mind time to reflect and then re-read and see if your interpretation changes or your understanding improves.

I still can't find any other meaning for "I think it is unlikely that you started replying before my update was posted". Maybe you didn't understand me when I said I did start replying before your update was posted and I find it odd that you think I didn't.

I think you are both having an odd argument.

I'm not entirely sure whether either of you are currently posting further replies to one another at the time of writing this, but I am sure that you haven't replied to my post.

Hang on though, by the time someone else reads this there might be a reply. Dang.

OK. I've got it. I'm writing this post. That means you can't reply to it yet. But there may be replies to come.

Maybe you're having an ZXY argument?

FAKE EDIT - this post has not been edited.

AHA! I have it. I am not going to post this, then you can't reply it!

PS: I agree with this reply.

-=( Graq )=-