(Re)Discovering Christopher Columbus

By 184 Comments 5,629 views

Should we celebrate “Christopher Columbus Day” or “Indigenous People’s Day”? Which do you prefer and why?

Part of me, as a child of the 70s indoctrinated to celebrate the Pilgrims and Columbus, clings to Columbus Day. My weak rationale for this is along the lines of this:

In a 1988 presidential proclamation, Reagan commemorates Columbus for his spirit: “He was a dreamer, a man of vision and courage, a man filled with hope for the future and with the determination to cast off for the unknown and sail into uncharted seas for the joy of finding whatever was there. Put it all together and you might say that Columbus was the inventor of the American dream.”

Far from a day to remember our divisions or to dwell on past wrongs, Columbus Day is a day to celebrate an American dream that values diversity, yes, but also rewards daring risk-takers. Or as Reagan put it, “not only an intrepid searcher but the dreams and opportunities that brought so many here after him.”

The other view, as articulated at HuffPo, is tinged with a multiculturalist liberal perspective; but not exactly inaccurate. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue … and slaughtered the indigenous peoples he found. Is that all there is to know?

Opportunistic monster or heroic explorer? Why must it be either one or the other and not both?

My opinion on the matter has evolved somewhat since the last time I blogged over this “holiday”.

I’m open to FA readers to sway me to lean in either direction. Should we continue to honor Christopher Columbus Day? I’m partial to tradition; but it’s only been an American tradition since 1934 due to Italian community leaders and the Knights of Columbus. Not all traditions and ideas are a good thing, worth clinging to.

Officially, it’s still a government holiday; but one in which current clime and culture in American life do not seem to really follow and honor. Are there still parades in cities? What is being taught in our classrooms?

Whichever you prefer, happy federal holiday!

Presidential proclamation this year:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

When Christopher Columbus — a son of Genoa, Italy — set sail across the Atlantic, no one could imagine the profound and lasting impact he would have on the world. In search of a westward route to Asia, he instead spotted the Bahamas. As dawn broke on October 12, 1492, Columbus’s crew set foot on a Caribbean island and changed the course of history. For much of Europe, this marked the discovery of the New World, and it set in motion the more than five centuries that have followed.

In a new world, explorers found opportunity. They endured unforgiving winters and early hardship. They pushed west across a continent, charting rivers and mountains, and expanded our understanding of the world as they embraced the principle of self-reliance.

In a new world, a history was written. It tells the story of an idea — that all women and men are created equal — and a people’s struggle to fulfill it. And it is a history shared by Native Americans, one marred with long and shameful chapters of violence, disease, and deprivation.

In a new world, a Nation was born. A resolute people fought for democracy, liberty, and freedom from tyranny. They secured fundamental rights to expression, petition, and free exercise of religion and built a beacon of hope to people everywhere who cherish these ideals.

Columbus’s historic voyage ushered in a new age, and since, the world has never been the same. His journey opened the door for generations of Italian immigrants who followed his path across an ocean in pursuit of the promise of America. Like Columbus, these immigrants and their descendants have shaped the place where they landed. Italian Americans have enriched our culture and strengthened our country. They have served with honor and distinction in our Armed Forces, and today, they embrace their rich heritage as leaders in our communities and pioneers of industry.

On Columbus Day, we reflect on the moment the world changed. And as we recognize the influence of Christopher Columbus, we also pay tribute to the legacy of Native Americans and our Government’s commitment to strengthening their tribal sovereignty. We celebrate the long history of the American continents and the contributions of a diverse people, including those who have always called this land their home and those who crossed an ocean and risked their lives to do so. With the same sense of exploration, we boldly pursue new frontiers of space, medicine, and technology and dare to change our world once more.

In commemoration of Christopher Columbus’s historic voyage 522 years ago, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, and modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), as amended, has requested the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 13, 2014, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and all who have contributed to shaping this Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-ninth.


BARACK OBAMA

Venezuelan demonstrators use ropes to topple a Christopher Columbus statue in Caracas.

184 Responses to “(Re)Discovering Christopher Columbus”

  1. 151

    Ditto

    @retire05:

    Thank you Retire05 for covering my back. I appreciated it.

    @Tom:

    You’re a lying troll Tom who misrepresents facts and posts little but far left propaganda, you know damn well that you edited out your accusation.

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I don’t owe Tom Jack squat. I suggested that Tom might have been referring to one of the FA crew, (but as I admitted,) we can never know, as Tom did not give due reference of just whom he was accusing of stating that Trayvon “deserved to die”. With such a vague rant accusation against a “right wing group” Tom could have meant anyone on the political right, including a Flopping Aces writer.

    I’ll let Curt sort it all out. I trust him implicitly. If he rules that I completely fabricated my quote of Tom’s accusation in my #106, (which I didn’t,) rather than ‘copied and pasted’ (which I did,) then I will accept his judgment and he can deal with me as he sees fit. I’ll also trust that you and Tom will be man enough to take your lumps. I see little point in continuing this discussion.

  2. 152

    Richard+Wheeler

    @Ditto: One final time S-L-O-W-L-Y. What accusation did he edit out??? Read carefully what you blocked out in #106–can’t you see Tom was complimenting the authors.
    Read his #90. He was complimenting the authors at F.A. that stood against the rabid right. You are a smart guy. I know you can see this. Enough.

  3. 153

    Redteam

    @Rich+Wheeler: 131

    Ditto misinterpreted and misrepresented Tom’s statement in #88 where he actually COMPLIMENTED F.A. authors for standing Against “right wing group think that basically thought Trayvon deserved to die.”

    Rich, if you’re going to keep making this false accusation, the very least you can do is post the ORIGINAL post no. 88. It will clearly show that Tom made the accusation and then changed it because, if you are correct, what is in post 88 now is not what was in the original. Since you’ve made reference to the original 88 several times, you clearly must have a copy of it. So stop this shenanigan of calling for someone else to post it and post it yourself.

  4. 155

    Redteam

    @Rich+Wheeler: 140 @Redteam: Referencing the blocked quote in #117.

    How can the punctuation be improved? How do you interpret it’s meaning? Thanks RW

    reference this blocked quote from 106 and 117

    There were some very vocal conservatives on this site, writers for the site in fact, who pushed against the right wing group think that basically argued this kid deserved to die.

    My first comment is, no one is claiming this to be the ‘original’ statement from 88. Though you (Rich) claim to have read it, I’ve not seen where you’ve posted it. Why?
    Anyhow, my statement was that the punctuation could be interpreted several ways to change the meaning. I’ll stand by that statement. move the comma’s around, add a period here or there, But, that would be just fooling with the meaning of that sentence, not with the original statement from 88, so until we get that original, all the rest, we’re just beating our gums. Tom could provide the orig, you said you have read it, so, where is it?

  5. 156

    RICH WHEELER

    @Redteam: What I’ve is stated is correct and Ditto knows this. As he stated Curt or Word can be determinate if they so chose.
    N.D call was correct but rarely made. Tough way to lose–should have put them away earlier. LSU can be very helpful to N.D.

  6. 157

    Redteam

    Rich Wheeler, in 121 which you posted earlier today, you stated:

    BTW I looked at the original #88 which I believe you could do (have done) as well

    If you looked at this today, while all this discussion was going on, why didn’t you copy and post it? You can still do it if you meant what you said.

    I believe you could do (have done) as well

  7. 158

    Ditto

    Very well, I admit that it was Tom’s post #90 that I quoted and not #88. I remembered it as looking differently, but perhaps I was confusing it with one of his other posts. I will therefore admit that I was wrong and withdraw my accusation that he edited his post. I sincerely apologize to him for those two errors on my part. You were right, I was wrong I’m a big enough person to admit that. You Rich could have long ago pointed out that his accusation was

    I’ll not however apologize for my interpretation of his accusation in #90. Tom did not properly reference whom he was considering as being in this “right wing group think.” With such ambiguity he could referring to any group of “right wing” individuals who commented on the trial, inside Flopping Aces or elsewhere. He credits unnamed site writers with pushing back, but not whom it is they pushed back against. We do not know therefore who specifically or generally it was that Tom was accusing it could be anyone. Nor did Tom provide proof of anyone making the statement that Trayvon Martin “deserved to die”. If Tom is going to make such serious accusations he needs to back them up with proper references. Tom has continually promoted his own rabid witch hunt against Zimmerman whom the jury found not guilty of murder by manslaughter, in which the jury agreed that Zimmerman could have been justified in shooting Martin because he feared great bodily harm or death. Justified manslaughter such as in the Zimmerman-Martin case does not indicate by any means that the deceased “deserved to die’ it only recognizes that the killing could have been justified on the grounds of self defense.

  8. 159

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Rich+Wheeler:

    I’d like to hear what actual AUTHOR WORDSMITH has to say on this subject.

    In the words of George Takei…..Oh my………. 🙂

    Ya know, I kinda quit following the comments once it began to stray off the original topic. When Columbus Day moved on…I kinda sorta did as well. 😉 I apologize for not following my own post more closely. But when the comment stream became over 50 and then 100…..I just had no interest in reading.

    But in light of the current bickering, I sifted back to #88 and cross-referenced with the email account where notifications go to (It’s not my regular daily address, so I am not always logged into it). I think I understand where some of the confusion lies.

    @Ditto #106:

    There were some very vocal conservatives on this site, writers for the site in fact, who pushed against the right wing group think that basically argued this kid deserved to die.

    Now don’t lie Tom. I challenge you to show us where a writer for Flopping Aces said that “Trayvon Martin deserved to die.” You are insulting Curt and the whole FA crew with such a false accusation. You lefties are sure fond of tossing out false accusations.

    Ditto, even with the excerpt quote you included in your reply to Tom here, I think Rich is correct in his assessment of Tom’s original point: That Tom wasn’t trying to insult/slander FA authors. As Rich says, he was being complimentary to those FA authors who were challenging the bulk of conservatives who aligned more sympathetically with George Zimmerman. The whole Zimmerman-Trayvon topic did not interest me- I did not want to fill my head with every minutia of detail and speculation about it. But I did sporadically check out a comment here and there on FA posts. From what I recall, Mata and Aye are the FA authors whom Tom is complimenting on account of their opinions not being particularly favorable toward Zimmerman; perhaps sympathetic toward Martin.

    The main point of confusion, I think, is in the belief that Tom edited his original post #88. He did not. The reason why Ditto thinks Tom did is because Tom’s comment that Ditto took umbrage with (and I believe has misinterpreted) is not comment #88 but #90:

    @Gail+Combs:

    Let me just clarify one thing on the reaction here to the Trayvon Martin murder. There were some very vocal conservatives on this site, writers for the site in fact, who pushed against the right wing group think that basically argued this kid deserved to die. I give those people a ton of credit. It wasn’t hard for me to believe Zimmerman murdered that kid because the facts and the ideological pressures aligned in this case. But they had to choose between facts and pressure, and they chose truth. I will always give those folks credit for that, although we were at each others’ throats otherwise. Don’t be a lemming, Gail.

    Cross-referencing it with my email notification, it’s not been edited.

    Tom, I believe, wasn’t accusing a “right wing group” but a “group-think” regarding Trayvon Martin getting what he had coming to him.

    Now, I think there might have been a couple of FA comments that essentially was of the opinion that Trayvon was a thug who got what he deserved. However, I’m not sure that this was a “group-think” of FA readers who felt that way. Like I said, I did not follow all the numerous FA posts with FA comment debating on the topic. If any of you care to sift back through……

    I don’t know if Tom is accurate or misremembering/exaggerating the number of conservative commenters here who felt of the mind that Trayvon deserved to die.

  9. 160

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Ditto:

    Very well, I admit that it was Tom’s post #90 that I quoted and not #88. I remembered it as looking differently, but perhaps I was confusing it with one of his other posts. I will therefore admit that I was wrong and withdraw my accusation that he edited his post. I sincerely apologize to him for those two errors on my part. You were right, I was wrong I’m a big enough person to admit that.

    Aw, man…..I wasn’t needed back in here, after all! 🙂

    Mighty big of you, Ditto. Tip of my hat.

    And for the record, I am more of the mind of Ditto in regards to the matter of racism, white guilt, etc.

  10. 161

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Ditto:

    He credits unnamed site writers with pushing back, but not whom it is they pushed back against. We do not know therefore who specifically or generally it was that Tom was accusing it could be anyone.

    I am a bit confused as to why Tom in subsequent replying, didn’t specify which authors.

    I’m pretty sure it was Mata and Aye. They, and sometimes myself in certain areas, have on occasion ruffled feathers, going against the grain, so-to-speak.

    Nor did Tom provide proof of anyone making the statement that Trayvon Martin “deserved to die”.

    I vaguely recall some FA comments that were rather harsh/extreme, along these lines. Maybe I’ll check through, myself.

  11. 163

    Ditto

    @Wordsmith:

    Thank you for peeking in Wordsmith

    Now, I think there might have been a couple of FA comments that essentially was of the opinion that Trayvon was a thug who got what he deserved. However, I’m not sure that this was a “group-think” of FA readers who felt that way.

    My reading and understanding of Tom’s comment was that he was including the majority of FA’s regulars in his “Right wing group think” accusation. As he used no references to make it clear whom he was accusing, I felt that he might have been accusing any or all us aside from one or two unnamed Authors. (I think that you are correct that Aye and Mata arbitrated the rather heated exchanges, Dr.John was also in on the subject, and as I recall was on the “justified – self defense” side of the argument, hence my belief that Tom might be including at least one FA Author.) After all the “war on women” and Republicans hate minorities” nonsense, I felt a need to defend the group from what I perceived as an unwarranted and unfair accusation.

    I vaguely recall some FA comments that were rather harsh/extreme, along these lines. Maybe I’ll check through, myself.

    My remembrance was that some stated that; as Martin was in slamming Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk, Zimmerman was justified in using his firearm to defend himself. I don’t recall anyone of our FA regulars claiming that Martin ‘deserved to die.’ I could be wrong, but as Tom was making the accusation, it was his onus to prove.

    And for the record, I am more of the mind of Ditto in regards to the matter of racism, white guilt, etc.

    Thanks Wordsmith.

  12. 164

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    My reading and understanding of Tom’s comment was that he was including the majority of FA’s regulars in his “Right wing group think” accusation.

    and your reading of anything seems to have taken a credibility blow. Your baseless and repeated accusation that I doctored a post to intentionally confuse and mislead other commetors has been rendered false. You play confused as to what “group think” is as it related to Martin, while your false accusation provides the perfect instructive example. Now that your accusation has been proven false, let’s take a walk down memory lane. Let’s see what happens in an environment like this when I lie everyone wants to believe is repeated over and over:

    Retire post 148:

    @Tom You changed your post #88, and now you prove that you are not man enough to admit it. Thanks for the confirmation of just how low you are willing to slink.

    Ditto post 151:

    @retire05:
    Thank you Retire05 for covering my back. I appreciated it.

    @Tom:
    You’re a lying troll Tom who misrepresents facts and posts little but far left propaganda, you know damn well that you edited out your accusation.

    Redtream post 153:

    Rich, if you’re going to keep making this false accusation, the very least you can do is post the ORIGINAL post no. 88. It will clearly show that Tom made the accusation and then changed it

    Above we see two other posters claiming to have witnessed what you falsely said transpired. And clearly, in the example of Retire, her false rec0llection is reenforcing your own. That’s “group think”. It’s a lack of proper accountability on the part of people making alleged factual statements coupled with a lack of reasonable skepticism on the part of the audience who wants to believe the them. And the subsequent reinforcement going both ways. I think it’s clear if Wordsmith hadn’t come along, you and others would still believe you were right. Now if you want to review some of the posts here regarding Trayvon Martin to see what I’m talking about, I’d be happy to when I have some free time. You will even see that I am correct when I claimed some of the authors here retained the proper levels of skepticism regarding wild unsubstantiated (to this day) claims of fact and ugly insinuation made about Martin. Here’s a suggestion: use Google and get a head start. I have work to do.

  13. 167

    Redteam

    @Tom: 164

    Above we see two other posters claiming to have witnessed what you falsely said transpired.

    lying again Tom. You are including me in that ‘two’ and my statement only says that if the ORIGINAL comment were posted it would show changes. I’m not going to elaborate on how you show changes by posting the Original and a subsequent changed one. That would seem to be unnecessary. All of my statements revolved around trying to get the Original 88 posted.
    I don’t expect Tom to follow any simple logic.

  14. 168

    Rich Wheeler

    Redteam As is often the case you got sucked in. Word has made it very clear that Tom was complimenting, not castigating, F.A. authors. That was my singular point.
    If you chose to keep digging, have at it.
    Looking for LSU to beat Ol Miss. and Bama.

  15. 169

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler:

    As is often the case you got sucked in. Word has made it very clear that Tom was complimenting, not castigating, F.A. authors. That was my singular point.

    Don’t see how I got ‘suckered in’ any more so than you did. The conversation didn’t involve either you or me. You said that you had ‘read the original 88’ and I just questioned why you didn’t post the original and you always avoided answering that question, calling on Word to do so, when you had said you had access to it also. So welcome to the “got suckered in” club.

    I expect LSU to beat Miss, Ala may be more of a challenge, but home in both gives them a little advantage. I don’t expect ND to survive either the ASU or USC games. Depends on how bad they want it.

  16. 170

    Redteam

    @Tom: 164 Tom, if you are going to post a quote, don’t truncate it so that it completely changes the meaning of the comment. The proper procedure when quoting someone is to either state the context or include enough of the quote to clearly show the context. You did neither and I suspect you realized you needed to leave the context out to make your point. Here is the actual quote from 153

    Rich, if you’re going to keep making this false accusation, the very least you can do is post the ORIGINAL post no. 88. It will clearly show that Tom made the accusation and then changed it because, if you are correct, what is in post 88 now is not what was in the original. Since you’ve made reference to the original 88 several times, you clearly must have a copy of it. So stop this shenanigan of calling for someone else to post it and post it yourself.

  17. 171

    Rich+Wheeler

    @Redteam: Here is what we think we know re #88. Ditto,05, Word and myself say we read the original post. I stated Tom made no substantive changes. This was confirmed by Word.
    Ditto said Tom had made deletions to which 05 agreed. Later Ditto said he confused 90 with 88, agreed with Word and apologized for falsely accusing Tom re 88. Kudos to him.
    You jumped in late with 05 and Ditto without having read the original 88. Then you kept digging.
    Why didn’t I post the original 88? Figured you wouldn’t buy it because it came from me==start complaining about punctuation. lol I believed Word would square it away. Kudos to him
    It never fails to amaze me how young Tom more than holds his own against you rabid right old timers. Kudos to him.

  18. 172

    retire05

    Word,

    One question for you: if I enter a post, and an email is sent out notifying you of my entry, and then I later change the text of the entry, when you click on the email that links you to my entry, does it show my original post, or does it show you the post as has been edited? Does it show you any edits that might have been made?

  19. 173

    Ditto

    @Tom:

    You play confused as to what “group think” is as it related to Martin, while your false accusation provides the perfect instructive example.

    I manned up to my errors. You’ve yet to yours. I had no confusion as to what group think is, you failed to reference whom you were including in your “right wing group think” regarding your claim that this unnamed group said Trayvon “deserved to die”, You still refuse to define whom you are making that accusation towards. Wordmith pointed out that if you are considering the majority of Flopping Aces readers, that he disagreed with that. If you are accusing all on Flopping Aces readers who supported the conclusion that Zimmerman reacted in justified self-defense as your interpretation of this “right wing group think” who said Tyavon “deserved to die,” than you are including FA Author DrJohn, as well as the jury who came to the same conclusion that found Zimmerman not guilty on the grounds that Zimmeman was justified in killing Trayvon in Self defense. A ruling of justified self defense does not indicate that the person killed “deserved to die”, but only that the killing was justified. Wordsmith also noted that there may have been a reader who made a comment similar to your “deserved to die” statement. That does not infer that an individual who said something like that was speaking on behalf the entire “justified self defense” collective. If that is what you are claiming, then you are making a false accusation against that collective for the words of only a few. As you repeatedly refuse to indicate whom precisely you are including in your “deserved to die” accusation, it is you who are confusing what “group think” is. a single wrong headed statement by a minute minority of a larger group, does not by extension indicate that the entire group agrees with that statement.

    I certainly never felt Trayvon “deserved to die” although I reached the same conclusion as the jury, that Trayvon’s death was regrettable but justified on self-defense grounds, which state that if you fear your life is in danger you are justified in defending your life to an extent that could cause the death of the person you believe is trying to kill you.

    Now if you want to review some of the posts here regarding Trayvon Martin to see what I’m talking about, I’d be happy to when I have some free time.

    I’ve read most of what you’ve posted about the Zimmerman-Trayvon and most of it displays little more than your enraged witch-hunt against Zimmerman, who was found not guilty.

  20. 174

    Ditto

    @Rich+Wheeler:

    It never fails to amaze me how young Tom more than holds his own against you rabid right old timers.

    If you really want to see rabid, follow Wordsmith’s links and read Tom’s often unhinged rants on the Zimmerman-Martin case.

  21. 175

    Redteam

    @Rich+Wheeler:

    It never fails to amaze me how young Tom more than holds his own

    Not in this lifetime.. What I’m curious about, you said that you had read the original 88, I asked why didn’t you just post it. You never did, just kept asking for someone else to do so. You had it, you knew where it was, you knew it would clear it up but you still wouldn’t post it. Why not?
    You said:

    You jumped in late with 05 and Ditto without having read the original 88.

    How do you know I did that? I might well have read the original, so without seeing it (you refused to post it) how would I know if it was the original or not. I didn’t make any accusations based on it either way. My only involvement was to get the original posted by someone that said they had it, you, for example. No one would post it, making it seem as if they had something to hide.

  22. 176

    Rich Wheeler

    @Redteam: Why? See my #171. I’ve found you have trouble believing what is right in front of you when you disagree with the source.
    Wordsmith—a perfect moniker for him.
    Redteam—-perfect for you.

  23. 177

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler: I presume this is what you’re referring to.

    You jumped in late with 05 and Ditto without having read the original 88. Then you kept digging.
    Why didn’t I post the original 88? Figured you wouldn’t buy it because it came from me

    How did I jump in late with 05 and Ditto? I only ‘jumped in’ to ask you, since you said you had read the original 88, to post it. For some reason you didn’t. I stated that if you would post the original then we could see what changes had been made. You still refused (by actions) to not post the original.
    So, clear up what you mean by “jumped in late with 05 and Ditto’ other than what I’ve just stated.
    When have you ever encountered a situation where I refused to believe something you post as being ‘accurate as you know it’? Don’t believe there are any examples of that.

  24. 178

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler: 176

    Why? See my #171. I’ve found you have trouble believing what is right in front of you when you disagree with the source.

    Some sources, Tom and Greg, to name two who have proven repeatedly that they can’t be trusted to state the truth. I don’t have any trouble believing what is ‘right in front of me’. I do believe that what Tom or Greg put in front of me, and you, is about 95-98% BS. And I have no trouble believing that.

    Wordsmith—a perfect moniker for him.
    Redteam—-perfect for you.

    Why thanks Rich. Don’t get many compliments from you. Appreciate that one.

  25. 179

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05:

    Word,

    One question for you: if I enter a post, and an email is sent out notifying you of my entry, and then I later change the text of the entry, when you click on the email that links you to my entry, does it show my original post, or does it show you the post as has been edited? Does it show you any edits that might have been made?

    If you click on the email and return to site, it shows what is currently published. If someone has edited his post, you will be able to tell this by comparing it to what’s in the original email notification.

  26. 180

    Rich+Wheeler

    @Redteam: You jumped in on the “Tom edited #88 meme”–yes or no.
    You say in #179 you believe that 95-98% of what I put in front of you is B.S. So I asked Word to set you straight. Which he did. Do you believe him?
    Nuf on this. Get back with your tag team partner and play your games with George.
    I’m gonna enjoy the W.S. and some great college football.

  27. 181

    retire05

    @Wordsmith:

    If you click on the email and return to site, it shows what is currently published. If someone has edited his post, you will be able to tell this by comparing it to what’s in the original email notification.

    So let me see if I understand you correctly by doing this exercise with a time frame:

    1:00 p.m. original post
    1:15 p.m I click on email and link to original post
    1:30 p.m. post is edited
    1:45 p.m. new email is sent to my inbox of edited post?
    2:00 p.m. I click on email again and it will show original post, not edited post?

    Are you saying that when someone edits a post, a link to it is then resent to my inbox?

  28. 182

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05:

    Are you saying that when someone edits a post, a link to it is then resent to my inbox?

    Nope. No notification. The way to tell is if the edited version is in conflict with the original notification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *