don said:
>   Seems like the original contributor
>   could be presumed to have implicitly authorized,
>   indeed welcomed, corrected versions as replacements,
>   regardless of the magnitude of the resulting change.

don appears to have made a few errors there.
so let me "fix" them for him.

>   seems like the original contributor
>   could not be presumed to have authorized, let alone
>   welcomed, so-called "corrected" versions as "replacements,"
>   regardless of the insignificance of any resulting changes.

there.  now it's been "corrected" and "replaced".

and perhaps don now sees why he was wrong...

-bowerbird

p.s.  "look at the scan", you object.  "what scan?", i ask.
there is no scan.  i repeat, there is no scan.  none at all.