> "Don't like it? Here is a full refund and you are free to read some other version."

That is not at all what I said.

> You can't claim to care about preserving the works while changing them, and that is changing them.

We do not and have never made that claim. We are creating our own editions of these public domain books, not engaging in historical preservation.

If you want to read classic books in their original spelling, then you must locate first editions. Editors and publishers have updated both spelling and punctuation as a matter of course for centuries. Just look at any three editions of any Jane Austen novel - and you could never read an edition of Shakespeare more recent than 1800.

That’s how I read it. What do you mean then? It sounds like the only edition you may offer is the editorialized one, if applicable.

As someone who writes I greatly dislike this. These are my words, not yours.

A translation across time and generations is a completely different matter.

I think it's important to note that in the past, typesetters and printers had a much more editorial role than the process today. Authors would submit handwritten manuscripts and the typesetters in many cases would have to fix the author's mistakes, spelling, etc. to conform the manuscripts to printing standards with the author having limited communication or ability to proof the final plates

Today, it's much easier for authors to have a greater say in the final presentation due to the digital composition process

You can't use an appeal to tradition as the argument for revision.

I don't see why anyone should care that publishers have edited in the past anyway, even in this particular discussion where my own argument is for conservation. Publishers have done all kinds of things that this very project itself criticises and pointedly set themselves apart by doing differently. So, it's a weak argument for them.

Aside from that, what any other publishers do, even if it's totally common and even universal, doesn't change the argument that they were making that they wish to suggest that those edits cross a line that fixing typos doesn't cross.

By the time they reach the public domain they aren't though, and the public can and should do with them as they see fit

Modernizing / adapting is the least damaging change to be done here

For what it’s worth, that’s also exactly how I read your response, which was (to repeat) ‘That's fine! Our editions didn't erase any of the other editions you can find online and in print. You're more than welcome to select any edition that fits your reading preferences.’

I think that Standard Ebooks is a great-sounding project, but I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.

But — full disclosure — I also think that it would be a good idea to preserve the spellings found in the original editions you are digitising. So perhaps I inclined to feel the bite of your response more than someone who just doesn’t care.

> I honestly found your response not just flippant, but passive-aggressively rude to the original poster.

I didn’t read it that way at all. How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?

> How would you have worded it in such a way as to sincerely express the stated sentiment without coming across as passive‐aggressively rude?

Something like ‘While we understand that some people would prefer to read the original texts (modulo typos, formatting errors and the like), we think that it is preferable to modernize spelling because X, Y and Z.’

In other words, the polite response to ‘I like most of what you’re doing, but I dislike this particular thing’ is not ‘Fine! You’re free to go elsewhere,’ with an implied ‘don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out,’ but rather to engage and explain.

Again, I have to admit my own bias against the policy and consequent bias in favour of the original poster.

The text you have in your “quote” is a lot more snarky and rude than the original message. Did they edit their comment or something? Otherwise—why not quote an actual quote?

Considering the thrust of my comment, I don't understand the question. Obviously paraphrasing someone else's words into ones you like better is a fine and acceptable thing to do. So clearly I am just illustrating the problem by example.

The real answer is twofold.

1. We don't have a special 3rd kind of quote or other punctuation mark for reinterpreted references.

2. The real one: This is not a quote that lies as you imply. It is a new message, that merely uses quotes to denote a speaker, as in a pure fictional work, where the characters dialog is in quotes, even though no actual human was actually quoted.

Are there any other conundrums and baffling mysteries I can clear up for you?

When you use that syntax it looks like you are calling out an explicit quote; you may think that it's a reasonable paraphrase but I think most readers will see what you did as a strawman instead of a paraphrase.

Better to write inline "I feel like what you said amounts to [...]" to reduce the perception they you're making up quotes they someone didn't say or even clearly imply.

“I wanted a pure fictional speaker to argue against.”

Ok, thanks, that makes sense.

Ah but I did paraphrase, and you did not. My paraphrasing was not a lie, and yours is.

> Obviously paraphrasing someone else's words into ones you like better is a fine and acceptable thing to do.

Wrong. Not only is it tasteless and dishonest (not "fine"), it is against the rules of this site. But regardless of whether it's allowed elsewhere, you still shouldn't do it. (See "tasteless and dishonest".)