I don't pretend to understand what you're arguing about right now. Personally, I think you should correct the article, but you could opt not to. It's your call either way.

OK, let me be as clear as I can be because I thought I stated this: I will, always, absolutely correct the article, and I will keep my original statements as strike-throughs.

Given that it makes no material difference to the point being made I don't know why it's being so emotionally driven;

I would correct the article even if it completely invalidated my point.

I would correct the article if you hadn't been emotional too.

It's just good to make sure that if you make a mistake that you own up to it and you ensure that misinformation does not spread.

I think (I hope) you agree with that.

Which is why I'm confused as to why you keep pressing the issue as I had already corrected the article after seeing your comment for the first time (before I even replied, in fact).

The reason you can't understand what I'm arguing about is because I'm... not arguing.

Sounds like there's not much more to talk about!