Should we or Shan't we accept our shortcomings

I was recently adviced not to drop PS (post scripts) and enlist the shortcomings in my article.

Well, its obvious how well that advice worked for me because instead of editing  and redacting all my articles I am posting a new article on that same matter itself.

But coming back to the topic of the day. Do we really need to bluff and keep avoiding the fact that there might be some shortcoming left in anything linked to us or for that matter, us itself.

Donkey on seeing predator may close his eyes and may fool himself that he is safe. But is he not at the mercy of that predator. It doesn't matter whatever the outcome is but would it not be best to atleast put up decent fight against all odds.

My point being, in this case, the articles I write might be flawed in grammar and vocabulary for that matter because I can't find time to edit and revise the written article. First editions of novels, even by great authors are filled with flaws even after and with time those flaws are used as the means to diagnose fake editions from the original ones in times of auction and other literary feast for that matter.

I am not being too ambitious or prude by stating this example rather simply making my point. I may or may not become an immortal name this field is the question with its answer that lies in the belly of future cannot be known to anyone at all.

Not divulging from my original topic for the day. I believe its better to address the flaws rather than waiting for someone else to judge you or point figures at you for the flaws you were planning to bluff from the beginning. Rather than this approach it would be wise to address the flaws and remove them from existence all together.

Life is too short to live in illusionary world and trying to fool people who don't care about you at all.

PS.- Errors in this article will be removed after editions.