Thank you for the advice (and for the FP "nomination"). I have decidedly mixed feelings about your suggestion, though.

• First, to anyone not involved in the above mentioned threadjack, "cult" is a much harsher accusation than "church" - and hopefully the basic, underlying discussion will endure longer than the memory of recent semantic disagreements.

• Second, I intensely dislike making changes in already published material - particularly in the title - without making it clear that an edit has been made. Making the nature of the edit clear would kind of defeat its purpose of it, and the alternative would feel uncomfortably like memory-holing uncomfortable ideas.

• Third:

If this is mostly an editorial thing w.r.t. some possible future FP'ing, I really think that such editorial changes should be made by the FP'er who republishes it, along with a note such as "Title edited for FP" (similar to the "Fold moved/inserted for FP" notes). That would make it clear to all concerned which parts of the diary have been edited specifically to make it FP compliant.

If it is a moderation request, I will of course comply. But I assume that it is not, because I didn't see the [ET moderation technology] tag anywhere in the comment.

If it is simply general advice on the making of readable diaries, rather than one of the above, then I must respectfully decline to follow it for the reasons stated in bullets 1 and 2.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam