We all have different approaches to blogging and YMMV, but my approach is to make an argument which I hope is of directly relevance to ET readers and support it with links which might be of further interest to a few ET readers with a specialist interest in a particular topic. However I try to ensure a post stands on its own merits for readers with just a few minutes to devote to a particular topic. So I often summarize a plethora of articles on a particular topic or make an argument based on them which I have not seen elsewhere in the MSM.

My editorial difficulty with your post is that it assumes a great deal of background knowledge to the particular case you are highlighting and assumes people will read a great deal of linked material in order to get a sense of what you are going on about. Although you state "It was my intention to illustrate briefly a "principle" or axiom of human activity, issues of law and its applications to socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behavior" I'm not sure the average reader will be much the wiser as to what argument you are trying to make.

It is an issue of connecting with your readership - such as it is - and providing a narrative that will entice a time poor reader to follow you down a certain track. I found myself struggling to make sense of what you are trying to say and wondering why I am even reading it given that I am not a lawyer with a specific interest in the development of US criminal law. Given time constraints, we all have to be extremely selective in what we read. Why is it that ET readers need to know what is going on in this particular case? It doesn't jump out at me. Perhaps an opening paragraph setting out what is at stake for all of us would set things to right...

Index of Frank's Diaries