'Truth in blogging' might be an interesting subject, perhaps, to look at further. It is apropos now, as with the turnover of the year, reviews are in order. Yet, reviews need to be part of a continual process, to boot.
As mentioned in the Mission, posts here evolve, and posts changed a dates later than the original will be marked as modified.
But, what are the working rules for this type of media where the author, editor, publisher, and whatnot are all rolled into one entity?
One question involves modify rather than rewrite. In case of a rewrite, perhaps the original post, if replaced, would have a pointer to the new material.
Another would consider whether to use a major word processor and then cutting the text over to the blog space. That seems a little beyond the intent, though most likely many of the blogs sponsored by groups (including companies) are developed like that (with steps for review by others including legal).
So many other issues that probably have been discussed elsewhere (so expect links to appear here at some point).
Given the topic of this blog, most posts will be opinionated expository. For the most part, modifications will remove stream-of-consciousness requirements. But, things like Jungian contractions (see example and Remarks) will like remain in place.
As mentioned before, the blog is part of a triad, truth engineering, 7 'oops 7, and whosenoseknows, dealing with the theoretical/abstract basis, the operational issues, and measurement, respectively, aspects of a very important subject.
Slogan: we're after minimizing 'hogwash' in all affairs.
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.