+first edit pass bookmark: "I received a Twitter DM from"
+
+blocks to fit somewhere—
+_ the hill he wants to die on (conclusion for "Zevi's Choice"??)
+_ Tail vs. Bailey / Davis vs. Yudkowsky analogy (new block somewhere—or a separate dialogue post??)
+_ mention that "Not Man for the Categories" keeps getting cited
+
+pt. 3 edit tier—
+✓ fullname Taylor and Hoffman at start of pt. 3
+✓ footnote clarifying that "Riley" and Sarah weren't core members of the group, despite being included on some emails?
+✓ be more specific about Ben's anti-EA and Jessica's anti-MIRI things
+✓ weird that Kelsey thought the issue was that we were trying to get Yudkowsky to make a statement
+✓ set context for Anna on first mention in the post
+✓ more specific on "mostly pretty horrifying" and group conversation with the whole house
+✓ cut words from the "Yes Requires" slapfight?
+✓ cut words from "Social Reality" scuffle
+✓ examples of "bitter and insulting" comments about rationalists
+✓ Scott got comas right in the same year as "Categories"
+✓ "I" statements
+✓ we can go stronger than "I definitely don't think Yudkowsky thinks of himself
+✓ cut words from December 2019 blogging spree
+✓ mention "Darkest Timeline" and Skyrms somewhere
+-----
+_ Ben on "locally coherent coordination": use direct quotes for Ben's language—maybe rewrite in my own language (footnote?) as an understanding test
+_ "Not the Incentives"—rewrite given that I'm not shielding Ray
+_ better explanation of MOPs in "Social Reality" scuffle
+_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier
+_ meeting with Ray?
+_ mention that I was miffed about "Boundaries?" not getting Curated, while one of Euk's animal posts did
+_ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse"?
+_ LessWrong vs. GreaterWrong for comment links?
+_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (if people want to read them, they can click through ... but on review, these descriptions seem pretty reasonable?)
+_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it) (but it still seems clear to me on re-read?)
+_ I still mostly feel like being more detailed than "fraud"; later thoughts on jump to evaluation, translating between different groups' language
+_ FTX validated Ben's view of EA!!
+_ explicitly mention http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
+-------
+_ in a footnote, defend the "cutting my dick off" rhetorical flourish
+_ choice quotes in "end of the Category War" thank you note
+_ do I have a better identifier than "Vassarite"?
+_ maybe I do want to fill in a few more details about the Sasha disaster, conditional on what I end up writing regarding Scott's prosecution?—and conditional on my separate retro email—also the Zolpidem thing
+_ footnote explaining quibbles? (the first time I tried to write this, I hesitated, not sure if necessary)
+_ "it was the same thing here"—most readers are not going to understand what I see as the obvious analogy
+_ first mention of Jack G. should introduce him properly
+_ link to protest flyer
+
+
+pt. 4 edit tier—
+_ mention Nick Bostrom email scandal (and his not appearing on the one-sentence CAIS statement)
+_ revise and cut words from "bad faith" section since can link to "Assume Bad Faith"
+_ cut words from January 2020 Twitter exchange (after war criminal defenses)
+_ everyone *who matters* prefers to stay on the good side
+
+pt. 5 edit tier—
+_ quote specific exchange where I mentioned 10,000 words of philosophy that Scott was wrong—obviously the wrong play
+_ "as Soares pointed out" needs link
+_ can I rewrite to not bury the lede on "intent doesn't matter"?
+_ also reference "No such thing as a tree" in Dolphin War section
+_ better brief explanation of dark side epistemology
+_ "deep causal structure" argument needs to be crystal clear, not sloopy
+_ it's a relevant detail whether the optimization is coming from Nate
+_ probably cut the vaccine polarization paragraphs? (overheard at a party is not great sourcing, even if technically admissible)
+_ elaborate on how 2007!Yudkowsky and 2021!Xu are saying the opposite things if you just take a plain-language reading and consider, not whether individual sentences can be interpreted as "true", but what kind of _optimization_ the text is doing to the behavior of receptive readers
+_ revise reply to Xu
+_ cite Earthling/postrat sneers
+_ cite postYud Tweet
+_ when EY put a checkmark on my Discord message characterizing his strategy as giving up on intellectual honesty
+_ cut lots of words from Scotts comments on Jessica's MIRI post (keep: "attempting to erase the agency", Scott blaming my troubles on Michael being absurd)
+_ sucking Scott's dick is helpful because he's now the main gateway instead of HPMOR
+_ Sarah's point that Scott gets a lot of undeserved deference, too: https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1435609950303162370
+_ clarify that Keltham infers there are no mascochists, vs. Word of God
+_ "Doublethink" ref in Xu discussion should mention that Word of God Eliezerfic clarification that it's not about telling others
+_ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/vvc2MiZvWgMFaSbhx/book-review-the-bell-curve-by-charles-murray/comment/git7xaE2aHfSZyLzL
+
+things to discuss with Michael/Ben/Jessica—
+_ Anna on Paul Graham
+_ Yudkowsky thinking reasoning wasn't useful
+_ Michael's SLAPP against REACH
+_ Michael on creepy and crazy men
+_ elided Sasha disaster
+
+
+pt. 3–5 prereaders—
+_ paid hostile prereader (first choice: April)
+_ Iceman
+_ Scott? (cursory notification)
+_ Kelsey (what was that 1 year statute of limitations about??)
+_ Steven Kaas
+_ David Xu
+_ Ray
+_ Ruby
+_ Teortaxes? (he might be interested)
+_ Alicorner #drama ("Is anyone interested in offering political advice or 'hostile advice'")
+
+
+-------
+
+later prereaders—
+_ afford various medical procedures
+
+slotted TODO blocks for pt. 6 and dath ilan ancillary—