Certainly, and I hate being a pain in the arse, but there's a real opportunity here. Indeed, this may be the last opportunity to change this piece of the debate, as it goes more mainstream.

My post isn't about these papers, of course; hence my apology to the posters; it's about the title of the TOD section. I don't suggest that there be any censorship, merely that TOD starts to exert its growing influence by making the terms of the debate clearer for the lay audience.

There's a real and valid question about any entity such as TOD: once it's established, what is it good for? I suggest that's it's good for exactly this: rendering abstruse-seeming concepts more easily accessible to non-academics. And if you do change it, it will be clear who changed it, and when it happened, and why.

This is good advice and should be taken.

I won't carp about it after this on TOD, I promise. Kudos for the concept of a dedicated TOD section on this, which is no small thing.

Acronyms should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler...