Sorry about that; I linked to it so that those who could see it would know which entry I was talking about (and, in particular, so I could find it again easily myself if I came back later and was curious), not because it was vital background reading in order to understand this post. I did notice it was friends-locked, so I took care that nothing I said was dependent on knowing anything in the locked post. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that it wasn't necessary to be able to read it.

Likewise the other link further down this post, which is a link to a comment I made on someone else's LJ containing a prior use of the same analogy. Again, it's there for the handy reference of those who can see it, but its unavailability to those who can't shouldn't cause difficulty.

FWIW, naath said the questionnaire was acquired from weebleflip, whose copy of it is publicly readable. I've added that link to the main post too.

I've never thought particularly carefully about who my target audience is. I suppose "anyone who's interested" comes close enough, subject to the constraint that there's a limited distance I'm prepared to go out of my way to ensure readability. (I'd be unwilling, for example, to tone down my use of complex grammar for the sake of ESL speakers, because it would hamper me expressing myself in the way I feel comfortable.) So if you like reading my diary, then that makes you part of it :-)

not because it was vital background reading in order to understand this post.

*nod*

I just thought that having a brief note next to the link would have saved me from clicking on the link only to be greeted with a friendly "Forbidden"; it would have been easier to see at a glance that it is what you described it as (something you could find later on; something that those who could see it would know which entry you meant; but not something that's vital to the understanding).