>finally, jim decided to update our good old huck,
and it was posted with a date of 10-may-2010.

>and, to reiterate this part of the story, the update
was posted _not_ as a replacement for number 76,
but as a completely new e-text, numbered 32325.

I deliberately chose a slightly later edition of Huck to avoid WW’er complaints.  I was hopeful (forlornly) that someone would take the hint, do a word-diff between 76 and 32325, and fix the mistakes in 76.  Unfortunately that hasn’t happened.

What this does make clear is the following: The notion that the passage of time, and having millions of eyes read a particular book results in that book getting fixed is certainly NOT true.