--- a/text/evmap.tex	Wed Jun 29 12:37:55 2011 -0700
+++ b/text/evmap.tex	Wed Jun 29 16:13:24 2011 -0700
@@ -222,12 +222,12 @@
 \item The gluing maps $\BD_k(M)\to \BD_k(M\sgl)$ are continuous.
 \item For balls $B$, the map $U(B) \to \BD_1(B)$, $u\mapsto (B, u, \emptyset)$, is continuous,
 where $U(B) \sub \bc_0(B)$ inherits its topology from $\bc_0(B)$ and the topology on
-$\bc_0(B)$ comes from the generating set $\BD_0(B)$. 
+$\bc_0(B)$ comes from the generating set $\BD_0(B)$. \nn{This topology is implicitly part of the data of a system of fields, but never mentioned. It should be!}
 \end{itemize}
 
 We can summarize the above by saying that in the typical continuous family
 $P\to \BD_k(X)$, $p\mapsto \left(B_i(p), u_i(p), r(p)\right)$, $B_i(p)$ and $r(p)$ are induced by a map
-$P\to \Homeo(X)$, with the twig blob labels $u_i(p)$ varying independently.
+$P\to \Homeo(X)$, with the twig blob labels $u_i(p)$ varying independently. \nn{``varying independently'' means that \emph{after} you pull back via the family of homeomorphisms to the original twig blob, you see a continuous family of labels, right? We should say this. --- Scott}
 We note that while we've decided not to allow the blobs $B_i(p)$ to vary independently of the field $r(p)$,
 if we did allow this it would not affect the truth of the claims we make below.
 In particular, such a definition of $\btc_*(X)$ would result in a homotopy equivalent complex.