Ah. It was skepticism about publishing, not about giving a comprehensive account! Yes, I am preparing a book on quantum mechanics, which will contain an account of the thermal interpretation - but primarily to macroscopic, nonrelativistic reality, where it is obvious that it gives the correct view. And as a byproduct there will be a paper on the thermal interpretation alone. The proper treatment of the relativistic case (nonlocality problems begin only there!) needs relativistic quantum field theory, and hence is not subject of the book and the paper. In relativistic quantum field theory, there is no particle notion except asymptotically (at times ##\pm\infty##). Extended locality, as explained in the post you quoted, follows (with some handwaving) from the hyperbolic character of quantum field theory without any need for a particle interpretation. Thus it is valid independent of particles, and (as I showed in the context of that quote) is consistent with EPR. I am still researching how precisely the nonrelativistic particle concept appears as an approximation of the relativistic situation; this is by no means trivial. It is clear that the approximations made are the real source of the difficulties with EPR, since EPR cannot even be formulated in QFT. Until I understand this better, I cannot say much about entangled particles, except that they form an extended object as long as they are shielded from decoherence by careful arrangement of the environment.