Droit de reponse

Droit de reponse

[JeanBenabou]

NOTE TO THE MODERATOR

You have tried, and succeeded, to stop me in the beginning of 2006,
when I wanted to oppose to the preposterous change of "cartesian" and
"cocartesian" into "prone" and "supine".

You shall not stop me now!

I have received more than 30 mails in ten days. I HAVE A RIGHT OF
REPLY, which is admitted by every civilized community, and I
explicitly refer to it ! Thus, I ASK for TEN DAYS ACCESS TO THIS LIST
STARTING AT THE MOMENT I RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM YOU TO THE PRESENT MAIL

Even this is unfair, because I am alone to do answer an ever growing
group of correspondents. But I will do with 10 days. Unless of course
I receive more mails during these 10 days, in which case the delay
for my answers will be extended.

If you try to stop me I shall send my answers, together with this mail,
  directly to the members of the category list whose mail address I
have.

But not only to them.

There are a lot of mathematicians, in category theory and other
fields, French and of all citizenships, who would be very interested
to receive it. Some of them would just "adore" to receive it.

Especially if I join the pdf. file I made in 2006 which is on my
computer under the name "Kafka in category-land". It contains, among
many other things,  a "lesson of typography" by Wood, a very elegant
mail by Paul Taylor suggesting that I was now too old and should
concentrate my activities to harmless "playing with my rattles and
fluffs", and the mails we exchanged during that period

I shall also send a copy to the French "Academie des Sciences" where
my joint note was published, to the "Societe Mathematique de France",
where some persons literally worship Grothendieck, and others tend to
like some of my mathematical "rattles and fluffs".

And also to any other institution I can think of.

So far, in all the mails I have received, there is not the slightest
proof that Beck had proved the theorem attributed to him by
Johnstone, let alone any justification of the fact that he "forgot"
to mention in his bibliography the Benabou-Roubaud  (B.R) note.

The problem is not only a matter of "priority" of the (B.R) note. In
some of the answers, in particular in Johnstone's, other subjects
have been evoked e.g. Celeyrette's thesis, my Louvain paper, and many
other "omissions". I shall mention them. I intend to give proofs to
support each of my statements

So I "beg" you Mr. Moderator, don't interfere!

The persons who sent more than 30 mails on this question, and in
particular Johnstone, are adults. Let them SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. And
let the mathematical community be the sole judge!

As I am invoking my RIGHT TO ANSWER, I shall tolerate NOT A SINGLE
CHANGE in  the present mail. I am addressing it to the "Category
list", not only to you Mr. Moderator, thus of course I  want it to
be  sent to all members of this list.