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.