I did not write the comment. My text does not include and reference to paedophile or libellous etc Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Rayfield Sent: 03 October 2010 17:05 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 5527 If Christopher is following British conventions, he also got the spelling of "libellous" and "organisation" "perfectly right." ----- Original Message ----- From: "R V" <renatevolz@xxxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2010 11:32:18 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 5527 On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Dan Mitchell <danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Christopher Strevens - The happy Priests. Sorry but as a former Catholic > and quite familiar with that body's institutionalized pedophilia and > decades-long coverup, I can only wince, > > > A disgracefully libelous remark - let's keep such comments, and complaints > about aliens, and conspiracy theories, out of this group. There are rotten > eggs in any organisation but that does not mean the whole organisation is > corrupt. (And the word is "paedophile") > The correct spelling of "libellous" is "libelous", "organisation" is "organization", and Chris got the spelling of the noun "pedophilia" perfectly right, while your "paedophile" is incorrect in usage and spelling. (Chris may be crazy, but he ain't stupid.) Thus getting the grammar and spelling questions out of the way, may I ask who appointed you censor of this group? Renate
