On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:50:32 +0000, John Hall
wrote:

It was a good sensible piece apart from that, though, and I think we
could forgive them for what was clearly a typo for 4C.

You're right - I should have clarified that I didn't intend personally
to disparage the whole piece because of one error. But I'll need more
convincing that it was simply an overlooked typo. I'm more inclined to
believe that a lazy or ignorant subeditor failed to realise that this
single letter mistake risked lowering the credibility of the article
as a whole.

JGD