Roger Mifsud’s End of the debate, (TMID, July 26), is a classical example of someone who ran out of justification for something he wrote or argued about, and resorts to name calling.

Mr Mifsud, thinking perhaps that I lack an English dictionary, explained the word he used to describe me sycophant (or, in Maltese – laghqi) simply forgot to revisit his original article he wrote.

His writing was a personal attack on the Prime Minister with which I had a difference of opinion, simply because it contained so many inaccuracies and innuendoes thus exposing his bias. Yet when I expressed my opinion, he described me as a “servile flatterer”.

I have a very apt adjective to describe Mr Mifsud but out of respect for this paper and its readers, I will not resort to call him names, a courtesy which he lacked and which, I am surprised that this paper would allow to be published.

The paper may have a good explanation – that of the principle of free speech and expression – which Malta so sorely lacked a few decades ago.

I too have nothing further to say to Mr Mifsud without risking descending to lows which I am not accustomed to.

J. Martinelli

London, Ontario

Canada

Editor’s note: This correspondence is now closed.