Joseph Agius (July 20) objected to the following sentence carried in my column of July 14: “The pro-divorce side would need to recognise the idiocy of Deborah Schembri’s repeated complaint that anyone who mentioned statistics was refusing to recognise the individual personal stories”.

Mr Agius thinks the term “idiocy” is unjust and violent. I disagree but recognise this is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion, however, is Mr Agius’s suggestion that I targeted Dr Schembri in retaliation for her role in the divorce campaign.

Here, the facts show the idea makes no sense. I can hardly be said to resent the position she took when I myself argued for a yes vote. And I cannot be said to have singled her out, as both before and since the referendum I have also mocked the anti-divorce campaign’s use of statistics. My targets have included André Camilleri (Dr Schembri’s campaign counterpart), Austin Gatt, the Nationalist Party and the parish booklet Flimkien.

In my July 14 column, the word that offended Mr Agius appeared in the very same paragraph as a description of the anti-divorce campaign’s use of statistics as “largely fatuous”. Need I point out that “fatuous” means practically the same thing as “idiotic”?

What the facts show is that my target has consistently been cant, no matter who spouts it.