I.M. Beck made my day on Saturday and really made me feel good with his public announcement that I have become an inspiration to him (sic). Moreover he described me as one of Labour's scribes (April 12).

I have no problem to accept the term "scribe" in this context, considering the ambiguity of my former colleague who also refers to me as "one Charles J. Buttigieg from Mellieħa". I am no scholar and teacher of Jewish law but maybe he thinks that I am, as his judgment on Labour supporters is rarely very clear and readers know that. A state of ambivalence which also made me a trifle ambivalent this time.

I do not normally defend myself against attacks made by I.M. Beck or his camp, but since the smear snipe was directed at me as a member of his perceived other half of the Maltese population, I shall make an exception.

Putting it moderately, I.M. Beck took exception to the term Gozitanos which I used on the web portal to refer to the Gozo voters, viz. "The Gozitanos voted against a new beginning, therefore Giovanna has a right to give them more of the same. Yes, minister, keep hitting them and they will love you more for it." He tried to translate the affectionate term "Gozitanos" into a racist undertone. How base!

If I were a Nationalist supporter, I.M. Beck wouldn't look for undertones in my comments and probably would not emblazon me. How can he fail when he so much loves, defends and feels at rest with the rest? Extreme bias affects people that way.

Both sides of my family are deeply rooted in Gozo and the most enjoyable part of my career was spent working very closely with the Gozo Ministry particularly with Minister Giovanna Debono and managing a zealous bunch of hard-working and industrious Gozitanos. That period in my life reaffirmed my haughtiness regarding my Gozitano family roots, totally ignoring the strong Nationalist background. Do I now deserve to be labeled a "racist" because I do not condone abuse of power and express myself accordingly?

Being fair to my political opponent, he was not so categorical about his conclusions as he qualified his remarks with a question mark. I wouldn't like to think that he used an unsure suggestion to minimise the risk of a libel suit! It does however prove that when some people run out of convincing arguments they resort to weak attempts at shaming the individual.

Amazingly, to underscore an emphasis that "Gozitanos" contains a sound of insolence, he drew parallels with a qualified example of "the condescending way low-class Brits used to refer to us as Maltesers". Comments superfluous on his racist undertones.

To demonstrate I.M. Beck's resilience (sic) to people in opposition to his views, in that same article he attacked David Borg Cardona by referring to him as "a distant relative but not distant enough".

To misconstrue innocently is not a sin but to twist a phrase to smear another person is unforgiving and requires very little brain power because it is only marginally better than being witless. To be scornful, contemptuous and taunting is tantamount to being a despised joker, so worthless and obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation. Malignant cowardice describes it more succinctly.

Then why are some of our columnists resorting to this style when there exists no positive gain? I may attempt to guess the answer but they are the ones who know best.