From Paul Portelli’s reply to my letter (The Sunday Times, November 28) he does not appear to have analysed and interpreted my objections to a proposed Gozo bridge with due care and diligence before expressing his views, even to the extent of misinterpreting the point picked out by him about future generations. May I therefore be allowed to set things straight.

After reading this, I hope Mr Portelli will find the time and patience to re-read and digest properly my points against a bridge link.

Yes, I have also lived in Gozo for a whole year. That was 50 years ago when as a public works employee I was posted for duties in Victoria. The boat service then was hardly worthy of the name and the junk-like boat was certainly primitive compared with today’s state of the art and super-efficient ferry service with all amenities catering for both passengers and vehicles which we should all be highly proud of.

That was also the time when those like me were not entitled to any travel, residence or other allowances, as a result of which we had to fork out the money ourselves.

This notwithstanding, I chose to stay there the whole week through, rejoining the family on late Friday afternoon and returning back to duty at 7 a.m. the following Monday. There were four of us Maltese in the same boat then. I am glad to say that I never heard a single moan or groan from the group during our regular evening encounters over a coffee before bedtime.

We all managed to happily settle in and accepted willingly and uncomplainingly our new way of life as a matter of practical necessity and duty implied in the job.

Contrary to Mr Portelli’s strange declaration that he would have accepted my views “many years ago” it would then have been the propitious time to engage in an active campaign for a bridge link to substitute and indeed plug a quasi-total blank in human traffic movement between both shores.

Yes indeed, all my arguments were intended in their entirety for the benefit without any distraction of both present and future generation on both isles and also for our most welcome paying guests from overseas. The cardinal point at issue, at the end of the day, is one’s readiness and adaptability to circumstances infinitely worse in our time and immeasurably more favourable now for Gozitans crossing over and staying in Malta.

This is proved by Mr Portelli’s 18-year-old son or daughter adopting our old residential practice and pattern – this time round in Malta.

Why Mr Portelli chooses to travel to and from work every single day is certainly his own business, but surely from a rational and practical point of view, it does not appear to make sense or prove a convincing argument justifying a bridge link.

The fact that, like a punctual daily bus service, come rain or shine, the ferry service operates regularly to a timetable including transport of all kinds of vehicles, proves emphatically how unnecessary and undesirable the panoramic intrusion is – selfish consideration apart.

It does not seem thatthe crippling national burden of capital and maintenance costs of a bridge have been taken on board in Mr Portelli’s equation.

Please do not mention tolls or shorter traffic lines as both will certainly undermine or defeat Mr Portelli’s arguments, implied or real, in support of his dream.

Enough said. Let us now join hands to agree for the benefit of all to let sleeping dogs lie.