I wrote a four-page response last week but decided, in fairness to malaysiakini's editors and sub-editors, that it was too long for the letters page. Truth is, I can't be bothered providing here a blow-by-blow response to my most recent critics, Maidin Bacha and W Teo .

Mostly it's because their letters contained personal abuse, distortions of my arguments and misrepresentation of my position - a habitual tendency among some readers who can't seem to be able to delineate key differences in narrative, analysis, fundamentals and nuances.

Maidin Bacha quotes me almost entirely in his letter o­nly to ask, finally, what my 'substance' o­n and 'solution' to the US-led war o­n Iraq is, plus his bet that far fewer Iraqi civilians will be killed. Quick response to the first issue: Maidin Bacha should read my response to James Wong, again.

On the second matter, either Maidin Bacha is very nave or he has a 'bomoh' in his pocket. With more than 800 cruise and other missiles expected to rain down in the first 48 hours of a sustained blitzkrieg o­n Baghdad, and with few noticeable Iraqi troop movements out of the capital so far, it's hard to fathom that 'collateral damage' will be minimal.

W Teo's letter is a classic case of, to use his own term, an "irredeemable absurdity". It's filled with contradictions, distortions and repetition, as nave and manipulative as Maidin Bacha's, specious, flaky and an awfully pretentious attempt at trying to be a theorist of sorts.

Not o­nly do Maidin Bacha and W Teo parrot James Wong whole, worse they are utterly ahistorical and just don't get what I said (and didn't say). Same as Wong who, in his response to my commentary o­n his earlier o­ne, manipulated my arguments and position to suit his political ends.

So much for intellectual integrity.