Indeed, I thank you for the information. Nevertheless, if we are a one-man team – as you would seem to imply – then, awarding the whole team is a bit unfair to Mr Camilleri, is it not? The coach is always the team’s figurehead.

The nature of Izzo’s achievements is irrelevant to my argument and affects neither the premiss nor its conclusion. If Karl Izzo had been involved with zwiemel tat-trot and not waterpolo, he would still have got the honour.

They’re not married to Diane Izzo whose clothes shops are popping up like mushrooms at a time when her target market are mainly buying clothes online.

Who the hell are you to call me ‘ghajjur’? ‘Ghajjur’ ghal min? Ghal Karl Izzo? Good luck to him if he got the honour. But, like I said, on the same merits as Izzo’s, there are many other sportsmen, even in waterpolo (Steve Camilleri comes to mind) who deserved the honour as well. So why not them … or more precisely why Izzo and not them? Think about it.

Quando non posse piu, ritorno al bon Gesu’.

There is no doubt that the team deserves recognition, but that is not the reason why Karl Izzo got it. THAT is my point. You are, after all, the very same person who was spoke, beneath another post, about the importance of logic. This is exactly that: a classic, standard exercise in logic.

Karl Izzo’s achievements in waterpolo are a completely separate matter to his Taghna Lkoll award, which is an acknowledgement not of his waterpolo success but of his wife’s support of Michelle Muscat and the Labour Party.

To see and understand this is not to detract from his achievements.