IT'S NOT OFTEN that I have to leave my ivory tower and dive into the maelstrom and explain myself.

Charlie's personal take on the apparent suicide of escaped spammer Edward Davidson presents one such occasion, so here we go.

First up, I've got kids. Latest addition, little Anna, is not yet two. She's skipping around the paddling pool now, as I type. Like anyone who's ever really thought about it, I can't be entirely certain of how sane I actually am. But I cannot under any circumstances imagine blowing the little beauty's brains out.

Our man Davidson was obviously a different kettle of fish. Tormented by whatever demons that drove him to the place in which he found himself, he turned a gun on his family before doing the same to himself. Expect column acres of twaddle to follow on what actually sent him to that place. (Not here, I might add.)

This was one tortured soul, more deserving perhaps of sympathy than scorn. Certainly his innocent family cannot have deserved such a fate.

Charlie wrote a story this morning in which he vented his spleen. He was scathing of the man for his crime. Not that of the murder of his family but for clogging up the Internet.

Regular readers of this site will be aware that we present many different points of view. As many, I imagine, as we have writers. Charlie's piece was an opinion. He reacted with his gut and reacted in a way which represented a common view in many corners of the geek community: Spammers are the scum of the earth and deserve all the bad news they get.

It was with that in mind that I took the decision to publish his story.

The subsequent storm of feeling its publication has unleashed has caused me to re-evaluate that position. It's one thing to say 'good riddance' to some poor misguided fool who removes himself from our presence and appears to enhance our living space by doing so. Even then, we cannot honestly suggest that we do not share some responsibility for his fate. We're all in this together, after all.

It's another thing altogether to apparently rub our hands in glee over the death of innocents.

Charlie expressed a view that is common, and one which will likely be echoed in many corners of the web. It stirs up debate and, at the end of the day, that's what the INQUIRER does best.

But in this case, I think I should maybe have saved Charlie from himself. We get close to the bone here. We live on the edge of the acceptable. Maybe this time around we went too far. The piece is supposed to be humorous, to be read with tongue flicking around the inside of one's cheek. But in this case, our presentation of an argument may have crossed from bad taste to offensive. I apologise for that. µ