Some of us disagree on particular issues without it being personal.
It is both malicious and foolish to create the impression of hidden or improper motives without providing clear evidence.
Your recent article raised a number of valid criticisms of Mr Musk, but the main problem was that it did not actually make the argument that Starlink would pose a risk to our national security or sovereignty, despite the headline.
This was disappointing. If there are objective grounds for us to shun Starlink, then it would be good to spell these out. But you did not really discuss Starlink itself, or build the logical bridge from the failings you describe to what might go wrong if we licensed Starlink.
I cannot abide the lies being spoken about South Africa, from the false claims of white genocide to ignoring the redress motivation in our legislation.
But I am not seeing why that is an impediment to allowing a service to operate that plugs a narrow but significant gap in our infrastructure.
If it is obvious why the disinformation means that we should not take advantage of what Starlink gives, then why not spell out the details? What would or could go wrong if Starlink was licensed?
Why can we not have a cordial discussion of risk vs reward?
My view is that we should not afford ourselves the luxury of ignoring a service that we cannot provide ourselves or procure on equal terms elsewhere.
Obviously Starlink must abide by our laws, but within the ambit of the whole ICT sector, our laws are imconsistent. It is therfore reasonable to suggest amendments that remove these inconsistemcies.
The irony is that local ownership requirements create greater risks to our sovereignty than the mooted offset requirements. The Political Funding Act prohibits meaningful foreign donations to political parties. Local ownership would create a very significant point of entry for finances to be directed to political donations.
[Just to reiterate, it is wrong to attack you personally, or to impugn your motives with no evidence.]