In a face-to-face confrontation, they’d be fighting words — literally, and, one would hope, legally — even when directed at a 50-year-old jalopy like me. In an e-mail, well, there’s not a whole lot anyone can do, except maybe write about it, if you happen to have an outlet.

It was e-mail. . . . Isn’t it always with this type?

The man was writing in response to an earlier column — "In defense of Caller-ID spoofing" — and the suggestion that a little spoofing might be justifiable if it’s needed to keep your kids from ignoring the parental digits when they’re flashing on their cell phones.

"Sorry, but YOUR inability to parent your teenage daughters shouldn’t be an excuse to have poor and sloppy phone security," writes our expert, who didn’t sign his name and may have faked an e-mail address. "Learn to discipline your little sluts and you wouldn’t have to worry that they’d not answer your call."

Now, I’m used to being called names, but this was so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, he doesn’t know anything about me, my family or my parenting skills.

Second, I don’t have any teenage daughters, never mind two; my darling Emma is only 6 years old, and, I’m happy to report, knows not of cell phones, Caller-ID spoofing . . . or sex.

The guy with the teenage daughters is Buzzblog reader Mitch Crane of Bethlehem, Ga. Crane had written to me in response to an even earlier column headlined, "Confessions of a Caller-ID spoofer."

"I have to confess, I, too, am a Caller-ID spoofer," Crane wrote. "You see, I have two teenage daughters who have uncanny luck with their phone service: It goes out when they don’t want to hear from a parent. I just randomly pick one of their friends’ numbers, spoof it and I miraculously get through. . . . I’m sure they, too, think the practice is evil and should be outlawed."

I chose to include Crane’s amusing anecdote in my "In defense of …" column. This means that the guy who wrote to assail my parenting chops and gratuitously insulted my nonexistent teenagers didn’t fare too well on the reading-comprehension part of his SATs. Anyone surprised?

I tried sending a reply to the judgmental fellow. It read:

"First off, they aren’t my kids; they are the daughters of a reader. Second, what in the world would possibly give you reason to refer to them as sluts? … Regards, Paul McNamara, Network World."