HE's been relentless, the Maitland Maniac.
Two or three times a week, for month after month, his trademark hand-written, expletive-laden diatribes have arrived in the post, almost all of them spruiking the same boring invective.
"When are you going to admit you were WRONG about David Warner, you gutless *#@$?"
I've resisted the bait until now, but there is only so much a bloke can take. So here goes ...
To start with, I'm not sure exactly what I got "wrong".
I certainly haven't changed my opinion of Warner. He's been a dynamic batsman and fielder for many years, but if I was on the Australian selection panel, I'd have long since drawn a red line through his name.
It's not just the ball-tampering scandal.
If that was Warner's only indiscretion, as was the case with Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft, I'd be inclined to accept that his 12-month ban from international cricket was sufficient.
But by my count, that was at least the left-hander's third serious infringement, and three strikes usually means you're out.
His first strike (literally) was in 2013, when on a night out before the Ashes, he threw a punch at young English batsman Joe Root.
As I wrote at the time: "Somehow Warner avoided being sent home in disgrace, a fate he undoubtedly deserved.
"Instead he was briefly suspended and then recalled for the last two Tests, apparently because the powers-that-be felt he was crucial to our chances of winning, which just highlights how badly the men in the Baggy Greens are travelling ... if we are relying on blokes like David Warner, what hope is there for Australian cricket?"
Strike two was in Durban last year, when only the intervention of teammates prevented Warner from becoming involved in a physical confrontation with South Africa's Quinton de Kock outside the teams' dressing rooms.
Afterwards, Warner played the victim card, declaring he had reacted to a "vile and disgusting" remark de Kock had made about his wife.
Whatever de Kock said, it was after extreme provocation. Not out on 21 at the tea break, he was followed off the field by Warner, right up until the moment he removed his helmet and gloves on the boundary rope, at which point microphones caught Warner saying: "You f---ing sook. Have a look at you, ya sook."
As I wrote after that incident: "Sledging from the fieldsmen or bowlers directed at a batsman during his innings has long been considered part of what was once described as 'a gentleman's game'. But continuing to target a bloke once he had effectively clocked off is surely below the belt ... this is not the first time Warner - a hero to millions of impressionable Aussie kids - has caused embarrassment. At the very least, he should have been stood down for the second Test in the series."
I noted that in Root and de Kock, Warner had targeted two players he probably viewed as "soft".
"Would he have been so hostile if the offending opponent England all-rounder Ben Stokes?" I asked. "Would he be brave enough to insult towering West Indians Chris Gayle or Kieron Pollard?
"I doubt it."
After his brain explosion in Durban earned a fine and suspended sentence, just three weeks later Warner was responsible for one of the most shameful and infamous episodes in Australian sporting history, when he persuaded Bancroft to carry a piece of sandpaper onto the field, in the hope of illegally changing the condition of the ball.
In doing so, Warner took the quantum leap from unsporting and undignified to blatant cheat.
And it wasn't just him, Smith and Bancroft who suffered the consequences, but rather the reputation of Australian cricket as a whole.
Warner, remember, has for years revelled in the role of confrontational "attack dog" who considered it part of his job description to make the opposition feel unwelcome, whatever it took.
As former South African captain Graeme Smith said recently: "I think where David has been throughout his career is that he's pissed a lot of people off. He's just that type of guy ... I think he does a lot of unnecessary things on a cricket field."
Yet now that Warner has been rushed back in to bolster a struggling Australian team, I'm expected to cheer for him? The Maitland Maniac might be blindly loyal to his beloved pin-up player, but Sporting Declaration is more discerning.
Even if Warner was to dominate in the World Cup and Ashes and help the Aussies win both, I would be left with mixed emotions.
I would also be surprised.
In eight Tests, eight one-day internationals and four T20 internationals in England - 27 innings - Warner is yet to score a century.
In all three formats, his stats in the Old Dart are well below his career average.
On home soil, with a Duke's ball, the likes of Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad can be a formidable proposition, especially with Stokes and possibly Jofra Acher in support.
Maybe Warner can defy them, and silence a rabid Barmy Army. Or maybe the adage that cheats never prosper will be reaffirmed.
We'll soon find out, one way or the other.