Friday, 3 May 2013

Where did you say the truth was Phil?

This page is written in response to the lies that +Phil Daintree has written about me, and spread on the internet. Despite years of searching he has been unable to find anything I have written that is untrue, and he has had to resort to vague generalities, faked emails, and badly fabricated screenshots (you can see the joins if you zoom in using any bit mapped image editor). +Phil Daintree  is welcome to make any comments to these pages, as he has done in the past. If I agree with what he says I will apologise and amend my writings, if I do not agree I have allowed his comments to stand next to mine so that people can make their own judgements. I have every confidence in the intelligence of readers to make a sensible judgement based on the facts. +Phil Daintree will not allow me the right of reply to any of the lies he has told about me. It seems to me significant that he realises that if people see both sides of the argument they will see through his lies.

Phil Daintree has recently started to say that the truth is at the web site he hijacked from a project that was started by an Indian gentleman as a result of this exchange on here:

However let us ignore the ethics of stealing another projects domain name to use to attack a developer in your own project, but rather let us put to rest what is really the truth once and for all.

Writing "Hate Pages" about fellow developers and then denying them the right to reply has always been Phil Daintree's weapon of choice when trying to bully developers out of the project. Back on 11 September 2007 when Phil was trying to bully most of the early webERP developers out of the project, he wrote to me telling me he had written one of his hate pages about them and was going to publish it on At the time I dissuaded him from this action. He again brought the subject on the following day, and again I had to dissuade him. Unfortunately when he came to writing his "hate page" about me there was nobody left to dissuade him.

Phil starts off by saying that the page is a defense against things I have said in this blog. However as anybody associated with the project for long can tell you Phil has been putting up hate pages about me for several years now, as can be seen rightv back in this thread: All my blog posts are date stamped, so this is a lie.

Phil then says that anybody who opposes him must be me in disguise and says all their messages come from the same IP address. Where is your proof of this silly statement Phil? Oh there is none, because it is a lie! This from a man who poses on the internet as somebody called Anthony to attack me!!

Phil then goes on to say that the fixed asset module I wrote did not work. Yes it did, and is still in use at one of Uganda's biggest retailers (Bata shoes). Where is the link to these bugs Phil? Oh there is none because it is a lie.

Phil says he then removed me as admin. I have linked to the posts where he removed me as admin in an earlier blog post. The real reason was that he was upset that we had an argument over retaining the purchase order history. Where is your proof that this when you removed me Phil? Oh there is none because it is a lie!

Amendment 2712/2013:

Phil has now sent me evidence that he withdrew my svn access before the discussion on purchase ordering. This may or may not prove that he also withdrew my admin at this point, but he certainly didn't have the courage to tell me this either publicly or privately until after he had his ego dented by the PO conversation.

Phil then claims credit for some changes done to purchase ordering. As I have linked to in an earlier post the changes were written by me. As I had at that point had my access to svn removed, I posted the changes to a different repository. As demonstrated in the earlier post, Phil took my commit and then posted it the following day (these commits are date stamped by sourceforge) claiming it as his own work!! What is more incredible is that he now claims I "bitterly opposed" my own changes. Phil where is your proof of any of this? Oh there is none because it is a lie.

Phil says he originally removed my svn access because I was overwriting his changes. Does he post any links to this? No he doesn't because there are none. It is just another of his lies.

Amendment 27/12/2013

Phil has now sent me a commit where I had accidentally over written some changes that he had done. I apologised for this almost immediately after, as our commits had crossed. I was in Africa at the time on a very slow internet connection and hadn't had time to update. The commit only overwrote some case changes to variable names. Hardly the crime of the century. Certainly not as bad as his recent commit forcing many users off webERP. My​ reaction was to immediately apologise to Phil , and explain. His reaction was to remove my SVN access.

Phil says I wanted to do the database upgrades in a new language of my own invention calle "pseudo sql" In fact the language was PHP as can be seen here: Where is the proof of this new language Phil? Oh there is none because it is a lie!

Phil then claims I was "violently" opposed to his number formatting system. All I suggested was that we used the functionality that PHP provides for doing this instead of inventing his own functionality. No violence used whatsoever!! Phil's solution also requires that the locale be installed, as has been discovered by him since. Where is your proof of this "violence" Phil? Oh there is none because it is another lie!

Phil then goes into a long diatribe on his attempt to claim the copyright to the whole codebase. This contradicts itself at every twist and turn, in his desperate attempts to deny it. As far as I can make out the latest story is that saying that the copyright is owned by is a secret code for saying that the copyright is actually owned by the individual authors. Really Phil? In that case why the need for a secret code? Why the need for subterfuge? If thats what you mean just say it and be clear! Or is it just another lie?

He then goes on to say that my access to the mailing list is only moderated! Not so as anyone can see from the messages to that nabble forum. For instance here: As anyone can see Bob's postings to the nabble forum are allowed through to the mailing lists mine are not. Are these postings in any way abusive? No, it is just another of Phil's lies.

On the subject of abuse as anybody can see by reading the archives, more often than not the abuse was started by Phil, as a result of him losing a technical discussion.

Phil says he took away my svn access because I was no longer making a useful contribution. Strange that he has continued to take my code and commit it, just claiming it as his own code!! Does he post any links to where my contribution was not useful? No he doesn't.

Phil then goes into a long quote purportedly written by me. Does he post a link to this post? No he doesn't. Can he find it in googles cache? No he can't. In fact can he find it anywhere? No can you as a reader? I have tried searching for it by using some phrases from it, and the only person who appears to have written it is Phil Daintree. Oh dear another lie Phil?

He then prints a reply to his own comment. I shall ignore most of this as commenting on his own comment is just silly.

Then he tries to justify a different method of calculating a developers contribution to the code. All I can do is point people to his original comment here: How bitter do you have to be to keep changing these things to try and show that you are a bigger and more important person??

+Phil Daintree  says in his hate pages:

contained references to his Kwamoja fork.
I asked him to review and fix it... he refused."
Strange because clearly shows me 
removing these references to KwaMoja immediately +Phil Daintree  pointed out my mistake - An 
accidental mistake I apologised to him about straight away. He then goes on to fabricate
an email where I apparently say I wasn't going to remove these references, even
though sourceforges SVN clearly shows I already had!!  
+Phil Daintree says that I am not a member of the ICAEW. Quite right I am not, but when did I claim to be?
What I have said is that I am a UK qualified accountant. Phil is very careful in his choice of language
here because he implies that I am not a qualified accountant without actually saying so. 
He knows what my qualifications are because I have shown them to him so he resorts to such
innuendo in the hope people won't read too deeply into what he says. This is another reason why
+Phil Daintree  is so frightened of allowing me a right to reply to his lies.

+Phil Daintree has said I overwrote some of his work on purchase ordering and has
linked to some commits on this subject. Yes I fixed some bugs as Phil's work didn't  
deal with cancelled orders. I notice these bug fixes are still in the webERP code 
today!! Strange that exactly 5 years on Phil hasn't got around to removing this
code if it is so bad!! It is typical of the man that he tells these lies and doesn't have the 
honesty to allow me to link to the evidence showing that all that he says about me
is just lies, lies, and yet more lies! 

+Phil Daintree says in his hate pages that the reason he removed my ability to commit to the webERP project was that I misspelled  the name of a CSS class in one of my commits. As anybody who understands HTML/CSS programming can tell him if a web browser finds a css class it doesn't know it just ignores it. There was no performance loss or harm to the user interface. Compare this to some of the really bad commits he and others have done! Interestingly a css class of the exact same name was soon added to webERP meaning that +Phil Daintree  himself now commits code with this identical css class in it!!

So that's it? No comments on what I have said in this blog at all, despite that being what it was titled as. Just lies and nasty innuendos about my coding and my character that he cannot prove because they are just lies.

I will leave it to the reader to judge what is the truth. I have always been content to put the facts before the community and let them judge. I see no need for censorship or banning. So why does Phil believe in censorship and banning to avoid criticism?

ps Phil, can you stop sending the hate mail that pollutes my inbox every day?

No comments:

Post a Comment