Saturday, 27 July 2013

When censorsip goes mad

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 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.

In a recent discussion on the webERP mailing list +Phil Daintree was writing about the new confirm boxes I did for +KwaMoja . This is the email he wrote:
Tim has also made some improvements to the confirm boxes but probably
unnecessary really, especially since it adds significantly to the size
of the file. 
 I then wrote back:
It only adds 996 bytes to the file, and this could be shortened further with the use of smaller variable names. To my mind they give a more consistent and professional feel across all browsers.
Phil refused to allow this email on the mailing list (for proof of this see previous blog entries), but I posted it to the nabble forums anyway as I thought it might be interesting to people. I then went away and played with this JavaScript a bit more, and managed to reduce the size of this function a bit more, so I posted the following:
Just for interest I reduced this to 921 bytes (0.899Kb) by using shorter variable names.
I tried this to the mailing list, but as usual it was rejected, so I posted it to the nabble forums. To my surprise it got deleted from there. I re-posted it and it got deleted from there again. It has now been deleted seven times by +Phil Daintree or one of his cohorts.

Now can anybody work out why a short post about reducing the size of a JavaScript function to 922 bytes should be considered so offensive that the readers of the nabble forums and the mailing lists need to be protected from reading it?
The only thing that I can imagine is that a recurring theme in his hate pages about me, is how much better a programmer he is than me, and maybe he thinks this email doesn't help that claim. I can't think of another reason.

Philippians 4:8

Amendment 3/1/2014:  I have since been informed  by +Exson Qu and +Phil Daintree that the reasons for deleting the above postings was that commenting on the length of a JavaScript function constituted a personal attack on +Phil Daintree. I have asked for clarification from either +Exson Qu or +Phil Daintree as to why this was, but have received no reply. My best guess is that +Phil Daintree had already said that including the function "adds significantly to the size of the file", and so my pointing out that it was actually quite small was contradicting him and so constituted a personal attack. Personally I think it constitutes valid technical discussion but I include it here as I have always said I am happy to put both sides of the discussion forward and allow readers to make their own minds up.


No comments:

Post a Comment