Hate blog????????

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.

Phil has described my blog in the webERP forums as a hate blog!!

This is a very strange description for it. I assume he is not talking about the tutorials on the use of the api that he banned from the forums, or yesterdays tutorial on the security systems.

This blog was written as a reaction  to his continually posting hate pages about me on the web. I ignored them for years, but in the end was persuaded to to publish the truth here. There is nothing in this blog that Phil disputes. All posts are sent to him first to allow him the opportunity to review and dispute anything. He can freely comment (though I am not allowed to comment on the lies he says about me) anywhere in this blog. I back up all my allegations with facts, and links to those facts. Unlike Phil.

I feel sad for Phil, after all we were friends for a while. The life of a liar is not easy, continually looking over your shoulder to see if you are being found out. Look at the lengths the poor guy has to go censoring me, to try and ensure nobody finds him out. No Phil, I don't hate you, if you brings out any emotion it is just pity. It really saddens me that you have fallen to such a low level that you should resort to such lies in pursuit of your rather pathetic personal vendetta against me.

Phil and I have both worked hard at webERP over the years, and you can see the amount we have both done by following the link he recommends here:
http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Copyright-notices-and-License-statements-tt1487216.html#a1487221

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 6

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.

Well it seems our hopes for a resolution to this were premature. No sooner have the lawyers of one hosting company forced Phil Daintree to remove his lies about me, he moves to another. The lawyers of that hosting company force him out and he moves to another. With the help of those lawyers we are seeking a world wide blacklisting for him to stop him owning any domains, and remove any he currently owns from his control.

Funny that he will never discuss these points. He has the chance on here - I have publicly committed to non interference with his comments, and will happily submit to third party checking of that claim. He doesn't allow me the right to comment on his page though. I am sure readers will form their own opinions about why he is so scared to resolve these issues by discussion.

Most of his page consists of a post I have allegedly made. I have searched via Bing, Google, and Yahoo, and have failed to find this post anywhere, except on pages posted by Phil Daintree. Funny this.... I am sure readers will form their own opinions about why he is so afraid to resolve these issues by normal discussion.

Lastly on the subject in my previous post on the subject of copyright. Phil Daintree for some reason thinks that it is important that under his instructions when I had just joined the project that I had put the copyright notice on to webERP. I then took legal advice discovered it was wrong and after consultation with Phil Daintree I removed the earlier bug I had done. Can someone tell me why this supports his case to own the copyright of my work?

The bible tells us:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Phil would do well to remember this teaching

Now can we all move on?

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.


Phil Daintree has now been forced to take down his "untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing" web page about me. Let us hope that he can now move on with what he is good at, that is developing webERP code. This can only be good for his state of mind.

I agree with Mu, that as an act of atonement for all the lies and misinformation he has spread about me and others, the decent thing to do would be to redirect traffic from kwamoja.org to the project site at kwamoja.com.

To take another projects web site in pursuit of a nasty personal vendetta, offends all the notions of etiquette in open source. Open source is about all working together.

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 5

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.

Phil's claim to own the copyright of all the webERP code.

The Berne convention asserts that the copyright is owned by the author of a work unless they have explicitly handed over that ownership to a second party. It further states that no copyright message is needed to assert this right, and that proof of authorship is sufficient. Some free software projects (most notably the GNU project) ask that the copyright on all contributions be physically signed over to them. This has never been done with webERP and given that as he himself has said he has fallen out with most contributors it is unlikely that he would retrospectively given this permission.

In September 2012 Phil Daintree unilaterally took the decision to alter the footer on webERP to state that the copyright to all the code was owned by weberp.org, a domain name owned by himself. This was, in the words of Fred Schuettler (a contributor to webERP) an adolescent attempt by Phil Daintree to goad me into an argument on the subject.

However it is important to those of us who have contribute significantly to webERP (my contribution can be found by following the link Phil Daintree suggests in this email). Phil has suggested in the past that he wished to change the license to the Apache license, which would mean that anybody could take my code and turn it into a commercial closed source application. I am certainly not alone in the world of Free software by being opposed to my code being licensed in this way as a simple Google search will show you. Phil Daintree says he will swear in court to the fact that "Tim is violently opposed to this for his own reasons". This implies that:

1 - I have been violent on the subject. Even in writing I have merely stated that I don't like permissive licenses. Can Phil Daintree produce any example of violence, or would this be perjury if he swore to it in court?
2 - That my reasons are somehow devious. Is he stating that the libreoffice developers antipathy to the apache license devious?

When I queried why Phil Daintree had decided to make this change without speaking to any of the other contributors, he initially claimed that he was not the owner of weberp.org and that weberp.org was owned and controlled by all the contributors. However while trying to get the launchpad site set up by Zhiguo Yuan removed he asserts that "I am the owner of the weberp domain.". Also a simple whois search shows that Phil Daintree is the owner of weberp.org. If the contributors have any control of weberp.org then how come Phil Daintree has asserted that only content that he agrees with will be included? How come only he gets to decide who can help people on the forum? Come on Phil get real!

I then pointed out that weberp.org did not exist as a legal entity and so could not own the copyright. Phil countered here by saying that "weberp.org did exist as a legal entity by vitue of the statement ol intent". However his recent statement on this issue says "To even suggest that a domain name could actually own anything is foolishness in any event". Who is the fool Phil? It appears that he has done a 180 degree turn on this and still ended up pointing the same way!!

In English law there is a concept (and most countries have a similar concept in their law) called the man on the Clapham omnibus. This basically asks what the ordinary reasonable person approaching an issue would think. I assert that any reasonable person on viewing webERP would believe that the copyright is owned by weberp.org, and on looking up that domain name would believe it was owned by Phil Daintree, and thus the copyright was owned by Phil Daintree.

Phil Daintree now asserts that when he is saying that weberp.org owns the copyright then "any idiot" would see that he meant that the copyright was owned by the contributors. Obviously I am not an idiot then!! If this is what Phil Daintree means then why the subterfuge? Why not just say that? All I have ever asked him to do is to clarify his motives for making that change at that point in time.

Phil Daintree likes to pretend that the only person who is upset by his claims to own the copyright of all the code. Not so. This has been an going issue with other developers since that start of the project.

So I say, "Come on Phil tell us the reason you made this change".

+Phil Daintree

that he creates a COPYRIGHT.txt file in webERP he clearly lays out that the copyright of the contributions belongs to the author of those contributions, which if he wants he can then link to from the footer of every page. +Phil Daintree refuses to even consider this. People can decide for themselves why he will not make a clear and unequivocal statement like this>

Who does he think he is punishing?

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.


+Phil Daintree  has announced that ...as punishment for exposing his lies in this blog he has withdrawn my svn access and he will no longer accept code from me and he says that as further punishment my forum account is terminated to try to force me to stop helping people on the forums...
So I can no longer spend my time helping users on the forums and users can no longer use my code.
Who is this punishing Phil?
There is already a bug reported here that I have fixed and sent to Phil but +Phil Daintree  is refusing to apply this fix, so users of webERP have to put up with this bug.
As has happened frequently throughout history, it's not the lies that have been Phil Daintree's undoing, but the the attempts at covering them up.

An open letter to Phil Daintree of webERP

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.

As with anything I publish, anybody (except the viagara  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If +Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

Phil Daintree was forced into issuing a public apology for his lies regarding me on the webERP developers list. I tried to post a reply to the mailing list but as always happens to my posts it was immediately rejected. I believe it makes some valid points so I publish it in full here:

Phil,
Thanks for the apology, which I accept in the spirit that it was sent.
I do think you are wrong on one matter though. You say "It is a sad reflection of the state of our relationship that I automatically assume the worst". I would rather say that "It is a sad reflection on
your perception of the state of our relationship that you
automatically assume the worst". You see every action of mine (and
anyone who has disagreed with something you have said) through a prism
of hatred that means you only want to assume that the action was in
some way aimed to get at you. It is not. There is no conspiracy to get
at you. No conspiracy to make your life hard. In all the cases where
you have read this into someone's actions there is a much simpler
explanation than that, as was the case here.
All I want is to be able to develop software in a community where
anything can be discussed without fear of threats or abuse if I say
something you don't agree with. I just want to develop software in a
community where the ownership rights of contributors are honoured. I
want to develop software in a community where all contributors are
treated with respect, not where they will be publicly belittled for
weeks when you don't like their contributions. A community where if
their contributions need improving, then they are politely helped to
improve so that they can get better.
You seem to have made it clear that this is not the sort of community
you want, and there is nothing I can do about that. You control all
the means of communication in the community and you have shown that
you are determined to use that control to eliminate any dissent. That
is why I also contribute to other projects, where the community is
more like the one I talked about above.
When I feel that the work is not going to be controversial I also
include it in webERP, and all other work is immediately available for
you to decide for yourself.
You have said before that your banning me means you no longer have to
defend your decisions. I think this is wrong. I think as the leader of
the community you have an obligation to defend your decisions if
members of the community ask for reasons.
In conclusion Phil, there are no plots or counter plots. There never
were. The state of our relationship is only within you, and you are
the only one who can break that cycle.

Thanks
Tim 

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 4

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.


As with anything I publish, anybody (except the viagara  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

Lie number 6 - Phil Daintree's outrageous libel against Kalmer Piiskop and myself

I didn't intend  to write another of these so quickly after the last one, but I am very annoyed on behalf of Kalmer and myself. At 12.56 pm BST on the 31/3/2013 Kalmer sent a bug fix into the webERP developers mailing list. As it was a serious problem I immediately applied the fix, and updated the webERP subversion repository.

At 22.06pm on the same day Phil Daintree then wrote a nasty and abusive email to the same list accusing Kalmer and I of trying to undermine the project by deliberately making Phil Daintree's life more difficult. He threatened me with the removal of my commit access. The basis of his accusations seemed to be that the commit produced a large diff (actually only 166 lines that takes a few seconds to scan if you view the code side by side as is possible with sourceforge). I sent the reply below to the mailing list but Phil Daintree has rejected it:

Phil,

This email is deeply offensive both to Kalmer and myself. You sent
this email accusing us of playing silly tricks and trying to make your
life difficult, whilst all that had happened was Kalmer sent a patch
to improve webERP and I committed it.

The email was sent at 22.06 BST on 31/3/13. Then at 22.17 BST on
31/3/13 you applied Kalmer's patch yourself and got precisely the same
diff back that I had got.

Both Kalmer and I are way too busy for the sort of silly games you
play. If you spent your time developing instead of trying to come up
with ever more bizarre ways to stop me helping people on the forums
webERP would be the gainer.

Where is your apology to us? Have you really sunk this low that you
should make allegations like this on a public mailing list?

Any forks I contribute to, (and for that matter the one you help
sponsor) are not in competition with us at webERP. They share code
freely. We are all after the same thing. There is no hiding code till
after the release has been done. We can (and do) take their code and
include it when we want. Please either start behaving respectfully to
the contributors to webERP or leave the project.

Thanks
Tim

As I have stated in previous blog posts I am perfectly happy to debate any issue with Phil Daintree, with no forgeries or censorship. It seems he is not so honourable as he makes these libels against webERP contributors, and then refuses that person the opportunity to respond. This is a truly despicable way to behave.

I have never, and will never do anything to harm the project. I have spent many thousands of hours working on webERP and many thousands of pounds promoting it. I find it cowardly and despicable for Phil Daintree to use his absolute control of all the project resources to spread his lies about me like this. It is about time he moved on.

Here is a screenshot of my editor showing Phil Daintree's windows line endings on his file.

 

Please note that Phil has now apologised for this lie. The full text of his apology is as follows:

Sorry Tim, I apologise unreservedly - I can see this is not a silly trick to make life deliberately more difficult for me. It is a sad reflection of the state of our relationship that I automatically assume the worst. I should check my facts in future.

 

Phil 

 

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 3

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.

As with anything I publish, anybody (except the viagara  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

Lie number 5 - Phil Daintree makes untrue statements about me on the mailing list, and refuses me the right to reply

This is more than one lie, but to save space (there are so many lies to get through) I will combine them all into one. Here are a selected few of his untrue statements:

1. Phil Daintree said here http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Copyright-td4655625i20.html#a4655722 that "I understand Tim is ranting to everyone he can off list now". This was totally untrue. The only emails I had sent to people off list were helping them with webERP queries that they had put on the list, and that Phil Daintree had rejected my replies to them on the list. I challenge Phil Daintree to find one person who had received a "rant" from me. Why does this upset me? Because Phil Daintree has sent this to a publicly archived mailing list. He refuses me the right to reply to that list to challenge this assertion. This gives credibility to his lie.
2. Phil Daintree said in a post to the mailing list here http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-Web-erp-svn-SF-net-SVN-web-erp-5765-trunk-tt4656055.html that I was "..hell bent on destroying the project..". This because I had removed the trailing white space that he had put onto the end of the lines. The interesting thing here is that Phil Daintree reversed my patch, and then immediately applied it as his own work, and then in some of his recent web pages about me has even included it to prove that he has written "most of the code in webERP". If that patch shows I am "hell bent on destroying the project" then obviously so is he!! Again I was not given the right of reply. Why does this upset me? Because Phil Daintree has sent this to a publicly archived mailing list. He refuses me the right to reply to that list to challenge this assertion. This gives credibility to his lie.
3. Phil Daintree says in a post here http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-Re-WebERP-developers-Tag-tt4656191.html#a4656194 that "... I get these silly emails almost daily!..". On that particular day I had just returned from nearly three weeks away trying out the new golf clubs! I hadn't even taken a laptop with me! I couldn't have been sending him any emails let alone silly ones. I do occasionally write to Phil Daintree when he has posted a lie about me, and if I send an email to anyone that mentions Phil Daintree I do copy him on it, so that he can be sure there is no rant, and so that he has the opportunity to reply! Can Phil Daintree say that he copies me on emails that refer to me? Has anyone received an email about me from him that mentions me that doesn't include me in the address? I know that many have as they have forwarded them to me. Why does this upset me? Because Phil Daintree has sent this to a publicly archived mailing list. He refuses me the right to reply to that list to challenge this assertion. This gives credibility to his lie.

On the subject of right to reply Phil Daintree can make any comments on this blog that he wants, and I publicly promise that I wont interfere with them in any way. I am more than happy to debate any issue with him, and to let others decide on the basis of the facts. Unlike him I see no need for forgery or censorship to push my point of view, I am happy for the facts to be debated and for others to decide.

As this post is basically three lies rolled into one, and its longer than I intended I will leave it there for this time.

Can open source be developed behind closed doors?

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.

As with anything I publish, anybody (except the viagara  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

WebERP has started to move to a "behind closed doors" development model, whereby most of the code changes don't get pushed out to svn until after a release has been done. For instance the changes made for 4.10 weren't committed to svn until after 4.10 was released and then as one large patch (http://sourceforge.net/p/web-erp/code/5797/). The same has since been done for the 4.10.1 release. So the question is, can this development methodology work in the long term?

Not committing code changes until after a release has been done, was a tactic that Oracle employed with mysql as an attempt to stop any forks (such as mariadb) from using their code until after they had released it (http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2012/08/16/where-to-get-a-bzr-tree-of-the-latest-mysql-releases/), and to make taking those commits harder. It seems the intention was to give Oracle a commercial advantage. Presumably this is also the intention behind Logic Works using this technique for their webERP commits. However eventually Oracle was forced to drop this tactic.

I feel that in the end one of the great advantages that open source development has is the concept of "peer review" where the code can be looked at and reviewed by everybody, thus finding and fixing  bugs before it is unleashed as a release for people to use in their businesses.

This was shown when the latest version of webERP was released with two scripts that wouldn't even run due to syntax errors in them, and the release had to be redone with the fixes in them, leading to the embarrassing result of there being two different file releases with the same name.

I think in the end Logic Works will like Oracle be forced to give up this behind closed doors development methodology.

Amendment 15/01/2014 - Phil has since said that he wasn't deliberately holding back committing his work, some of it was out for testing at customers and he didn't consider the rest of it sufficient to warrant a commit until after the release was made. Strange that when the work was committed it contained so many errors, but as I have said many times I want this blog to be a true and accurate record so I include Phil's comments so that all may judge.

Amendment 04/11/2014 - +Phil Daintree persists in denying this despite the evidence against him being so obvious. This is the initial commit Phil did on the 2/2/2013 for the release of 4.10.1 as is shown by the update to the Change.log file "+2/2/13 Version 4.10.1 Released". There then follows 5 commits of bug fixes. Here is a huge commit he did on the 22/2/2013 containing a lot of files that were initially in the 4.10.1 release but not updated to subversion. As can be seen Phil now updates the release date of 4.10.1 to the 22/2/2013, nearly 3 weeks after the first release. Phil has said "these files had been tested for some time on a customers server". However  here and here are examples of corrections I made immediately after this huge commit to scripts that wouldn't even run as they contain PHP syntax errors. Not only had they not been tested on a customers server they hadn't even been tested by Phil. Then here we have yet another release of 4.10.1 dated 25/2/2013 23 days after the first release of 4.10.1.
How Phil can persist with his lies in the face of such obvious evidence is a mystery only he can explain.

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 2

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.

As with anything I publish, anybody (except the viagara  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

We have a lot of lies to get through so it's time I did another of this series in order to get it completed this year.

Lie number 3 - Phil Daintree's claim to have written "most of the code" in webERP

Phil Daintree claims that other people including me, are exaggerating their contribution to webERP and in a recent email he claimed that "most" of the code had been written by him alone, which justified his claim to own the copyright to the whole code base. Let's examine the basis of this claim. Phil Daintree uses a command that assigns the authorship of a line of code on the basis of the last change to that line. After Phil Daintree discovered this command I noticed that he had started to go through the code adding spaces and tabs to the end of lines of code, where they wouldn't be noticed unless the editor being used was set up to show them. Using his command, this gave him authorship of the line, even though the actual code had been written by someone else.

A little while ago I used a script to remove what is called "trailing white space" and is normally considered a bad thing to have in code. When Phil Daintree realised that this would radically reduce his supposed contribution to the project he accused me of trying to sabotage the project (http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-Web-erp-svn-SF-net-SVN-web-erp-5765-trunk-td4656055.html#a4656056) due to some unspecified "outside interest". Strangely he reversed out my commit and the posted the identical commit himself, but claiming it as his own work. What was worse about his allegation was that he had by then banned me from posting to the mailing list, and so there was no way to refute this and despite numerous people asking him to, he has never apologised for it.

The other flaw in his argument is that it takes no account of the quality of the code. In other words adding a space onto the end of a line is given the same weight as code that actually does something. One of the most important contributions while I have been involved in the project was Mark Yeager's MRP contribution. But was it actually Mark's? Using Phil Daintree's command, Mark's contribution to the files starting MRP*.* is only 3.1% with the bulk belonging to Phil Daintree. So there you are Phil Daintree is claiming to have written most of the MRP system with the original and true author only being credited with 3.1%!! This claiming other people's work as his own is a familiar theme through all his lies. In the first post of this series I proved how he had taken my purchasing ordering report, copied it and committed it himself as his own work the following day!!

Lie number 4 - Phil Daintree's claim about the sourceforge logo

Phil Daintree claims that my only contribution to making webERP popular was to add the sourceforge logo into the footer of each page of webERP.

This is somewhat extraordinary as it was Phil Daintree himself who added the sourceforge logo to the footer in 2005, nearly two years before I joined the project. I actually took it out for a while!!

Anybody who looks at mailing lists for the period I was the administrator of the project (summer 2007 through to January 2011 when I ceased to be admin because Phil Daintree's ego was put out by the argument over retaining Purchase order history) will see that I spent countless hours helping people with their webERP issues. In fact both before I was admin, and afterwards, until Phil Daintree banned me from helping people on the mailing lists, I spent thousands of hours of my own time helping people. I spent thousands of pounds of my own money traveling, speaking at seminars and conferences helping to promote webERP. This I happily did, without seeking any recompense, or even gratitude from those like Phil Daintree who gained financially from the fact the project had a higher profile. I do however find it sad that Phil Daintree should lie like this in an attempt to denigrate the very hard work I did

Anyway, enough for now, watch out for part 3!

Phil Daintree's shameless lies - Part 1

An introduction

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.

As with anything I publish, anybody (except the Viagra  salesmen) can comment on my blog. I make a public commitment that I will not attempt to forge or censor any posts, as goes on in all the communication channels on webERP. If Phil Daintree wishes to dispute anything in this blog he is free to do so. If I am wrong I will alter my post. I trust in the common sense and intelligence of people to read the facts and to make up their own minds.

I thought I would do a series of posts on the libels that Phil Daintree has been putting around the web. I also believe he has been mailing them to anybody who he thinks will listen. There are too many to do in one post so I thought I would make a regular feature of it.

Phil Daintree has admitted to a number of people that he made the whole lot up as an attempt to discredit me, but it seems he is still desperately seeking to find someone to believe him.

Phil Daintree regularly states that I am a liar, but has never managed to find anything I have said that is untrue. A number of people have asked him for an example but he never replies. try it and see....

It's been a bit spooky being the subject of his hate campaign. Sometimes I have felt like I was playing Michael Douglas to his Sharon Stone. He has even been snooping around in the online lives my friends and colleagues, in his desperate attempts to find an example of where I have said something untrue.

The fact that he cannot find an example, despite the closeness of our working relationship over such a long time is a source of great pride to me.

I will state nothing here without backing it up with relevant links to the facts.

Lie number 1 - The reason and timing of his taking away my admin rights

Phil Daintree apparently claims that he withdrew my admin privileges because he didn't like my work on fixed assets (incidentally still in use at one of East Africa's major companies - they don't like his version it doesn't do what they require). This is just untrue.

The truth is Phil Daintree had his ego bruised when somebody agreed with me in a dispute over Purchase Order history being kept, in December 2010 as can be seen here: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Re-webERP-users-Bug-in-Planning-and-MRP-td3085185.html#a3085235.

I had been administering webERP right up until this date when Phil Daintree suddenly stated that he was withdrawing my admin access. This was the first time either publicly or privately he had mentioned my admin access. Only the day before I had been using my admin rights so the claim that he removed them in November is obviously one of his lies.

Lie number 2 - The purchase ordering system

Phil Daintree apparently then goes on to say that I didn't like his idea of keeping the purchasing conversion factor inside the order class. Phil Daintree has obviously forgotten that revision control systems have a long memory. As can be seen here I actually wrote the code and committed it here http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~tim-weberpafrica/web-erp/trunk/revision/4188 at 2011-01-09 12:27:33 UTC and then Phil Daintree copied my code and committed it here: https://sourceforge.net/p/web-erp/code/4463/#diff-5 on the following day.

So Phil Daintree "claims" I was against his idea and says: "Tim refused to accept my decision, rather than gracefully accepting it was a simple mistake and it was much more elegant to hold the units in the businesses unit of measure. A tirade of angry emails to the list ensued much more than a simple technical disagreement.". Now it turns out that he actually copied my work and claimed it as his own!! This theme of copying other peoples work and claiming it as his own carries on through much of the life of webERP.

The initial purchase ordering system that Phil Daintree initially claimed was "......really good - sorry it has taken me a while to recognise the large improvements you have effected in this area. I can't believe there has not been more excitement around this work. Although perhaps it is only crazy accountants that get excited about such things." (http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Major-upgrade-to-purchasing-td1487909.html#a1487912) wasn't even written by me but by Rob Virgin, so why Phil Daintree thinks I would have behaved like he claims is yet another mystery!!

As Fahad points out here https://sourceforge.net/p/kwamoja/blog/2013/02/lies-damn-lies-and-phil-daintree/ little if anything Phil Daintree says turns out to be true, which is why he needs to so extensively use censorship in the webERP project.

Anyway, that is enough until Part 2