Initially I supported the site and Peter's case, especially when it seemed big brother was clamping down on freedom of access. I wrote articles and letters in support.

Looking at the Peter Rukavina's role in creating the website he hacked, I can't support him at all. The Province was his client. Professional ethics would not allow a consultant or other professional to use any knowledge to expose the client to any public scrutiny or for his own gain or advancement. Even cool pranks are outside the realm of professional behaviour.

Will clients always have to look over their shoulders worrying that computer consultants have come back to create problems for them at the least or steal data at the worst?

Computer experts have technological knowledge superior to their clients. They should walk away from projects and never even hint they have looked at the clients data or sites.

It's like having the keys to the door and the safe and coming back just to look around.

The Province was well within their rights to shut Peter down. What he did was not supportable.

Unless Peter was required by law to reveal what he knew, he should take client secrets to his grave.

Stephen, Peter did not "hack". Saying so would equate what Google does to index websites as "hacking".

Peter is quite open about it and explains in detail how he gathered the information. He made a post today about this very topic.

Wiki - which I personally loathe does provide a quick def on hack

"It may refer to a clever or quick fix to a computer program problem, or to a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem. The term is also used to refer to a modification of a program or device to give the user access to features that were otherwise unavailable,"

Peter used code plus his knowledge of the data base to provide information the client did not want automated. It's the client's choice and Peter was the consultant, albeit ex.

Google does not use specific code, in my knowledge, to mine the Province's site as thoroughly as Peter did.

My objection is not to the bot (reminds me of Blade Runner) but to his role as the consultant who worked on the building the site. He was the locksmith who put in the vault. He has no right to come back other than through the front door of the bank on appointment with the manager or make his deposit with a teller.

A position of trust is just that.

Stephen, I respectively disagree with your interpretation and opinion. Peter's knowledge of the site's code would have given him no help in creating OpenCorporations.org. Anyone with basic programming/web building knowledge could have done the same thing with the same amount of effort. His relationship with the site and the site's owner has nothing to do with it.

To compare this to a locksmith and a lock is not an accurate representation at all.

Hey Dan, my last comment.

He should never have gone back to a client site without their permission. How's that for succinct. Professional code of ethics.

Peter should be humble, admit it was it bad taste at the best and move on. He gives the Province a target to feel sorry for themselves. Wait and see if Richard Brown doesn't point to this event showing how everyone is ganging up on him.

Let's say you drop Vesseys and a few years later go back and apply a good "insider" trick that most people couldn't do. Ethics be dammed, Vesseys could sue you and clients have. The courts rule over and over that in client - programmer conflicts, the superior knowledge of the programmer puts them in a position of trust or fiduciary trust in some cases. I didn't understand this one until something went wrong with a project and my lawyer explained the legal facts of life to me, circa 1980's.

Cheers

Stephen,
Your sensationalism and reversal of position on this issue greatly reduces your credibility and weakens any points you are trying to make.

Stephen, you use the example of Veseys and us going back with an “insider” trick that most people couldn’t do. What Peter did didn’t include any insider knowledge. Nor did he do anything that any capable and motivated web developer couldn’t do (no offence, Peter).

Stephen,

I am a programmer with the ability to create the same website Peter did — even with the presence of a CAPTCHA. I've never worked for the provincial government. If I recreate Peter's project, what will you think?

In my opinion as a developer, Peter has done nothing wrong. There is (still) nothing on the web site saying the information should not be used for the purpose Peter came up with. Furthermore, I think Peter's past experience with the province would be of little benefit when developing such a site.

Stephen,

The data which was indexed by Peter's service is information available completely to the public. There is no special insider trick associated with OpenCorporations.org. The site simply displayed the very same data available on the government's website, in a form which is easier for the public to read.

"He was the locksmith who put in the vault."

What vault? I see no vault, because there is none. Any and all information used by OpenCorporations.org was already available publically in another form, on a page owned and operated for the populace by the island government.

"Let's say you drop Vesseys and a few years later go back and apply a good "insider" trick that most people couldn't do."

There is no relevance to this statement. There was no insider trick. Your argument is clouded with inconsistent and uninformed opinions that have no basis in reality.

"Peter used code plus his knowledge of the data base to provide information the client did not want automated. It's the client's choice and Peter was the consultant, albeit ex."

The definition of "hack" provided by you does not apply to this follow-up argument. No modification of the government's website was performed in order to glean this information. No access to the site's internals was given, nor taken. OpenCorporations.org simply parsed data which already existed freely. That corporate data is public data.

It is clear to me that your understanding of this issue is limited to biased and, at best, half-informed opinions. Most web developers could produce the very same service in a very small amount of time; parsing websites is trivial. It doesn't take an expert hacker with top-secret insider information to scrape a website.

Wow lots of feedback.

If anyone else but a former employee, contractor etc. (person in trusted position) had created the site, I'd have run for coffee, hamburgers and fries, batteries or whatever. I love the idea - you just have to be careful with your ethical boundaries.

Ethics is not only fact it's the perception of what a person can do. Pick up the phone and call your top 5 clients or your wife/girlfriend and ask them how they feel: If we break up and 5 years later I publish your love letters, run a cool script on your website that shows more information than you want to show - hey! wouldn't that be cool.

Of course you wouldn't make the call because the client would find another more ethical programmer and your wife/girlfriend will start listing on Lavalife.

In the provision of professional services, there are these things called ethics and fiduciary trust. Personally, I know some cool stories that could become a book about former clients but nobody will ever know. Someone of them were worth millions to blab about but no one ever found out. That's the price you pay for professional trust.

Want to be a reporter? It's a different job altogether. Nora Ephron's husband should have known his sex life would have ended up in a few books and movies - she was a writer.That's what they do.

"Hack" and "expert hacker" are not the same thing. I said hack and it was an elegant hack. Maybe not an expert hack but I didn't say that.

As to bias, we all have bias. My english prof said an open mind is an empty head. If you don't have some bias, where did it go? I am biased towards openess, freedom (60's thing - where do you think Will got it from?), peace, love and enough money in the bank to stay out of trouble. I'm biased towards helping people in trouble no matter what the reason. I'm really biased towards helping the disabled cause they need it and I have a life long affinity. Yeah I'm biased: I'm biased towards Ruk because we belong to the same fraternity and he has survived for a long time. But he crossed the line in my opinion.

You guys are hotshots. I've been in computers for 35 years and I can't do what Ruk did. I checked around town with several good programmers and they said it was a pretty neat trick but they couldn't do it. So you can and there are many others like you. Do clients want to trust you or worry you're a loose gang of people without ethics. That would be bad for business.

As to what is available, the Province made the information available in the format they wanted. Not a quick lookup by name format - that's new information based on the same data set. If they wanted- which they didn't - to make it available they'd be happy when Ruk put his site up. They weren't. Client choice.

There is nothing to stop anyone, that I know of, from extracting the data from the government site and posting it on a spreadsheet or database. It's sort of impolite to put home addresses since you probably wouldn't want someone scouring the web for our personal information and then posting it for the lazy to find.

If I hadn't openly written about the site, I would keep my opinions to myself but if I make a mistake in print, it needs to be corrected in the places I made it.

It's been a pleasure to make so many new friends over a question of ethics.

In the end all
you have are
your name
and a few good friends:
the money,
the rest,
and the bs
is all gone
it was never there
anyway

Stephen

I see the point you're trying to make Stephen, I just don't think it fully applies here.
Anyone with the time and motivation -- and maybe a loose screw or two -- could simply do a blind query by registration date (20467 results), manually record all the data of each corporation and its shareholders, and cross reference that data with a pencil and paper.
Peter just created a simple tool to read the site for him, plunk the data in a database, and -- through the wonder of hyperlinks -- view it in a novel format. I think Peter's previous work with the government is irrelevant.

Well that's cool. It's a difference of opinion. I think you'll find mine supported by professional bodies, ethics studies and legal precedent. But whatever, the topic has run its course.

Thanks for sharing and allowing me to comment.

Stephen

Has the topic "run its course" just because you say it does? Or because you are the only single person who agrees with yourself on this issue, Stephen.

Funny, you were pretty quick to put a link to opencorporations.org on all of your various blogs, as well as continuing to violate all kinds of copyrights when you show CBC videos on you-ube and re-print entire Guardian and Eastern Graphic articles (which are also protected by copyright).

Why don't you at least complain that the captcha puts an unnecessary barrier in place to people with visual disabilities?

"He should never have gone back to a client site without their permission."

Does that mean that Peter Rukivina should never be allowed to look at any PEI government website?
Because that's all he did here.

Duh.

Ok, let the games begin. Seriously, I never claim to be perfect and appreciate all your comments. I work on this stuff day and night trying to advance the cause of Islanders with disabilities and I can make mistakes. Ever see those post times like 2:30 am - man do those stories look different at noon the next day!

I posted OpenCorporations.org because I believe in freedom of information. The internet has advanced our ability to share information and expose injustice. It unmasks governments and I use it for that purpose everyday. Back in the 60's we fought for freedom of speech and human rights. The current generation is so fortunate that you've pushed the ball along have have achieved much of what we dreamed of.

I just don't believe we should get information without ethics. Why doesn't someone who didn't build the website do another one?

None of the copyright holders have complained to me. If they did, we would graciously comply with their request. We are copyright holders too and respect the rights of others.

The Globe and Mail didn't complain but I reviewed their site comments on reprint yesterday and voluntarily pulled the full article down. I could have offered some sort of critical commentary on their story and that would have been legal but the contents were more or less the same as other articles. The value, in my mind of the Globe, was the national attention and negative feedback from readers, which I did cover in a separate story.

Some of what I use is under "Fair Use" and some is just the ebb and flow of freely shared data we have come to expect on the web. In Canada a similar but different concept is "Fair Dealing". We try very hard not to take material that we are not allowed to use. Since we are a not-for-profit social advocacy organization, we are not in the same category as say Google News who were warned that they could either discontinue ads on Google News or stop printing headlines and summaries from newspapers. Seems fair - if you make money from some else's work, you should pay for it.

Fan videos are an interesting topic. I have lots of them but never post without the artists permission. What you see on my YouTube has been approved by the artist, even to the point that Daniel Lanois' stage crew helped me in Halifax.

There was a big controversy in early 2007 when we used Mars Hill's Where Did the Money Go. We had written permission from the band, after they discussed it in detail among themselves, considering the video was political. Old Lloyd Doyle of Sandbar Music went ballistic because he lives on the government dole and didn't want to upset Pat Binns. Turns out we had enough permission to use it. He's still got high blood pressure over that and us. Too bad for Lloyd. That stuff will kill you man.

What is allowed and not allowed is the subject of court battles all the way to the Supreme Court in all countries. We work to stay within the allowed rules and listen to all who advise on this fluid topic.

Unfortuneately, the internet is becoming more commercial as content providers try to monetize their sites. It works and it doesn't work since we have all become accustomed to free information.

Visual disabilities,...hmmm...do they have a sound button. Most sites have that. I could complain but then so could you and maybe we all should. Many voices are stronger than one.

Cheers again.

"None of the copyright holders have complained to me."

They don't have to complain to you.

You well know what copyright means, don't you? It means you cannot reproduce or republish without "express permission".

Do you get permission?
I've heard otherwise.

"Visual disabilities,...hmmm...do they have a sound button. Most sites have that. I could complain but then so could you and maybe we all should. Many voices are stronger than one."

I don't know if they have a sound button.
Do you? You are a disability advocate.
I could complain, but I'm not a disability advocate. Nor am I visually impaired. Nor do I claim to speak for the visually impaired and disabled.

If you want to be argumentative I will stop talking here. I can go to PEI Talks if I want abuse :)

On copyright, complain or comment is what they do before they call their lawyers. Let's say we use a clip for parody or critical comment. If the copyright holder objects, and they are the only ones I know by law who can object, you reply or remove.

In the US there are 4 rules used to determine roughly what is fair use. We try to stay within them as much as possible. If you check the progression of our clips, they are more and more original material. We will be using original theme music for instance in the new year. It's an evolution. Some clips we have purchased through a service for that when the use is not within the law.

If you have specific examples of infringement, please have the copyright holder contact us. We cannot discuss that with anyone else because that is an argument. Let's say you and I discuss Mars Hill. What's the use? You opinion is not a determinant on the issue.

I don't know if they do the government site does because I didn't check. Frankly, I'm about 2 weeks behind on emergencies, and 3 months on hot issues.

I respond to pressing issues. Since no one other than you is commenting on the blind and you didn't claim that status, I'm not going to check.

I don't get enough sleep and should remind you that I have a disability to which fatigue is the # 2 symptom. I work pretty well 7 x 24 on this when I'm not resting.

Instead of baiting me why don't you volunteer to check it out and follow up with the web developer. We'd all love to know how you get along.

Don't worry, those people at the Province will listen to you. They're pretty friendly people and Peter and I agree on that.

Please don't be argumentative: it doesn't advance the discussion.

<a href=http://www.cbc.ca/permissions/faq-general.html>

It's pretty specific, not argumentative at all:

From CBC's website:

Do I need permission to use CBC.ca content?
Yes. Any content (text, photos, interactives, graphs, audio and video) found on CBC.ca can only be reused elsewhere with the permission of CBC. Please read further for detailed information.

The CBC have not complained to me but actually comment on what we do from time to time. All media share clips and stories with each other. I give them stories - they give stories. Look at the Daily Show, Leno, etc. Everybody is doing it except for people like the WSJ and the Globe.

Aren't you really meddling in a relationship between other people to which you have no direct interest other than to challenge me. We are so far off Ruk's ethical actions I can't remember the thread.

Get over it.

Oops I forgot, you want to win. OK you win,

I'm a schnook, a noodler, a twidler, a silly heart, or as one CBC reporter put "that guy with a cardboard sign". On PEI Talks they say "he plays guitar on the corner for quarters". Yes you've won: I'm all those terrible things and more.

I'm going for a beer. Can I go now?

1. The complete source code to the 'spider' that OpenCorporations used to crawl for is data has been available since the day the site was released to the public - linked to from the Is the source code available? FAQ. It's 275 lines of very basic PHP code; while I don't hold it up as state-of-the-art codecraft, it works, and if you examine it you will clearly see that it relies simply on basic web page scraping techniques, not insider voodoo.

2. I'm not as emphatic as Dan is in his original post about the clear-cutness of the overarching issue: I think Government has a right and responsibility to control access to information, and while I think their move was an unfortunate step for the general information environment, I don't believe they acted without thought.

Separate from the utility of the OpenCorporations tool, my motivation for the project was, in part, to shed light on access and privacy issues like this; I think we all have a responsibility to become more involved in shaping policy about this area.

What OpenCorporations did - in essence to more closely connect a corporations database and a shareholder database - is, I think, relatively benign when compared to other things that either third parties or governments can do when data gets combined in novel ways, and not all of these possibilities are welcome or empowering for citizens.

That gives your project an overarching social rationale which may be valid or not.

Thanks for sharing. I don't know why I'm compelled to reply on Dan's blog - gotta get that beer.

I don't believe what Peter did is unethical. It would be unethical to publish your ex-girlfriend's private letters but what Peter is using is public information. His past relationship with the provincial government doesn't matter because:

a.) he was not using intimate knowledge of internal workings of the website to create opencorporations.org

b.) the information is already public, and should remain public.

Peter was just making public information more accessible, something the government should be thankful for, not spiteful.

I am enjoying that the conversation is happening here on my blog. Please feel free to keep it up.

Peter: You said "I'm not as emphatic as Dan is in his original post about the clear-cutness of the overarching issue". I'm not sure the Dan of December 12, 2008 is an emphatic as the Dan on December 11, 2008. I've been rethinking my position over the last 24 hours and may make a follow-up post.

I don't feel it's fair to call Peter R. "unethical" and imply that he is breaching "confidentiality" when he is clearly not, clearly has not, has said several times that he has and does not.

So this tempest in a teapot, regarding the alleged "ethical breach" to me, is simply gratifying the ego of a person who loves to point fingers at others.

So he has an opinion. Not one person agrees with him. Yet he persists in making allegations of malfeasance on the part of Peter R. to anyone who will listen. He's even defamed him to the Globe and Mail.

Yet when people challenge him, its all: "Be nice! I'm disabled and tired!"

Have you ever thought about comment on one of Stephen Pate's blogs? He won't let your comment in, unless, in his opinion, it's "nice".

Free speech, me arse.

Oh, btw, can I go for a beer now?
I'm tired of hypocrisy.

Direct question to Stephen Pate:

When you reprint entire articles from The Guardian, do you first obtain their permission as required under the copyright notice that is clearly published on the bottom of the editorial page, each and every day?

Yes or no, please.

If you don't, well goshdarn it, that's just unethical!

I don't need to: they like the publicity it gives them to be on a cool medium.

I know all those good folks at the Guardian. I'm gonna put it a word for you Jon to get hired as their meddling copyright cop.

That is a bigoted statement to make about my disability. I don't trade on it one iota. I work my ass off for other people for no money, not much thanks. You seem like the kind of person one might run into on PEI Talks. Someday you should try being disable for 24 hours, pick anyone. They are lots of fun. I've really enjoyed the fatigue pain and patronizing. It's made me the weird guy I am.

If we meet in the bar, don't come out swinging - you attitude is showing - shake hands and we'll share a brew.

Obviously we don't all share the same standards of ethics. I challenge anyone on this site to discuss this issue with clients and try to delineate when you would do more than click on the screens - that is not run one script -against their site when your contract ends.

It's all about business and trust with clients. If they start to mistrust you it's over. I spent almost 30 years in delivering professional services and trust is all we've got. If you believe it's a game where you can do as you personally please, keep that to yourself in front of clients. They won't appreciate it.

We were at one site in the US where the previous systems manager was arrested for coming near the unix site. He had been going in after hours. It was weird to work there because they were so nervous of programmers after that.

The best advice is play with your own computers and program for contract fees.

Thanks for the comment Dan, I feel like an interloper. You all know Will but I don't really know you from Adam. And now for that promised beer which might be too to slake the thirst I've built up in this afternoon.

Curiousity compels me to ask Peter and Dan a couple of questions. You say your positions are not clear-cut on this issue. I guess i'm wondering, why not?

I don't think there is any other searchable PEI government website that is protected by captcha. For example, I can search the Supreme Court of PEI database by name, if I wish, and lord knows, come up with some embarrassing information about my neighbours, if they have ever been involved in a court case. I can do the same with all federal court data bases.

If I pay a registration fee, I can search Geolinc and find out all kinds of personal information about how much money you owe, and who you owe it to. There is no captcha on that database.

This is public information, by the way.

The goal of "public information" in my opinion, is that it be "public".

To have faceless, nameless, bureaucrats suddenly deciding to change the rules on one little thing just seems weird.

They didn't even try to argue "privacy". At least not in any of the explanations I heard, or read. They just said: "because we said so".

Did they say so because someone told them to say so? Or because they had a valid reason under the Protection of Privacy Act to say so?

Yes, they are the gatekeepers of the information. But it IS our information. And it shouldn't be kept from us without a good reason.

"I don't need to"

That says it all. You are above copyright law.

It's great that Peter has so many friends who defend him from a seeming attack on his character. What's gotten lost in the shuffle is that I supported Peter initially and don't think he is "unethical" as one writer suggests.

Let's return to my first comment.

"Professional ethics would not allow a consultant or other professional to use any knowledge to expose the client to any public scrutiny or for his own gain or advancement."

That statement outlines why I don't support the hack (crude coding solution) on the PEI government site. It does not say I consider him unethical. A single act does not brand a person with the Scarlett Letter.

Each and everyone of us does something wrong every day of our lives. We might speed, copy something we don't own, insult a friend with an unkind word. The average person tells 25 lies every hour according to some research. None of those things brand us as dangerous drivers, thieves, an ignoramous or a bold face liar. Those last statements are extrapolations from minor events.

I still believe hacking an ex client site is wrong. I wouldn't do it. Perhaps it's my training as an accountant where client confidentiality is the law. Perhaps its having my knuckles wrapped by clients who caught one of my employees discussing their financial affairs in a local bar. Perhaps it's being sued for a slip. Somewhere along the way, that's my sense of ethics. It's also the sense of ethics of other programmers in the biz who I consulted before I wrote Peter the first time. Check twice - write once,

That anyone doesn't agree with me is not a real concern of mine. Each person gets to develop their own ethics unless the belong to a society or professional body that has codified them. Ethics standards are fluid.

On PEI we are in a pandemic of unethical behaviour. Politicians are on the take (PNP anyone) at the highest level. For the love of God, they are not allowed by law to do business with the Province once elected so doing business with PEI Development - that's OK.

We have hypocrisy all around us. The legal system is peppered with people who toke but will arrest, try and convict young and poor people for possession or making some change on selling.

Someone on this site was trying to rag my ass over copyright which has nothing to do with the thread. Mr. Nameless probably has 5,000 downloaded mp3's and movies like everyone elze. Duh what is that? My rationale is they are bootleg concerts the artist doesn't release. Well, that's a person ethical judgement that may or may not be legal. My sons and I argued over this for years. I'm a sort of buy everything person, hate to rent even.

My point on hacking client sites is much more pragmatic. Your clients won't like it. What your clients don't like will cost you money. Call me crass but I worry about that more than other things some days. Clients gave me my living, my lifestyle, allowed me to retire when I became too disabled to stay awake after lunch :). I like those people. I nurture them and keep the trust they put in me above all, except my family.

Everyone else can do what they like. Just be honest with yourself and your clients. You both deserve it.

And thank you Dan and all for encouraging me to write these pieces. It helped me organize my thoughts and will no doubt spawn tons of pontificating blogs.

PS - I applaud all efforts to change the system, even to the point of civil disobedience, because it sucks big time. We have become corrupted by consumerism, complacency, greed and the corptocracy that preaches globalization.

Here's a thought for 2009 - lets' takeback the Island.

Good morning, early to bed early to rise...time for a good old blog

Stirring up the ethical honet's nest

Comments on that site please

I'd rather comment here, if you don't mind.
I consider this blog credible and ethical.
Sorry.

Stephen Pate is just trolling and you're all biting. Clearly he's a person with too much time on his hands who A) doesn't understand the basics of programming and B) clearly doesn't understand what copyright means and C) seems to think his blog may be some sort of credible news source with whom the Guardian and other media outlets want to be associated.

In fairness, I do enjoy the raving lunacy of his posts and see it as comedic value... kind of like a "poor mans's The Onion". Well, make that "a destitute man's The Onion".

Well said, Mark.
Ignore him.
He's not worth responding to.
Besides, I'm sure he has disabled people to help, or something.

Why all the discussion. All peter did was provide the public with easier access to information that is already public.

The fact that the Ghiz Government is sensative right now about the public having access is not Peter's Fault.

This whole scandal goes to show just how corrupt and arrogant this Government has become in less than two years.

On one hand Ghiz doesn't want Islanders to have easy access to see who owns corporations.

But....on the other Hand he is fighting to keep pepople's personal Mortgage information open eand easily accessible for the public.

Does anyone see the probelms here?

This isn't about Peter or the site it is about the Ghiz Government arrogance and complete lack of respect for the public.

Stephen,

"I still believe hacking an ex client site is wrong."

Your use of the word "hack" in this context shows either technical misunderstanding, or intentional misrepresentation of what Peter did. Anyone reading this sentence will assume you meant Peter did something bad, or unethical.

This attitude is, I think, what most people are taking issue with here.

Of course "hacking" an ex-client's website is unethical. I don't think anyone can really argue against that. The point most people are trying to make here is that Peter didn't "hack" anything. Your whole argument is based on a faulty premise.

Stephen,

Despite the number of posts and articles that you have presented us, your argument remains vague and uninformed. Your use of the word "hack" and apparent confused manner at which you approach the technology powering OpenCorporations.org is proof in itself that you do not possess the knowledge and expertise necessary to win this argument. Your own stance on copyright infringement provides a contradiction to your idea of ethics which further undercuts the judgment you have handed Peter. At this juncture, I think it would be best that you gracefully bow out of this discussion and take up another torch that in no way relates to technology.

It's only "uninformed" because you're young and don't want to play by any rules but the ones you make up. It's so tirelessly boring to repeat logic over and over. Now Johnny the fire will burn your hand. Now Johnny...ok burn yourself ya little twit.

Someone posted on my blog saying most of your are all syncophants for Peter since you work with or rent from him. That would be some excuse for your dense truculance.

I can always tell when they've lowered the age bar on a discussion when people take personal shots at me. "destitute" that's cool. I love it - gonna store that in my small box of ephithets from the mindless. It's a badge of honour to be dissed by you, exluding the lucid voices I've heard.

You're real problem is you don't know how to argue with logic so you resort to personal attacks, perhaps you have an account on PEI Talks with some of the other PEI intellectuals. Do you ever watch them? They pounce on each other over the slightest thing and then out come the catcalls. It's like the village idiots from some movie about the dark ages. I'm truly beloved over there. Another badge of honor.

All of your questions and arguments are dealt with. Now go tell customers what you intend to do...gowan.. I double dare you. No no, just a lot of silly talk.

And yes, I do like playing with the dumber one's on this chat, sort of like a cat with a half-dead mouse. You bat it from paw to paw and every once in awhile the mouse thinks its getting away...snap.

Check with Will Pate some day...he'll enlighten you I'm sure. Now act your age if at least not your IQ.

The conversation with Dan seemed intelligent and jived with Will who holds Dan in high regard. I should ask him what the rest of you are like...oh who gives a flying fig.

Well - since all hell seems to have broken loose I better weigh in.

For those of your who have committed Ad Hominem. Shame on you. Anyone can call each other names. Stephen, while they started it you're not immune from that shaming. Responding with it instead of ignoring it is just as bad.

Now for some factual corrections:

"Someone posted on my blog saying most of your are all syncophants for Peter since you work with or rent from him. That would be some excuse for your dense truculance." - There is exactly 0% of factual truth in this statement. Peter rents two office spaces from 84 Fitzroy Street, Inc, which is wholly owned by silverorange, inc. The only person who works with Peter is his brother who has not posted on here.

"I should ask him what the rest of you are like"

Many of those who posted above do in fact work for silverorange, inc. They are my co-workers. In my opinion, which matters because it's my blog, all of their comments were above board and stuck to the logic of the argument. We have a very strict process to become part of silverorange. If they are a part of silverorange I absolutely vouch for them.

Stephen, as you've alluded to, this conversation went off the rails long ago. While mud-slinging can be fun from time-to-time I politely request all involved to cool it. If you would like to make a reply based on logic, reason, and that is on topic please feel free to do so.

I think it's fair to say that there is a disagreement. Stephen, you feel that what Peter did was unethical. You've presented your case. Most of the commenters here, myself included, disagree with your premises and therefore disagree with your conclusion. That's ok. The world would not be very interesting if we all agreed on every issue.

absolut...raising the bar or barb as it were...

it a fair amount of mudslinging to get this old mudslinger in the game...besides that's my schtick now...cheers ladies and gentlemen...and peace

by the way did anyone look up the cips policy I posted. It would give some pause for thought.

I'll take no shame in giving your co-workers a nasty little drubbing - up from my nap and raring to go. While on your friendly little site I was subject to some disability abuse, name calling, hectoring and assorted other insults just for saying the hack was outside my bounds of ethical standards.

Whoever those people are they lack manners but I guess we'll put it off to their youthful exuberance. Being open minded means not feeling personally challenged when people don't agree with you. I take tons of negative and sometimes abusive comments because I stick up for human rights, people with disabilities, the poor and otherwise disadvantaged.

Your team out to do some sensitivity training on those issues and the disability one at least. We all want freedom and freedom of speech. However, people have rights and it's no less serious to abuse people with disabilities than it is to be a gay basher or a male sexist pig.

I play music regularly which puts me in close contact with many people in the 18-35 year old group. Other than PEI Talks which is one of the most ignorant sites I've seen in 30 years of computing, the commentary here is the worst. I'm not exaggerating. The only reason I hung in was because Will respects you Dan. If that's your team: they need some training as I said.
Frankly, the comments took me by surprise which is why I responded. Intelligent discourse gentlemen and the boys will just have to grow up.

Stephen Pate

Stephen,
Sorry for being unclear in my last post: Not everyone who commented above works for silverorange or is in anyway affiliated with us. At a quick glance only three or four from silverorange posted. None of their comments included remarks about disabilities or personal attacks.

As for those who did cross the line, well my line at least, I can't do anything about them. It's a free and open Internet and I try to not moderate my comments.

eol

Alan made a great post about this.

I don't know how great it is as I only had 30 minutes to put the damn thing together but I think it is important - especially when one is falling back on that old chestnut of the losing debater called "my manners are better than yours" - to actually found one's argument on something that has some actual conceptual substance.

Just wanted to check on the CEO blues.