I don't believe there was a conspiracy, or that anyone was intentionally hurting someone. Scrolly assumed bad faith in their initial post. "In other words, ou

I don't believe there was a conspiracy, or that anyone was intentionally hurting someone. Scrolly assumed bad faith in their initial post. "In other words, our code had been stolen, by you." Then they got ahold of the person who caused this mess, and he said he would resolve the situation. "We contacted the author of the piece, Hidde Boersma, who told us he sold his piece to you. This is fine. Our source code however was not included in the sale, nor could it have been. Hidde promised to resolve the situation." Then they contacted AJ, who didn't respond back quickly. They had no relationship with Scrolly, and it's not unreasonable that this didn't get taken care of. Hidde was their man. "In order to clarify any potential confusion on your side, here is what we were confronted with." Dramatic language. "In the long run, it’s likely to have been a lot more expensive to have a developer copy our code, copy the assets and put these on a server. The links not only had to have been updated by hand, inside the document, but someone would have had to un-optimize our JavaScript code, and do all the other work that allows the production to be somewhat available. They didn't even do a good job. They did not rip many images, leading to a bad experience for your readers:" Just being dickish, to the party that wasn't aware of Hidde's issue. "To add insult to injury, you didn’t do a great job at ripping the code either." More dickishness. "Al-Jazeera, we know you understand all about journalistic integrity. You have a whole section of your website dedicated to it. The first point states:" This is college newspaper level lame writing. You'd almost expect it to have read, Webster's dictionary defines "ethics" as.... I'll stop now, but I don't see two parties coming out of this looking professional and reasonable, just one.