Google| Subject | Re: Proof Sandman keeps running from. |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 07/31/2009 09:17 (07/31/2009 00:17) |
| Message-ID | <C697E898.3EF52%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
Sandman stated in post mr-035F06.09114631072009@News.Individual.NET on 7/31/09 12:11 AM:
SandmanOn Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is all *still* available from the original sources). <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6> -----
If it's not a big deal, why are you dragging your lies up again and again and again, year after year?
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your site *ever* validating.I have no intention of explaining your lies. ----- You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those sources! And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you thought your CSS validated or not. I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2> ----- On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a professional? [HTML Validation Link] Close to 100 errors on *one* page! That is pretty damned pathetic. [CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors. For someone who was belittling others about their web skills you really should look at your own first. ----- You even *admitted* to it then (29 May 2006): <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a> ----- Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't validate very good. That's because the system that does the code consists of over 1 million rows of code, so there are good and bad parts of it. ----- And the WayBackMachine proves that less than 2 weeks before, on 19 May 2006 it did not validate: <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/web /20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermedium=a
OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>On 2 June 2006 you softened your view and made it sound like it likely validated but *maybe* did not: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e> ----- Plus, it's your claim that it didn't validate, and we know you're a proven liar, so chances are you've dug up some old, unrelated, cached version that may have not validated for other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying that because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge that it could be due to the way the stylesheets are constructed. ----- By 5 June 2006 you outright denied if failed CSS validation: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa2a0d2f18ee5de3> ----- So why didn't I do the same with the HTML and claim that it validates? Having non-validated CSS is far less problematic than non-validating HTML (even though, I agree, that the ways my HTML wasn't validating were non-important). What pride are you imagining I'm having in CSS but not in HTML? :-D ----- And by 9 June 2006 you were in complete denial mode: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c883faeb1c29c6a9> -----
Advice I gave you: * get your CSS to validateIncorrect, since it was already validating. ----- At first you admitted it did not validate, then you decided it might not have, then you did a complete flip flop from your original admission and claimed the CSS was already validating... and even claimed I dug up some old version that did not (as though that would be hard). But now we know *every* *single* cached version fails validation... both CSS and HTML. Every single one, Sandman. Once I pointed out your lack of validation, though, you started getting it to validate, as even Tim Adams noted. How do you explain your flip flopping *and* the fact that before I told you how to validate your code there is not a single example of it validating. Not one, Sandman. CSS or HTML. LOL!
-- [INSERT .SIG HERE]
07/30/2009-
