Google| Subject | OT: A question for Sandman |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 08/03/2009 09:54 (08/03/2009 00:54) |
| Message-ID | <C69BE5AB.3F86B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Followups | Sandman (24m) > Snit Chance Furlong (2h & 2m) > Snit |
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e> -----
Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that. 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. -----How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in mind the Google cache proved it did not validate .
At that time you openly acknowledged the possibility that your CSS did not validate. Why have you changed your story?
And, no, that is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, why have you changed your story on this?
Keep in mind: I have made it clear that having non-valid CSS is not that big of a deal (I noted it initially because you were belittling others skills and I pointed out some flaws with your site). I have even said I do not really care if your pride or whatever leads you to dishonestly insisting it validated... what I *do* have a problem with is your lashing out for *years* against me merely for noting what you made clear you initially saw as at least something that "could be"! Heck, look above at your absurd lashing out against me... wow... such anger. All because I noted some problems with your site - many of which you fixed shortly after.
Just amazing.
-- [INSERT .SIG HERE]
08/03/2009-
