Subject | Re: OT: A question for Sandman |
From | Sandman |
Date | 08/03/2009 10:18 (08/03/2009 10:18) |
Message-ID | <mr-37CFC0.10185803082009@News.Individual.NET> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Snit (16m) > Sandman Chance Furlong (1h & 38m) > Sandman |
SnitHuh? I am clearly stating that you dug up a non-validating cached version that may or may not have validated when "it did at the time". When you claimed it did not validate, it did in fact validate. This is a known fact and an old lie on your part. I have no idea why this lie of yours bothers you so much and you keep dragging it up again and again.
<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?