Sandman
In article <C69BE5AB.3F86B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e> -----

How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in mind the Google cache proved it did not validate .

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. -----

At that time you openly acknowledged the possibility that your CSS did not validate. Why have you changed your story?

Sandman
Huh? 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.

You lied, get over it. I have no idea who you're trying to convince here. No one in csma has ever came to your aid, no one has replied to these anatgonizing threads of yours and sais "Yeah, I see now - Sandman must be lying, what you say Snit makes perfect sense".

Actually, no one ever says that about any of your posts. The only supporters you would ever find in csma are from the trolls and they're just cheering you because you're the biggest troll and they envy you.