Google| Subject | Re: Snit digest 341 / 2017-02-08 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/08/2017 08:11 (02/08/2017 08:11) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-845db9db68a23c7bebf404b788ff8b09@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (5m) |
In article <D4C008AE.8F073%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
SnitWhat Snit is snipping and running away from since he can't be honest and honourable:
Sandman is STILL tracking his own lies and trolling.
Here's some more facts that you can snip away in your followup and run away from with your tail between your legs:
Your PDF of old links, none of which are for the date your claim was made, is of HTML that the waybackmachine adds to the page. Here is the validation result of one of those links of the actual sandman.net CSS file:
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060519191417cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.s andman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=all&war ning=1&vextwarning=&lang=en>
And, lo and behold - it validates perfectly, thus 100% exposing your lie. As you say - "the proof is completely solid". So not even with your contrived validation of CSS in someone else's HTML and trying to pin that on me, when excluding everything but my own CSS, it validates just like I said it did.
Now snip these actual facts away and run away screaming like a little girl.
-- Sandman
02/06/2017-
