Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Steve Carroll |
Date | 02/08/2017 20:06 (02/08/2017 11:06) |
Message-ID | <378302b7-5fd7-46be-a644-e97d427d82e5@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Sandman (22m) > Steve Carroll |
SnitA guy that has a funky (even for its time) dated website, where the portfolio page has a zillion globals (and he has no idea why or how to fix it, despite being told how) is complaining about something to do with CSS when his beloved DW created far more problematic issues at the time his 'complaints' were lodged. That the same guy is *still* pushing that bloated tank of an editor (and now - in 2017! - trying to capitalize off of unsuspecting 'students' while doing so) is beyond ludicrous.
On 2/8/17, 11:47 AM, in article sandman-2f1c70b1e785f99110c01eda066c5c14@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanSnit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <D4C09A90.8F165%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SnitSandman
I noted was every one of your home pages had CSS that was not valid.
Lie #1 - you lied about my CSS not validating almost *ELEVEN YEARS AGO* and here you are dragging it up again and again, making sure you match the OTC at every turn.
Also, I only have one homepage.SnitSandman
You moved goal posts to say that every single CSS file itself had errors.
Lie #2, I correctly pointed out that your "support" is invalid, given the fact that the CSS validates perfectly, like it did when you made the lie in the first place.SnitSandman
This PDF gives direct links to the validation of every page:
..of the HTML presented by the WayBackMachine, not the HTML as it was on my homepage
*ELEVEN YEARS AGO*.
Here is a link to the *CSS* validating for my page on one of the dates you have used as "support" (which of course is *NOT* the date your claim is relevant to);
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060519191417cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww. sandman.n et%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=all&warning=1& vextwarni ng=&lang=en>
That's for the date 2006-05-19, your claim was made on 2006-05-31Snit
You looked at the date shown on page 1. I show the errors you had, but if you do not trust my PDF, click the very top (black) link.<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/we b/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermediumal l>And, of course, it shows errors in these CSS files:http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/in clude/styles_plain.phpSandman
Lie #3 - No, it doesn't:
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060509220758cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww. sandman.n et%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=all&warning=1& vextwarni ng=&lang=en>
That's the CSS validator checking *that exact URL* that you *just now* again *incorrectly* claimed doesn't validate.SnitSandman
Once again, Sandman, your lies are trivial to show.
Yet you are totally unable to do so, how come? For *ELEVEN YEARS* have you lied about this, for *ELEVEN YEARS*. That's freaking amazing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYm2fSAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRuu8H/RP5AqxVy+ic42aCg10x5MdO fvI3Q9XQIS5UebFsnbq/AvKl0Nmfj/2q3lRRjgufcaWiBgK7OBgvof1G3RRng7Ab yqQgsDNRgjfLzt0DTpKOaCBvYQQ52piUPB2Uo0LLrFostvUdH1bGajh6MMgISytK LTJAsQRq/ITzffmDuzyf4Cak+o9JqadxlJVguqO4xbTIHA6w9I0sh7BMC/CrFyRP jbo1FUhOPtCwdgkxxsEKYjf/vMFaGxAEKosQ77WTr37CSpNKDHch58fotwUQbFjr B+y1UupGdocvzBdZYCGN0WUCeMuw+NM+1npaP2nZPUthFpDsGDaeC8SqSxswtK0= =O2Xt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You note you have only one home page on that site, which was never in question. What was noted is you have more than one CSS file tied to that page and you looked at only one. You also validated against a different standard than was the accepted one at the time. Really you just used things that were proposed on that page. The errors were fine. But you felt the need to lie and deny your errors. Just just lie habitually -- keep in mind nobody is putting you down for the validation errors... what is being noted is your lies. Face it, you lied. Your CSS did not validate... I noted it and you changed it. Cool. Then your ego got in the way and you lied... and here you are, YEARS later, still freaking out over it.