Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/08/2017 20:27 (02/08/2017 20:27) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-d64cbd6ba01cd4884d7c82d5c8c1ef0b@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | gpg: Signature made Wed Feb 8 20:27:57 2017 CET
gpg: using RSA key 2144C1F05A03E8D1
gpg: BAD signature from "Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (18m) > Sandman Snit (4d, 4h & 12m) |
In article <D4C0B70A.8F1B0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
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);
Snit was unable to counter this, so he ignored it, like he always does - he can't support his claims so he runs and hides.That's for the date 2006-05-19, your claim was made on 2006-05-31
Snit can't respond to this since one of his lies were once again exposed.Snit
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.<snip>And, of course, it shows errors in these CSS files:<snip>Sandman
Lie #3 - No, it doesn't:<snip>That's the CSS validator checking *that exact URL* that you *just now* again *incorrectly* claimed doesn't validate.
SnitSo don't call it "one of [my] home pages"
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.Lie #1
Here is the link to the WayBackMachine archive of my home page:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/>
In the HTML, there is *one* (1) link to an external CSS files:
<link href="/web/20060519191417cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/include/styles_plai n.php" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="iso-8859-1">
That's it - that's my CSS file. At the time, I used many CSS files that were all aggregated into one output from one PHP script, which is that link. And the output of that link at the time was this:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/in clude/styles_plain.php>
WBM has added a comment to the top of it, that's all. As opposed to the HTML output, the content remains just as it was back then. And when you run that file in a CSS validator:
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060509220758cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww sandman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=all &warning=1&vextwarning=&lang=en>
It is 100% valid. Clearly exposing your eleven year long lie. This is a *fact*. A fact that you can't counter, can't respond to, can't meet in any way other than silence.
You also validated against a different standard than was the accepted one at the time.This was in 2006, CSS3 is from *1999*. Get with the program already. Just looking at the CSS would show you that it is shock-full of CSS3
So here we have it - you have tried to use WBM to show that my CSS doesn't validate, when in fact WBM shows that it validates perfectly. Color me shocked! And it doesn't even have data for the date you made your lie!
Now run along, this is way out of your league - and has been for the last eleven years.
-- Sandman
02/08/2017-
