Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/09/2017 23:49 (02/09/2017 23:49) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-40fef68d7ff10d975fbfd55c144db4cd@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Steve Carroll (9m) Snit (59m) > Sandman |
In article <D4C23D0E.8F4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Yeah, you made an explicit claim that turned out to be 100% incorrect and when pointed out you ran away ignoring it alltogether.SandmanSnit
What you did was get your ass handed to you in the main part of this thread so you had to ignore that, but you felt that it was too obvious that you were running away screaming so you tried to post some "humorous" irrelevancy instead in this sub thread.
Man, I said you had two CSS files and really you had one external file and some embedded CSS. Yeah, that was horrid!
Meanwhile you tried to pull a fast one and got busted validating with a CSS3 validater when that did not even exist at the time...How slow are you? CSS3 is from 1999, you lied about this in *2006*. Is all of this idiocy from you based on the fact that in 2006 you CSS-validated a CSS3 file with a CSS2 setting? That would be *HILARIOUS*!
You also said that the one CSS file I had on my homepage didn't validate, when in fact it validated, and still validates 100% perfectly. Just like it did when you made the claim, and still do in the (albeit wrong date) as saved by the WBM.
You have told so many lies about this that it boggles the mind how you can keep track of them all, then I realise - you can't, which is why there are so many contradictions and new lies every new time you bring this up.
-- Sandman
02/08/2017-
