Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/11/2017 18:24 (02/11/2017 18:24) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-2cd86f38c211dee0e37c16696331a296@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Steve Carroll (58m) Snit (1h & 45m) > Sandman |
In article <D4C48BB8.8F770%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
What you snipped, because you can't respond to a reasoned post that contains facts:SandmanSnit
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net>
Are you claiming that on 20060519191417 the CSS Validation Service shows your CSS is valid?
Here is the link to the WayBackMachine archive of my home page, with heavily edited HTML code by the WBM:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/>
In the HTML, there is *one* link to a CSS files:
<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.
Keep in mind this is OVER A DECADE AGO and you are still focusing on it...Funny that you should say that:
->select name, mid, subject, datetime from usenet where subject like '%css%' and ref = '' order by datetime desc
Snit <D4C09A90.8F165%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>Sandman still lying about his CSS 2017-02-08 17:51:12
Seems there is only one person that digs up arguments from the past. Huh.
which is a bit insane. But just to understand your claim: you say on THAT date your CSS on sandman.net validated fine.
Right?
If not what is your claim?It was quite clear from the text you snipped and ran from, you know - the text you can't respond to in a reasonable way, or discuss in any shape or form. Go figure :)
-- Sandman
02/08/2017-
