Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Steve Carroll |
Date | 02/11/2017 22:19 (02/11/2017 13:19) |
Message-ID | <ed7b3f95-d89b-4bca-a0e4-655032e0687c@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | vallor |
vallorNah... he's been a stalking, sexually harassing, nym-shifting, ID forging, fake evidence generating, sock-puppet using, shill engaging, dirty, lying, delusional, lowlife piece of hypocritical scum for well over a decade... he'll never change, nor will he surrender to reality. At one point he became so pissed off at Sandman...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:10:15 -0700, Snit wrote:Snitvallor
On 2/11/17, 10:24 AM, in article sandman-2cd86f38c211dee0e37c16696331a296@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>wrote:Sandman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <D4C48BB8.8F770%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:Sandman<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net>Snit
Are you claiming that on 20060519191417 the CSS Validation Service shows your CSS is valid?
What you snipped, because you can't respond to a reasoned post that contains facts:
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/invallorSandman
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
%2FwwwvallorSandman
sandman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%
2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=allvallorSandmanSnit
&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.
<https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>
Why, Jonas Eklundh, do you make it so easy to point out your lies?
...
And with that, "Snit" surrenders.