Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Snit |
Date | 02/12/2017 01:10 (02/11/2017 17:10) |
Message-ID | <D4C4F614.8F827%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | vallor (38m) > Snit Sandman (8h & 16m) > Snit |
SandmanJonas Eklundh lied: <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>. Period.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <D4C4D05D.8F7E1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SnitIt 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.Snit
<https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>Why, Jonas Eklundh, do you make it so easy to point out your lies?Sandman
So do it, point to these supposed lies?
Nothing "supposed" about them: <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>See, when you do not have text to snip to shreds you break down.Sandman
I'm still waiting for you to point to them, Michael.
Why just ignore it and avoid it? Because you can't point to it, because it doesn't exist.Jonas Eklundh lied: <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>. Period.
What you had to snip and run from:Jonas Eklundh lied: <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>. Period.
Your eleven year long lie has been so run into the ground and your ass has been handed to you so thoroughly that you *can* *not* respond to the facts, only ignore or snip them. That's all you can do.
Here is the link to the WayBackMachine archive of my home page, with heavily edited HTML code by the WBM:That is your page that was noted to not validate. And it does not.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/>
In the HTML, there is *one* link to a CSS files:Which is NOT your homepage and is NOT the file that was shown in the PDF that showed your CSS to be invalid.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/in clude/styles_plain.php>It is YOUR CSS that was not valid:
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>That is not your homepage... where the invalid CSS was shown.
It is 100% valid.But the page in question is not.
Clearly exposing your eleven year long lie.A knee-jerk accusation from you that is contrary to the proof.
This is a *fact*. A fact that you can't counter, can't respond to, can't meet in any way other than silence.Hardly silent... I keep noting your lie!