Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/12/2017 09:27 (02/12/2017 09:27) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-620f6112f242e8f570b548ffb7b9c757@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 12 09:27:01 2017 CET
gpg: using RSA key 2144C1F05A03E8D1
gpg: BAD signature from "Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Steve Carroll (8h & 21m) Snit (8h & 37m) |
In article <D4C4F614.8F827%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
That is not my home page, it can be found here: http://sandman.netSandman
What you had to snip and run from: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:<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net>Snit
That is your page that was noted to not validate. And it does not.
That is an archived and heavily edited version of my homepage, to add all sorts of navigation HTML. Validating that page is validating the WayBackMachine's output.
As opposed to the heavily edited HTML, the CSS file is more or less intact. Apart from an added comment and edited paths to point to correct resources in the WBM, it's as it is beck when you started to lie about this.SandmanSnit
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.
When validating the homepage, this is the file that is being validated. And when you run this archived version - that you *just the other day* claimed did not validate - in the validator, it validates perfectly:
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060509220758cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fww w.sandman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=a ll&warning=1&vextwarning=&lang=en>
Your exposed lie in video format: <https://vid.me/Povd>
Nope:Sandman
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/ atlas/include/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:Snit
It is YOUR CSS that was not valid
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060509220758cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fww w.sandman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=a ll&warning=1&vextwarning=&lang=en>
100% valid.
That is the CSS of my homepage, which you claimed did not validate:SandmanSnit
<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...
<https://vid.me/Povd>
That is the file you claimed did not validate: <https://vid.me/Povd>SandmanSnit
It is 100% valid.
But the page in question is not.
"Proof" you just can't show.SandmanSnit
Clearly exposing your eleven year long lie.
A knee-jerk accusation from you that is contrary to the proof.
This is the *first* time you have responded to any of it. Of course, you kept lying about it, but kudos for not just snipping and running like a little girl like you usually do.SandmanSnit
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!
See, Sandman, when you do not have text to snip and lie about you just ignore it.Ironic, coming from the snipping and running master himself.
Checking now I see the video has quite a few views. Poor Sandman... so many people can see YOUR WORDS which prove you are a liar.<https://vid.me/Povd>
-- Sandman
02/08/2017-
