Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Snit |
Date | 02/13/2017 16:56 (02/13/2017 08:56) |
Message-ID | <D4C72548.8FB9B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (1h) > Snit |
SandmanYet for over a decade you have been trolling me based on my noting you had errors.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <D4C640A1.8FA55%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:Snit
On 2/11/17, 3:21 PM, in article sandman-1941730eff69bb1bd00dad932f04a480@individual.net, "Sandman"SandmanSnit
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net>
And on that page we see YOUR code:<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">Do you, Jonas Eklundh, understand why that is invalid CSS?Sandman
Snip and run, it's all you can do. Here is your claim again, the one you keep snipping and running from:
Snit Sandman still lying about his CSS 02/08/2017 <D4C09A90.8F165%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
"And, of course, it shows errors in these CSS files:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/ atlas/include/styles_plain.php"
Which of course is a lie. You can only find errors in the by-WayBackMachine- edited HTML code. Nor can you find errors from the WBM that is relevant to the date on which you started your lie.
Remember, I have no "pride" invested in my CSS.
You claimed it didn't validate, I checked it and it validated.You left out the step where you saw it did not validate and then you corrected it.
You have since then admitted that you validated it using an older CSS standard, further showcasing your dishonesty.Ten years later, as you obsess, I said a number of incorrect things: version of CSS, that it was "embedded" and not "inline", etc. Sure, unlike you have not spent 10 years of my life focused on your CSS not validating. WHO THE HELL CARES?