Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
From | Snit |
Date | 04/04/2017 18:03 (04/04/2017 09:03) |
Message-ID | <D50911C5.9CA1F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (16h & 18m) > Snit |
Ah, so the error, you say, came from an automated process. But that does not explain why it was consistently there for some time BEFORE I noted it and then NOT there after I noted it.Snit
Ah, so let us talk about one of your tech claims. Show your HTML file with this line:<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">And then explain why you think it would validate correctly. Or explain why it did not have that line when the WBM shows it as having it, consistently, for some time before that date.I would sincerely love to hear you explain your side of the story. No insults. No accusations. Just a talk of the technology you say you used at the time.Sandman
I did, at the time, remember?
Sandman Re: Maccies aren't fanatical? 06/01/2006 <mr-4E1B8E.08284701062006@individual.net>
"It hasn't. It's dynamically constructed though, so it's not residing within a static text file. You would have known this if you had looked at the code."
You even acknowledged it:And this is what you lied about. Fine.
Snit Re: Proof Sandman keeps running from. 07/31/2009 <C69893D3.3F21B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
"I noted that your homepage did not validate correctly.
As you note, your site has lots of dynamic features, including the CSS. When you checked, maybe it did. Instead of just saying that, you accused me of lying."And this is what you did... you accused me of lying even though it has been proved I was right.
Only, I of course did say exactly that.So you admitted your CSS on your home page did not validate and have just been denying it ever since!