Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:10 (2017-02-16 23:10) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-0c79b9a0edaf2d83de26d985e3736e3d@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Steve Carroll |
In article <D5080C11.9C8A1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
You would have a hard time finding a single one, of course. That are, as you say, "unquotable".Steve CarrollSteve CarrollSandman
Snit: and then say I have to defend myself against them all or they should be assumed to be true.
That's not how proof works. I make a claim and I provide substantiation for that claim. If you agree with the claim you need not do anything. If you disagree with the claim you need to provide counter support for your disagreement to by anything but hot air.
I have no need to talk about every lie you tell about me...
but you making that claim backs the fact you are obsessed with me and demand my attention.I see you found some more empty words and no actual support for your position! Good job, little guy.
Hey, and you claim people should refute things... why have you never refuted this:
Invalid CSS shown on sandman.net <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>:A thousand times over:
<http://usenet.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
No idea why you keep wanting to drag up that old lie of yours over and over again in every single post of yours.
-- Sandman
2017-02-08-
