Proof Sandman keeps running from.
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
-----
On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your
code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a
professional?
[HTML Validation Link] Close to 100 errors on *one* page!
That is pretty damned pathetic.
[CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
For someone who was belittling others about their web
skills you really should look at your own first.
-----
You even *admitted* to it then (29 May 2006):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
-----
Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't
validate very good. That's because the system that
does the code consists of over 1 million rows of
code, so there are good and bad parts of it.
-----
And the WayBackMachine proves that less than 2 weeks before, on 19 May 2006
it did not validate:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/web
/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermedium=a
> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
On 2 June 2006 you softened your view and made it sound like it likely
validated but *maybe* did not:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
-----
Plus, it's your claim that it didn't
validate, and we know you're a proven liar, so
chances are you've dug up some old, unrelated,
cached version that may have not validated for
other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying
that because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge
that it could be due to the way the stylesheets
are constructed.
-----
By 5 June 2006 you outright denied if failed CSS validation:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa2a0d2f18ee5de3>
-----
So why didn't I do the same with the HTML and
claim that it validates? Having non-validated CSS
is far less problematic than non-validating HTML
(even though, I agree, that the ways my HTML
wasn't validating were non-important). What pride
are you imagining I'm having in CSS but not in
HTML? :-D
-----
And by 9 June 2006 you were in complete denial mode:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c883faeb1c29c6a9>
-----
> Advice I gave you:
> * get your CSS to validate
Incorrect, since it was already validating.
-----
At first you admitted it did not validate, then you decided it might not
have, then you did a complete flip flop from your original admission and
claimed the CSS was already validating... and even claimed I dug up some old
version that did not (as though that would be hard). But now we know
*every* *single* cached version fails validation... both CSS and HTML.
Every single one, Sandman. Once I pointed out your lack of validation,
though, you started getting it to validate, as even Tim Adams noted.
How do you explain your flip flopping *and* the fact that before I told you
how to validate your code there is not a single example of it validating.
Not one, Sandman. CSS or HTML. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Me
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C6970E86.3EC75%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
What's more stupid
Sandman trying to prove Snit flooded his site by posting text on usenet
or
Snit posting shit on his own site to prove Sandman can't do html?
Snit
Sandman was busted lying. But it was long ago. He made a mistake... but we
all do. He should just let it go, but every few months he brings it back up
or lashes out in anger over it.
Really the whole debate should be *long* dead. So Sandman made a silly
mistake in, what, 2006... WHO CARES? Only Sandman... his ego was hurt so
much by my pointing out some weaknesses of his code that he lashed out with
all sorts of lies until he buried himself in a huge pile of lies.
And even then... if he would just let it go it would be gone. Not like
anyone other than him really cares. He knows nobody believes him, but he
just cannot let it go.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Me
dude, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Snit
>> Sandman was busted lying. But it was long ago. He made a mistake... but we
>> all do. He should just let it go, but every few months he brings it back up
>> or lashes out in anger over it.
>>
>> Really the whole debate should be *long* dead. So Sandman made a silly
>> mistake in, what, 2006... WHO CARES? Only Sandman... his ego was hurt so
>> much by my pointing out some weaknesses of his code that he lashed out with
>> all sorts of lies until he buried himself in a huge pile of lies.
>>
>> And even then... if he would just let it go it would be gone. Not like
>> anyone other than him really cares. He knows nobody believes him, but he
>> just cannot let it go.
>>
> dude, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I respond to trolls well past the time I should stop. How about you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote
*plonk*
ed
<snip>
> Really the whole debate should be *long* dead. So Sandman made a silly
> mistake in, what, 2006... WHO CARES? Only Sandman...
only sandman cares, but you're the one starting a new thread about it,
when you're already having the same discussion in another thread?
really? if you don't care, seriously, stop posting this crap, or at
least stop making new threads about it (and don't revive (many) old
threads about it either, as you've done in the past).
<snip>
Snit
a4c35c3c-b55d-4f51...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 7/30/09
10:05 AM:
As I have said: if Sandman would just let it go I would not bring it up. He
keeps bringing it up and lashing out over his anger from a debate from 2006!
But, sure, when he starts lying about me I reserve the right to prove him
wrong.
I just wish he would let it go. It should be long dead. He made a
mistake... we all do. Grow from the experience and move on.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Me
you got a lot more wrong with you than that
you're fucked in the head
chrisv
>On Jul 30, 9:16 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
*plonk*
Snit
Ah, you have a problem with lashing out against others. Hope you get over
it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Mackay
> ed stated in post
> a4c35c3c-b55d-4f51...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 7/30/09
> 10:05 AM:
>
>> On Jul 30, 9:16 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Really the whole debate should be *long* dead. So Sandman made a silly
>>> mistake in, what, 2006... WHO CARES? Only Sandman...
>>
>> only sandman cares, but you're the one starting a new thread about it,
>> when you're already having the same discussion in another thread?
>> really? if you don't care, seriously, stop posting this crap, or at
>> least stop making new threads about it (and don't revive (many) old
>> threads about it either, as you've done in the past).
>
> As I have said: if Sandman would just let it go I would not bring it up.
Duh! you /are/ the one that keeps bringing it up.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2ac49cfb781c5779
> He
> keeps bringing it up and lashing out over his anger from a debate from 2006!
Umm, no, he doesn't. You do.
> But, sure, when he starts lying about me I reserve the right to prove him
> wrong.
>
> I just wish he would let it go. It should be long dead. He made a
> mistake... we all do. Grow from the experience and move on.
See, you even lied about this... Do you /ever/ stop lying michael?
Do you desperately need attention that you have to keep posting separate
threads, just to lie?
Me
you live in your own little world
you should try to escape
reality is hard but the place you're in sux big time
Snit
AM:
You point to the *middle* of a conversation and claim that supports me
bringing the topic of the discussion up.
Who do you think is foolish enough to believe *that*?
Sandman is the one who keeps lashing out over his anger at his lies being
pointed out in 2006. He should let it go. When he fails to do so, though,
and lashes out against me, I reserve the right to remind him - and inform
anyone else reading the thread - why Sandman is lying about me.
This is just common sense.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
See: I noted how you have a problem with lashing out. And you just proved
Me
how much acid did you drop?
Steve Mackay
That is when YOU brought it up. Sandman did not bring it up previously
in that thread.
> Who do you think is foolish enough to believe *that*?
>
> Sandman is the one who keeps lashing out over his anger at his lies being
> pointed out in 2006.
Now Michael, we all know YOU are the one bringing this crap up. It's
been proven. No go back under your bridge where you belong, you slimy
little troll.
> He should let it go. When he fails to do so, though,
> and lashes out against me, I reserve the right to remind him - and inform
> anyone else reading the thread - why Sandman is lying about me.
>
> This is just common sense.
Get some help michael. You need it.
Snit
>> Ah, you have a problem with lashing out against others. Hope you get over
>> it.
>
> how much acid did you drop?
You keep proving me right.
But you are boring. Feel free to get the last word. It will be boring.
100% predictable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
>> You point to the *middle* of a conversation and claim that supports me
>> bringing the topic of the discussion up.
>
> That is when YOU brought it up. Sandman did not bring it up previously
> in that thread.
>
>> Who do you think is foolish enough to believe *that*?
>
>
>>
>> Sandman is the one who keeps lashing out over his anger at his lies being
>> pointed out in 2006.
>
> Now Michael, we all know YOU are the one bringing this crap up. It's
> been proven. No go back under your bridge where you belong, you slimy
> little troll.
>
>
>> He should let it go. When he fails to do so, though,
>> and lashes out against me, I reserve the right to remind him - and inform
>> anyone else reading the thread - why Sandman is lying about me.
>>
>> This is just common sense.
>
>
> Get some help michael. You need it.
I am not going to debate the obvious fact that you came into the middle of a
"situation" and pretend I have started it.
The question is why... but you will not answer.
The reason, of course, is the anger you have for past debates you have lost.
Let them go. You are acting much like Sandman in your obsession with your
past errors.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Mackay
> Steve Mackay stated in post h4srlq$bb7$1...@news.albasani.net on 7/30/09 12:15
> PM:
>
>>> You point to the *middle* of a conversation and claim that supports me
>>> bringing the topic of the discussion up.
>> That is when YOU brought it up. Sandman did not bring it up previously
>> in that thread.
>>
>>> Who do you think is foolish enough to believe *that*?
>>
>>> Sandman is the one who keeps lashing out over his anger at his lies being
>>> pointed out in 2006.
>> Now Michael, we all know YOU are the one bringing this crap up. It's
>> been proven. No go back under your bridge where you belong, you slimy
>> little troll.
>>
>>
>>> He should let it go. When he fails to do so, though,
>>> and lashes out against me, I reserve the right to remind him - and inform
>>> anyone else reading the thread - why Sandman is lying about me.
>>>
>>> This is just common sense.
>>
>> Get some help michael. You need it.
>
> I am not going to debate the obvious fact that you came into the middle of a
> "situation" and pretend I have started it.
I'm not pretending anything.
But it's business as usual for you, the pathological liar, to lie about it.
>
> The question is why... but you will not answer.
I have answered. You just pretend I didn't.
>
> The reason, of course, is the anger you have for past debates you have lost.
No. But I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe such nonsense.
> Let them go. You are acting much like Sandman in your obsession with your
> past errors.
No, not really. But this will be my last post to you for a while. I've
slapped your sorry ass around enough now. If this continues, you'll just
start getting all weird. Forging PDFs, and claiming their originals. The
stuff pathological liars like you, do.
Snit
PM:
Did you mean to prove me right about you or could you really not help
yourself? Either way, you must admit, it is kinda funny.
I see you even jumped in to defend Sandman and agree that the PDFs he
claimed are forged - even though *all* data is verifiable - are "forged".
No wonder you are going to run away, scared. You know you have just pushed
a lie you can never even come close to supporting.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Me
turd burglar
Me
creepy homo mactard
MuahMan
Mactard tard off!!!!
Steve Carroll
> Â Â <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> Â Â <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
> Not one, Sandman. Â How do you explain that?
>
> On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
> all *still* available from the original sources).
> Â Â -----
> Â Â > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> Â Â > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
> Â Â Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Â Â > Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> Â Â > site *ever* validating.
> Â Â I have no intention of explaining your lies.
> Â Â -----
> You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
> sources!
> And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
> thought your CSS validated or not.
> I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
From this same post you also stated:
--
"On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your code is pretty
damned
bad. Do you really call yourself a professional?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandman.net%2F
Close to 100 errors on *one* page! That is pretty damned pathetic." -
Snit
--
Notably, this page that Snit claimed had 100 errors now shows 10
errors... I just checked... and they are all based on this:
--
" Line 498, Column 12: literal is missing closing delimiter
<a target='target='_new'' href="/feed.php?visit=38192" ><img src='/
media/cache/✉
Did you forget to close a (double) quote mark?--"
Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
Anyway... Snit continued with:
--
"http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.san...
t%2F&usermedium=all
OS: http://snipurl.com/r33l
Again, multiple errors.
For someone who was belittling others about their web skills you
really
should look at your own first. Besides not being even close to being
valid
code your page is very slow to load and, frankly, rather cluttered.
If you want some help with cleaning up your code feel free to e-mail
me. We
can discuss reasonable rates. Tell you what: I will throw in info on
how to
correct your Usenet reader problems for *free*. I doubt you will
find
others to offer the same service!" - Snit
--
Snit... you're claiming that it's *Sandman's* code that is not
validating. How were you able to determine that *he* wrote the code
that is causing the validation errors you've claimed are from *his*
code (as opposed to code generated by the "system" he's using)?
"your code is pretty damned bad" - Snit
___________________________________________________________________________
Snit posts his proof that Sandman wrote the code that is causing the
validation errors here:
___________________________________________________________________________
My prediction: Snit will run as fast as his overmedicated body will
carry him.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Mackay stated in post h4srlq$bb...@news.albasani.net on 7/30/09 12:15
> PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You point to the *middle* of a conversation and claim that supports me
> >> bringing the topic of the discussion up.
>
> > That is when YOU brought it up. Sandman did not bring it up previously
> > in that thread.
>
> >> Who do you think is foolish enough to believe *that*?
>
> >> Sandman is the one who keeps lashing out over his anger at his lies being
> >> pointed out in 2006.
>
> > Now Michael, we all know YOU are the one bringing this crap up. It's
> > been proven. No go back under your bridge where you belong, you slimy
> > little troll.
>
> >> He should let it go. Â When he fails to do so, though,
> >> and lashes out against me, I reserve the right to remind him - and inform
> >> anyone else reading the thread - why Sandman is lying about me.
>
> >> This is just common sense.
>
> > Get some help michael. You need it.
>
> I am not going to debate the obvious fact that you came into the middle of a
> "situation" and pretend I have started it.
That's rich... the thread has less than 20 posts and you're already
pretending people are stupid enough to forget that you started the
friggin' thing. This, despite the fact that anyone can easily read the
first post in this thread any time they'd like. Wow... your drugs must
be top notch, Snit. LOL!
Steve Carroll
> > 10:05 AM:
>
> >> On Jul 30, 9:16 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> Really the whole debate should be *long* dead. Â So Sandman made a silly
> >>> mistake in, what, 2006... WHO CARES? Â Only Sandman...
>
> >> only sandman cares, but you're the one starting a new thread about it,
> >> when you're already having the same discussion in another thread?
> >> really?  if  you don't care, seriously, stop posting this crap, or at
> >> least stop making new threads about it (and don't revive (many) old
> >> threads about it either, as you've done in the past).
>
> > As I have said: if Sandman would just let it go I would not bring it up.
>
>
> > He
> > keeps bringing it up and lashing out over his anger from a debate from 2006!
>
> Umm, no, he doesn't. You do.
>
> > But, sure, when he starts lying about me I reserve the right to prove him
> > wrong.
>
> > I just wish he would let it go. Â It should be long dead. Â He made a
> > mistake... we all do. Â Grow from the experience and move on.
>
> See, you even lied about this... Do you /ever/ stop lying michael?
>
> Do you desperately need attention that you have to keep posting separate
> threads, just to lie?
He realized that we've tried to keep him confined to one or two
threads and he's not enough getting satisfaction from Wally, Tim and I
kicking the snot out of him... so he wants you, Sandman and others to
kick him, too;)
Sandman
<16b26825-362b-47ea...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> --
> " Line 498, Column 12: literal is missing closing delimiter
> <a target='target='_new'' href="/feed.php?visit=38192" ><img src='/
> media/cache/?
>
> Did you forget to close a (double) quote mark?--"
>
>
> Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
Fixed. My bad, actually :)
Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
that I could swiftly fix.
> Snit... you're claiming that it's *Sandman's* code that is not
> validating. How were you able to determine that *he* wrote the code
> that is causing the validation errors you've claimed are from *his*
> code (as opposed to code generated by the "system" he's using)?
Actually, the "system" (CMS) I'm using is called Atlas and is
developed solely by me. So any errors in output would be in direct
relation to errors I've made. Sure, I've had employees at times, but
99% of all code is mine. That doesn't mean, of course, that all errors
are due to "incompetence" about CSS or HTML, since this is a very
dynamic system, lots of the output is the result of the combination of
a lot of functions. That means that the CSS (for example) isn't
contained as plain text in a text file, it's actually compiled from a
number of sources, even database and sent to the browser, at which
point errors could be made when parsing or rendering the data.
This makes for a very dynamic system that fits my self-employed kind
of business.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<a4c35c3c-b55d-4f51...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
Only Sandman cares, but he repeatedly snips out his scrapbook pastes
and ignores his lies, but only Sandman cares :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
7/30/09 10:18 PM:
You have explained this before... the faults are yours... nobody elses.
You had some code that did not validate. At one point you admitted to it...
then you flip flopped and denied it. Why do you lie about it... it is not
like it is *that* big of a deal.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7/30/09 10:20 PM:
You keep lashing out, lying, spewing clearly false accusations, and showing
you are still mad I pointed out - gasp! - you had non-validating CSS.
Why is this such an ego-breaker for you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
> >
> > Fixed. My bad, actually :)
> >
> > Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
> > that I could swiftly fix.
> >
> >> Snit... you're claiming that it's *Sandman's* code that is not
> >> validating. How were you able to determine that *he* wrote the code
> >> that is causing the validation errors you've claimed are from *his*
> >> code (as opposed to code generated by the "system" he's using)?
> >
> > Actually, the "system" (CMS) I'm using is called Atlas and is
> > developed solely by me. So any errors in output would be in direct
> > relation to errors I've made. Sure, I've had employees at times, but
> > 99% of all code is mine. That doesn't mean, of course, that all errors
> > are due to "incompetence" about CSS or HTML, since this is a very
> > dynamic system, lots of the output is the result of the combination of
> > a lot of functions. That means that the CSS (for example) isn't
> > contained as plain text in a text file, it's actually compiled from a
> > number of sources, even database and sent to the browser, at which
> > point errors could be made when parsing or rendering the data.
> >
> > This makes for a very dynamic system that fits my self-employed kind
> > of business.
>
> You have explained this before... the faults are yours... nobody elses.
Errors in my code is my fault, yes. That's what I just said.
> You had some code that did not validate.
I've had non-validating CSS in the past, and present, yes. Only, I
didn't at the time you lied about it - a claim you have yet to show
any support for, yet whine like a little girl when I show ample
support for you flooding my site almost 300.000 times.
> At one point you admitted to it...
I have never admitted to your lie about my CSS not validating at the
time you claimed it didn't.
> then you flip flopped and denied it.
Incorrect, as has been explained to you in the past.
> Why do you lie about it... it is not
> like it is *that* big of a deal.
If it's not a big deal, why are you dragging your lies up again and
again and again, year after year?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
My "ego" is allegedly "broken", yet I am not the one starting threads
about your lies, you are.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
7/31/09 12:11 AM:
> If it's not a big deal, why are you dragging your lies up again and
> again and again, year after year?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
-----
On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your
code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a
professional?
[HTML Validation Link] Close to 100 errors on *one* page!
That is pretty damned pathetic.
[CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
For someone who was belittling others about their web
skills you really should look at your own first.
-----
You even *admitted* to it then (29 May 2006):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
-----
Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't
validate very good. That's because the system that
does the code consists of over 1 million rows of
code, so there are good and bad parts of it.
-----
And the WayBackMachine proves that less than 2 weeks before, on 19 May 2006
it did not validate:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/web
/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermedium=a
> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
On 2 June 2006 you softened your view and made it sound like it likely
validated but *maybe* did not:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
-----
Plus, it's your claim that it didn't
validate, and we know you're a proven liar, so
chances are you've dug up some old, unrelated,
cached version that may have not validated for
other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying
that because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge
that it could be due to the way the stylesheets
are constructed.
-----
By 5 June 2006 you outright denied if failed CSS validation:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa2a0d2f18ee5de3>
-----
So why didn't I do the same with the HTML and
claim that it validates? Having non-validated CSS
is far less problematic than non-validating HTML
(even though, I agree, that the ways my HTML
wasn't validating were non-important). What pride
are you imagining I'm having in CSS but not in
HTML? :-D
-----
And by 9 June 2006 you were in complete denial mode:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c883faeb1c29c6a9>
-----
> Advice I gave you:
> * get your CSS to validate
Incorrect, since it was already validating.
-----
At first you admitted it did not validate, then you decided it might not
have, then you did a complete flip flop from your original admission and
claimed the CSS was already validating... and even claimed I dug up some old
version that did not (as though that would be hard). But now we know
*every* *single* cached version fails validation... both CSS and HTML.
Every single one, Sandman. Once I pointed out your lack of validation,
though, you started getting it to validate, as even Tim Adams noted.
How do you explain your flip flopping *and* the fact that before I told you
how to validate your code there is not a single example of it validating.
Not one, Sandman. CSS or HTML. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7/31/09 12:11 AM:
> I've had non-validating CSS in the past, and present, yes.
Yet you have cried like a baby and spent years lying about this. For crying
out loud - thank you for finally admitting it. Seriously, it is not like it
is that big of a deal. I pointed out a number of ways you could improve
your site, and you took a fair number of my suggestions. Goodie... we can
all learn from each other... without the lashing out and lying you do.
Seriously, I am happy to see you finally admit to what you have been denying
for years. Can you finally move on and stop lashing out in obvious anger
now?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7/31/09 12:12 AM:
>> You keep lashing out, lying, spewing clearly false accusations, and showing
>> you are still mad I pointed out - gasp! - you had non-validating CSS.
>>
>> Why is this such an ego-breaker for you?
>
> My "ego" is allegedly "broken", yet I am not the one starting threads
> about your lies, you are.
Snit:
-----
There is, of course, also no way for me to prove I did *not*
do what you accuse me of. How could I? That is why it comes
down to your word vs. mine. So let us look at an example
where we disagree and there *is* evidence - evidence that
neither you nor I could manipulate.
And we have that: your lie about your CSS. I have,
repeatedly, posted the absolute proof that you changed your
story and you lied. This is based on your own words, as
linked to in the Google archive, and on archived copies of
your site as found on the WayBackMachine. I think we can
safely say neither of us can manipulate those!
This data is unambiguous: it shows you denying your site had
CSS that failed validation, and it also shows that your site
had no archived copies that did pass validation, including up
to just 2 weeks before your denial. There are also
references to the then-current Google archive which I quoted
and you refused to comment on.
Your one possible out is to acknowledge that it never
validated for most of its then-history, but to say you just
got it to validate *days* before my claim - but you have
never been able to say what date you want to claim you got it
to validate. And, frankly, the idea that I just happened to
make the claim after years of your failing just does not pass
the sniff test. It is absurd. And, of course, it does not
account for your early admission and then later flip flop to
denial.
So what are you left with? Well.. snipping, running,
obfuscating... openly lying and accusing me of forging
PDFs... which you now claim are not even associated with this
situation. In other words, try to change the topic to some
*other* accusation of yours... clearly even you know you have
no leg to stand on.
You will, of course, run from the above. Your ego has been
hurt - you have been proved to be a liar and it offends you.
Such is life. You should have not lied in the first place,
but even more than that, you should just let it go. If you
would stop trolling me over your own embarrassment I assure
you the topic would be dead to me... there simply is no
reason to focus on such an old episode.
My advice: learn from your past and act better now. Accept
that I - and other reasonable people - will accept that
people can change. You made a mistake. Ok. We all do.
Move on and let it slide into the past.
-----
Sandman:
-----
Done. You're welcome.
-----
But then Sandman went right back to trolling me and obsessing over his past
lies about CSS.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > I've had non-validating CSS in the past, and present, yes.
>
> Yet you have cried like a baby and spent years lying about this.
Never happened. I have exposed your lies about them not validating
when in fact they did:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4100ae8ff5c34
b76>
"Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."
You even agreed that it did validate.
> I pointed out a number of ways you could improve
> your site, and you took a fair number of my suggestions.
I.e. none.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5f4aa3943d81f
87b>
> Seriously, I am happy to see you finally admit to what you have been denying
> for years.
I have never denied that I have had non-validating code. I have been
too busy exposing your lies.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
7/31/09 1:07 AM:
> I have never denied that I have had non-validating code. I have been
> too busy exposing your lies.
You keep saying you have "exposed" alleged lies of mine. So show it you
sniveling liar. Show where you have any *real* support for your claims
about me.
You have *nothing*. You merely lash out because your wee little ego was
hurt when you lashed out at others for what - as I proved - were your own
weaknesses (poorly validating code and a list of other problems with your
site). You have, by the way, since corrected most of the problems I pointed
out. You learned... excellent. Just stop being a complete and total ass.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C697F651.3EF83%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0081] You keep saying you have "exposed" alleged lies of mine.
Indeed.
> [0082] So show it you sniveling liar.
In what way can you guarantee that me showing it AGAIN will make you
admit to your lies?
> [0083] Show where you have any *real* support for your claims about
> [0083] me.
Been there, done that. This is your classic tactic where you ignore
posts with such support and then posts to ask for said support. Same
oold Snit Circus.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4100ae8ff5c34
b76>
"Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."
> [0084] You have *nothing*.
I have everything, you deny facts.
> [0086] You have, by the way, since corrected most of the problems I
> [0086] pointed out.
I.e. none.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5f4aa3943d81f
87b>
"Action taken: None"
> [0087] You learned.
I learned that you are a liar.
> [0091] Just stop being a complete and total ass.
Stop being a lying fuckhead.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 0 | lying 0 16 |
| incest 0 0 | sex 0 0 |
| guilty 0 0 | honorable 0 0 |
| obfuscate 0 0 | run 0 4 |
| dishonest 0 4 | snip 0 4 |
| lol 0 4 | contrived 0 0 |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [X] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Don Zeigler
> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
> Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
Can't you keep this crap in CSMA where it started?
Steve Carroll
> In article
> <16b26825-362b-47ea-bc09-4dd087282...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Â Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > --
> > " Line 498, Column 12: literal is missing closing delimiter
> > <a target='target='_new'' Â href="/feed.php?visit=38192" ><img src='/
> > media/cache/?
>
> > Did you forget to close a (double) quote mark?--"
>
> > Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
>
> Fixed. My bad, actually :)
>
> Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
> that I could swiftly fix.
I did what any reasonable person would do (hehe;)
> > Snit... you're claiming that it's *Sandman's* code that is not
> > validating. How were you able to determine that *he* wrote the code
> > that is causing the validation errors you've claimed are from *his*
> > code (as opposed to code generated by the "system" he's using)?
>
> Actually, the "system" (CMS) I'm using is called Atlas and is
> developed solely by me.
After having worked (interspersing my own php code, html, css,
javascript) with things like Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, etc. I can
certainly see how errors can be tossed out. I can even see how
difficult it would be to track them down depending on the error. This
is *nothing* like creating a website from a Dreamweaver template or
even making your own site from scratch using DW. It's hilarious to
watch gluehead try to compare these two very different things... I'd
like to see that idiot code up a CMS from scratch. He's even aware
that you coded the CMS from scratch, yet, he's still trying to compare
his errors to those generated by tons of code that generates markup,
code he likely couldn't even recognize. Of course, he is an "IT
teacher" so maybe he writes these kind of systems from the ground up
all the time and never has any errors (yeah, right;)
> So any errors in output would be in direct
> relation to errors I've made. Sure, I've had employees at times, but
> 99% of all code is mine. That doesn't mean, of course, that all errors
> are due to "incompetence" about CSS or HTML, since this is a very
> dynamic system, lots of the output is the result of the combination of
> a lot of functions.
I have a decent understanding of how this stuff works now (took me
awhile;)
> That means that the CSS (for example) isn't
> contained as plain text in a text file, it's actually compiled from a
> number of sources, even database and sent to the browser, at which
> point errors could be made when parsing or rendering the data.
Ah... I've never done this as coming from a database... sounds
interesting.
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-CEFA71.07185731072...@News.Individual.NET on
> 7/30/09 10:18 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
Point to one specific piece of his "code" that did not "validate".
> Â At one point you admitted to it...
I saw him admit to it when it happened.
> then you flip flopped and denied it.
Perhaps he only denied things you were making up... you know, like you
are prone to do.
>Â Why do you lie about it... it is not like it is *that* big of a deal.
So why are you, and only you, making *such* a big deal out of it for
*years* on end? Professional jealously? You wish you could create a
CMS from scratch but know that you will never be able to do such a
thing? Yes, that must be it.
Snit
4:36 AM:
At this point, as far as I am concerned, the debate is over. While Sandman
and Carroll will carry on for some time, they are not going to say
*anything* of value. I shan't be responding to their drivel.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Me
Tardzilla vs. MechaTardzilla
RonB
I think Snit is starting the crossposted threads (I don't know for sure,
since the whole "circus" has been killfiled).
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Snit
AM:
> Don Zeigler wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
>>> Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
>>
>> Can't you keep this crap in CSMA where it started?
>
> I think Snit is starting the crossposted threads (I don't know for sure,
> since the whole "circus" has been killfiled).
I responded to Sandman's lies in the threads he made the lies. Anyway, I am
done with him for now... what: does *anyone* think Sandman will stop lying
if I prove him a liar One. More. Time.
Not I. He is just whacked.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<4acf2296-2d0a-4ada...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
> >
> > Fixed. My bad, actually :)
> >
> > Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
> > that I could swiftly fix.
>
> I did what any reasonable person would do (hehe;)
Indeed you did. What you didn't do was say something like, I don't
know:
"your code is pretty damned bad"
Or something like:
"Do you really call yourself a professional?"
Which had set the tone for your remark from the outset and could
hardly had been called "reasonable" in any stretch of the imagination.
But then again, who would do something so stupid anyway? :)
> > Actually, the "system" (CMS) I'm using is called Atlas and is
> > developed solely by me.
>
> After having worked (interspersing my own php code, html, css,
> javascript) with things like Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, etc. I can
> certainly see how errors can be tossed out. I can even see how
> difficult it would be to track them down depending on the error. This
> is *nothing* like creating a website from a Dreamweaver template or
> even making your own site from scratch using DW.
Of course not. Any given page in Atlas takes CSS instructions from at
least 10 different sources, depending on what application you're
using. Not only that, with some applications, like the blog
application, the users can define their own styles (through a web
interface) to style their blog to some extent.
DreamWeaver really is a beginner tool for the newbie to easily create
a basic web site. I would be the laugh of the industry if I made my
clients web sites with DreamWeaver, and if that's not enough - my
workload would not double, it would probably be fifty times higher,
and my delivery rates would slow to a crawl so I couldn't invoice my
clients in time for me to withdraw my paycheck and so on.
DreamWeaver is only viable if you have very few clients and they have
very low standards and expectations on your work.
But hey, whatever kind of points you can score from having
automatically validating CSS might be worth it :-D
> It's hilarious to
> watch gluehead try to compare these two very different things... I'd
> like to see that idiot code up a CMS from scratch. He's even aware
> that you coded the CMS from scratch
Indeed, during our "truce" which was quick to break he was given the
option to ask questions which I answered (at least most) and those
answers are totally forgotten by him now. I answered his questions as
I would answer any question you would ask me.
This is the post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f02ba30f8107
47f>
As you can see, all of the points are answered politely and to the
point. I tell him how the CSS is created and what kind of errors this
could lead to. I also tell him that CSS validatin is of little concern
to me (especially when compared to the amount of energy he puts into
it).
> yet, he's still trying to compare
> his errors to those generated by tons of code that generates markup,
> code he likely couldn't even recognize. Of course, he is an "IT
> teacher" so maybe he writes these kind of systems from the ground up
> all the time and never has any errors (yeah, right;)
:)
> > That means that the CSS (for example) isn't
> > contained as plain text in a text file, it's actually compiled from a
> > number of sources, even database and sent to the browser, at which
> > point errors could be made when parsing or rendering the data.
>
> Ah... I've never done this as coming from a database... sounds
> interesting.
It's really not. From the beginning it was a live fetch, meaning that
the DB was accessed for each and every page request (hundreds of
thousands per month) which was a performance nightmare. It's being
cached now, but when the data comes from a DB, it's a lot harder to
determine when to recreate the cache, and I am currently aggregating
it at certain points (every five minutes) which means that there is a
lag between editing the DB and seeing the result. With flat text
files, you can always compare the file dates between the original and
the cache and determine when to recreate.
But the functionality it provides is very nice for my clients, so I
have to live with it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
7/31/09 11:45 AM:
> In article
> <4acf2296-2d0a-4ada...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
>>>
>>> Fixed. My bad, actually :)
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
>>> that I could swiftly fix.
>>
>> I did what any reasonable person would do (hehe;)
>
> Indeed you did. What you didn't do was say something like, I don't
> know:
>
> "your code is pretty damned bad"
>
> Or something like:
>
> "Do you really call yourself a professional?"
>
> Which had set the tone for your remark from the outset and could
> hardly had been called "reasonable" in any stretch of the imagination.
>
> But then again, who would do something so stupid anyway? :)
You blame me for *reacting* to your trolling in a way that is not kind
enough for your liking. Tough.
>>> Actually, the "system" (CMS) I'm using is called Atlas and is
>>> developed solely by me.
>>
>> After having worked (interspersing my own php code, html, css,
>> javascript) with things like Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, etc. I can
>> certainly see how errors can be tossed out. I can even see how
>> difficult it would be to track them down depending on the error. This
>> is *nothing* like creating a website from a Dreamweaver template or
>> even making your own site from scratch using DW.
>
> Of course not. Any given page in Atlas takes CSS instructions from at
> least 10 different sources, depending on what application you're
> using. Not only that, with some applications, like the blog
> application, the users can define their own styles (through a web
> interface) to style their blog to some extent.
>
> DreamWeaver really is a beginner tool for the newbie to easily create
> a basic web site. I would be the laugh of the industry if I made my
> clients web sites with DreamWeaver, and if that's not enough - my
> workload would not double, it would probably be fifty times higher,
> and my delivery rates would slow to a crawl so I couldn't invoice my
> clients in time for me to withdraw my paycheck and so on.
>
> DreamWeaver is only viable if you have very few clients and they have
> very low standards and expectations on your work.
>
> But hey, whatever kind of points you can score from having
> automatically validating CSS might be worth it :-D
And you show you have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to
the #1 professional web development tool as a "beginners" tool. That does
not mean, of course, that Dreamweaver is a Content Management System (though
it can work with them).
Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting "points" for having
automatically validating CSS.
>> It's hilarious to
>> watch gluehead try to compare these two very different things... I'd
>> like to see that idiot code up a CMS from scratch. He's even aware
>> that you coded the CMS from scratch
>
> Indeed, during our "truce" which was quick to break he was given the
> option to ask questions which I answered (at least most) and those
> answers are totally forgotten by him now. I answered his questions as
> I would answer any question you would ask me.
>
> This is the post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f02ba30f8107
> 47f>
>
> As you can see, all of the points are answered politely and to the
> point. I tell him how the CSS is created and what kind of errors this
> could lead to. I also tell him that CSS validatin is of little concern
> to me (especially when compared to the amount of energy he puts into
> it).
In that post you flat out say:
-----
As with any dynamic system, validation is not a on/off
switch. The CSS for any given Atlas site is generated from a
number of sources and databases, so there is no telling when
something will break, either by customers doings things
they're not supposed to or me parsing stylesheets
incorrectly.
...
Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking
websites is far more important. I dont' give validation much
thought. If there is something obviously wrong with a page
and it's easy to fix when it's pointed out then sure, I'll
fix it. Most of the times it's been because my output scripts
have been misbehaving (not fixing ampersands in urls
correctly, tagging elements with name='' instead of id='' and
such)
There has never been any problem with validation, meaning
that even if a page didn't validate perfectly, it looked
perfect and as planned.
-----
Yet, years later, you are still clearly deeply angered by my pointing out
something you say is of "little concern to " you and you know there is "no
telling when something will break".
Here is my guess: 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.
So I did a little bit of work and looked at the archived copies of your
site... and *none* of them validated. Now that does not cover every second
of the history of your site. *Maybe* there were unrecorded times before
that when it did validate. But clearly validating correctly was not the
norm.
Years later, though, you are still upset about this... and you still lash
out and call me names and accuse me of forging PDFs... though you have back
pedaled and now claim you were accusing me of forging some *other* PDF not
even related to the topic (I accept you have a problem with focus... OK).
>> yet, he's still trying to compare
>> his errors to those generated by tons of code that generates markup,
>> code he likely couldn't even recognize. Of course, he is an "IT
>> teacher" so maybe he writes these kind of systems from the ground up
>> all the time and never has any errors (yeah, right;)
>
> :)
>
>>> That means that the CSS (for example) isn't
>>> contained as plain text in a text file, it's actually compiled from a
>>> number of sources, even database and sent to the browser, at which
>>> point errors could be made when parsing or rendering the data.
>>
>> Ah... I've never done this as coming from a database... sounds
>> interesting.
>
> It's really not. From the beginning it was a live fetch, meaning that
> the DB was accessed for each and every page request (hundreds of
> thousands per month) which was a performance nightmare. It's being
> cached now, but when the data comes from a DB, it's a lot harder to
> determine when to recreate the cache, and I am currently aggregating
> it at certain points (every five minutes) which means that there is a
> lag between editing the DB and seeing the result. With flat text
> files, you can always compare the file dates between the original and
> the cache and determine when to recreate.
>
> But the functionality it provides is very nice for my clients, so I
> have to live with it.
There are all sorts of excellent Contact Management Systems... what does
your home brewed one offer that they do not? Seems you are trying to
re-invent the wheel. But to each his own...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C69893D3.3F21B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0092] You blame me for *reacting* to your trolling (1) in a way
> [0092] that is not kind enough for your liking.
Unsupported claim #1
> [0094] And you show you have no idea what you are talking about
> [0094] when you refer to the #1 professional web development tool
> [0094] as a "beginners" tool.
Says the guy that doesn't even dare to link to his "professional" web
pages he allegedly made for "clients" and instead only have linked to
butt-ugly pre-newbie-stage pages that look like they're made by a four
year old.
> [0095] That does not mean, of course, that Dreamweaver is a Content
> [0095] Management System (though it can work with them).
It's hilarious to read you trying to talk about these things :-D
> [0096] Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting "points" for
> [0096] having automatically validating CSS.
I'm sure Steve understood perfectly though. You know, the person I was
responding to.
> [0107] Yet, years later, you are still clearly deeply angered
> [0107] by my pointing out something you say is of "little concern
> [0107] to " you and you know there is "no telling when something
> [0107] will break".
What is "clear" to you, is seemingly unknown to everyone else. Any
anger you feel is only in your mind. To clarify - no, I do not get
angry when exposing your lies.
> [0108] Here is my guess: I noted that your homepage did not
> [0108] validate correctly.
Only if by "noted" you meant "lied".
> [0109] As you note, your site has lots of dynamic features,
> [0109] including the CSS.
> [0110] When you checked, maybe it did.
> [0111] Instead of just saying that, you accused me of lying (17).
Correction; I pointed out that you were lying, since I didn't thing
you were mistaken, given your record for lying.
> [0112] So I did a little bit of work and looked at the archived
> [0112] copies of your site.
> [0115] and *none* of them validated.
> [0116] Now that does not cover every second of the history of your
> [0116] site.
You claim to realise that, yet can't admit that you have yet to
support your lie.
> [0117] *Maybe* there were unrecorded times before that when it did
> [0117] validate.
I wouldn't know. I di know that it validated when you claimed it
didn't. That's all I need to know.
> [0119] Years later, though, you are still upset about this.
I am still pointing out your lies when you post them here in csma,
years after, yes.
> [0125] though you have back pedaled and now claim you were accusing
> [0125] me of forging some *other* PDF not even related to the topic
> [0125] (I accept you have a problem with focus.
No backpedalling took place. You have yet to support your
unsubstantiated claim that I have said that those PDF's are forged. I
very much think that they are, but I wouldn't claim they are without
knowing - as with your earlier PDF's that you did forge.
> [0129] There are all sorts of excellent Contact Management Systems.
Whatever a "Contact" Management System is...
> [0132] what does your home brewed one offer that they do not?
Any questions from you will be answered in a reasonable manner the day
you stop lying and trolling, as they were when you joined me in the
Code of Honesty agreement, which you promptly broke.
> [0133] Seems you are trying to re-invent the wheel.
What things "seem" to someone using DreamWeaver and claiming that it's
not a beginners tool is pretty much irrelevant to me :)
> [0134] But to each his own.
And lying is apparently your thing.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 2 | lying 1 18 |
Snit
7/31/09 12:41 PM:
> Says the guy that doesn't even dare to link to his "professional" web
> pages he allegedly made for "clients" and instead only have linked to
> butt-ugly pre-newbie-stage pages that look like they're made by a four
> year old.
It is comments like this that you made *before* I made the comments you
whined about.
Yeah, you lashed out against me... I responded by pointing out how you were
being a hypocrite, but did so in a way to help educate you not just on
manners but also in ways to help you better your web development skills.
You *clearly* took much of the advice to heart, but then still lashed out
and lied about me.
By the way, looking at http://sandman.net, your images are still very poorly
compressed. For example, the 139K image of the bridge, even when set to
"Very High" quality in Photoshop and with its color profile embedded, is
reduced to less than 22K. The painted-face picture, at 139K, could be
reduced in the same way to about 20K. Similar story with your other images.
For anyone with a slow connection, this makes a difference - and it reduces
the load on the server to reduce those image sizes. There... now you know.
Other than that, though, you have made some good improvements. You no
longer have the "mystery meat" navigation, and that was likely your biggest
area of need. The contrast on your main text is excellent now, though your
headers might be a little less so, they are large enough where I think they
are fine. Your text is well broken up into "bite size" sections... but I
think you have done that well since I first looked at your site.
For people with larger fonts, your layout gets pretty messed up - but that
is common with CSS layouts. Look forward to future versions of CSS that
actually handle layout well... you know, with a table-like structure. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7/31/09 12:41 PM:
>> There are all sorts of excellent Contact Management Systems.
>
> Whatever a "Contact" Management System is...
Ah, people familiar with the industry would have been able to figure out my
typo: Content Management Systems. Sorry for the confusion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7/31/09 12:41 PM:
>> There are all sorts of excellent Content Management Systems. What does your
>> home brewed one offer that they do not?
>
> Any questions from you will be answered in a reasonable manner the day
> you stop lying and trolling
As I figured: you have no answer. You are not familiar with the big-name
CMS applications or fear you home-brewed one would not stand up.
But you seem to like using it... I am certainly not trying to talk you out
of it... was just testing to see if you held any *real* pride in your work
or were just scared to talk about it.
Now we know. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <4acf2296-2d0a-4ada...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Anyone wanna take a stab at what caused this;)
> > >
> > > Fixed. My bad, actually :)
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing out an error on my page in a reasonable mannner
> > > that I could swiftly fix.
> >
> > I did what any reasonable person would do (hehe;)
>
> Indeed you did. What you didn't do was say something like, I don't
> know:
>
> "your code is pretty damned bad"
I liked when michael used statements like that one and claimed he was 'teaching
you'.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-05C7B3.17...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
7/31/09 2:24 PM:
>> Indeed you did. What you didn't do was say something like, I don't
>> know:
>>
>> "your code is pretty damned bad"
>
> I liked when michael used statements like that one and claimed he was
> 'teaching
> you'.
Sandman trolled with his belitting of others.
I pointed out what a hypocrite he was... and, sure, I did not treat the poor
sap with kid gloves. He was dishing it out, he sure as heck better be able
to take it.
But I also pointed him in directions to improve his work. And he did. Look
at his current sandman.net site: do you see any mystery meat navigation?
Does the contrast look pretty good? Is his use of white space pretty good?
Do his headers look professional?
In the past they did not... those were the biggest areas of improvement I
suggested for him. And he listened. And learned.
And will deny.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> There are all sorts of excellent Content Management Systems. What does
> >> your
> >> home brewed one offer that they do not?
> >
> > Any questions from you will be answered in a reasonable manner the day
> > you stop lying and trolling
>
> As I figured: you have no answer.
Since you are still lying and trolling. Stop it and I will answer your
question - gladly.
--
Sandman[.net]
Chance Furlong
Sandman never trolled or belittled me, so you lose.
> I pointed out what a hypocrite he was, and, sure, I did not treat the poor
> sap with kid gloves. He was dishing it out, he sure as heck better be able
> to take it.
>
> But I also pointed him in directions to improve his work. And he did. Look
> at his current sandman.net site: do you see any mystery meat navigation?
> Does the contrast look pretty good? Is his use of white space pretty good?
> Do his headers look professional?
>
> In the past they did not, those were the biggest areas of improvement I
> suggested for him. And he listened. And learned.
>
> And will deny.
And you constantly beg for his attention, troll.
Snit
7/31/09 3:13 PM:
Your definition of "lying and trolling" clearly means nothing more than
being honest and honorable.
The fact is, Sandman, you keep snipping, running and - now - showing you
cannot think of a single advantage of your system over more common CMS
solutions. No big deal - maybe you just like yours or have so much data in
yours you do not see a reason to switch. It is not like I am saying you are
wrong to use yours, just asking a question. No big deal that you cannot
think of an answer.
Sad, though, that you feel the need to turn things around and spew insults
just because your lack of having an answer clearly is a problem to *you*.
Really, Sandman, it shows more about you than you likely wanted to let on
to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> As I figured: you have no answer.
> >
> > Since you are still lying and trolling. Stop it and I will answer your
> > question - gladly.
>
> Your definition of "lying and trolling" clearly means nothing more than
> being honest and honorable.
Whenever you feel you can stop lying and trolling, I'll be glad to
tell you some of the things I feel are the USP's of Atlas.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
7/31/09 3:48 PM:
I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how you misrepresent
it or what demands you make. But, of course, the real fact is you just
cannot think of a single advantage of Atlas over other CMS software.
Maybe you someday will... and then you will give that answer and say you
thought of it right away.
No dice. Not playing your game. Get the last word... even demand I stop
being honest and honorable (which you mischaracterize dishonestly, of
course).
Face it: you cannot find a shred of evidence to back up your BS - I have
posted absolute proof of the facts you do not like. Carroll jumps in and
says it does not matter... *he* is not convinced. LOL! Yeah, like I expect
that hate-consumed whacko and his buddies to be honest or to use reason.
Your game is boring. And you are a liar. Now get the last word.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-CCC344.21410231072...@News.Individual.NET on
> 7/31/09 12:41 PM:
>
> >> There are all sorts of excellent Contact Management Systems.
>
> > Whatever a "Contact" Management System is...
>
> Ah, people familiar with the industry would have been able to figure out my
> typo: Content Management Systems. Â Sorry for the confusion.
ROFLMAO! People "familiar with the industry" wouldn't have suggested
he was reinventing the wheel by writing a CMS. You "very, very
clearly" have no knowledge of this topic. Maybe you should go do some
research so you can prevent yourself from looking like what you now
look like;)
Steve Carroll
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C69893D3.3F21B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
> > [0092] Â You blame me for *reacting* to your trolling (1) in a way
> > [0092] that is not kind enough for your liking.
>
> Unsupported claim #1
>
> > [0094] And you show you have no idea what you are talking about
> > [0094] when you refer to the #1 professional web development tool
> > [0094] as a "beginners" tool.
>
> Says the guy that doesn't even dare to link to his "professional" web
> pages he allegedly made for "clients" and instead only have linked to
> butt-ugly pre-newbie-stage pages that look like they're made by a four
> year old.
>
> > [0095] That does not mean, of course, that Dreamweaver is a Content
> > [0095] Management System (though it can work with them).
>
> It's hilarious to read you trying to talk about these things :-D
>
> > [0096] Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting "points" for
> > [0096] having automatically validating CSS.
>
> I'm sure Steve understood perfectly though. You know, the person I was
> responding to.
I did. I've learned a bit since I started in on this stuff (you may
remember my questions about php awhile back). I've fiddled with
creating a simple php based CMS. I rolled my own with a Ruby on Rails
install. I've taken a website that I created for someone and ported
the same look and feel to Wordpress. I've worked with MySQL in a
terminal window, in phpMyAdmin and in some other OSX apps designed for
it. I haven't gotten my hands nearly as dirty as a professional like
you but I'm no longer a clueless newb about this stuff... the way a
certain self professed "IT teacher" obviously is.
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-05C7B3.17...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 7/31/09 2:24 PM:
>
> >> Indeed you did. What you didn't do was say something like, I don't
> >> know:
> >>
> >> "your code is pretty damned bad"
> >
> > I liked when michael used statements like that one and claimed he was
> > 'teaching
> > you'.
>
> Sandman
proved you a liar and an idiot. Live with it.
~babbling snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-8A971A.00...@News.Individual.NET on
> 7/31/09 3:13 PM:
>
> > In article <C698A0A3.3F233%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> There are all sorts of excellent Content Management Systems. What does
> >>>> your
> >>>> home brewed one offer that they do not?
> >>>
> >>> Any questions from you will be answered in a reasonable manner the day
> >>> you stop lying and trolling
> >>
> >> As I figured: you have no answer.
> >
> > Since you are still lying and trolling. Stop it and I will answer your
> > question - gladly.
>
> Your definition of "lying and trolling" clearly means nothing more than
> being honest and honorable.
"honest and honorable", two thing that michael glasser has never been!
~more babbling snipped
Sandman
<ec2aca2a-9a65-4e5c...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > [0096] Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting "points" for
> > > [0096] having automatically validating CSS.
> >
> > I'm sure Steve understood perfectly though. You know, the person I was
> > responding to.
>
> I did. I've learned a bit since I started in on this stuff (you may
> remember my questions about php awhile back). I've fiddled with
> creating a simple php based CMS. I rolled my own with a Ruby on Rails
> install. I've taken a website that I created for someone and ported
> the same look and feel to Wordpress. I've worked with MySQL in a
> terminal window, in phpMyAdmin and in some other OSX apps designed for
> it. I haven't gotten my hands nearly as dirty as a professional like
> you but I'm no longer a clueless newb about this stuff... the way a
> certain self professed "IT teacher" obviously is.
Yeah, as I said - this isn't hard stuff really, and anyone determined
to make a dynamic page would learn about php, or ruby, in a couple of
weeks enough to make something that works, which always leads to a
sense of satisfaction and further determination to build upon it.
I'm a schooled graphics artist and was employed by ICA F�rlaget, one
of sweden largests publishers in 1993 as an Art Director for a
magazine. I moved within the company to the newly formed Internet
Department which was meant to make home pages for all publications. I
was still the graphics artist and knew nothing about perl (the SSI/CGI
programming language of choice back then). My collegue back then who
were a programmer was unfortunately very lazy, so over the years I
taught myself perl to pick up the slack between us, and soon I built
my first CMS, entirely with RXML and Pike, the markup-parsing language
and the scripting language used by Roxen.
In fact, Roxen themselves have built a XML-based CMS on top of their
web server foudnation that they once came over and tried to sell us -
but it turned out that they left us and were more impressed with what
I had done with their base than they had themselves. I didn't know it
at the time, but years later another associate had heard from them
about "that cool CMS system at ICA F�rlaget built using our tools", so
we had become a reference for them. Funny :)
Oh, I'm getting carried away here. Anyway, when PHP became more and
more popular it was a pretty natural for my perl-background to move to
it and I started to build Atlas back in 2001, right around when the
dotcom bubble burst and layoffs were everywhere. In 2003, with me
being the only one left on the Internet Department, I was also let go
and started my own business and took the base for Atlas with me, and
I've developed it ever since.
I've glanced at Ruby on Rails, and it looks sweet for someone starting
from scratch, but as it is, most of the sweet functionality of Ruby on
Rails are already present in Atlas, so I've pretty much built my own
PHP Framework that works exactly how I want it. You won't be able to
understand what I'm saying, but you can watch these two videos on how
I'm building applications in Atlas:
http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Moduler_I_Atlas
This is a video about me creating an atlas "module", which in this
case is a product catalog. A very basic one of course, but you would
probably get the idea. A module is a set of rules for how to edit and
insert data into one or several databases, so you'll see me set up the
DB, set up the rules for how it's edited and so forth.
http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Applikationer_I_Atlas
And this video is me creating a Atlas application, based on the
aforementioned module. It's very easy and the time to result is very
short.
This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Your definition of "lying and trolling" clearly means nothing more than
> >> being honest and honorable.
> >
> > Whenever you feel you can stop lying and trolling, I'll be glad to
> > tell you some of the things I feel are the USP's of Atlas.
>
> I will not stop
Too bad. But if you would change your mind and want to stop lying and
trolling, then I would gladly answer your questions, like I would any
reasonable person.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/1/09 2:16 AM:
Snit:
I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
Sandman:
Too bad.
From your perspective - no doubt. No doubt at all.
Now stop snipping and running. It really does nothing but prove me right
about you.
But, of course, you are just running from the absolute proof that you not
only had CSS that did not validate (who cares), but that you lied about it
(OK, you made a mistake), and continue to lash out over this issue for
*years* (which shows you are severely mentally ill).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-F23E3D.11...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/1/09 2:16 AM:
>
> Snit:
> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
>
> Sandman:
> Too bad.
I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
trolling" technique.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/1/09 2:16 AM:
> In article
Pretty much as I said... nothing wrong with you using your own tools.
> You won't be able to
> understand what I'm saying, but you can watch these two videos on how
> I'm building applications in Atlas:
>
> http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Moduler_I_Atlas
> This is a video about me creating an atlas "module", which in this
> case is a product catalog. A very basic one of course, but you would
> probably get the idea. A module is a set of rules for how to edit and
> insert data into one or several databases, so you'll see me set up the
> DB, set up the rules for how it's edited and so forth.
>
> http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Applikationer_I_Atlas
> And this video is me creating a Atlas application, based on the
> aforementioned module. It's very easy and the time to result is very
> short.
>
> This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
Looks pretty impressive... from what little I know of PHP and working with
CMSs. :)
I see you are a fellow ScreenFlow user. Absolutely love that software -
works for me much better than Camtasia on Windows used to. I use it a lot
to make Windows screencasts via virtualization.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/1/09 7:22 AM:
The quotes are *exact*. You responded to my comments with the sentence
*exactly* as I quote it... and then you babbled insults which I did not
quote. You, on the other hand, keep snipping sentences in half - a
dishonest trolling trait you share with your buddy Carroll.
But, as I noted and you proved with your snipping, you are just running from
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Snit:
> >> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
> >> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
> >>
> >> Sandman:
> >> Too bad.
> >
> > I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
> > trolling" technique.
>
> The quotes are *exact*.
As are these:
Sandman:
You are the most hated person in the history of csma
Snit:
Yes, I am
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/1/09 7:49 AM:
Can you show where one is the response to the other... or are you just
making a dishonest insinuation. Again.
I bet you are. You really do have a very hard time being honest. Why? Why
not just live up to your agreement to be honest and honorable? I do not
expect you to never slip, but you show no effort of even trying.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Â Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > [0096] Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting "points" for
> > > > [0096] having automatically validating CSS.
>
> > > I'm sure Steve understood perfectly though. You know, the person I was
> > > responding to.
>
> > I did. Â I've learned a bit since I started in on this stuff (you may
> > remember my questions about php awhile back). I've fiddled with
> > creating a simple php based CMS. I rolled my own with a Ruby on Rails
> > install. I've taken a website that I created for someone and ported
> > the same look and feel to Wordpress. I've worked with MySQL in a
> > terminal window, in phpMyAdmin and in some other OSX apps designed for
> > it. I haven't gotten my hands nearly as dirty as a professional like
> > you but I'm no longer a clueless newb about this stuff... the way a
> > certain self professed "IT teacher" obviously is.
>
> Yeah, as I said - this isn't hard stuff really, and anyone determined
> to make a dynamic page would learn about php, or ruby, in a couple of
> weeks enough to make something that works, which always leads to a
> sense of satisfaction and further determination to build upon it.
>
> of sweden largests publishers in 1993 as an Art Director for a
> magazine. I moved within the company to the newly formed Internet
> Department which was meant to make home pages for all publications. I
> was still the graphics artist and knew nothing about perl (the SSI/CGI
> programming language of choice back then). My collegue back then who
> were a programmer was unfortunately very lazy, so over the years I
> taught myself perl to pick up the slack between us, and soon I built
> my first CMS, entirely with RXML and Pike, the markup-parsing language
> and the scripting language used by Roxen.
>
> In fact, Roxen themselves have built a XML-based CMS on top of their
> web server foudnation that they once came over and tried to sell us -
> but it turned out that they left us and were more impressed with what
> I had done with their base than they had themselves. I didn't know it
> at the time, but years later another associate had heard from them
Not at all... I found it interesting... and I watched both videos, you
did a really nice job all the way around. Frankly, and I don't know
why, I didn't expect it to be so extensive. I really like the look,
especially the admin section. App creation was straightforward... even
I could understand it;)
At your suggestion, long ago, I bought BBEdit... a great app IMO. Have
you ever used Sequel Pro (a fork from the discontinued CocoaMySQL I
saw you using here)?
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Snit:
> >>>> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
> >>>> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sandman:
> >>>> Too bad.
> >>>
> >>> I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
> >>> trolling" technique.
> >>
> >> The quotes are *exact*.
> >
> > As are these:
> >
> > Sandman:
> > You are the most hated person in the history of csma
> >
> > Snit:
> > Yes, I am
> >
>
> Can you show where one is the response to the other...
Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response to your
paragraph. I.e. show me a message-ID containing both those paragraphs
with one being the response to the other.
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you forged the
quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-D88234.11160501082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/1/09 2:16 AM:
(snip)
> >http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Applikationer_I_Atlas
> > And this video is me creating a Atlas application, based on the
> > aforementioned module. It's very easy and the time to result is very
> > short.
>
> > This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
>
> Looks pretty impressive...
For having 're-invented the wheel', you mean?
What parts were 're-invented', Snit?
Sandman
<27dd7797-752f-43e4...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Snit:
> > > > > [0096] Not sure what you mean, by the way, by getting
> > > > > "points" for [0096] having automatically validating CSS.
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I'm sure Steve understood perfectly though. You know, the
> > > > person I was responding to.
> > > Steve Carroll:
> > > I did. I've learned a bit since I started in on this stuff (you
> > > may remember my questions about php awhile back). I've fiddled
> > > with creating a simple php based CMS. I rolled my own with a
> > > Ruby on Rails install. I've taken a website that I created for
> > > someone and ported the same look and feel to Wordpress. I've
> > > worked with MySQL in a terminal window, in phpMyAdmin and in
> > > some other OSX apps designed for it. I haven't gotten my hands
> > > nearly as dirty as a professional like you but I'm no longer a
> > > clueless newb about this stuff... the way a certain self
> > > professed "IT teacher" obviously is.
> > Sandman:
> > <snip>
> > This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
> Steve Carroll:
> Not at all... I found it interesting... and I watched both videos,
> you did a really nice job all the way around. Frankly, and I don't
> know why, I didn't expect it to be so extensive. I really like the
> look, especially the admin section. App creation was
> straightforward... even I could understand it;)
Well, thanks :)
> At your suggestion, long ago, I bought BBEdit... a great app IMO.
> Have you ever used Sequel Pro (a fork from the discontinued
> CocoaMySQL I saw you using here)?
Yes, I use it exclusively for SQL nowadays, a much nice and cleaner
version of CocoaMySQL.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<494aa2c7-0bff-4268...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Applikationer_I_Atlas
> > > And this video is me creating a Atlas application, based on the
> > > aforementioned module. It's very easy and the time to result is very
> > > short.
> >
> > > This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
> >
> > Looks pretty impressive...
>
>
> For having 're-invented the wheel', you mean?
>
> What parts were 're-invented', Snit?
All CMS's have form input, right, right? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<mr-03B0D0.17...@News.Individual.NET> on 08/01/09 5:25 PM:
What a silly troll you are
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/1/09 8:25 AM:
I do not know all of the CMSs... so I cannot say, but as I predicted:
-----
But, of course, the real fact is you just cannot think of a
single advantage of Atlas over other CMS software.
Maybe you someday will... and then you will give that answer
and say you thought of it right away.
-----
You have no idea how predictable you are... even when I tell you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/1/09 8:12 AM:
> In article <C699A5D8.3F428%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Snit:
>>>>>> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
>>>>>> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>> Too bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
>>>>> trolling" technique.
>>>>
>>>> The quotes are *exact*.
>>>
>>> As are these:
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> You are the most hated person in the history of csma
>>>
>>> Snit:
>>> Yes, I am
>>>
>>
>> Can you show where one is the response to the other...
>
> Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response to your
> paragraph.
Ok, then *do* it. Look at this thread - you can see my posting what I did
in one post and then you responding to the very sentence I say you did with
the exact response I quote. Do you need message IDs?
I do not deny you dishonestly snipped and I returned the context in which
you were replying, but if you would stop being dishonest you would not have
to worry about such thing. Not that you *can* stop, of course... that has
been proved.
See, Sandman, now you are stuck in a position of whining that I did not
react to your dishonest behavior in a way you like... I maintained the
context you ran from. Poor Sandman... people do not bend to his silly lies
the way he wants. Wah wah.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Snit:
> >>>>>> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
> >>>>>> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sandman:
> >>>>>> Too bad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
> >>>>> trolling" technique.
> >>>>
> >>>> The quotes are *exact*.
> >>>
> >>> As are these:
> >>>
> >>> Sandman:
> >>> You are the most hated person in the history of csma
> >>>
> >>> Snit:
> >>> Yes, I am
> >>>
> >>
> >> Can you show where one is the response to the other...
> >
> > Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response to your
> > paragraph.
>
> Ok, then *do* it. Look at this thread - you can see my posting what I did
> in one post and then you responding to the very sentence I say you did with
> the exact response I quote. Do you need message IDs?
No, I need *ONE* Message-ID with your part of the quote above in angle
brackets and my part directly beneath it.
Sandman:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
(part of what you snipped and ran from and didn't reply to)
Snit:
Ok
(part of your response, taken out of context to make it
seem like you didn't snip the above and responded directly
to it with "Ok")
Those are just as "exact" quotes as yours. You're a quote forger, PDF
forger and a dishonest lying troll.
It's depressing when one has to explain your own circus to you, when
you're pretending that you don't know what kind of forging you're
doing.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Sandman:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
Snit:
Ok
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/1/09 11:50 PM:
Another example of your dishonesty.
Seriously, Sandman, I am surprised you have given up your claim that you are
never dishonest.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/1/09 11:47 PM:
> In article <C699CBA9.3F495%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Snit:
>>>>>>>> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
>>>>>>>> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>>>> Too bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you're back to quote forging, keeping up the entire "lying and
>>>>>>> trolling" technique.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The quotes are *exact*.
>>>>>
>>>>> As are these:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> You are the most hated person in the history of csma
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> Yes, I am
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you show where one is the response to the other...
>>>
>>> Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response to your
>>> paragraph.
>>
>> Ok, then *do* it. Look at this thread - you can see my posting what I did
>> in one post and then you responding to the very sentence I say you did with
>> the exact response I quote. Do you need message IDs?
>
> No, I need *ONE* Message-ID with your part of the quote above in angle
> brackets and my part directly beneath it.
Gee, you claimed you could show my responding as you dishonestly claimed I
did.
You lied - you cannot do as you said. Of course you cannot... you lied.
You snipped dishonestly to try to make it look like I agreed to something I
did not.
Now stop whining about how I returned context you dishonestly snipped.
Seriously, the fact you are whining about how I reacted to your dishonest
snipping is pathetic, even for you. The fact is, I posted:
I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
And you responded with:
Too bad.
And then some insults. You also snipped dishonestly. Wah wah. You have
been called on your dishonest rubbish... deal with it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-1BE571.08500602082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/1/09 11:50 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C699CAEC.3F493%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Â Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> 8/1/09 8:25 AM:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> Â Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://sandman.net/pages/Skapa_Applikationer_I_Atlas
> >>>>>> And this video is me creating a Atlas application, based on the
> >>>>>> aforementioned module. It's very easy and the time to result is very
> >>>>>> short.
>
> >>>>>> This became a very long post, hope you didn't fell asleep :)
>
> >>>>> Looks pretty impressive...
>
> >>>> For having 're-invented the wheel', you mean?
>
> >>>> What parts were 're-invented', Snit?
>
> >>> All CMS's have form input, right, right? :)
>
> >> I do not know all of the CMSs... so I cannot say, but as I predicted:
> >> Â Â -----
> >> Â Â But, of course, the real fact is you just cannot think of a
> >> Â Â single advantage of Atlas over other CMS software.
>
> >> Â Â Maybe you someday will... and then you will give that answer
> >> Â Â and say you thought of it right away.
> >> Â Â -----
>
> >> You have no idea how predictable you are... even when I tell you.
>
> > Â Â Sandman:
> > Â Â Â Â But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
> > Â Â Â Â forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
>
> > Â Â Snit:
> > Â Â Â Â Ok
>
> Another example of your dishonesty.
Said the hypocrite who claims he is always honest and honorable... the
same guy for whom the public record once showed you gave false info to
GoDaddy when you reg'd your domain with them:
"Registrant:
Impact Technology
123 Main Street
Prescott, Arizona 86301
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: GALLOPINGINSANITY.COM
Created on: 08-May-06
Expires on: 08-May-13
Last Updated on: 09-Feb-08
Administrative Contact:
McNuggets, Brock kra...@cableone.net
Impact Technology
123 Main Street
Prescott, Arizona 86301
United States
9284456666 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Bilby, Bilby kra...@cableone.net
123 Honey Way
Prescott, Arizona 86301
United States
9284456666 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS13.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS14.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
 Â
The previous information has been obtained either directly from the
registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network
Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its
accuracy or completeness."
>
> Seriously, Sandman, I am surprised you have given up your claim that you are
> never dishonest. Â
"the irony is delicious". LOL!
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > No, I need *ONE* Message-ID with your part of the quote above in angle
> > brackets and my part directly beneath it.
>
> Gee, you claimed you could show my responding as you dishonestly claimed I
> did.
I can show that just as much as you can show me responding as you
dishonestly claimed I did.
Sandman:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
Snit:
Ok
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I.e. your dishonesty since I did exactly what you did:
Sandman:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
Snit:
Ok
I returned context you snipped in your reply and I snipped your reply,
just like you did with your quotes.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/2/09 9:11 AM:
No, you did not. I noted how I posted a comment and you responded. You
posted two completely separate comments, one dishonestly snipped.
But let us pretend I had done as you did... how would that excuse your
dishonesty? You are acting like Carroll... trying to excuse your dishonesty
by *blaming* me for acting like you.
You are not even trying to maintain a pretense of doing anything other than
lying... you used to. At least you are not dishonestly hiding your
dishonesty... a meager improvement for you, but a small step in the right
direction.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> You have no idea how predictable you are... even when I tell you.
> >>>
> >>> Sandman:
> >>> But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
> >>> forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
> >>>
> >>> Snit:
> >>> Ok
> >>
> >> Another example of your dishonesty.
> >
> > I.e. your dishonesty since I did exactly what you did:
>
> No, you did not. I noted how I posted a comment and you responded. You
> posted two completely separate comments, one dishonestly snipped.
Incorrect.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/2/09 12:53 PM:
Then point to the posts. Maybe I did start a sentence that way... who knows
and who cares? Clearly you are dishonestly snipping... and then lying and
saying you are doing what I did when I *returned* other content you
dishonestly snipped.
Either way: you have given up any pretense of being anything other than
openly dishonest. You are *clearly* acting in a way that is neither honest
nor honorable. I, on the other hand, shall not sink to your level... I
shall remain honest and honorable, no matter how many times you
mischaracterize it, snip and run, beg me to stop being honest and honorable,
etc.
And, of course, this thread has proved my point. I provided absolute proof
of you lying about your CSS... and now, many posts later, you are still not
willing to talk about the proof. As the subject like says, you repeatedly
run from the proof you lied. Fine... just stop lashing out in anger over
it.
Carroll has noted why you and he are acting the way you are: jealousy. In
his normal twisted way, he accused me of his own behavior in order to try to
excuse his behavior, but that is just what he does. It would be dishonest
to pretend otherwise.
Anyway... run away as you get the last word. It is not like you are willing
to be honest.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Sandman:
> >>>>> But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
> >>>>> forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Snit:
> >>>>> Ok
> >>>>
> >>>> Another example of your dishonesty.
> >>>
> >>> I.e. your dishonesty since I did exactly what you did:
> >>
> >> No, you did not. I noted how I posted a comment and you responded. You
> >> posted two completely separate comments, one dishonestly snipped.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> Then point to the posts. Maybe I did start a sentence that way... who knows
> and who cares? Clearly you are dishonestly snipping... and then lying and
> saying you are doing what I did when I *returned* other content you
> dishonestly snipped.
That's exactly what I did above. You had snipped out the part I
returned which made it look like your "Ok" was a response to something
you had snipped out.
A bummer when your trolling bites yourself in the ass like this.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/2/09 1:29 PM:
>> Clearly you are dishonestly snipping... and then lying and saying you are
>> doing what I did when I *returned* other content you dishonestly snipped.
>>
> That's exactly what I did above.
>
Good to see you admit to it. Seriously, I am surprised to see you make this
admission... and no need to even return context you had snipped... you jus
flat our admitted to being dishonest. I am happy to see you at least come
that far.
> You had snipped out the part I returned which made it look like your "Ok" was
> a response to something you had snipped out.
I did no such thing. I *returned* the context you had dishonestly snipped.
You are lying... but at least now you are *admitting* you are lying. That
is a step in the right direction for you. Really.
Now see if you can *stop* lying. You gave me your word once you would not
lie... but here you are, being dishonest and - to your credit - admitting
you are being so.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Clearly you are dishonestly snipping... and then lying and saying you are
> >> doing what I did when I *returned* other content you dishonestly snipped.
> >>
> > That's exactly what I did above.
>
> Good to see you admit to it.
I admit to using your trolling technique to make a point, yes. The
point, of course, was totally lost on you since if there is anyting
stronger than your urge to troll csma, it's your capacity for denial.
> > You had snipped out the part I returned which made it look like your "Ok"
> > was a response to something you had snipped out.
> >
> > A bummer when your trolling bites yourself in the ass like this.
>
> I did no such thing. I *returned* the context you had dishonestly snipped.
As did I - I *returned* the context which you had dishonestly snipped
away when you answered with "Ok". When returning that context, I made
it appear that your Ok was in response to the context that you had
snipped away. This is your Circus, Snit. I'm just using it against you.
I.e. the context you dishonestly snipped in this post:
<C699CBA9.3F495%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
From this post:
<mr-14A3EE.17...@News.Individual.NET>
Was returned in a fashion where it seemed like you replied to content
you had snipped:
Sandman, wrote this:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
Snit wrote this in a follow-up post:
Ok
Just like content *I* had snipped in this post:
<mr-F23E3D.11...@News.Individual.NET>
From this post:
<C698C528.3F295%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Was returned by you in a fashion where it seemed like I was replying
to content that I had snipped:
Snit's quote-forging:
Snit:
I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
Sandman:
Too bad.
Your quote forging is easy to spot, since you can never attach a
Message-ID to those quotes, because there isn't one, like in this
case. When you don't quote-forge, you usually attach a google link or
a Message-ID, even when the quote is taken completely out of context
(which is the norm for you), but when you quote-forge, you can't,
because there is no link to the passages you make appear as a quote.
That is quote-forging.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/3/09 12:14 AM:
The reality:
Sandman:
Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response
to your paragraph.
Snit:
Ok, then *do* it.
Sandman's dishonest misrepresentation:
Sandman:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
Snit:
Ok
What made Sandman freak out... my *returning* context he dishonesty snipped:
Snit: [1]
I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
Sandman: [2]
Too bad.
That is the *exact* sentence I wrote and the *exact* response you gave
(though you followed it with BS and lies). Now you are pulling a Carroll
and insisting your dishonesty is my fault. Nope. You lied. Again. And
you were busted. Again.
[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3960b606a8b7c118>
[2]
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d06248dbb4125599>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/3/09 12:14 AM:
> I admit to using your trolling technique to make a point, yes.
You admit to trolling and you blame me. Take responsibility for your own
actions.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted"
- Snit
What you ran from, and had to snip since it outlines how I did exactly
what you did, which means you have to accept that you quote forged:
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman:
> Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response
> to your paragraph.
>
> Snit:
> Ok, then *do* it.
> Sandman's dishonest misrepresentation:
Where I *returned* context you had dishonestly snipped out:
> Sandman:
> But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you
> forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
>
> Snit:
> Ok
> What made Sandman freak out... my *returning* context he dishonesty snipped:
>
> Snit: [1]
> I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how
> you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
>
> Sandman: [2]
> Too bad.
Which, of course is a response from the stitched together with content
that was nowhere near my response - i.e. quote forging
Sandman:
Just as much as you can show me writing that as a response
to your paragraph. But you can't do that, because it doesn't
exist, since you forged the quote, since you're a dishonest
lying troll.
Snit:
Ok
Thank you for admitting that you are a dishonest lying troll, Michael
Glasser.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/3/09 1:07 AM:
Above you whine about how I returned context you dishonestly snipped. Oh
well, get over it. And then you say your outright fabrications of a
conversation are somehow the same thing and thus your dishonesty is - you
say - my fault. Pathetic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/3/09 1:11 AM:
Why is it the more you get busted and the more you lie the more you use my
name?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]