Kudos to Sandman
Snit
I would like to take the time now to offer you kudos for a site well done.
I cannot speak to the content, since I do not speak the language, so I will
comment on the style:
* Your HTML now validates.
* Your CSS now validates.
* Your images now are appropriately compressed.
* Your use of white space has improved.
This shows growth on your part and you deserve kudos for a job well done. I
have noted that you have even started to get compliments both in CSMA and,
you say, from people outside of CSMA - from what you say people who have
looked at your site for years are now coming forward to say how much they
like it. That must feel good for you, and I am happy for you. I remember
years ago when I started getting e-mails about my web sites - it was quite a
rush back then - people from around the country and even around the world
were writing to me and letting me know that my sites were helping them and
meant something to them. I am glad you get to share in this feeling
(perhaps you have had some taste of that in the past, I am merely stating I
am happy to see you get what you have shared with CSMA now).
Some constructive criticism / suggestions / comments:
* Your background, as nice as it is, is different shades of gray.
So is much of your text. You could improve that contrast.
* Some of your elements still bump into or come close to bumping into
others. Your site would look better if you improved your use of
white space still more.
* You repeat the same icon often... visually that is not powerful, though
perhaps it fits the content.
* Your site is still a nit slow, though not horrid
Just some thoughts... but overall very well done. If it helps, I would
likely give a similar site as yours an A in my Web Development class
(assuming you used the tools of the class - you have made it clear you do
not.)
Again, Sandman, well done and kudos to you. Sincerely. Please do not take
my constructive criticism too harshly; they are merely ideas for you to
accept or reject at your whim.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I know you take pride in your sites, especially your main sandman.net site
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]
NRen2k5
What lie? It's abundantly clear from your site-whoring hear that you're
an arrogant fuck about your (unimpressive) web design skills.
--
Mufasa Is Darth Vader: http://starbeatacademy.ytmnd.com/
Pee Wee Misses His Bike: http://peeweemisseshisbike.ytmnd.com/
The Un-Funny Truth About Scientology: http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/
The Un-Funny Sequel: http://theunfunnysequel.ytmnd.com/
Scientology Harassment Continues:
http://scientologyharrassmentcontinues.ytmnd.com/
Snit
8ZCGg.43940$%f4.2...@wagner.videotron.net on 8/22/06 5:42 AM:
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <C10BE07E.5B197%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> I know you take pride in your sites, especially your main sandman.net site
>>
>> Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
>> you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> What lie? It's abundantly clear from your site-whoring hear that you're
> an arrogant fuck about your (unimpressive) web design skills.
He has been following my suggestions (or comments, or criticism, or whatever
word makes Sandman happy today - frankly I do not care about the semantic
games) - and since then he has been getting positive feedback on his site.
Here is what I told him:
-----
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
-----
And here is what he changed:
-----
1 - fixed
2 - fixed
3 - white space improved
text/background contrast still could be better
4 - images are now compressed in a much more appropriate way
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved
-----
As far as I know there were no other changes to his site... he did *nothing*
but change things based on my comments. His pride will not let him admit to
this...
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> He has been following my suggestions
Which suggestions are those, Michael? You keep referring to them, but
you've always been unable to answer that question.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-DD45EF.19...@individual.net on 8/22/06 10:12 AM:
LOL! Snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip!
All you can do, Sandman. Funny as can be. Here is what you snip:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Your update:
1 - fixed
2 - fixed
3 - white space improved
text/background contrast still could be better
4 - images are now compressed in a much more appropriate way
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved
LOL! Amazing how scared of that information you are. You can't even stand
to look at it... snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip!
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> He has been following my suggestions
> >
> > Which suggestions are those, Michael? You keep referring to them, but
> > you've always been unable to answer that question.
>
> LOL! Snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip!
>
> All you can do, Sandman. Funny as can be. Here is what you snip:
And you keep running from my questions.
These were your claims:
1. Your HTML doesn't validate
- Could be interpreted as a suggestion. I corrected my HTML since
having validating HTML is a good thing, obviously. It's an
obvious "suggestions" that a trained monkey teaching a
dreamweaver class could give.
: Action taken: HTML now validates.
2. Your CSS doesn't validate
- This was an incorrect claim.
: Action taken: None.
3. You make bad use of whitespace
- This was not only incorrect, it was uninformed. Plus, it's
ambiguous at best. It could mean anything. It's one of those
claims that someone that doesn't know what they're talking
about says. Again, this was an incorrect claim, and as far away
from a "suggestion" you can come.
: Action taken: None.
4. Your images are poorly compressed.
- Also an incorrect and ignorant claim, coming from someone that
knows nothing about building web sites.
: Action taken: None
5. Your site isn't made with printing in mind
- No shit, Sherlock? That's a feature. You're not supposed to
print it. Duh. Also not a suggestion, just an uninformed
observation. It's like saying that "Hey, this toilet is not
suited for football games"
: Action taken: None
6. Poor contrast
- Again, incorrect and uninformed.
: Action taken: None
So, I ask again - which are these imaginary suggestions you think
you've given me and how did I follow them? You're a legend in your own
mind where you think you know how to build web sites.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1108B02.5B9F5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> He has been following my suggestions
>>>
>>> Which suggestions are those, Michael? You keep referring to them, but
>>> you've always been unable to answer that question.
>>
>> LOL! Snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip!
>>
>> All you can do, Sandman. Funny as can be. Here is what you snip:
Ah, Sandman makes some comments... though, oddly enough, he still snipped my
comments but then added them back in a slightly changed way. Why? Just
bizarre.
>> 1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
>> exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
>> end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
>> they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
>> that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
>> 2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
>> 3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
>> 4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
>> need be
>> 5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
>>
>> Your update:
>>
>> 1 - fixed
Sandman, below, admits he took my suggestion... then whines that anyone
could have figured this out, even though he did not!
>> 2 - fixed
Sandman denies he fixed this. He is lying.
For more info see: Message-ID: <C0A1C31D.500C0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> 3 - white space improved
>> text/background contrast still could be better
Sandman denies he improved his use of white space. He is lying.
>> 4 - images are now compressed in a much more appropriate way
Sandman denies he improved the image compression on his site. He is lying.
>> 5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
>> big of a deal, but could be improved
Sandman whines about this and spews insults. Whatever.
We can update the list of suggestions:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Samdman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
How proud you must be.
You think your lies are interesting. Whatever. You still are running from
the truth.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
<snip trolling>
You keep running from the facts:
These were your claims:
: Action taken: None.
: Action taken: None.
: Action taken: None
: Action taken: None
: Action taken: None
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your above has already been fully commented on:
What I told him:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Sandman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
I have supported my accusations of dishonesty against you very well... you
lied, Sandman, deal with it.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No, it hasn't. If it had, there would be comments from you above.
Here it is again:
These were your claims:
: Action taken: None.
: Action taken: None.
: Action taken: None
: Action taken: None
: Action taken: None
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C111368F.5BBD6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> <snip trolling>
> Here it is again:
>
> These were your claims:
>
> 1. Your HTML doesn't validate
> - Could be interpreted as a suggestion. I corrected my HTML since
> having validating HTML is a good thing, obviously. It's an
> obvious "suggestions" that a trained monkey teaching a
> dreamweaver class could give.
>
> : Action taken: HTML now validates.
Funny how you claim a trained monkey could have told you what you were
messing up. I am not sure why you would put yourself down that way.
> 2. Your CSS doesn't validate
> - This was an incorrect claim.
>
> : Action taken: None.
From a past post:
Snit:
* your CSS does not validate correctly
Sandman:
Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
Snit:
LOL! It does now. Funny how the Googled archive of it does
not: <http://snipurl.com/r627>.
-----
Line: 373
Property align doesn't exist : center
Line: 412
Property align doesn't exist : center
Line: 431
Property align doesn't exist : center
-----
At that point you ran. You did not comment until the CSS code was cleared
from the Google cache. Luckily, however, there are other tools. Here is
your page from the WayBackMachine:
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sandman.net>
Let's look at your page from the most recent copy it has - Mar 10 2005.
Looking at your CSS from then:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.o
rg%2Fweb%2F20050310103324%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandman.net%2F&usermedium=all>
Note that it did not validate.
-----
Line: 109 Context : .tab#active
Invalid number : border-color none is not a color value : none
Line: 111 Context : .tab#inactive
Invalid number : background-color none is not a color value : none
Line: 111 Context : .tab#inactive
Invalid number : border-color none is not a color value : none
-----
Plain and simple, Sandman, until I told you how to validate your CSS you did
not do so. When you say other wise you are lying.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > 1. Your HTML doesn't validate
> > - Could be interpreted as a suggestion. I corrected my HTML since
> > having validating HTML is a good thing, obviously. It's an
> > obvious "suggestions" that a trained monkey teaching a
> > dreamweaver class could give.
> >
> > : Action taken: HTML now validates.
>
> Funny how you claim a trained monkey could have told you what you were
> messing up.
What did I mess up? A trained monkey could have observed that the HTML
didn't validate yes.
> > 2. Your CSS doesn't validate
> > - This was an incorrect claim.
> >
> > : Action taken: None.
>
> From a past post:
>
> Snit:
> * your CSS does not validate correctly
> Sandman:
> Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
> Snit:
> LOL! It does now. Funny how the Googled archive of it does
> not: <http://snipurl.com/r627>.
I thought it was more funny that you lied about it not validating.
> Plain and simple, Sandman, until I told you how to validate your CSS you did
> not do so.
Incorrect.
You forgot to comment on these:
> > 3. You make bad use of whitespace
> > - This was not only incorrect, it was uninformed. Plus, it's
> > ambiguous at best. It could mean anything. It's one of those
> > claims that someone that doesn't know what they're talking
> > about says. Again, this was an incorrect claim, and as far away
> > from a "suggestion" you can come.
> >
> > : Action taken: None.
Well?
> > 4. Your images are poorly compressed.
> > - Also an incorrect and ignorant claim, coming from someone that
> > knows nothing about building web sites.
> >
> > : Action taken: None
Well?
> > 5. Your site isn't made with printing in mind
> > - No shit, Sherlock? That's a feature. You're not supposed to
> > print it. Duh. Also not a suggestion, just an uninformed
> > observation. It's like saying that "Hey, this toilet is not
> > suited for football games"
> >
> > : Action taken: None
Well?
> > 6. Poor contrast
> > - Again, incorrect and uninformed.
> >
> > : Action taken: None
Well?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C111462B.5BBED%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> 1. Your HTML doesn't validate
>>> - Could be interpreted as a suggestion. I corrected my HTML since
>>> having validating HTML is a good thing, obviously. It's an
>>> obvious "suggestions" that a trained monkey teaching a
>>> dreamweaver class could give.
>>>
>>> : Action taken: HTML now validates.
>>
>> Funny how you claim a trained monkey could have told you what you were
>> messing up.
>
> What did I mess up? A trained monkey could have observed that the HTML
> didn't validate yes.
And yet you could not! That is what is funny! Heck, look what you snipped
and ran from:
I am not sure why you would put yourself down that way.
Well, Sandman, why do you insult yourself that way? And why snip and run in
such a dishonest way?
>>> 2. Your CSS doesn't validate
>>> - This was an incorrect claim.
>>>
>>> : Action taken: None.
>>
>> From a past post:
>>
>> Snit:
>> * your CSS does not validate correctly
>> Sandman:
>> Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
>> Snit:
>> LOL! It does now. Funny how the Googled archive of it does
>> not: <http://snipurl.com/r627>.
>
> I thought it was more funny that you lied about it not validating.
Wow! More snipping and running from you. Here is what you snipped this
time:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snit:
LOL! It does now. Funny how the Googled archive of it does
not: <http://snipurl.com/r627>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Plain and simple, Sandman, until I told you how to validate your CSS you did
>> not do so.
>
> Incorrect.
You are lying, and you run from the evidence that you are. Then, below, you
whine that I am taking your lies one at a time. We can look at the
WayBackMachine to see your use of white space but, sadly, it does not save
your images, so that is a bit harder. But even if it did, as shown above
you would just snip and run from the evidence. You are a lying scumbag,
Sandman, and that is all there is to it. Keep in mind what the facts show:
What I told you:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Sandman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
And you are now just in denial mode. Whatever. Your denial will not stop
me from speaking the truth.
> You forgot to comment on these:
<SNIP />
Wah wah wah wah... I am not letting this post stretch to be a mile long so
you can obfuscate your BS better. Who cares.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Funny how you claim a trained monkey could have told you what you were
> >> messing up.
> >
> > What did I mess up? A trained monkey could have observed that the HTML
> > didn't validate yes.
>
> And yet you could not!
What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
> > I thought it was more funny that you lied about it not validating.
>
> Wow! More snipping and running from you.
And you keep running from the fact that it did validate when you
claimed it did not. Ooops.
You forgot to comment on these. Until you do, there is no reason for
me to take your lies seriously. If you can show that you understand
that no actions were taken on account of any alleged "suggestions",
then maybe I'll give you enough rope to hang yourself, but till then -
b etter luck next time!
Snit
> In article <C111BA64.5BCC7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Funny how you claim a trained monkey could have told you what you were
>>>> messing up.
>>>
>>> What did I mess up? A trained monkey could have observed that the HTML
>>> didn't validate yes.
>>
>> And yet you could not!
>
> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
to show you how to test for validation. Before then, and for *years*, as
shown by the WayBackMachine, your code did not validate.
>
>>> I thought it was more funny that you lied about it not validating.
>>
>> Wow! More snipping and running from you.
And you will keep running:
Snit:
* your CSS does not validate correctly
Sandman:
Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
Snit:
LOL! It does now. Funny how the Googled archive of it does
not: <http://snipurl.com/r627>.
Plain and simple, Sandman, until I told you how to validate your CSS you did
not do so. When you say other wise you are lying.
You are a liar, Sandman, and you have just proved it again.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> And yet you could not!
> >
> > What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
> > validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
> > served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
>
> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
> to show you how to test for validation.
You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.
I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
a mistake or forget something.
As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
page.
This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
understand any of it.
You forgot to comment on these:
Snit
> In article <C111BD16.5BCD2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> And yet you could not!
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
>>> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
>>> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
>>
>> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
>> to show you how to test for validation.
>
> You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>
> I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> a mistake or forget something.
>
> As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> page.
>
> This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> understand any of it.
Oh, Sandman, I understand your pathetic excuses quite well. You belittled
me but then took my advice and are now whining, lying, back pedaling, and
just crying up a storm.
Heck, look at the commentary on your CSS... you keep snipping and running
from it and then begging me to look at your lies *past* that... so you can
then snip and run from those. No thanks... let's deal with just a few lies
of yours at a time.
Here is what you keep snipping and running from:
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> > my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> > logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
>
> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
> validating.
Nopes. As I said from the beginning. This is your first troll on the
subject:
Snit:
On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your code is
pretty damned bad.
Sandman:
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.
Snit:
Close to 100 errors on *one* page!
Sandman:
Indeed - actually, you just helped me. Most of the errors were
entities in URL's, which frankly isn't a problem. I have a regexp
to fix that, but it didn't work. Ooops. Thanks. Most of the other
errors are usage of tags that don't conform to the DOCTYPE but
still work, such as ABSMIDDLE, which actually makes a difference.
My system, Atlas, is a system that I began building in 1996 pretty
much. There are tons of old code that doesn't validate because well,
how could it? HTML validation didn't exist back then. Not that all
code is that old by a long shot, but that's the scope of it.
If you knew anything about the web industry, this wouldn't come as
such a big surprise as it apparently does to you.
> > I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> > complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> > a mistake or forget something.
> >
> > As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> > DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> > www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> > PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> > page.
> >
> > This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> > understand any of it.
>
> Oh, Sandman, I understand your pathetic excuses quite well. You belittled
> me but then took my advice and are now whining, lying, back pedaling, and
> just crying up a storm.
I didn't "belittle" you, I outright stated the fact that you suck at
web design. It's as obvious as if I would say things like:
- You're the most hated person in the history of csma
- You're the biggest troll in csma
- You know next to nothing about DreamWeaver
Those aren't belittling you, they are statements of facts.
Snit
Yak yak yak.... you say nothing of interest and just spew excuses for your
lack of validation - excuses you have now proved hold no water by *fixing
them*. The facts are your HTML and CSS did not validate - and had not for
*years* - but did after I showed you how to find out if they validated. You
can claim anything you want, Sandman, but you cannot change the facts... and
the Google archive and the WayBackMachine both have proved me right. You
are a liar. Why do you still push your charade?
>> Oh, Sandman, I understand your pathetic excuses quite well. You belittled
>> me but then took my advice and are now whining, lying, back pedaling, and
>> just crying up a storm.
>
> I didn't "belittle" you, I outright stated the fact that you suck at
> web design. It's as obvious as if I would say things like:
>
> - You're the most hated person in the history of csma
> - You're the biggest troll in csma
> - You know next to nothing about DreamWeaver
>
> Those aren't belittling you, they are statements of facts.
LOL! Your excuses for your trolling are funny. In the end the facts stay
the same:
What I told you:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Sandman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
Funny how you keep denying these things when they are proved by both the
WayBackMachine and the Google archive. Very funny indeed!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> them*. The facts are your HTML did not validate
Due to a bad regexp.
> - and had not for
> *years* - but did after I showed you how to find out if they validated. You
> can claim anything you want, Sandman, but you cannot change the facts... and
> the Google archive and the WayBackMachine both have proved me right. You
> are a liar. Why do you still push your charade?
You always go into this kind of desperate troll mode when I prove you
wrong.
Snit
All that babbling from you, Sandman, and you still have not been able to
comment honestly on the facts:
What I told him:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Sandman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
No matter how desperate you are to pull me into your side issues and BS,
Sandman, the fact *will* stay the same. You have sunk to be almost at
Carrollesque levels of stupidity and dishonesty these days... though Steve
is far more consistent with his lack of character and intelligence.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
See above.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I have... and Sandman cannot honestly comment on the facts:
What I told Sandman:
1 your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
2 your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
3 your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
4 your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
5 the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Sandman's update [Sandman's comments]:
1 - fixed: [Sandman admitted, spewed insults]
2 - fixed: [Sandman lied/denied]
3 - white space improved: [Sandman lied/denied]
text/background contrast still could be better: [Sandman lied/denied]
4 - images are now compressed much better: [Sandman lied/denied]
5 - Would have to see the old site to compare... not that
big of a deal, but could be improved: [Sandman whined]
And, let me guess: you won't be able to honestly comment either. Keep in
mind the place where Sandman and I have had the most discussion - point 2.
Both the Google Archive and the WayBackMachine have both been on my side.
Let me guess: Sandman will get you on his side... and you will claim you are
as valid of a source as Google and the WBM. Come on, Steve, share your
views!
LOL!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
See above, fully and factually commented.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C111BD16.5BCD2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> And yet you could not!
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
>>> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
>>> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
>>
>> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
>> to show you how to test for validation.
>
> You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>
> I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> a mistake or forget something.
>
> As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> page.
>
> This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> understand any of it.
Oh, Sandman, I understand your pathetic excuses quite well. You belittled
me but then took my advice and are now whining, lying, back pedaling, and
just crying up a storm.
Heck, look at the commentary on your CSS... you keep snipping and running
from it and then begging me to look at your lies *past* that... so you can
then snip and run from those. No thanks... let's deal with just a few lies
of yours at a time.
Here is what you keep snipping and running from:
Snit:
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Snit, still being mad about me exposing his lies about my CSS, tries
to reinsert old lies, hoping it will work better. Hilarious!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C111BD16.5BCD2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> And yet you could not!
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
>>> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
>>> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
>>
>> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
>> to show you how to test for validation.
>
> You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>
> I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> a mistake or forget something.
>
> As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> page.
>
> This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> understand any of it.
Oh, Sandman, I understand your pathetic excuses quite well. You belittled
me but then took my advice and are now whining, lying, back pedaling, and
just crying up a storm.
Heck, look at the commentary on your CSS... you keep snipping and running
from it and then begging me to look at your lies *past* that... so you can
then snip and run from those. No thanks... let's deal with just a few lies
of yours at a time.
Here is what you keep snipping and running from:
Snit:
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-7E3D66.17...@individual.net on 8/23/06 8:33 AM:
>
> > In article <C111BD16.5BCD2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>> And yet you could not!
> >>>
> >>> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
> >>> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
> >>> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
> >>
> >> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
> >> to show you how to test for validation.
> >
> > You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> > my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> > logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
>
> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
> validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
>
> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
> >
> > I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> > complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> > a mistake or forget something.
> >
> > As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> > DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> > www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> > PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> > page.
> >
> > This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> > understand any of it.
I seriously doubt Snit even knows what PHP is, let alone how script
output interacts. It's pretty obvious that the concept of a dynamic
system is far beyond his ability. In all likelihood, if there isn't a
dancing chicken on it, he doesn't have a clue what's going on;)
(snip crap)
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" -
"I am a bigger liar than Steve" - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> And yet you could not!
> >
> > What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
> > validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
> > served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
>
> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was able
> to show you how to test for validation.
You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.
I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
a mistake or forget something.
As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
page.
This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
understand any of it.
You forgot to comment on these:
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C1BFCA32.6E1BD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > mr-7E3D66.17...@individual.net on 8/23/06 8:33 AM:
> >
> > > In article <C111BD16.5BCD2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> And yet you could not!
> > >>>
> > >>> What are you talking about? I was perfectly aware that it didn't
> > >>> validate. I am still perfectly aware of that lots of pages that is
> > >>> served by my CMS system doesn't validate.
> > >>
> > >> Yet you changed it after *I*, someone you claim to have no skill, was
> > >> able
> > >> to show you how to test for validation.
> > >
> > > You never showed me anything of the kind. All pages that are served by
> > > my CMS system has a "Validate HTML" link (that only I can see, when
> > > logged in) and has had since the inception of live HTML validation.\
> >
> > Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
> > validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
> >
> > Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>
> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted his claim
about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it did indeed validate
just fine. I'v e checked it several times since and have yet to see a problem
with it, which leads me to believe that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as
to what he's doing.
>
> > >
> > > I *have* changed my code to validate many times, but since it is so
> > > complex, changes in other areas will make it non-validating if I make
> > > a mistake or forget something.
> > >
> > > As opposed to composing pages in a wysiwyg beginners tool - like
> > > DreamWeaver, I work in a dynamic system, where the front page of
> > > www.sandman.net is the combined output of no less than 22 different
> > > PHP scripts called upon to display different areas of the layout and
> > > page.
> > >
> > > This is, obviously, way over your head and I don't expect you to
> > > understand any of it.
>
> I seriously doubt Snit even knows what PHP is, let alone how script
> output interacts. It's pretty obvious that the concept of a dynamic
> system is far beyond his ability. In all likelihood, if there isn't a
> dancing chicken on it, he doesn't have a clue what's going on;)
>
> (snip crap)
--
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-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 1/2/07 3:09
PM:
>>> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
>>> validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
>>>
>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>
>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
>
> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted his claim
> about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it did indeed validate
> just fine. I'v e checked it several times since and have yet to see a problem
> with it, which leads me to believe that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue
> as to what he's doing.
For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my kill
filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me that Sandman
was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate maybe you will believe
the WayBackMachine:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Those are every available validation check from that source... and in not
*one* case does Sandman's sandman.net site pass HTML or CSS validation. I
have the URL of each check listed so it is easy to verify my claim.
Since then, at least at times, his site has validated - *after* I told him
how to validate his site and offered suggestions for improvement.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 1/2/07 3:09
> PM:
>
> >>> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
> >>> validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
> >>>
> >>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
> >>
> >> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
> >
> > What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted his
> > claim
> > about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it did indeed
> > validate
> > just fine. I'v e checked it several times since and have yet to see a
> > problem
> > with it, which leads me to believe that snit, once again, doesn't have a
> > clue
> > as to what he's doing.
>
> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my kill
> filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me that Sandman
> was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I need
to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
> maybe you will believe
> the WayBackMachine:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> Those are every available validation check from that source... and in not
> *one* case does Sandman's sandman.net site pass HTML or CSS validation. I
> have the URL of each check listed so it is easy to verify my claim.
>
> Since then, at least at times, his site has validated - *after* I told him
> how to validate his site and offered suggestions for improvement.
--
Snit
PM:
>>>>> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
>>>>> validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>>>>
>>>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
>>>>
>>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted his
>>> claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it did indeed
>>> validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since and have yet to see
>>> a problem with it, which leads me to believe that snit, once again, doesn't
>>> have a clue as to what he's doing.
>>>
>> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my kill
>> filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me that Sandman
>> was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
>
> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I need
> to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
WayBackMachine. Funny how you think I somehow could! As it shows, beyond
any reasonable doubt, is that Sandman did *not* have CSS or even HTML that
validated as recently as even June 09, 2006. After that, when I pointed out
several of the weaknesses of his site, as even you note his code *did*
validate, at least at times (though I have shown he still made goofs even
after that):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>
That is from 31 August 2006. Even then his code was not correct, though
having just checked right now, Sandman does seem to be learning - his code
validates just fine.
>> maybe you will believe
>> the WayBackMachine:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>>
>> Those are every available validation check from that source... and in not
>> *one* case does Sandman's sandman.net site pass HTML or CSS validation. I
>> have the URL of each check listed so it is easy to verify my claim.
>>
>> Since then, at least at times, his site has validated - *after* I told him
>> how to validate his site and offered suggestions for improvement.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Sandman
<teadams$2$0$0$3-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>
>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff
>> works;)
>
> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted
> his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it
> did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since
> and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me to believe
> that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing.
Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
every lie of his I expose.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit
>> posted his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked
>> it and it did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several
>> times since and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me
>> to believe that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what
>> he's doing.
>
> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my
> kill filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me
> that Sandman was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
> maybe you will believe the WayBackMachine
Google and the WayBackMachine has already made minced meat out of your
claims
I can't begin to understand why you would keep referring to sources
that prove your claims wrong.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<teadams$2$0$0$3-4AED32.20...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my kill
> > filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me that Sandman
> > was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
>
> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I
> need
> to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
*perhaps*? :)
Is there something on Michaels site that ISN'T forged? History shows
that it's unlikely.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why
>> would I need to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
>
> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
> WayBackMachine.
Which, of course, no one has claimed. You have, on the other hand, the
"ability" to forge material and then put it on your site and claim it
isn't forged, even though it has been proved that it is.
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1C03058.6E2C3%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit
>>> posted his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked
>>> it and it did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several
>>> times since and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me
>>> to believe that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what
>>> he's doing.
>>
>> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my
>> kill filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me
>> that Sandman was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
>> maybe you will believe the WayBackMachine
>
> Google and the WayBackMachine has already made minced meat out of your
> claims
LOL! Funny... there is not a single example in the WayBackMachine where
your site validates - *either* in HTML or CSS:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Keep in mind, Sandman, the URL of *every* *single* *entry* is listed.
Every one.
Unless I have somehow altered the WayBackMachine then it is clear you were
*never* able to get your code to validate, or, if you were, it was some
freak accident that was not recorded in that archive.
> I can't begin to understand why you would keep referring to sources
> that prove your claims wrong.
LOL! The archive has not a single example of your site *ever* validating...
though even Tim Adams agrees that once I pointed out your lack of validation
you started making your site validate.
How do you explain the data in the WayBackMachine, Sandman, other than to
snip and run, as you *always* do?
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your site *ever*
validating.
Keep in mind, Sandman, the URL of *every* entry is listed. All are easy to
verify. Feel free to try to find a single data point that is in error...
you will fail.
In the end, Sandman, you cannot explain why the WayBackMachine has not a
single example of your site validating.
Not one. CSS *or* HTML.
I find that funny.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my
> >> kill filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me
> >> that Sandman was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
> >> maybe you will believe the WayBackMachine
> >
> > Google and the WayBackMachine has already made minced meat out of your
> > claims
>
> LOL! Funny... there is not a single example in the WayBackMachine where
> your site validates
There is not a single example of the WayBackMachine showing my CSS not
validating at the time you claimed it didn't. You lied, Google proved
you wrong. Live with it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Is there something on Michaels site that ISN'T forged? History shows
> > that it's unlikely.
>
> <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.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<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?
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.
-----
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
ll> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
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.
-----
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!
And Sandman shall run!
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
> In article <C1C0CC1E.6E3E0%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Is there something on Michaels site that ISN'T forged? History shows
>>> that it's unlikely.
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
Every single data point shows its original URL. Every one, Sandman. How do
you think I "forged" the data from the WayBackMachine? There is not a
single example of your site passing CSS or HTML validation... not *one*,
Sandman.
>> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your site *ever*
>> validating.
>
> I have no intention of explaining your lies.
LOL! Your running is pathetic.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And Sandman shall run!
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> In article <C1C05BF9.6E349%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why
>>> would I need to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
>>
>> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
>> WayBackMachine.
>
> Which, of course, no one has claimed.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<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?
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):
And Sandman shall run!
> You have, on the other hand, the "ability" to forge material and then put it
> on your site and claim it isn't forged, even though it has been proved that it
> is.
>
> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
Nice try at obfuscation, Sandman... not biting.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And Sandman shall run!
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-4AED32.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 1/2/07 6:49
> PM:
>
> >>>>> Ah, so you knowingly screwed up your code until I told you about it not
> >>>>> validating. LOL! Yeah, Sandman, riiiiiight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
> >>>>>
> >>>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff works;)
> >>>>
> >>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted his
> >>> claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it did
> >>> indeed
> >>> validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since and have yet to
> >>> see
> >>> a problem with it, which leads me to believe that snit, once again,
> >>> doesn't
> >>> have a clue as to what he's doing.
> >>>
> >> For the new year I have given you a new chance - you are out of my kill
> >> filter (as is - as of now - Wally). If you do not believe me that Sandman
> >> was not able to get his CSS and his HTML to validate
> >
> > I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I
> > need
> > to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
>
> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
> WayBackMachine. Funny how you think I somehow could!
and I assure you that you have been proved to doctor a pdf file, so since one of
your links is to such a file, your 'claim' that it isn't doctored, is worthless.
It's much easier to doctor a jpg file so I really don't need to comment on that.
> As it shows, beyond
> any reasonable doubt, is that Sandman did *not* have CSS or even HTML that
> validated as recently as even June 09, 2006. After that, when I pointed out
> several of the weaknesses of his site, as even you note his code *did*
> validate, at least at times (though I have shown he still made goofs even
> after that):
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>
>
> That is from 31 August 2006. Even then his code was not correct, though
> having just checked right now, Sandman does seem to be learning - his code
> validates just fine.
>
> >> maybe you will believe
> >> the WayBackMachine:
> >>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
> >>
> >> Those are every available validation check from that source... and in not
> >> *one* case does Sandman's sandman.net site pass HTML or CSS validation. I
> >> have the URL of each check listed so it is easy to verify my claim.
> >>
> >> Since then, at least at times, his site has validated - *after* I told him
> >> how to validate his site and offered suggestions for improvement.
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> How do you think I "forged" the data from the WayBackMachine?
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] 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 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [X] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Diversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When the troll gets tangled up in his lies and obfuscation in a way
where there is no way to move his argument further, he will create a
diversion. This is also where the trolls agenda [1] is mostly shown
and the troll will begin talking about other issues he or she is
having in order to divert away from the current failure.
And example is this [2], when Michael all of a sudden brings up a
totally unrelated issue regarding a specific quote Steve has been
posting in an issue that deals with whether Steve had commented on
dreamweaver. Note how he claims to have moved the goalpost "back"
while introducing a totally unrelated issue.
1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=102889>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4111bc3c408
a9354>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
> >> WayBackMachine.
> >
> > Which, of course, no one has claimed.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] 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 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ignoring evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll is likely to end up in situations where he has made some
really wild claims about something. When facts and proof is posted,
the troll needs to ignore or evade that in order to keep his "act"
up.
An example would be when Edwin posted about there being 830 *million*
workstations [1] sold in the first half of 2004. This number turned
out to be a misprint, but the fact that the number was totally
ludicrous didn't stop Edwin from ignoring common sense and kept on
supporting the number.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4efb772585f
7b922>
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> 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.
> -----
>
> On 2 June 2006 you softened your view and made it sound like it likely
> validated but *maybe* did not:
That was about my CSS, which did validate at the time, and you lied
about, and was proven a liar by Google:
> <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:
I outright correctly claimed it validated.
> 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.
Exactly. This drove you insane since it exposed your lie, and you've
been insane since then.
Well, of course not, you've been insane for *YEARS* before that, but
you know what I mean.
> 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.
Unless you look at the facts, of course.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
AM:
>>> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I
>>> need to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
>>>
>> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
>> WayBackMachine. Funny how you think I somehow could!
>>
> and I assure you that you have been proved to doctor a pdf file, so since one
> of your links is to such a file, your 'claim' that it isn't doctored, is
> worthless. It's much easier to doctor a jpg file so I really don't need to
> comment on that.
As noted, and you are ignoring, *every* *single* *one* of the claims in the
PDF is referenced with a link to the WayBackMachine, so your claims of PDF
doctoring are 100% irrelevant. It is simply a fact that there is no record
of sandman.net *ever* passing CSS *or* HTML validation before I pointed out
his inability to get it to validate. Check for yourself.
Heck, Sandman even admitted that it did not before his ego got in the way
and he started lying.
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.
-----
Sandman 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
ll> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
On 2 June 2006 Sandman softened his 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 he 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 he was 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 he admitted it did not validate, then he decided it might not have,
then he 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. Once I pointed out your lack of validation, though, he started getting
it to validate, as even you noted.
How do you explain his flip flopping *and* the fact that before I told him
how to validate his code there is not a single example of it validating.
Not one. CSS or HTML. LOL!
I know Sandman shall run from that, Tim, but how about you - can you show
you have at least some sense of honor and honesty?
Snit
You are a proven liar, Sandman:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
Your denial does not change the fact... it only adds support that you lies
are habitual.
* On 29 May 2006 I stated your site's code did not validate
* The WayBackMachine holds no record of your site ever validating
from the time you added CSS (22 October 2001) to very shortly
before the date I made my observation (19 May 2006). Between
those dates there are around 70 examples of it *not* validating
* Shortly after I pointed out your sites poor CSS it *did* start
to validate, at least at times. It currently validates correctly.
And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show... unless you think
that sometime between May 19 and May 29 you started getting your code to
validate before anyone pointed out that you had consistently been failing to
do so for several *years*... and then I just happened to make my claim in
that short time period.... and provided examples that at the time you did
not refute or deny because, um... you were too wrapped up in your bragging
or something.
LOL! No dice, Sandman... you are a liar. The facts show that beyond *any*
reasonable doubt.
And you still do not have a Darth Tater! :)
Snit
> In article <C1C05BF9.6E349%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
Your irrelevant attempt to run from your lies, Sandman, is filled with links
that do not work.
Once again, you cannot get your web site to work correctly. LOL! Heck,
even your links to the Google archive are broken. Too damned funny! Once
again, you try to push your accusations (to obfuscate your own lies) and you
just prove you cannot get your web site to work. Just funny. Heck, your
HTML does not even validate:
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcsma.sandman.net%2Fpages%2FP
DFforgery>
-----
Result: Failed validation, 29 errors
-----
Oh, and before you fix it:
<http://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcsma.sandman.net%2Fpages
%2FPDFforgery&hide_type=all&recursive=on&depth=2&check=Check>
Also check out your Google links... while they might not be technically
"broken", they point to thinks like this:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3ABD3E9B07.5BA3B%25snit-nospam@cabl
eone.net>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3Apan.2004.08.11.14.52.54.922000@ho
tmail.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3ABD3F80F0.5BC56%25snit-nospam@cabl
eone.net>
And on and on
And here are copies of those validation pages:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PDF_Forgery_HTML.html>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PDF_Forgery_Links.html>
And the funny thing is you think your broken links, poor logic, and other BS
can prove something from long ago *and* obfuscate your current lies about
your CSS.
I will grant, though, your CSS actually validates. See, even you can learn.
Oh, and before you completely change the topic - here is the link to the
proof you lied about your CSS:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
You are a liar, Sandman... and you have again proved you cannot write web
pages where they validate (this time failing HTML validation) and you have
all sorts of broken links.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
> me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show...
I am not denying anything. I am correctly pointing out that you lied
about my CSS not validating.
Thanks anyway.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
You are a liar, Sandman, as I prove beyond any reasonable doubt, here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>.
And all you can do is snip, run, deny, and point to your whiney claims about
some PDF from years ago... and *that* blew up in your face - the pages where
you make that claim are filled with broken links and HTML that does not
validate.
Funny to watch you dig your hole deeper and deeper.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
> >> me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show...
> >
> > I am not denying anything. I am correctly pointing out that you lied
> > about my CSS not validating.
> >
> > Thanks anyway.
> >
> You are a liar, Sandman, as I prove beyond any reasonable doubt, here:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>.
Only, you didn't. That's your problem. Nowhere in any post you ever
made was there proof that my CSS didn't validate at the time you lied
about it not validating.
You lied, you were caught with your lie and this is where you are now.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Only, you didn't. That's your problem. Nowhere in any post you ever
> > made was there proof that my CSS didn't validate at the time you lied
> > about it not validating.
> >
> > You lied, you were caught with your lie and this is where you are now.
>
> LOL! No dice, Sandman...
Whatever constitutes "dice" for you is irrelevant, Michael. Facts
doesn't change at your whim. When are you going to stop arguing
against the fact that nothing supports anything you've said?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
* On 29 May 2006 I stated your site's code did not validate
* The WayBackMachine holds no record of your site ever validating
from the time you added CSS (22 October 2001) to very shortly
before the date I made my observation (19 May 2006). Between
those dates there are around 70 examples of it *not* validating
* Shortly after I pointed out your sites poor CSS it *did* start
to validate, at least at times. It currently validates correctly.
And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show... unless you think
that sometime between May 19 and May 29 you started getting your code to
validate before anyone pointed out that you had consistently been failing to
do so for several *years*... and then I just happened to make my claim in
that short time period.... and provided examples that at the time you did
not refute or deny because, um... you were too wrapped up in your bragging
or something.
LOL! No dice, Sandman... you are a liar. The facts show that beyond *any*
reasonable doubt.
And you still do not have a Darth Tater! :)
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
> me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show...
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obfuscation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters
or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost
importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is
mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even
the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this
misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's
naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted
according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve
Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMA_Moderator (a periodic poster
that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said
unfavorable things about Michael Glasser. Steve Carroll posted this
reply [1] to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one
quote and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is
noteworthy that he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the
fact that somehow Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is
posting as CSMA_Moderator and Steve just plays the same card back.
Snit, being a troll, responds [2] by interpreting Steves reply as an
admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is
the author of the entire post that was posted under the name
CSMA_Moderator. You can't get much far fetched than that.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31
751a1>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fbee674dfde
048da>
3. Ignoring evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll is likely to end up in situations where he has made some
really wild claims about something. When facts and proof is posted,
the troll needs to ignore or evade that in order to keep his "act"
up.
An example would be when Edwin posted about there being 830 *million*
workstations [1] sold in the first half of 2004. This number turned
out to be a misprint, but the fact that the number was totally
ludicrous didn't stop Edwin from ignoring common sense and kept on
supporting the number.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4efb772585f
7b922>
8. Unsubstantiated accusations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll needs to accuse people of all sort of things, and since
substantiating accusations is time consuming, the troll is likely to
accuse people without substantiation. This is of course closely
related to obfuscation, since most of the time when the troll
actually does offer substantiation, it's based on the trolls own
obfuscation.
13. Lying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obfuscating is the act of twisting words and meanings around so they
mean something else than what they were intended for. Lying is making
false statements. Both are untrue, but they differ in execution.
A troll often has no option other than to lie in order to further his
agenda. Especially when he's lost all arguments.
A good example of this is when Edwin quoted Sandman saying something
[1], using quotation marks. Problem was, that this wasn't something
Sandman had ever said. Or when Michael listed five outright lies
about Sandman [2].
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcdac1dd28f
153bf>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c410d8e2a3d
60683>
16. Misinterpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the act of wilfully "misinterprete" someone else. Poster A may
say something like "People like you are a disgrace to mankind", and
poster B may respond with "So you think that honest people is a
disgrace to mankind?" even though it is perfectly obvious that poster
A did not mean that, since the implication was not that poster B was
honest, but something that would be a disgrace to mankind.
Snit
> In article <C1C144EB.6E4BC%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
* On 29 May 2006 I stated your site's code did not validate
* The WayBackMachine holds no record of your site ever validating
from the time you added CSS (22 October 2001) to very shortly
before the date I made my observation (19 May 2006). Between
those dates there are around 70 examples of it *not* validating
* Shortly after I pointed out your sites poor CSS it *did* start
to validate, at least at times. It currently validates correctly.
And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show... unless you think
that sometime between May 19 and May 29 you started getting your code to
validate before anyone pointed out that you had consistently been failing to
do so for several *years*... and then I just happened to make my claim in
that short time period.... and provided examples that at the time you did
not refute or deny because, um... you were too wrapped up in your bragging
or something.
LOL! No dice, Sandman... you are a liar. The facts show that beyond *any*
reasonable doubt.
And you still do not have a Darth Tater! :)
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
> me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show...
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ignoring evidence
Snit
Holy cow, Sandman, you sure babble a lot... all to try to obfuscate the
undeniable fact the CSS for sandman.net did not validate for *years*... and
not until shortly after I told you how to validate it and pointed out that
it was failing to.
On what day do you think it started to validate correctly, Sandman? Keep in
mind the WayBackMachine proves it did not for *years*:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>. All fully
referenced with links to the WayBackMachine so there is no chance I could be
"doctoring" the data. Double check it yourself... and see if you can find
flaws with it.
LOL!
How fast can you run.
In the end, Sandman, you have pretty much bored me out of this debate - the
facts are settled - you *are* a liar. Period. Now it is just a matter of
seeing how many times you will deny it, what methods you will use to
obfuscate and run, how many off topic BS things you will throw into the
conversation, how many more lies you will pile, etc.
My favorite was when you tried to obfuscate by pointing to ancient
accusations of yours about a topic that is long dead - and proved you were
not able to get your site to have correct HTML validation nor prevent it
from having a bunch of broken links. Gee, you sure dropped that line of
whining fast. LOL!
You are a liar, Sandman, and the WayBackMachine and your own words prove it:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>.
There simply is no out for you... heck, I wonder if even Tim Adams will try
to keep defending you... or Wally. Are they *that* immoral and dim? We
shall see. :)
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Holy cow, Sandman, you sure babble a lot... all to try to obfuscate the
> undeniable fact the CSS for sandman.net did not validate for *years*...
That has not been under discussion. It did validate at the time you
claimed it did not. That was your lie, which was exposed instantly.
You got mad and has been since then.
This is when you first lied:
<C0A2AE92.50295%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
"your CSS does not validate correctly"
Which, of course, it did. And I replied:
<mr-0C5588.11...@individual.net>
"Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."
You just can't get anything correct, and once you realise it, you will
keep lying about it for over seven months!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
On what date do you claim it started to validate correctly?
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
> In article <C1C16417.6E501%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> Holy cow, Sandman, you sure babble a lot... all to try to obfuscate the
>> undeniable fact the CSS for sandman.net did not validate for *years*...
>
> That has not been under discussion. It did validate at the time you
> claimed it did not. That was your lie, which was exposed instantly.
> You got mad and has been since then.
>
> This is when you first lied:
> <C0A2AE92.50295%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> "your CSS does not validate correctly"
SO you claim that is when I first lied, on 31 May... so you agree it was not
a lie on 29 May when I said:
<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.
-----
And you responded by agreeing that it did not validate correctly:
<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
ll> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
Nor did it *any* archived time the WayBackMachine recorded (CSS or HTML):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
So, based on your claims and the facts shown by the WayBackMachine:
* From 22 October 2001 to 19 May 2006 we can find no evidence your site
ever passed either CSS or HTML validation... and there are about 70
known archived examples when it did not.
* I noted your site did not validate on 29 May 2006, just days after
the last time it was archived and *before* you claim I lied - hence
you seem to not disagree with my comments that your code did not
validate (CSS)
* By 31 May, however, you claim saying your CSS did not validate was
a lie...
So, after *years* of your CSS not validating I told you it did not and
showed you how to check it, and then you fixed it.
Sandman panics in 3... 2... 1...
LOL!
> Which, of course, it did. And I replied:
>
> <mr-0C5588.11...@individual.net>
>
> "Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."
>
> You just can't get anything correct, and once you realise it, you will
> keep lying about it for over seven months!
Gee, Sandman, you never did thank me for helping you to make your site
better.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-914CB7.22...@News.Individual.NET on 1/3/07 2:03 PM:
>
> > In article <C1C16417.6E501%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Holy cow, Sandman, you sure babble a lot... all to try to obfuscate the
> >> undeniable fact the CSS for sandman.net did not validate for *years*...
> >
> > That has not been under discussion. It did validate at the time you
> > claimed it did not. That was your lie, which was exposed instantly.
> > You got mad and has been since then.
> >
> > This is when you first lied:
> > <C0A2AE92.50295%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >
> > "your CSS does not validate correctly"
> >
> > Which, of course, it did. And I replied:
> >
> > <mr-0C5588.11...@individual.net>
> >
> > "Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."
> >
> > You just can't get anything correct, and once you realise it, you will
> > keep lying about it for over seven months!
>
> On what date do you claim it started to validate correctly?
How should I know?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > "your CSS does not validate correctly"
>
> SO you claim that is when I first lied, on 31 May... so you agree it was not
> a lie on 29 May when I said:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
> [CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
No, you lied then too, I just missed it.
> And you responded by agreeing that it did not validate correctly:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
My followup doesn't respond to your lie about my CSS not validating.
It is not even present in the post! Are you now claiming I am
responding to material from your posts that aren't even in my
followups? Great tactic, Michael!
I can't begin to understand why your lie upsets you so much. Prhaps
you should try to be more honest and honorable, as I am.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-E977BB.06...@news.west.earthlink.net on 1/3/07 4:17
> AM:
>
>
> >>> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I
> >>> need to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
> >>>
> >> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
> >> WayBackMachine. Funny how you think I somehow could!
> >>
> > and I assure you that you have been proved to doctor a pdf file, so since
> > one
> > of your links is to such a file, your 'claim' that it isn't doctored, is
> > worthless. It's much easier to doctor a jpg file so I really don't need to
> > comment on that.
>
> As noted, and you are ignoring, *every* *single* *one* of the claims in the
> PDF is referenced with a link to the WayBackMachine,
and michael glasser is ignoring reality in the simple FACT that I checked
Sandman's site on several differ occasions and it verified just fine, each and
every time I checked it so I've no need to read his created pdf file and check
links contained within it for any reason what so ever.
~~further trolling snipped
Snit
LOL! You have no idea what date it started to validate, yet you call me a
liar when I tell you when it did not... and show you *years* of evidence via
the WayBackMachine.
LOL! You really are a silly troll, Sandman.
Snit
> In article <C1C16B49.6E50E%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>> "your CSS does not validate correctly"
>>
>> SO you claim that is when I first lied, on 31 May... so you agree it was not
>> a lie on 29 May when I said:
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
>> [CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
>
> No, you lied then too, I just missed it.
Ah, but you agreed with me... as I noted and you snipped.
-----
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.
-----
LOL! So then you agreed with me, but now you call me a liar over it.
Please keep your story straight. Please!
>
>> And you responded by agreeing that it did not validate correctly:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
>
> My followup doesn't respond to your lie about my CSS not validating.
> It is not even present in the post! Are you now claiming I am
> responding to material from your posts that aren't even in my
> followups? Great tactic, Michael!
>
> I can't begin to understand why your lie upsets you so much. Prhaps
> you should try to be more honest and honorable, as I am.
At the time you news reader was malfunctioning and throwing numbers in front
of lines... check lines 3178 and 3179. I talk about your bad code.
But let's get back to your story, when compared to what the WayBackMachine
shows us.
We know that from 22 October 2001 to 19 May 2006, or about 4 1/2 years, your
CSS was *never* shown to validate but shown *not* to about 70 times:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>. Again, check out
the WayBackMachine - no need to trust my data, you can verify it yourself.
Less than two weeks after this 4 1/2 year period - the *entire* recorded
time you used CSS, I noted that your CSS did not validate.
Your claim is that it did, however, validate on that date...
So my question to you, Sandman, is when in that less than two week window
did you change your code to validate and what prompted you, after all that
time, to do so?
The answer is easy: your code did *not* validate until I pointed out that it
did not and showed you how to test it. After that it did. When you deny
that, Sandman, you are clearly lying.
It is that simple.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
PM:
> In article <C1C11BCE.6E45A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-E977BB.06...@news.west.earthlink.net on 1/3/07 4:17
>> AM:
>>
>>
>>>>> I believe what I saw at the times I checked out his web page. Why would I
>>>>> need to check out what you got, and perhaps have doctored?
>>>>>
>>>> I assure you I have no ability to "doctor" the information from the
>>>> WayBackMachine. Funny how you think I somehow could!
>>>>
>>> and I assure you that you have been proved to doctor a pdf file, so since
>>> one
>>> of your links is to such a file, your 'claim' that it isn't doctored, is
>>> worthless. It's much easier to doctor a jpg file so I really don't need to
>>> comment on that.
>>
>> As noted, and you are ignoring, *every* *single* *one* of the claims in the
>> PDF is referenced with a link to the WayBackMachine,
>
> and michael glasser is ignoring reality in the simple FACT that I checked
> Sandman's site on several differ occasions and it verified just fine, each and
> every time I checked it so I've no need to read his created pdf file and check
> links contained within it for any reason what so ever.
>
> ~~further trolling snipped
plonk.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Unable to face reality, snit runs away again. so quaint but typical.
Sandman
<C1C19917.6E556%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
> [3957] You have no idea what date it started to validate, yet you
> [3957] call me a liar when I tell you when it did not.
I call you a liar when you lied about it not validating, when it in
fact was validating.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 3343 | lying 0 2579 |
| incest 1 1986 | sex 1 2496 |
| guilty 1 1538 | honorable 0 2409 |
| obfuscate 0 2406 | run 0 2547 |
| dishonest 0 2464 | snip 0 2497 |
| lol 2 1292 | contrived 0 13 |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
Sandman
<C1C19E5D.6E562%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
> [3964] Ah, but you agreed with me.
Incorrect, as my response made clear and you ignored.
> [3973] Please keep your story straight.
Mine is. Yours is confused. As it has to be.
> [3975] At the time you news reader was malfunctioning and throwing
> [3975] numbers in front of lines.
What malfunction?
> [3978] check lines 3178 and 3179.
It doesn't concern CSS, since it talks about "code". CSS information
isn't "code" to anyone other than a web design cretin, like you.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3343 | lying 1 2581 |
| incest 0 1986 | sex 0 2496 |
| guilty 0 1538 | honorable 0 2409 |
| obfuscate 0 2406 | run 0 2547 |
| dishonest 0 2464 | snip 1 2499 |
| lol 1 1294 | contrived 0 13 |
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
> <C1C19E5D.6E562%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
>
> > [3964] Ah, but you agreed with me.
>
> Incorrect, as my response made clear and you ignored.
>
>
> > [3973] Please keep your story straight.
>
> Mine is. Yours is confused. As it has to be.
>
> > [3975] At the time you news reader was malfunctioning and throwing
> > [3975] numbers in front of lines.
>
> What malfunction?
>
> > [3978] check lines 3178 and 3179.
>
> It doesn't concern CSS, since it talks about "code". CSS information
> isn't "code" to anyone other than a web design cretin, like you.
Err... I'd call it "code". The Wikipedia CSS article calls it that
several times, and a Google search turns up over 700K hits for "CSS
code". HTML can also validly be called "code".
You just can't call the process of writing either of them "programming"
without looking dumb. (And, oddly enough, given what I've said above, I
don't thing you could call it "coding" either.)
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three逆hree or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > It doesn't concern CSS, since it talks about "code". CSS information
> > isn't "code" to anyone other than a web design cretin, like you.
>
> Err... I'd call it "code". The Wikipedia CSS article calls it that
> several times, and a Google search turns up over 700K hits for "CSS
> code". HTML can also validly be called "code".
Well, HTML is a markup language that creates the skeleton of a page.
CSS is a formatting language that defines the disposition of the HTML
skeleton.
The line is blurrier now than five years ago, when CSS concerned
pretty much only text formatting. Today people use HTML to create a
very basic skeleton and then use CSS to layout the page.
I think of CSS a bit like a preference file to an application. The
application has a default setting, but the preference file alters
that. I wouldn't - in this analogy - call the preference file "code".
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
It depends on the context. In some contexts where it's useful, "code"
and "data" mean different things, and HTML, CSS and preference files
would be on the "data" side of things. But to some extent this is
arbitrary. HTML and CSS are basically domain-specific declarative
programing languages.
HTML and CSS lack the control structures they would need to be
Turing-complete, but the issue gets really messy when you look at XSLT,
which is a domain-specific declarative programing language that *is*
Turing-complete. Are XSLT stylesheets data or code? Or how about
PostScript files?
Either way, though... "CSS code" and "HTML code" appear to be accepted
usage. Even the W3C uses the phrases in places.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> Either way, though... "CSS code" and "HTML code" appear to be accepted
> usage. Even the W3C uses the phrases in places.
Right, "CSS code" can be used in the same way as "Morse code", where
"code" is defined by "Any set of symbols or combination of symbols
used for communication in any medium".
But I do agree that the line where HTML/CSS is code/not code isn't as
easy to discern today as it was maybe five years ago.
I, unlike you, could use the verb "code" in relation to HTML. To "code
a page" or something like that. But I wouldn't use it for CSS, mainly
because the CSS is useless without the underlying HTML code. HTML is
code in itself, whereas CSS is formatting preferences for the output
of that code.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
znu-B93164.0...@individual.net on 1/5/07 1:47 AM:
> In article <mr-4B0243.09...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
>> <C1C19E5D.6E562%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
>>
>>> [3964] Ah, but you agreed with me.
>>
>> Incorrect, as my response made clear and you ignored.
>>
>>
>>> [3973] Please keep your story straight.
>>
>> Mine is. Yours is confused. As it has to be.
>>
>>> [3975] At the time you news reader was malfunctioning and throwing
>>> [3975] numbers in front of lines.
>>
>> What malfunction?
>>
>>> [3978] check lines 3178 and 3179.
>>
>> It doesn't concern CSS, since it talks about "code". CSS information
>> isn't "code" to anyone other than a web design cretin, like you.
>
> Err... I'd call it "code". The Wikipedia CSS article calls it that
> several times, and a Google search turns up over 700K hits for "CSS
> code". HTML can also validly be called "code".
Sure, but I was not in reference to CSS as code... in fact I never used the
word in my comments to Sandman. I was in reference to the line numbers his
news reader places in front of lines. He cannot figure out how to fix it...
still. Look above where he is adding line numbers again. Weird. I have
never seen anyone else have the same problem with a news reader.
> You just can't call the process of writing either of them "programming"
> without looking dumb. (And, oddly enough, given what I've said above, I
> don't thing you could call it "coding" either.)
Sandman is just spewing obfuscations to try to hide the fact that for
*years* he was not able to get either his CSS nor his HTML to validate - not
until I pointed out to him that they failed and showed him how to validate
them. He dishonestly denies this, but the WayBackMachine shows not a single
instance of his sites validating:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Sandman claims that those PDFs are forged, but I have even gone so far as to
post *all* the links for him to double check the work. He cannot find a
single error.
I suspect he is busy getting his site to be excluded from the WayBackMachine
so that there is no primary source - then he will just claim my PDFs are
inaccurate.
In other words, he is likely working to pile his lies even higher.
Snit
C1C3A44B.6E8F0%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID on 1/5/07 6:44 AM:
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> stated in post
> znu-B93164.0...@individual.net on 1/5/07 1:47 AM:
>
>> In article <mr-4B0243.09...@News.Individual.NET>,
>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
>>> <C1C19E5D.6E562%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
>>>
>>>> [3964] Ah, but you agreed with me.
>>>
>>> Incorrect, as my response made clear and you ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>>> [3973] Please keep your story straight.
>>>
>>> Mine is. Yours is confused. As it has to be.
>>>
>>>> [3975] At the time you news reader was malfunctioning and throwing
>>>> [3975] numbers in front of lines.
>>>
>>> What malfunction?
>>>
>>>> [3978] check lines 3178 and 3179.
>>>
>>> It doesn't concern CSS, since it talks about "code". CSS information
>>> isn't "code" to anyone other than a web design cretin, like you.
>>
>> Err... I'd call it "code". The Wikipedia CSS article calls it that
>> several times, and a Google search turns up over 700K hits for "CSS
>> code". HTML can also validly be called "code".
>
> Sure, but I was not in reference to CSS as code... in fact I never used the
> word in my comments to Sandman. I was in reference to the line numbers his
> news reader places in front of lines. He cannot figure out how to fix it...
> still. Look above where he is adding line numbers again. Weird. I have
> never seen anyone else have the same problem with a news reader.
Correction... I did use the word "code"... but Sandman snipped the comment.
Weird. Of course, he is simply trying to obfuscate the fact that he was
completely wrong... in the end, as I prove beyond any reasonable doubt,
Sandman is simply lying about his CSS and HTML not validating.
>> You just can't call the process of writing either of them "programming"
>> without looking dumb. (And, oddly enough, given what I've said above, I
>> don't thing you could call it "coding" either.)
>
> Sandman is just spewing obfuscations to try to hide the fact that for
> *years* he was not able to get either his CSS nor his HTML to validate - not
> until I pointed out to him that they failed and showed him how to validate
> them. He dishonestly denies this, but the WayBackMachine shows not a single
> instance of his sites validating:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> Sandman claims that those PDFs are forged, but I have even gone so far as to
> post *all* the links for him to double check the work. He cannot find a
> single error.
>
> I suspect he is busy getting his site to be excluded from the WayBackMachine
> so that there is no primary source - then he will just claim my PDFs are
> inaccurate.
>
> In other words, he is likely working to pile his lies even higher.
--
Snit
Call it code or don't. Either way, Sandman, for *years* you failed to have
either your CSS or your HTML to validate:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please note that until or unless you get the WayBackMachine to get rid of
their archive the links I reference in those PDFs is still available.
Until I told you about validation there is no evidence your HTML or CSS
*ever* validated.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Snit
And, of course, code or not, Sandman could not get his to validate for
*years*:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Once I pointed out to Sandman how to validate his "code", he finally got it
to do so.
Sandman
<C1C3AF9E.6E918%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
> [4395] Call it code or don't.
I don't.
> [4396] Either way, Sandman, for *years* you failed to have either
> [4396] your CSS or your HTML to validate
So what drove you lie about it validating when it clearly did?
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3343 | lying 0 2583 |
| incest 0 1988 | sex 0 2498 |
| guilty 0 1540 | honorable 0 2409 |
| obfuscate 0 2406 | run 0 2551 |
| dishonest 0 2466 | snip 0 2501 |
| lol 0 1310 | contrived 0 13 |
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
> <C1C3AF9E.6E918%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
>
>> [4395] Call it code or don't.
>
> I don't.
>
>> [4396] Either way, Sandman, for *years* you failed to have either
>> [4396] your CSS or your HTML to validate
>
> So what drove you lie about it validating when it clearly did?
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
What date do you claim it started to validate?
Sandman
<C1C3FD2A.6EA43%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
> [4468] What date do you claim it started to validate?
Obviously before you lied about it not validating. Duh.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3343 | lying 0 2587 |
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
> <C1C3FD2A.6EA43%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
>
>> [4468] What date do you claim it started to validate?
>
> Obviously before you lied about it not validating. Duh.
The WayBackMachine shows four and a half years of your CSS not validating
correctly...
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
I commented on it not validating less than 2 weeks after the most recent
archived copy. You claim that in that less-than-two-week period you
suddenly had an epiphany and learned how to validate your CSS with no
prompting... and then I just happened to mention it a few days later.
Your story, Sandman, is bullshit.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-547C78.21...@News.Individual.NET on 1/5/07 1:20 PM:
>
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in
> > <C1C3FD2A.6EA43%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>:
> >
> >> [4468] What date do you claim it started to validate?
> >
> > Obviously before you lied about it not validating. Duh.
>
> The WayBackMachine shows four and a half years of your CSS not validating
> correctly...
Most likely because michael glasser doesn't know how to check a web site or use
the waybackmachine.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> I commented on it not validating less than 2 weeks after the most recent
> archived copy. You claim that in that less-than-two-week period you
> suddenly had an epiphany and learned how to validate your CSS with no
> prompting... and then I just happened to mention it a few days later.
>
> Your story, Sandman, is bullshit.
--
Snit
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>>
>>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff
>>> works;)
>>
>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted
>> his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it
>> did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since
>> and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me to believe
>> that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing.
>
> Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
> every lie of his I expose.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<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?
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
ll> 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!
And Sandman shall run!
Snit
> In article <C1C144EB.6E4BC%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Only, you didn't. That's your problem. Nowhere in any post you ever
>>> made was there proof that my CSS didn't validate at the time you lied
>>> about it not validating.
>>>
>>> You lied, you were caught with your lie and this is where you are now.
>>
>> LOL! No dice, Sandman...
>
> Whatever constitutes "dice" for you is irrelevant, Michael. Facts
> doesn't change at your whim. When are you going to stop arguing
> against the fact that nothing supports anything you've said?
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0cfa19a4a26f7bf>
* On 29 May 2006 I stated your site's code did not validate
* The WayBackMachine holds no record of your site ever validating
from the time you added CSS (22 October 2001) to very shortly
before the date I made my observation (19 May 2006). Between
those dates there are around 70 examples of it *not* validating
* Shortly after I pointed out your sites poor CSS it *did* start
to validate, at least at times. It currently validates correctly.
And yet, Sandman, you deny the fact that your CSS did not validate and call
me a liar for pointing out facts that are easy to show... unless you think
that sometime between May 19 and May 29 you started getting your code to
validate before anyone pointed out that you had consistently been failing to
do so for several *years*... and then I just happened to make my claim in
that short time period.... and provided examples that at the time you did
not refute or deny because, um... you were too wrapped up in your bragging
or something.
LOL! No dice, Sandman... you are a liar. The facts show that beyond *any*
reasonable doubt.
And you still do not have a Darth Tater! :)
Snit
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
> > every lie of his I expose.
>
> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Whatever that has to do with the fact that neither Google nor any
other source supports your claim that it did not validate at the time
you claimed it didn't. It did, you lied. Live with it.
That's the last I have to say on this old subject you keep wanting to
drag up again in spite of agreeing in your code of honesty not to do
so.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C257E986.7EB1D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
>>> every lie of his I expose.
>>
>> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
>
> Whatever that has to do with the fact that neither Google nor any
> other source supports your claim that it did not validate at the time
> you claimed it didn't. It did, you lied. Live with it.
When do you claim you learned how to get your site to validate? Days before
I noted it did not? Hours? Minutes? Come on, Sandman, I have asked you
this question in the past and you have ran. Come on, Sandman, try to answer
the questions:
When do you claim you learned how to get your site to validate?
When do you claim it started to validate?
The reason you run is simple: your site did not validate when I noted it did
not. I even quoted some of the bad code and noted how and why it did not
validate. Those quotes are *still* in the Google record (even noted in this
thread - you snipped and ran from them).
This is similar to my pointing out your bad alt-text. You will not discuss
it but you are busy correcting your sites. You are not able to admit when
your errors are pointed out, especially by me after you have spend all this
time and energy bad mouthing me and lying about me... only to have me shove
in your face the fact that your web development skills are mediocre at best
(face it, a good pro would never have the piss poor alt-text that you did).
> That's the last I have to say on this old subject you keep wanting to
> drag up again in spite of agreeing in your code of honesty not to do
> so.
LOL! Gee, for some reason you simply will not answer the questions:
When do you claim you learned how to get your site to validate?
When do you claim it started to validate?
Poor Sandman: even he knows he has learned a lot from me about web design
but he is too proud and embarrassed to admit to it.
Snit
Snit
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>>
>>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff
>>> works;)
>>
>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted
>> his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it
>> did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since
>> and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me to believe
>> that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing.
>
> Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
> every lie of his I expose.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<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?
Snit
> In article <C257E986.7EB1D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
>>> every lie of his I expose.
>>
>> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
>
> Whatever that has to do with the fact that neither Google nor any
> other source supports your claim that it did not validate at the time
> you claimed it didn't. It did, you lied. Live with it.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<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?
> That's the last I have to say on this old subject you keep wanting to
> drag up again in spite of agreeing in your code of honesty not to do
> so.
I do not expect you to ever be honest... but my how I enjoy shoving your
lies down your throat you miserable little liar and troll.
Good day. :)
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-978C54.10...@News.Individual.NET on 1/3/07 2:20 AM:
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-C72A23.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Come on, who do you think you are fooling?
>>>
>>> It's funny to watch Snit pretend to understand how this stuff
>>> works;)
>>
>> What's even funnier is the fact that the very first time snit posted
>> his claim about Sandman's code 'not validating', I checked it and it
>> did indeed validate just fine. I'v e checked it several times since
>> and have yet to see a problem with it, which leads me to believe
>> that snit, once again, doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing.
>
> Of course. He's been on about this for years now. He does that with
> every lie of his I expose.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
At first you admitted it did not validate, then you decided it might not