Finally figured it out!

bj

unread,

May 11, 2007, 6:05:05 PM5/11/07

to

The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
"obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Snit

unread,

May 11, 2007, 6:21:42 PM5/11/07

to

"bj" <b...@bj.net> stated in post evp943dr1p70af9pc...@4ax.com
on 5/11/07 3:05 PM:

> The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

For the record, the BS debate in that thread started with this:
Post: <noone-46AFB4....@newsgroups.comcast.net>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/df74962f645d1f98>

As per his norm, Steve could not focus on anything but how hate filled he
is... and started spewing accusations and other BS, left the thread behind,
and then started demanding that I defend myself against whatever BS
accusations he made up (frankly I never even looked to see... he simply
never is right). I bet he and his co-trolls blame me, but they will not be
able to point to what post - in that thread - I supposedly started anything.
Watch for it! :)

--
€ 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.

none

unread,

May 11, 2007, 6:25:55 PM5/11/07

to

bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:

> The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

yes, apple pays me $17.40 per post, it's a great way to make some extra
cash. gotta go, apple's black helicopter is now arriving to take me to
soccer practice.

damn, you finally figured it out bj!

PC Guy

unread,

May 11, 2007, 7:08:23 PM5/11/07

to

On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:05:05 -0500, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:

>The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
>from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
>"obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
>reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
>sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
>the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

Let's hope they're being paid by Apple. That would explain the
unhealthy level of fanaticism.

Snit

unread,

May 11, 2007, 7:26:13 PM5/11/07

to

"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
lpt943dkc35e68jl3...@4ax.com on 5/11/07 4:08 PM:

The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth... and
Carroll is fanatical about his hatred. I posted examples of him being out
and out dishonest ... he responded by running from those threads and then
making things personal and lying about my health concerns in another thread.
I had noted how he was going through another of his meltdowns... and he has
proved that I was exactly right.

There are others besides Carroll who come to CSMA to stir up trouble and do
not care if they are dishonest to do so, but Carroll is the only one who
takes things so far and makes things so personal. I am serious when I say
he should seek help for his psychological problems.

--
€ 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

Steve Carroll

unread,

May 11, 2007, 8:36:24 PM5/11/07

to

In article <evp943dr1p70af9pc...@4ax.com>, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:

> The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

Snit... keep your sock puppets under control... please.

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit

Edwin

unread,

May 11, 2007, 8:57:41 PM5/11/07

to

On May 11, 5:05 pm, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
> The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.

Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a bj. Time for a
cigarette...

Edwin

unread,

May 11, 2007, 8:58:35 PM5/11/07

to

On May 11, 7:36 pm, Steve Carroll <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> In article <evp943dr1p70af9pcec3kmgs9m1pn8c...@4ax.com>, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
> > The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> > from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> > "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> > reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> > sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> > the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.
>
> Snit... keep your sock puppets under control... please.

... or at least keep bj above the table...

Jim Lee Jr.

unread,

May 11, 2007, 9:05:29 PM5/11/07

to

In article <1178931461.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:

> Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a BJ. Time for a
> cigarette...

Do you mean a Marlboro or a doobie?

--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8

Edwin

unread,

May 11, 2007, 9:12:35 PM5/11/07

to

On May 11, 8:05 pm, "Jim Lee Jr." <peejste...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> In article <1178931461.853587.168...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On May 11, 5:05 pm, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
> > > The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> > > from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> > > "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> > > reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> > > sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> > > the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.
>
> > Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a BJ. Time for a
> > cigarette...

Why did you edit what I wrote to put "bj" in capital letters?

> Do you mean a Marlboro or a doobie?

Come closer and I'll show you why I'm holding a 2x4...

Edwin

unread,

May 11, 2007, 9:18:11 PM5/11/07

to

On May 11, 6:26 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "PC Guy" <p...@hotmail.com> stated in post
> lpt943dkc35e68jl3reuhjur6hb47lc...@4ax.com on 5/11/07 4:08 PM:

>
> > On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:05:05 -0500, bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
>
> >> The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> >> from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> >> "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> >> reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> >> sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> >> the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.
>
> > Let's hope they're being paid by Apple. That would explain the
> > unhealthy level of fanaticism.
>
> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth... and
> Carroll is fanatical about his hatred. I posted examples of him being out
> and out dishonest ... he responded by running from those threads and then
> making things personal and lying about my health concerns in another thread.
> I had noted how he was going through another of his meltdowns... and he has
> proved that I was exactly right.
>
> There are others besides Carroll who come to CSMA to stir up trouble and do
> not care if they are dishonest to do so, but Carroll is the only one who
> takes things so far and makes things so personal. I am serious when I say
> he should seek help for his psychological problems.

Why do you take so much time to type so many words, when nobody here
will believe a single one of them? I ask for information only.

Jim Lee Jr.

unread,

May 11, 2007, 9:49:17 PM5/11/07

to

In article <1178932354.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 8:05 pm, "Jim Lee Jr." <peejste...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > In article <1178931461.853587.168...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a BJ. Time for a
> > > cigarette...
>
> Why did you edit what I wrote to put "bj" in capital letters?

Because I felt like it.

> > Do you mean a Marlboro or a doobie?
>
> Come closer and I'll show you why I'm holding a 2x4...

No thanks, I will let you hit the other Wintrolls up side the head with
it. Or will you commit self injury with it?

Snit

unread,

May 11, 2007, 10:02:54 PM5/11/07

to

"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
1178931515.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com on 5/11/07 5:58 PM:

I do not care what Sandman and Carroll do in their private lives.

--
€ 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

unread,

May 11, 2007, 10:03:21 PM5/11/07

to

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> stated in post
peejster01-E9CA4...@unlimited.newshosting.com on 5/11/07 6:05
PM:

Steve makes it clear which he prefers.

--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"

Snit

unread,

May 11, 2007, 10:03:57 PM5/11/07

to

"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post

1178932691.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com on 5/11/07 6:18 PM:

You do not believe reality? OK.

--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most

Snit

unread,

May 11, 2007, 10:21:26 PM5/11/07

to

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> stated in post

peejster01-88397...@unlimited.newshosting.com on 5/11/07 6:49
PM:

> In article <1178932354.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 8:05 pm, "Jim Lee Jr." <peejste...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1178931461.853587.168...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a BJ. Time for a
>>>> cigarette...
>>
>> Why did you edit what I wrote to put "bj" in capital letters?
>
> Because I felt like it.

While I do not approve of even such minor editing of others posts, at least
you did not completely forge quotes and insist that others stated things
they did not... as Edwin has repeatedly done. To make matters worse for
Edwin, when I attribute the quotes he authored to him he lies and calls them
forgeries. What a moron!

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6631021eb647b2cc>
"I am wrong...
... AGAIN." - Edwin

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9b6b213faf0a6b3>
"why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?" - Edwin

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1feb64fbdbc6257>
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/be012043425eab88>
"Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
some mouthwash?" - Edwin

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9faf9fa081f74cb>
"I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys" - Edwin

Edwin denies the Google record is correct - and claims it is dishonest to
attribute his own words to him.

>>> Do you mean a Marlboro or a doobie?
>>
>> Come closer and I'll show you why I'm holding a 2x4...
>
> No thanks, I will let you hit the other Wintrolls up side the head with
> it. Or will you commit self injury with it?

Maybe we can shove Edwin, Carroll, Sandman, Adams, and the other trolls in a
small room and not let any come out until their is only one left standing.

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 2:42:25 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26A72B6.80D3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>>> Sure, but nobody cares now that the group got a BJ. Time for a
> >>>> cigarette...
> >>
> >> Why did you edit what I wrote to put "bj" in capital letters?
> >
> > Because I felt like it.
>
> While I do not approve of even such minor editing of others posts

You don't approve of your own actions? Why not? Quote editing is what
you do best, you keep selling yourself short.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 2:43:48 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26A49A5.80CC7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > Let's hope they're being paid by Apple. That would explain the
> > unhealthy level of fanaticism.
>
> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth...

That i agree with you. As soon as the truth is exposed, you go all
fanatical and try to re-post old debates to try to make a smokescreen
for your lies.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 2:58:56 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-11D065.08...@News.Individual.NET on 5/11/07 11:43 PM:

> In article <C26A49A5.80CC7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's hope they're being paid by Apple. That would explain the
>>> unhealthy level of fanaticism.
>>
>> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth...
>

> That i agree with you. As soon as the truth is exposed ...

Gee, let us see how well you deal when "truth is exposed"

<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?

On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!

And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.

I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
-----
On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your
code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a
professional?
[HTML Validation Link] Close to 100 errors on *one* page!
That is pretty damned pathetic.
[CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
For someone who was belittling others about their web
skills you really should look at your own first.
-----

You even *admitted* to it then (29 May 2006):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
-----
Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't
validate very good. That's because the system that
does the code consists of over 1 million rows of
code, so there are good and bad parts of it.
-----

And the WayBackMachine proves that less than 2 weeks before, on 19 May 2006
it did not validate:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/web
/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermedium=a
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!

PS: I snipped in the way you do. As long as you are doing so to my posts I
see no reason not to do so to yours. I, however, am noting the reason and
letting you know what it takes to end the silliness... you just do it
because you are wetting your pants.

--
€ 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

unread,

May 12, 2007, 3:35:29 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26AB3C0.80D96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth...
> >
> > That i agree with you. As soon as the truth is exposed ...
>
> Gee, let us see how well you deal when "truth is exposed"

Seeing how it is usually I who expose it amidst all your lies, I
obviously handle it fine.

This was yet another example of your quote editing. The text you
quoted was not the text I wrote. Not only have you removed text from
it, you have added to it.

You're treated the way you are in csma based on how you treat others.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 3:40:44 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-F21C60.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 12:35 AM:

> In article <C26AB3C0.80D96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth...
>>>
>>> That i agree with you. As soon as the truth is exposed ...
>>
>> Gee, let us see how well you deal when "truth is exposed"
>
> Seeing how it is usually I who expose it amidst all your lies, I
> obviously handle it fine.

Well, except for when you do not, such as with the following:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>

And Sandman shall run!

Oh, and I snipped your text again as you snip mine. Yes, I am mocking you.
:)

--
€ 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

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 3:44:14 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-F21C60.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 12:35 AM:

> In article <C26AB3C0.80D96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,

You are lying. I added *nothing* other than an ellipses to note I had
removed text... and then I made it very clear why I had done so:

PS: I snipped in the way you do. As long as you are doing
so to my posts I see no reason not to do so to yours. I,
however, am noting the reason and letting you know what it
takes to end the silliness... you just do it because you are
wetting your pants.

In other words, Sandman, I have noted how I shall feel free to snip your
posts as you snip mine... and you then use my doing so to try to excuse your
behavior.

OK... we each blame each other... so let's both stop. Can you? I doubt
it... let's test by seeing if you can respond honestly to the following
comments which show beyond any doubt that you are a liar. I bet you just
run!

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 3:50:09 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26ABE5E.80DA6%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>>> The difference, of course, is that I am "fanatical" about the truth...
> >>>
> >>> That i agree with you. As soon as the truth is exposed ...
> >>
> >> Gee, let us see how well you deal when "truth is exposed"
> >
> > Seeing how it is usually I who expose it amidst all your lies, I
> > obviously handle it fine.
> >
> > This was yet another example of your quote editing. The text you
> > quoted was not the text I wrote. Not only have you removed text from
> > it, you have added to it.
> >
> > You're treated the way you are in csma based on how you treat others.
>
> You are lying. I added *nothing* other than an ellipses to note I had
> removed text...

I.e. you edited quoted material. Just like I said.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:13:02 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-6098B8.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 12:50 AM:

You just made it clear you have no idea what an ellipses is for. Oh well.

Oh, and Sandman, you snipped content from my post... content that was
relevant and meaningful - but made you wet your pants again.

You must go through 50 pairs of pants a day!

--
€ 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

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:26:09 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26AC51E.80DAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Oh, and Sandman, you snipped content from my post... content that was
> relevant and meaningful

Haha! Only you would think that your lies are "relevant and
meaningful". :-D

--
Sandman[.net]

Peter Hayes

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:32:20 AM5/12/07

to

none <a...@b.com> wrote:

> bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
>
> > The record for a post going off topic must be held the by "blocked
> > from Apple discussions" post here. About post number 2 it went to
> > "obfuscation" as another Steve-Snit argument subsued. It stands to
> > reason that most of the posters here are paid Apple employees in the
> > sense that when any negative comment is made about Apple, they change
> > the subject or start an argument! Now CSMA finally makes sense.
>
> yes, apple pays me $17.40 per post,

You get $17.40 per post? You want to get on to Steve PDQ - I get $22.50
a post.

Gates offered only $19.75 so he's bombed out, the cheapskate.

As for the Linux crowd, they thought I should do it for free - they
quoted the GPL, saying they'd pay my ISP fees.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:48:54 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-248A21.10...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 1:26 AM:

You just wet your pants and ran again, Sandman. About all you do these
days.

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:56:26 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-F21C60.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 12:35 AM:

> In article <C26AB3C0.80D96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,

You are lying. I added *nothing* other than an ellipses to note I had

removed text... and then I made it very clear why I had done so:

PS: I snipped in the way you do. As long as you are doing

so to my posts I see no reason not to do so to yours. I,
however, am noting the reason and letting you know what it
takes to end the silliness... you just do it because you are
wetting your pants.

In other words, Sandman, I have noted how I shall feel free to snip your

posts as you snip mine... and you then use my doing so to try to excuse your
behavior.

OK... we each blame each other... so let's both stop. Can you? I doubt
it... let's test by seeing if you can respond honestly to the following
comments which show beyond any doubt that you are a liar. I bet you just
run!

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 5:04:03 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26ACF4A.80DB9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> 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...

Why are you pushing this lie over and over again? I mean, what's your
motive for ignoring all the times I've corrected this lie of yours?

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 5:30:34 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-A872C3.11...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 2:04 AM:

19 May 2006 proof your CSS did not validate:
<http://snipurl.com/16fpk>

29 May 2006 - I commented on your poor code:

-----
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.
-----

29 May 2006 - first you admitted it did not validate:

-----
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.
-----

2 June 2006 - then you decided it might not have

-----
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.
-----

5 June 2006 - you did a complete flip flop

-----
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
-----

9 June 2006 - you were in complete denial mode:

-----
> Advice I gave you:
> * get your CSS to validate
Incorrect, since it was already validating.
-----

3 Jan 2007 - you claimed the data from w3.org was "forged" and denied
facts *still* available on the WayBackMachine :

-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----

You best defense so far is to say that your CSS *did* validate on 29 May
2006, the day I noted it did not. You will not say, however, why you
*claim* to have started getting your code to validate during that two week
period when there is no record of it ever validating before that (and since
I noted that the Google archived version from 24 May 2006 also did not
validate, that cuts the window down to *five* days!). Carroll has jumped in
to defend you by noting that a lack of validation need not be that big of a
deal - but the question is not about validation, it is about you lying...
and you clearly are.

Until I showed you that your code did not validate and pointed you to the
w3.org validation services, there is no record of your code every validating
and many, many examples of it not. Same can be said of your detrimental
alt-text: you screwed that up pretty bad until I pointed out how absurd your
code was.

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 6:01:09 AM5/12/07

to

In article <C26AD74A.80DC3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> 29 May 2006 - I commented on your poor code:
> -----
> 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.
> -----
>
> 29 May 2006 - first you admitted it did not validate:
> -----
> Yeah, I know. It's not bad

This is the post:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c8
57a>

The word "css" is nowhere to be found in my post that you claim have
me admitting that my CSS did not validate. How can I be admitting to
something that isn't even present?

This was yet another one of your creative snipping methods.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 10:48:56 AM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-DC2A40.12...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 3:01 AM:

>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> Why are you pushing this lie over and over again? I mean, what's your
>>> motive for ignoring all the times I've corrected this lie of yours?
>>
>> 19 May 2006 proof your CSS did not validate:
>> <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>

You snipped the above. You ignored the fact that the WayBackMachine and the
w3.org validation services show your CSS as not validating. That is not
honest of you, being that your are trying to push the idea that your CSS
*was* validating at that time.

Also note that the Google archive from 24 May 2006 showed your CSS as having
three errors... and that was *after* you claimed it validated:

>> [3294] * your CSS does not validate correctly
> Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
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
-----

Your response to that was to snip and run. You do that often.

Note: while the link, above, is grossly outdated, your Google cached copy is
*again* failing validation, though admittedly in a trivial way.

>> 29 May 2006 - I commented on your poor code:
>> -----
>> 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.
>> -----
>>
>> 29 May 2006 - first you admitted it did not validate:
>> -----
>> Yeah, I know. It's not bad
>
> This is the post:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c8
> 57a>
>
> The word "css" is nowhere to be found in my post that you claim have
> me admitting that my CSS did not validate. How can I be admitting to
> something that isn't even present?
>
> This was yet another one of your creative snipping methods.

That was during the time when you spewing numbers and, as you do so often,
snipping info. Your spewing of numbers, clearly, was adding content that
was not in the original. You whined when I added an ellipses to indicate,
correctly, that I had not quoted a full sentence, but I bet you excuse your
idiotic adding of number:

-----
> [3178] On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.
> Sandman. [3179] net: your code is pretty damned bad.

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.
-----

Please note the "code" in question was both your CSS and your HTML, as shown
above in my more full quote. You, as you do so often, snipped content in a
dishonest way. That does not, however, alter the comments you were
responding to. Below I return what you snipped as you wet your pants and
ran:

>> 2 June 2006 - then you decided it might not have
>> -----
>> 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.
>> -----

Here you "acknowledge" that your lack of validation "could be do to the way
the stylesheets [sic] are constructed." Clearly you mean your CSS... you
were not yet denying that is what you were referring to. You also spewed
accusations against me *and* claimed that the "chances are" that I had dug
up some "unrelated, cached version" ... but now we know that there are *no*
examples in the WayBackMachine archive that validate correctly (either with
CSS or HTML), and you have never postulated any reason why the archived
versions would somehow fail validation if your originals had. What you said
was absurd - there is no reason to think the WayBackMachine alters the code
it archives to make it appear that *your* site fails validation. You never
did acknowledge that.

>> 5 June 2006 - you did a complete flip flop
>> -----
>> 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
>> -----

Here you were in denial mode.

>> 9 June 2006 - you were in complete denial mode:
>> -----
>> > Advice I gave you:
>> > * get your CSS to validate
>> Incorrect, since it was already validating.
>> -----

And you continued your dishonest denials.

>> 3 Jan 2007 - you claimed the data from w3.org was "forged" and denied
>> facts *still* available on the WayBackMachine :
>> -----
>> > <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.
>> -----

And here you claimed that it was one of my "lies" to state the honest fact
that "the WayBackMachine holds no record of your site *ever* validating."
You even went so far as to say the PDFs that held only data from the
WayBackMachine and w3.org were "forged", an accusation you made that was
completely incorrect. You never acknowledged that, either.

>> You best defense so far is to say that your CSS *did* validate on 29 May
>> 2006, the day I noted it did not. You will not say, however, why you *claim*
>> to have started getting your code to validate during that two week period
>> when there is no record of it ever validating before that (and since I noted
>> that the Google archived version from 24 May 2006 also did not validate, that
>> cuts the window down to *five* days!). Carroll has jumped in to defend you
>> by noting that a lack of validation need not be that big of a deal - but the
>> question is not about validation, it is about you lying... and you clearly
>> are.

You clearly are lying... hence the reason you wet your pants and run.

>> Until I showed you that your code did not validate and pointed you to the
>> w3.org validation services, there is no record of your code every validating
>> and many, many examples of it not. Same can be said of your detrimental
>> alt-text: you screwed that up pretty bad until I pointed out how absurd your
>> code was.

Again... more wetting of the pants from you. Oh well. You are a very, very
cowardly troll.

Sandman

unread,

May 12, 2007, 12:56:16 PM5/12/07

to

In article <C26B21E8.80E12%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > This is the post:
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c8
> > 57a>
> >
> > The word "css" is nowhere to be found in my post that you claim have
> > me admitting that my CSS did not validate. How can I be admitting to
> > something that isn't even present?
> >
> > This was yet another one of your creative snipping methods.
>
> That was during the time when you spewing numbers and, as you do so often,
> snipping info.

And nowhere in the post was the word "css". Go figure. :)

One interesting note:

<C26AD74A.80DC3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

Posted at half past two in the middle of the night.
Why are you up so late posting to usenet? Seriously?

<C26B21E8.80E12%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

Posted at 7:48, only five hours later. You sleep five hours and the
first and last thing you do is post to csma? Or do you sleep even
less? In fact, going by when you post your first post in the morning
and the last post in the "evening", this is as much as you've slept in
the last month:

2007-04-14
last post: 01:32 <C245DFC4.7D33A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
first post: 09:04 <C2464983.7D368%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>

slept 7 hours and 32 minutes

2007-04-15
last post: 00:29 <C2472255.7D4BF%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
first post: 08:18 <C247906E.7D4F2%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>

slept 7 hours and 49 minutes

2007-04-16
last post: 00:45 <C248779A.7D73F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
first post: 08:56 <C248EACF.7D77D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>

slept 8 hours and 11 minutes

2007-04-17
last post: 01:05 <C249CDE8.7D955%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 07:52 <C24A2D55.7D98C%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 6 hours and 47 minutes

2007-04-18
last post: 01:09 <C24B2067.7DB83%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 08:30 <C24B878C.7DBB4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 7 hours and 21 minutes

2007-04-21
last post: 01:11 <C24F1544.7E18B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 07:05 <C24F6849.7E1AC%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 5 hours and 54 minutes

2007-04-23
last post: 00:17 <C251AB80.7E43E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:26 <C2522C45.7E480%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 9 hours and 9 minutes

2007-04-24
last post: 00:34 <C2530116.7E5DE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 08:22 <C2536EA9.7E5FF%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 7 hours and 48 minutes

2007-04-26
last post: 00:39 <C255A53B.7E816%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:29 <C2562196.7E856%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 8 hours and 50 minutes

2007-04-27
last post: 00:40 <C256F6E1.7E9BB%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:08 <C2576E29.7E9F7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 8 hours and 28 minutes

2007-04-28
last post: 00:37 <C25847D4.7EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:19 <C258C23F.7EBF9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 8 hours and 42 minutes

2007-04-30
last post: 00:34 <C25AEA1E.7EDAB%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:15 <C25B6443.7EE11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 8 hours and 41 minutes

2007-05-02
last post: 00:47 <C25D9019.7F113%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 08:01 <C25DF5E5.7F16F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 7 hours and 14 minutes

2007-05-06
last post: 02:00 <C262E750.7F862%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 08:08 <C2633D62.7F8A3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 6 hours and 8 minutes

2007-05-07
last post: 00:06 <C2641E0B.7F9E8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:34 <C264A318.7FA18%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 9 hours and 28 minutes

2007-05-08
last post: 01:12 <C2657F15.7FB63%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 08:49 <C265EA2C.7FB8D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 7 hours and 37 minutes

2007-05-09
last post: 02:55 <C266E898.800E5%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 09:33 <C26745CE.8018F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 6 hours and 38 minutes

2007-05-10
last post: 00:36 <C268199B.8039B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 07:16 <C2687750.8071B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 6 hours and 40 minutes

2007-05-12
last post: 02:30 <C26AD74A.80DC3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
first post: 07:48 <C26B21E8.80E12%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>

slept 5 hours and 18 minutes

Calculating this, it means you generally sleep 7.6 hours per night,
which isn't out of the ordinary, I suppose, but that's going by your
FIRST and LAST post, so unless you post from your bed, the times are
even more stricter than that.

It's not the amount of sleep you get that's the most funny part of
this. It's the fact that one can actually calculate your average sleep
time based on your csma postings!

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 1:05:02 PM5/12/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post

mr-DC2A40.12...@News.Individual.NET on 5/12/07 3:01 AM:

>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> Why are you pushing this lie over and over again? I mean, what's your
>>> motive for ignoring all the times I've corrected this lie of yours?
>>
>> 19 May 2006 proof your CSS did not validate:
>> <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>

You snipped the above. You ignored the fact that the WayBackMachine and the

w3.org validation services show your CSS as not validating. That is not
honest of you, being that your are trying to push the idea that your CSS
*was* validating at that time.

Also note that the Google archive from 24 May 2006 showed your CSS as having
three errors... and that was *after* you claimed it validated:

>> [3294] * your CSS does not validate correctly
> Are you drunk? It validates perfectly.
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
-----

Your response to that was to snip and run. You do that often.

Note: while the link, above, is grossly outdated, your Google cached copy is
*again* failing validation, though admittedly in a trivial way.

>> 29 May 2006 - I commented on your poor code:

>> -----
>> 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.
>> -----
>>
>> 29 May 2006 - first you admitted it did not validate:
>> -----
>> Yeah, I know. It's not bad
>
> This is the post:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c8
> 57a>
>
> The word "css" is nowhere to be found in my post that you claim have
> me admitting that my CSS did not validate. How can I be admitting to
> something that isn't even present?
>
> This was yet another one of your creative snipping methods.

That was during the time when you spewing numbers and, as you do so often,

snipping info. Your spewing of numbers, clearly, was adding content that
was not in the original. You whined when I added an ellipses to indicate,
correctly, that I had not quoted a full sentence, but I bet you excuse your
idiotic adding of number:

-----
> [3178] On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.
> Sandman. [3179] net: your code is pretty damned bad.

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.
-----

Please note the "code" in question was both your CSS and your HTML, as shown

above in my more full quote. You, as you do so often, snipped content in a
dishonest way. That does not, however, alter the comments you were
responding to. Below I return what you snipped as you wet your pants and
ran:

>> 2 June 2006 - then you decided it might not have

>> -----
>> 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.
>> -----

Here you "acknowledge" that your lack of validation "could be do to the way

the stylesheets [sic] are constructed." Clearly you mean your CSS... you
were not yet denying that is what you were referring to. You also spewed
accusations against me *and* claimed that the "chances are" that I had dug
up some "unrelated, cached version" ... but now we know that there are *no*
examples in the WayBackMachine archive that validate correctly (either with
CSS or HTML), and you have never postulated any reason why the archived
versions would somehow fail validation if your originals had. What you said
was absurd - there is no reason to think the WayBackMachine alters the code
it archives to make it appear that *your* site fails validation. You never
did acknowledge that.

>> 5 June 2006 - you did a complete flip flop

>> -----
>> 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
>> -----

Here you were in denial mode.

>> 9 June 2006 - you were in complete denial mode:
>> -----
>> > Advice I gave you:
>> > * get your CSS to validate
>> Incorrect, since it was already validating.
>> -----

And you continued your dishonest denials.

>> 3 Jan 2007 - you claimed the data from w3.org was "forged" and denied

>> facts *still* available on the WayBackMachine :
>> -----
>> > <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.
>> -----

And here you claimed that it was one of my "lies" to state the honest fact

that "the WayBackMachine holds no record of your site *ever* validating."
You even went so far as to say the PDFs that held only data from the
WayBackMachine and w3.org were "forged", an accusation you made that was
completely incorrect. You never acknowledged that, either.

>> You best defense so far is to say that your CSS *did* validate on 29 May

>> 2006, the day I noted it did not. You will not say, however, why you *claim*
>> to have started getting your code to validate during that two week period
>> when there is no record of it ever validating before that (and since I noted
>> that the Google archived version from 24 May 2006 also did not validate, that
>> cuts the window down to *five* days!). Carroll has jumped in to defend you
>> by noting that a lack of validation need not be that big of a deal - but the
>> question is not about validation, it is about you lying... and you clearly
>> are.

You clearly are lying... hence the reason you wet your pants and run.

>> Until I showed you that your code did not validate and pointed you to the

>> w3.org validation services, there is no record of your code every validating
>> and many, many examples of it not. Same can be said of your detrimental
>> alt-text: you screwed that up pretty bad until I pointed out how absurd your
>> code was.

Again... more wetting of the pants from you. Oh well. You are a very, very
cowardly troll.

Snit

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:22:42 PM5/12/07