Friendly request for Sandman
Snit
Recently you spoke poorly of my web master skills. You have also claimed to
be an expert in the field, something I am not. With that in mind I would
like to get some *constructive* criticism from you - in other words, being
that you clearly have a site in mind (no other way could you claim things
about my skills) I would like to have you offer suggestions on how to
improve it. Constructive suggestions. Even just commenting on areas where
it is weak would be beneficial. I may or may not agree with you, but having
a self-professed professional look at my site would be cool!
I, of course, have already done this for you (though I am not a
professional). I looked at http://www.sandman.net and this is what I found:
* 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.
* your CSS does not validate correctly (well, did not)
* your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of white space
* your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
* the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
Once I pointed those things out you tried to make excuses for your apparent
poor skills and even denied your CSS did not validate. I checked again and,
oddly enough, it had "magically" fixed itself. The Google cache, however,
showed that a mere four days prior it had, in deed, not validated, just as I
said. You are at a loss to explain why the CSS page on your site
"magically" changed to be able to correctly validate. Amazing. (Ok, not so
amazing, you lied... plain and simple).
Despite your obvious lie I would like to have you provide specific comments
on the site of mine I have designed for any customer (I do perform some
design work for folks, so I suppose in that way I could be considered at
least semi-pro... ).
Come on, Sandman, I was willing to help you better your skills (and it
worked, your CSS now validates!), won't you return the favor?
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Sandman
<C0A47E97.504B5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3343] Hi Sandman, Recently you spoke poorly of my web master
> [3343] skills.
No, your web design skills.
> [3344] You have also claimed to be an expert in the field,
> [3344] something I am not.
When did I claim that?
> [3345] With that in mind I would like to get some *constructive*
> [3345] criticism from you - in other words, being that you clearly
> [3345] have a site in mind (no other way could you claim things
> [3345] about my skills) I would like to have you offer suggestions
> [3345] on how to improve it.
Sorry, I don't think you can afford me...
<trolling snipped>
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3267 | lying 0 2533 |
| incest 1 1954 | sex 1 2454 |
| guilty 0 1508 | honorable 0 2405 |
| obfuscate 0 2398 | run 0 2527 |
| dishonest 0 2454 | snip 0 2485 |
| lol 0 1286 | contrived 0 11 |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
Snit
Recently you spoke poorly of my web master skills. You have also claimed to
Sandman
<C0A59F86.5057C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> <trolling snipped>
How many times can I get you to post the same thing this time? You're
at two now. Five? Ten?
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3267 | lying 0 2533 |
| incest 1 1956 | sex 1 2456 |
Snit
mr-8B2005.17...@individual.net on 6/2/06 8:22 AM:
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A59F86.5057C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> <trolling snipped>
>
> How many times can I get you to post the same thing this time? You're
> at two now. Five? Ten?
Your Usenet reader is broken. Apparently you are not getting the complete
message. I would like an honest response from you.
Wait. No chance of actually getting that.
Maybe you could just answer a couple questions.
1) How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in mind the Google cache
proved it did not validate ... then you claimed it did and it was changed.
How do you explain that?
2) You have repeatedly talked about my web skills but cannot even point to a
single site of mine; certainly not one I have done for any customer. Why do
you flame me in the clear evidence of your utter ignorance? More so, why do
you do this when your own skills are far from great, as shown by the
evidence you keep snipping.
Such simple questions, yet you will run. Comes down to you having been
caught mindlessly flaming and clearly lying (being that you changed your
site and tried to make it look like your CSS had always validated).
You are a lying troll. And you run from the posts that prove it. Poor
Sandman. I bet you never post an FAQ about your changing magically changing
CSS. :)
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
<C0A5A747.5058F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3426] Your Usenet reader is broken.
In what way?
> [3427] Apparently you are not getting the complete message.
How is that apparent?
> [3428] I would like an honest response from you.
You've received plenty - take your pick.
> [3431] Maybe you could just answer a couple questions.
Apart from the ones I've already answered?
> [3432] 1) How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in mind
> [3432] the Google cache proved it did not validate .
Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that. 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.
Plus, not only do I never lie - I also totally accepted my HTML not
validating, but now it does. Why would I not have done the same for
these extremly minor problems in the CSS? That's just not logical.
> [3437] 2) You have repeatedly talked about my web skills but cannot
> [3437] even point to a single site of mine; certainly not one I
> [3437] have done for any customer.
Your web *design* skills, Michael.
> [3438] Why do you flame me in the clear evidence of your utter
> [3438] ignorance?
I don't. I correctly point out that you suck at web design.
> [3439] More so, why do you do this when your own skills are far
> [3439] from great, as shown by the evidence you keep snipping
> [3439] (2486).
Where?
> [3440] Such simple questions, yet you will run (2528).
I.e. pound you down into the concrete floor with facts.
> [3441] Comes down to you having been caught mindlessly flaming and
> [3441] clearly lying (2534) (being that you changed your site and
> [3441] tried to make it look like your CSS had always validated).
Both incorrect.
> [3442] You are a lying (2535) troll (3268).
Nopes.
> [3443] And you run (2529) from the posts that prove it.
You just described yourself, Michael.
> [3444] Poor Sandman.
I'm quite wealthy, actually.
> [3445] I bet you never post an FAQ about your changing magically
> [3445] changing CSS.
Why not - maybe I'll compose a FAQ about this particular lie of yours.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 3269 | lying 2 2537 |
| incest 0 1956 | sex 0 2456 |
| guilty 1 1510 | honorable 0 2405 |
| obfuscate 0 2398 | run 2 2531 |
| dishonest 0 2454 | snip 1 2487 |
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A5A747.5058F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> [3426] Your Usenet reader is broken.
>
> In what way?
>
>> [3427] Apparently you are not getting the complete message.
>
> How is that apparent?
>
>> [3428] I would like an honest response from you.
>
> You've received plenty - take your pick.
>
>> [3431] Maybe you could just answer a couple questions.
>
> Apart from the ones I've already answered?
>
>> [3432] 1) How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in mind
>> [3432] the Google cache proved it did not validate .
>
> Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that. 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.
>
> Plus, not only do I never lie - I also totally accepted my HTML not
> validating, but now it does. Why would I not have done the same for
> these extremly minor problems in the CSS? That's just not logical.
Fact 1: your CSS did not validate for at least the several days before our
conversation.
Fact 2: The Google cache proved it did not validate and was from only 4 days
prior - it was not some "old, unrelated, cached version"
Fact 3: You denied that it did not validate and the new code does validate
Fact 4: You cannot offer an explanation for the "magical" change.
Note: I did not have to resort to even pointing out your lies in the past.
I simply listed current facts. You lied, Sandman. You can deny it all you
wish, but you lied.
Do you have a better explanation for why your code suddenly changed?
All that babbling from you, Sandman, and you *still* cannot explain why your
code "magically" changed nor point to a single web site of mine I have ever
done for any customer you believe is done poorly.
Not only did you throw stones from your glass house, you threw stones at a
wall you cannot show suffered the slightest chip.
Snit
--
Sandman
<C0A5D5C0.505BE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> <trolling snipped>
I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3294 | lying 0 2551 |
| incest 1 1964 | sex 1 2474 |
| guilty 0 1512 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 0 2402 | run 0 2535 |
| dishonest 0 2456 | snip 0 2491 |
| lol 0 1286 | contrived 0 13 |
Sandman
<C0A5D5D4.505BF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> <trolling snipped>
Three.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3294 | lying 0 2551 |
| incest 1 1966 | sex 1 2476 |
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A5D5D4.505BF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> <trolling snipped>
>
> Three.
Sadly, Sandman, even though you correctly stated the number of times you
have run from my request your comments still do not "count". LOL. Funny,
eh?
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A5D5C0.505BE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> <trolling snipped>
>
> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
What do you think I did not understand about your lying and trolling?
Sandman
<C0A5D8E2.505D6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3613] What do you think I did not understand about your lying
> [3613] (2556) and trolling (3299)?
I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 3300 | lying 1 2557 |
| incest 1 1970 | sex 1 2480 |
| guilty 0 1514 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 0 2402 | run 0 2537 |
| dishonest 0 2458 | snip 0 2491 |
NRen2k5
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A5D8E2.505D6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> [3613] What do you think I did not understand about your lying
>> [3613] (2556) and trolling (3299)?
>
> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
Snit wins.
- NRen2k5
Sandman
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
> >> [3613] What do you think I did not understand about your lying
> >> [3613] (2556) and trolling (3299)?
> >
> > I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
>
> Snit wins.
Obviously - he is a troll and I am responding to his trolls.
But I do enjoy him try :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8GHgg.7320$3e2....@wagner.videotron.net on 6/4/06 1:48 PM:
I always do when it comes to debates with Sandman, Tim Adams, Carroll,
Wally, GreyCloud and the rest of the ankle biters who have nothing better to
do than to troll and flame me. Their only "win" is to get me to bite at
their trolling and give them the gift of a response.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
> >
> > Snit wins.
>
> I always do when it comes to debates with Sandman, Tim Adams, Carroll,
> Wally, GreyCloud
Obviously - You troll and we reply. That's your only goal and as such,
it's easy for you to win. If we were to win, you would have to admit
to your lies, obfuscations, forgeries, sock puppets, snipping, quote
mangling, quote editing and all other things you've done but trying
hard to claim you haven't.
As such - we can't win.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Yaaaaawn. More accusations from you with no support.
By the way, did you ever manage to find one of the web sites of mine you
pre-whined about? LOL! Did you ever manage to come up with a good story as
to why your CSS "magically" changed to take on some of my suggestions? How
long until your web site changes to take on my suggestions? I bet you never
thank me for the free assistance I gave you.
Poor Sandman, even when I go out of my way to help him make his web site not
quite so bad he is so insecure he feels the need to lash out. How pathetic.
You should take one of my web design classes.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
> >>>
> >>> Snit wins.
> >>
> >> I always do when it comes to debates with Sandman, Tim Adams, Carroll,
> >> Wally, GreyCloud
> >
> > Obviously - You troll and we reply. That's your only goal and as such,
> > it's easy for you to win. If we were to win, you would have to admit
> > to your lies, obfuscations, forgeries, sock puppets, snipping, quote
> > mangling, quote editing and all other things you've done but trying
> > hard to claim you haven't.
> >
> > As such - we can't win.
> >
> Yaaaaawn. More accusations from you with no support.
Did you mean to write "fully supported"?
> By the way, did you ever manage to find one of the web sites of mine you
> pre-whined about?
Yeah - all of them. Why?
> LOL! Did you ever manage to come up with a good story as
> to why your CSS "magically" changed
It is dynamically created.
> How long until your web site changes to take on my suggestions?
My website changes on a regular basis. Why?
> Poor Sandman, even when I go out of my way to help him make his web site not
> quite so bad he is so insecure he feels the need to lash out. How pathetic.
> You should take one of my web design classes.
Hahaha!! That was a good one!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0A923A2.50E51%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit wins.
>>>>
>>>> I always do when it comes to debates with Sandman, Tim Adams, Carroll,
>>>> Wally, GreyCloud
>>>
>>> Obviously - You troll and we reply. That's your only goal and as such,
>>> it's easy for you to win. If we were to win, you would have to admit
>>> to your lies, obfuscations, forgeries, sock puppets, snipping, quote
>>> mangling, quote editing and all other things you've done but trying
>>> hard to claim you haven't.
>>>
>>> As such - we can't win.
>>>
>> Yaaaaawn. More accusations from you with no support.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman, just trolling from him:
>
> Did you mean to write "fully supported"?
See. What an asinine question.
>> By the way, did you ever manage to find one of the web sites of mine you
>> pre-whined about?
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman - he neither can point to a site nor
admit to his lies.
>
> Yeah - all of them. Why?
>
>> LOL! Did you ever manage to come up with a good story as
>> to why your CSS "magically" changed
>
> It is dynamically created.
So? What does that have to do with it "magically" changing to accommodate,
at least in part, my suggestions when before it did not. Clearly you (or
someone) changed code somewhere to make it validate. You avoid going into
details about what you did to take my suggestions. Gee, what a shock.
>
>> How long until your web site changes to take on my suggestions?
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman, just an obfuscation - he does not
even admit he altered his site based on my suggestions:
>
> My website changes on a regular basis. Why?
See.
>> Poor Sandman, even when I go out of my way to help him make his web site not
>> quite so bad he is so insecure he feels the need to lash out. How pathetic.
>> You should take one of my web design classes.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman.
> Hahaha!! That was a good one!
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Did you mean to write "fully supported"?
>
> See. What an asinine question.
Yeah, but that was the only logical thing you could be saying, since
it all has been fully supported.
> >> By the way, did you ever manage to find one of the web sites of mine you
> >> pre-whined about?
> >
> > Yeah - all of them. Why?
No reply?
> >> LOL! Did you ever manage to come up with a good story as
> >> to why your CSS "magically" changed
> >
> > It is dynamically created.
>
> So? What does that have to do with it "magically" changing to accommodate,
> at least in part, my suggestions when before it did not.
Nothing, of course - since that hasn't occured. First, you claiming it
didn't validate was most likely a lie - as I've said. You lie a lot so
this would have been no different.
> Clearly you (or someone) changed code somewhere to make it validate.
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
> >> How long until your web site changes to take on my suggestions?
> >
> > My website changes on a regular basis. Why?
>
> See.
See what? That my website changes? Yeah, I see that a lot.
>>> Poor Sandman, even when I go out of my way to help him make his
>>> web site not quite so bad he is so insecure he feels the need to
>>> lash out. How pathetic. You should take one of my web design
>>> classes.
>>
>> Hahaha!! That was a good one!
Do you know any other jokes?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Hey, Sandman, how do you think I got Google in on my "lie"? LOL! Remember
their cache proved your CSS changed to validate. Why is it that the more
you try to defend yourself the more you stick your foot in your mouth. You
lied, Sandman - and you were caught. You can deny it until you turn blue,
but the facts simply will not change.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-9AC045.10...@individual.net on 6/5/06 1:14 AM:
>
> > In article <C0A923A2.50E51%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> I see you failed to understand my post, Michael.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Snit wins.
> >>>>
> >>>> I always do when it comes to debates with Sandman, Tim Adams, Carroll,
> >>>> Wally, GreyCloud
> >>>
> >>> Obviously - You troll and we reply. That's your only goal and as such,
> >>> it's easy for you to win. If we were to win, you would have to admit
> >>> to your lies, obfuscations, forgeries, sock puppets, snipping, quote
> >>> mangling, quote editing and all other things you've done but trying
> >>> hard to claim you haven't.
> >>>
> >>> As such - we can't win.
> >>>
> >> Yaaaaawn. More accusations from you with no support.
>
> Note: no relevant comment from Sandman, just trolling from him:
What he said is completely supported... as evidence by the numbers of
people that have kf'd you. Your very existence in csma is owed to the
few of us that find humor in your whining and the Wintrolls that decide
to use you when they see fit. Period. ;)
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Hey, Sandman, how do you think I got Google in on my "lie"?
What lie? You tell so many and run from context, so I don't know which
one you're in reference to.
> LOL! Remember
> their cache proved your CSS changed to validate.
Which didn't surprise me at all. Why? Looking now, I see it isn't
validating again. I'll have to fix that.
> Why is it that the more
> you try to defend yourself the more you stick your foot in your mouth.
How come you run from the facts, Michael? Why are you so afraid of
answering logical questions like this one:
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
...other, of course, than it handles logic, and you're wearing your
logic-repellant perfume. :)
--
Sandman[.net]