The silly PDF forgery accusation that keep coming back
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And where I provided *every* single URL needed to verify them:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0420f6675f60cbd>
Can anyone find a single example where I am wrong... one single example from
before the date of the PDFs where sandman.net had CSS or HTML that
validates?
The answer, of course, is: no.
Not a single one.
Since nobody can the claim was made that since the EXIF data shows Adobe
products then it must be a "forgery"... even if the data is 100% accurate
and thus proves Sandman is a liar. So here is where I provide a movie
proving that the EXIF data of the PDF can contain Adobe references that are
incorrect:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/fmpro-pdf.mov>
And where I show, with links, where Sandman changed his story about his CSS
claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55059e10b247c5c4>
Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, -hh and
Peter Köhlmann are all lying when they claim I forged the PDF with the data
that proves Sandman to be a liar. This is not a matter of opinion; if the
PDF data was forged it would be trivial to show where my data was
inaccurate.
And yet they will not find a single example. Not one. This is 100%
predictable.
So there we have it: I have provided absolute proof of my claims (unless you
think I have managed to have the WayBackMachine someone lie for me or I have
hacked them somehow).
Steve Carroll is a liar
Tim Adams is a liar
Wally is a liar
Sandman is a liar
Steve Mackay is a liar
Alan Baker is a liar
-hh is a liar
Peter Köhlmann is a liar
Proved.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Peter Köhlmann
> Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
< snip Snot forgeries >
Pray tell, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser, what has COLA to do with this
utter idiocy you pest newsgroups with?
Please forge your "evidence" wherever you want, and then keep ot there
--
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...
Snit
48a918d8$0$11736$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/17/08 11:38 PM:
> The forger Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>
>> Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
>
> < snip Snot forgeries >
>
> Pray tell, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser, what has COLA to do with this
> utter idiocy you pest newsgroups with?
>
> Please forge your "evidence" wherever you want, and then keep ot there
You - again - made an accusation against me.
I proved you wrong.
And you snipped.
Oh well... not even you are going to pretend you have any evidence contrary
to mine. Your accusation was dishonest.
Once again, though, you have succeeded in making the debate personal and
having nothing to do with technology... and you are doing so to run from the
discussion we recently had where you showed you did not know the difference
between a users IP and the IP of a users web host or email provider.
That was funny. Surely more amusing than just your joining of Sandman in
making silly accusations.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48a918d8$0$11736$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/17/08 11:38 PM:
>
>> The forger Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>>
>>> Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
>>
>> < snip Snot forgeries >
>>
>> Pray tell, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser, what has COLA to do with
>> this utter idiocy you pest newsgroups with?
>>
>> Please forge your "evidence" wherever you want, and then keep ot there
>
> You - again - made an accusation against me.
>
> I proved you wrong.
< snip more Michael Glasser idiocy >
Again, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser, what has your forging
of "evidence" to do in COLA? Nobody here is interested in seeing your utter
dishonesty once more in full display. Please forge your PDFs and other
irrelevant "evidence" in your trolling home CSMA
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Snit
48a918d8$0$11736$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/17/08 11:38 PM:
> The forger Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>
>> Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
>
> < snip Snot forgeries >
>
> Pray tell, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser, what has COLA to do with this
> utter idiocy you pest newsgroups with?
>
> Please forge your "evidence" wherever you want, and then keep ot there
You - again - made an accusation against me.
I proved you wrong.
And you snipped.
Snit
48a918d8$0$11736$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/17/08 11:38 PM:
> The forger Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>
>> Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
>
> < snip Snot forgeries >
>
> Pray tell, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser, what has COLA to do with this
> utter idiocy you pest newsgroups with?
>
> Please forge your "evidence" wherever you want, and then keep ot there
You - again - made an accusation against me.
I proved you wrong.
And you snipped.
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0420f6675f60cbd>
Not a single one.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/fmpro-pdf.mov>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55059e10b247c5c4>
Proved.
--
7
> H
SNOT!!! YOU GAY RETARD!
NOW! *PISS*!!! *OFF*!! OK???
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Snit
svlqk.44650$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com on 8/18/08 2:06 PM:
I merely responding to those who were lying about me. I have proved that
they are lying. Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan
Baker, -hh and Peter Köhlmann all have lied on this issue.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Peter Köhlmann
> "7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> stated in post
> svlqk.44650$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com on 8/18/08 2:06 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> H
>>
>>
>> SNOT!!! YOU GAY RETARD!
>>
>> NOW! *PISS*!!! *OFF*!! OK???
>>
>> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
>>
>>
>>
> I merely responding to those who were lying about me.
You have brought a *CSMA* troll circus ( *your* troll circus, Michael
Glasser ) which is *two* *years* old into COLA.
Hardly constituting "responding to those who were lying about me"
What you are doing is trying to resurrect a old thread where you got slapped
left, right and all around because you are simply a forger and an
incredibly dishonest lying twit
And you bring it into COLA, although not a single person of cola has
participated in the original threads (it has to be noted that you
obviously, as some googling revealed, have tried to install yet another
Snot circus in CSMA *several* *times* with the exact same bullshit in the
past). And you always got slapped with your incredible dishonest
fuckwittery
> I have proved that they are lying.
What you have proved beyond any doubt is that you are lying. That you are
forging "evidence" and purposefully misrepresent what people say. That you
are purposefully putting words in peoples mouth and then later troll with
your dishonesty
Yes, you have proved that time and again
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay,
> Alan Baker, -hh and Peter Köhlmann all have lied on this issue.
>
>
Yes. The whole world is lying. Only the poor Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
Glasser is telling the truth. All the others are out there to get him
Gods, you are incredibly dishonest, Michael Glasser
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
The Ghost In The Machine
<peter.k...@arcor.de>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:42:31 +0200
<48a9ecc8$0$11740$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>:
> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>
>> "7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> stated in post
>> svlqk.44650$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com on 8/18/08 2:06 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> H
>>>
>>>
>>> SNOT!!! YOU GAY RETARD!
>>>
>>> NOW! *PISS*!!! *OFF*!! OK???
>>>
>>> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I merely responding to those who were lying about me.
>
> You have brought a *CSMA* troll circus ( *your* troll circus, Michael
> Glasser ) which is *two* *years* old into COLA.
> Hardly constituting "responding to those who were lying about me"
>
> What you are doing is trying to resurrect a old thread where you got slapped
> left, right and all around because you are simply a forger and an
> incredibly dishonest lying twit
[rest snipped]
Personally, I'd be less interested about Snit's lies or
truth, and more interested regarding the lies or truth
about deltas and/or inconsistencies and/or good things
regarding the GUI environments implemented by KDE, Gnome,
Motif, Windows, OSX, and others, or about Linux-based
applications, POSIX-based applications ported to Linux
(most of the apps on a distro are of this form), or even
internals in the Linux kernel itself -- one such, if I'm
not mistaken, was the complete replacement of the Linux
virtual memory manager, another might be modifications to
the scheduler.
One can also discuss problems with Linux, though at this
point I can only wave my hands in the general direction
of the video handling system, or perhaps at the ATi DRI
drivers, which in 1.3 were stable if buggy, but in 1.4 have
become somewhat unstable. They are not unusable but I am
puzzled as to the change in X that is giving me problems
on my nx9010 laptop.
If one wishes to discuss OSX stuff, feel free to do so,
but I for one do not know quite as much about such except
that there's a Mach kernel and a general BSD utility set,
plus such things as Aqua, X, and Carbon. I do know that
OSX's Aqua does *not* sit on X, unlike KDE and Gnome on
Linux; X runs as a separate environment though one hopes
at least for integration similar to Cygnus/X into Aqua's
window management code.
Hardly seamless integration, but not unworkable.
Language such as "7's" hardly facilitates any such debate,
though it is possible Snit is doing something not to his
liking, and it is very clear "7" finds Microsoft doing
things not at all to *our* liking, especially where media
is involved. I'd frankly have to research the matter,
and I'm not sure I really care either way; I find Snit's
discourse somewhat interesting, but one does have to sift.
7's discourse is occasionally interesting if one mentally
edits out such ad hom [ad soft?] references as "Pista" or
"Fista" and "Windoze" and possibly "Microslop".
As for Snit's (or anyone else's!) sexual preferences and
general intelligence -- those are best left elsewhere.
As for two-year-old threads and circuses -- might be
interesting but I'm not about to dig through two years
of posts without at least a starting point.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Snit
> The liar Michael Glxsser (Snot) snotted:
> Glxsser is telling the truth. All the others are out there to get him
>
> Gods, you are incredibly dishonest, Michael Glxsser
You lied about me forging a PDF. I posted proof that the PDF's data was
100% accurate. Now you whine that I proved you to be a liar.
Get over it.
You are mad that I reported your actions and your ISP responded.
You are mad that I pointed out your ignorance of IP info.
You are mad that I proved you to be a liar.
Oh well. I shall not lose sleep over it. Clearly you are. :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
thufir
> You lied about me forging a PDF. I posted proof that the PDF's data was
> 100% accurate.
Snit, you have a comprehension problem. See, what's being disputed is the
"proof" you posted; just because you call it "proof" doesn't make it so.
-Thufir
Peter Köhlmann
In fact, whenever Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser posts "proof", you can
be fairly certain that he has just fabricated/forged it himself
And he still fails to explain why he has to resurrect a *two* *year* old
thread from *CSMA* in COLA, when nobody of cola has participated in that
original thread
The only likely explanation would be that the guys in CSMA showed what kind
of absolutely dishonest twit Michael Glasser really is, so he has to rerun
it where people don't have the background info of that particular lunacy
Michael Glasser produced there
--
Ninety percent of the time things will turn out worse than you expect.
The other 10 percent of the time you had no right to expect so much.
thufir
> thufir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:00:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> You lied about me forging a PDF. I posted proof that the PDF's data
>>> was 100% accurate.
>>
>>
>> Snit, you have a comprehension problem. See, what's being disputed is
>> the "proof" you posted; just because you call it "proof" doesn't make
>> it so.
>>
>>
> In fact, whenever Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser posts "proof", you
> can be fairly certain that he has just fabricated/forged it himself
>
> And he still fails to explain why he has to resurrect a *two* *year* old
> thread from *CSMA* in COLA, when nobody of cola has participated in that
> original thread
>
> The only likely explanation would be that the guys in CSMA showed what
> kind of absolutely dishonest twit Michael Glasser really is, so he has
> to rerun it where people don't have the background info of that
> particular lunacy Michael Glasser produced there
Exactly. I don't even know what this fucking PDF is about, nor
do I care to find out. Knowing snit's MO, I can infer that it's all
bullshit, and boring at that.
-Thufir
William Poaster
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:26:41 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> thufir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:00:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> You lied about me forging a PDF. I posted proof that the PDF's data
>>>> was 100% accurate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Snit, you have a comprehension problem. See, what's being disputed is
>>> the "proof" you posted; just because you call it "proof" doesn't make
>>> it so.
>>>
>>>
>> In fact, whenever Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser posts "proof", you
>> can be fairly certain that he has just fabricated/forged it himself
>>
>> And he still fails to explain why he has to resurrect a *two* *year* old
>> thread from *CSMA* in COLA, when nobody of cola has participated in that
>> original thread
Michael Snit Glasser must have nothing else to do. So much for the
troll taking a sabbatical (or whatever the f#ck it was he *said* he was
doing), & his phony Prescott Computer Guy "business".
>> The only likely explanation would be that the guys in CSMA showed what
>> kind of absolutely dishonest twit Michael Glasser really is, so he has
>> to rerun it where people don't have the background info of that
>> particular lunacy Michael Glasser produced there
>
>
>
> Exactly. I don't even know what this fucking PDF is about, nor do I care
> to find out.
Nor do I.
> Knowing snit's MO, I can infer that it's all bullshit, and
> boring at that.
More than likely.
--
ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --
thufir
>>> In fact, whenever Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser posts "proof",
>>> you can be fairly certain that he has just fabricated/forged it
>>> himself
>>>
>>> And he still fails to explain why he has to resurrect a *two* *year*
>>> old thread from *CSMA* in COLA, when nobody of cola has participated
>>> in that original thread
>
> Michael Snit Glasser must have nothing else to do. So much for the troll
> taking a sabbatical (or whatever the f#ck it was he *said* he was
> doing), & his phony Prescott Computer Guy "business".
I used the term "sabbatical" after reading that he would be reducing
the quantity of his posts while he went back work, or something.
-Thufir
Peter Köhlmann
Well, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser said that he had to "prepare stuff"
for the upcoming season in the phony "classes" he would be doing.
So, he was using his phony "business" as an explanation why he would post
somewhat less (and his sock puppet "Rekruled" would pop up out of thin air)
Result: Because his sock puppet installation was somewhat less
than "successful" he had to reappear much earlier than originally planned.
I guess his wife will be thrilled to learn that Snot Glasser will be glued
to his computer chair even weeks earlier, so that she has to do even more
of the works to put food on the table
--
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.
Snit
Lz%qk.98898$nD.10466@pd7urf1no on 8/20/08 1:58 PM:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:39:11 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
>
>>>> In fact, whenever Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser posts "proof",
>>>> you can be fairly certain that he has just fabricated/forged it
>>>> himself
>>>>
>>>> And he still fails to explain why he has to resurrect a *two* *year*
>>>> old thread from *CSMA* in COLA, when nobody of cola has participated
>>>> in that original thread
>>
>> Michael Snit Glxsser must have nothing else to do. So much for the troll
>> taking a sabbatical (or whatever the f#ck it was he *said* he was
>> doing), & his phony Prescott Computer Guy "business".
>
>
> I used the term "sabbatical" after reading that he would be reducing
> the quantity of his posts while he went back work, or something.
Amazing - you, Peter Köhlmann, and Geoff M. Fitton are just lashing out with
no evidence, no logic, no rationality. Weird. I would never lower myself
to your level.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Snit
Oh, as I have noted, if my proof were flawed it would be *trivial* to point
out the error. *Nobody* ever has... nor will they.
Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And where I provided *every* single URL needed to verify them:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0420f6675f60cbd>
You will not find a single example where I am wrong... all it would take
would be one single example from before the date of the PDFs where
sandman.net had CSS or HTML that validates (that would not, however, show
Sandman was not lying, it would merely show I was wrong about some of the
evidence)
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Snit
...
> Exactly. I don't even know what this fucking PDF is about, nor
> do I care to find out.
Nor can I think of a reason why you should! Nor Peter! But he made a
public accusation about the PDF saying I had forged it... and he is not the
only one. The list, at least, includes Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally,
Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, -hh and Peter Köhlmann. And yet, with
all of them "against" me *none* of them can show a single flaw in the data.
Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And where I provided *every* single URL needed to verify them:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0420f6675f60cbd>
Can anyone find a single example where I am wrong... one single example from
before the date of the PDFs where sandman.net had CSS or HTML that
validates?
The answer, of course, is: no.
Not a single one.
> Knowing snit's MO, I can infer that it's all
> bullshit, and boring at that.
Well, it is utter BS that one would be in a position to show where so many
folks are openly lying - you and others should make it known that you will
not accept such lies and that you will publicly denounce those who are shown
so clearly to be lying. That is if you pay attention at all to this
silliness... which for some bizarre reason you are!
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
thufir
>> Snit, you have a comprehension problem. See, what's being disputed is
>> the "proof" you posted; just because you call it "proof" doesn't make
>> it so.
>
> Oh, as I have noted, if my proof were flawed it would be *trivial* to
> point out the error. *Nobody* ever has... nor will they.
You can "prove" that no one has disproved your "proof"? Again, your
assertion that no one has done so is even *less* convincing than your
claim that some PDF "proves" whatever point you're trying to make
precisely because I'm familiar with your MO.
That is, you're a dumb-ass who would claim that that something
is proved when it's not, and who would ignore counter-examples
disproving your contention.
I don't know what this *ages old* thread is about, but I know
that you're full of shit.
-Thufir
thufir
>> Exactly. I don't even know what this fucking PDF is about, nor do I
>> care to find out.
>
> Nor can I think of a reason why you should! Nor Peter!
Then STFU already about it.
-Thufir
thufir
> Amazing - you, Peter Köhlmann, and Geoff M. Fitton are just lashing out
> with no evidence, no logic, no rationality.
It's based on *your* MO that I, at least, have no problem in stating that
you're full of shit on nearly any topic. I've observed your bullshit,
and based on that pattern of bullshit, infer that you're full of it. Your
MO is the evidence, the logic is an inference based on the evidence.
-Thufir
Snit
Your insults, accusations, and utter rubbish does not even begin to actually
show where *anyone* has shown my proof to be anything other than 100%
accurate. Nor will you ever do so - you are simply lashing out because I
have shown your "paraphrasing" to be utter rubbish.
Here are the PDFs that are in contention:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
And where I provided *every* single URL needed to verify them:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f0420f6675f60cbd>
No matter how much it offends you and others who lie and troll, those are
the facts.
And I love'm! :)
Snit
You snipped the reason why I made any comment at all. How dishonest of you!
--
"And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It零
never a reason." - Bill Gates
Snit
Ah, Thufir is whining about me again... without a single example. Here are
some examples of you dishonest "paraphrasing"...
Thufir:
But, they can use the mac very well because it has this super
duper consistent interface.
Snit:
Wait: most of my students, at least my intro ones, use
Windows machines... so how the heck did you jump to the idea
of them being Mac users? You are just making things up as
you go.
Thufir:
Fuck, it's a paraphrase, I don't know every little detail
about your students. What I know, from your posts, is that
you advocate the mac for people who can't, somehow, defying
all the odds, figure out how to use a desktop GUI because the
mac is a "stepping stone".
Thufir:
Yup, your argument can be paraphrases as: "My students can't
figure out how to use a desktop. Somehow, they understand
the album to song relationship but fail to apply that
understanding to directories and files. But, they can use
the mac very well because it has this super duper consistent
interface. Linux should adopt the Mac interface. Hell, just
buy a Mac."
Thufir
You piece of shit, the fact that you leave out the
conclusion: "My students should just buy a fucking mac."
doesn't in any way mean that you're not advocating mac's --
you are.
Snit:
Your quotes are not mine. What the heck? Can't you actually
quote me doing as you say?
Thufir:
They're obviously paraphrases and not direct quotes, idiot.
Thufir:
Exactly, which is the logical extension of snit's arguments:
just use a mac. Not that snit would ever have the balls to
say that directly, of course.
Ah... so easy to show you to be everything you accuse me of being. And
less.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
The Ghost In The Machine
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:21:13 -0700
<C4D21119.D146F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
I have no idea what all the fuss is about, but the
validator can still process the link, which is referenced
in the first URL above:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/
and gets 84 errors and 128 warnings. It does not appear
that web.archive.org introduces any extra markup, either.
Many of the errors are of the /> form (illegal in an
HTML document; that's only valid in XML/XHTML), or because of
a misuse of the ampersand. There are a few missing
and mismatched tags. One interesting one is align='absmiddle' in
an <img> tag; another one is align='no'.
If one goes to www.sandman.net directly instead:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.sandman.net/
one still gets a remarkable number of errors -- 112, with
no warnings. The errors are now quite different; a lot
of them indicate a duplicate specification of "BORDER",
for instance.
The HTML source suggests something called "Atlas Content
Management System 3.1"; that has not changed between the
two. The url 'jonas.eklundh.com' appears to point to an
HTML resume (well, www.sandman.net also appears to be a bit
of an HTML resume), with a girl touching the user's screen
from "within" the monitor, advertising "Dynamic Touch".
His page also does not validate, with 6 errors, all
relating to "duplicate specification of attribute BORDER".
http://apexweb.co.uk/content_management_systems.htm
suggests a rather naive content management system.
I'm not about to fiddle with the CSS.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Snit
dpuun5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/20/08 6:59 PM:
Well, Sandman continued to admit his HTML did not validate but stopped
admitting his CSS had failed validation and called me a liar for having
noted his CSS validation errors. When I proved his CSS had no validated he
claimed the evidence was "forged"... and then I provided every single link
needed to show he was lying about that as well.
He and others had previously accused me of forging PDFs... and this time he
and the others who joined in with him blew it and made such a claim with a
PDF that was 100% verifiable.
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
-hh
>
> It does not appear that web.archive.org introduces any extra markup, either.
Unfortunately, 'may not appear' may not be enough.
The problem is that the Wayback does introduce extra code.
For example, back in April, I found this snippet:
// FILE ARCHIVED ON 20020526022439 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
// INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20080417210705.
// JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET
ARCHIVE.
// ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
// SECTION 108(a)(3)).
And while that's a comment section, it also specifically mentions that
Javascripting has been altered. Plus there's the slippery slope
question of "and who knows what else?"
Granted, this doesn't alleviate obvious code issues, but there's
another issue there: we also have to be aware that it is potentially
highly unfair to take an old historical page and run it through a
checker from a different revision date, as the code checkers have
invariably undergone revisions as well.
My personal experience with validators has included pages that
validated just fine, but then at a later date came up with errors,
despite the fact that I had not touched the page and I was using the
same validator. YMMV, but I don't think that it was Magic Pixie Dust
at work: I suspect that changes in the 'transitional' standard were
implemented without appropriately incrementing the revision
counter...a revision control issue.
Early this year, I had a validation check that just went the other
way: I was using iWeb and was getting validation errors but before I
could update the pages, I ran the validator again later (April) and
now it then reported everything as clean. Thanks, but obviously,
someone changed something and once again, it wasn't on my end.
With the fundamental groundwork thus flawed, debate over if the PDF
was forged is moot.
-hh
Snit
29795fe8-a0b7-4bab...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 8/20/08
8:20 PM:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>> It does not appear that web.archive.org introduces any extra markup, either.
>
> Unfortunately, 'may not appear' may not be enough.
>
> The problem is that the Wayback does introduce extra code.
> For example, back in April, I found this snippet:
>
> // FILE ARCHIVED ON 20020526022439 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
> // INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20080417210705.
> // JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET
> ARCHIVE.
> // ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
> // SECTION 108(a)(3)).
>
> And while that's a comment section, it also specifically mentions that
> Javascripting has been altered. Plus there's the slippery slope
> question of "and who knows what else?"
There is no reason to think there is *anything* else other than what the
WayBackMachine says - and certainly not anything regarding *any* of the
errors found in Sandman's CSS and HTML.
> Granted, this doesn't alleviate obvious code issues
Which is the topic. Sandman had "obvious code issues" in regards to his
HTML and his CSS. He not only denied his CSS issues (after changing his
story on it repeatedly) he also openly claimed I was lying to point out his
"obvious code issues". The WayBackMachine was my tool - or one of my tools,
really - to prove that his accusation was dishonest. He then claimed that
the PDF with that data was "forged" so I provided links to *every* link
needed to verify it.
> , but there's another issue there: we also have to be aware that it is
> potentially highly unfair to take an old historical page and run it through a
> checker from a different revision date, as the code checkers have invariably
> undergone revisions as well.
The topic, though, is "obvious code issues". If you think any of those
issues listed in the PDF / WayBackMachine are not relevant then show it.
Also keep in mind that the most relevant entries in the WayBackMachine
archive were, at the time, very recent (up to within two weeks of the date
in question). The Google cache *also* showed the same thing at the time -
as quoted by me at the time and not, then, denied by Sandman. Once the
cache was updated he then changed his tune and called me a liar on that.
> My personal experience with validators has included pages that
> validated just fine, but then at a later date came up with errors,
> despite the fact that I had not touched the page and I was using the
> same validator. YMMV, but I don't think that it was Magic Pixie Dust
> at work: I suspect that changes in the 'transitional' standard were
> implemented without appropriately incrementing the revision
> counter...a revision control issue.
Show examples of this... and explain why they apply with the relevant data.
> Early this year, I had a validation check that just went the other
> way: I was using iWeb and was getting validation errors but before I
> could update the pages, I ran the validator again later (April) and
> now it then reported everything as clean. Thanks, but obviously,
> someone changed something and once again, it wasn't on my end.
What were the errors?
> With the fundamental groundwork thus flawed, debate over if the PDF
> was forged is moot.
Nope. Again: the data is preserved and the errors are listed - and you have
not a single example of your theoretical chance that the CSS might have
validated but later did not. It also does not explain why so shortly after
I noted Sandman's lack of CSS validation that the site started to validate -
as noted by even Tim Adams (someone who hardly would lie for my *benefit*).
The facts are clear and irrefutable: Sandman had CSS that did not validate
and he not only denied it but piled his lies higher and higher as his ego
got in the way.
And silly people brought up this dead issue and again accused me of forging
the PDF... and I responded by proving my case. Again.
It is an easy case to prove.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
thufir
> Your insults, accusations, and utter rubbish does not even begin to
> actually show where *anyone* has shown my proof to be anything other
> than 100% accurate.
Nor am I trying to prove anything, moron, I'm simply stating that based on
the pattern, the MO, which you exhibit that you're full of shit on this, too.
-Thufir
Snit
I quoted some of your fabrications about my views... and the best you can
respond with is *this*. Blah. You are not even a clever troll.
thufir
>>>> Exactly. I don't even know what this fucking PDF is about, nor do I
>>>> care to find out.
>>>
>>> Nor can I think of a reason why you should! Nor Peter!
>>
>>
>> Then STFU already about it.
>
> You snipped the reason why I made any comment at all. How dishonest of
> you!
You just bring your shit from one group to another, you're the cause.
-Thufir
Snit
Again you are wrong. Are you ever right about *anything*? I was asked
about Alan Baker and if I had any interaction with him. I replied that he
had put me in his KF (or claimed to) and gave the reason why. Tattoo
Vampire then responded with an absurd insult and then Tim Adams replied by
repeating ancient lies... and Peter Köhlmann jumped in to say he agreed with
the lies of Sandman. I proved my case. Why should anyone care - other,
perhaps, than to note the liars and let them know that such lying is
unacceptable?
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Tim Adams
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> >
> > It does not appear that web.archive.org introduces any extra markup, either.
>
> Unfortunately, 'may not appear' may not be enough.
>
> The problem is that the Wayback does introduce extra code.
> For example, back in April, I found this snippet:
>
> // FILE ARCHIVED ON 20020526022439 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
> // INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20080417210705.
> // JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET
> ARCHIVE.
> // ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
> // SECTION 108(a)(3)).
>
> And while that's a comment section, it also specifically mentions that
> Javascripting has been altered. Plus there's the slippery slope
> question of "and who knows what else?"
it is interesting that michael glasser, aka prescott computer guy totally
ignored the bit that the way back machine does appear to introduce errors when
it was pointed out to him a long time ago. He also ignored the simple fact that
Sandmans site DID validate just fine when others, myself included, checked it
using w3.org/.
It's also amusing that michack glasser has been totally unable to deal with
reality when it was pointed out that his pdf file had illustrator (plus other
program) tags in it while he claimed he used filemaker pro. He also can't seem
to understand that many people, knowing his history of forging pdf files never
bothered to read the one he keep talking about. When you have a history, like
michael glasser does, of being a forger, liar and more, why waste your time?
>
> Granted, this doesn't alleviate obvious code issues, but there's
> another issue there: we also have to be aware that it is potentially
> highly unfair to take an old historical page and run it through a
> checker from a different revision date, as the code checkers have
> invariably undergone revisions as well.
>
> My personal experience with validators has included pages that
> validated just fine, but then at a later date came up with errors,
> despite the fact that I had not touched the page and I was using the
> same validator. YMMV, but I don't think that it was Magic Pixie Dust
> at work: I suspect that changes in the 'transitional' standard were
> implemented without appropriately incrementing the revision
> counter...a revision control issue.
>
> Early this year, I had a validation check that just went the other
> way: I was using iWeb and was getting validation errors but before I
> could update the pages, I ran the validator again later (April) and
> now it then reported everything as clean. Thanks, but obviously,
> someone changed something and once again, it wasn't on my end.
>
> With the fundamental groundwork thus flawed, debate over if the PDF
> was forged is moot.
>
>
> -hh
--
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
-hh
>
>
> [various denials]
> > // FILE ARCHIVED ON 20020526022439 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
> > // INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20080417210705.
> > // JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET
> > ARCHIVE.
> > // ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
> > // SECTION 108(a)(3)).
>
> > And while that's a comment section, it also specifically mentions that
> > Javascripting has been altered. Plus there's the slippery slope
> > question of "and who knows what else?"
>
> There is no reason to think there is *anything* else other than what
> the WayBackMachine says...
One could only wish for it to be so. Unfortunately, documentation is
a very big issue and for those with real life experience, it is very
well known that it is a constantly recurring. In computer
programming, it is known to be so particularly problematic such that
there's even been work to try to make it impossible for a programmer
to ever avoid doing his required documentation:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming>
If you had been in the Industry through Y2K, you might have found just
how huge the documentation shortfalls are at some institutions ... do
you really think that COBOL is being used because they like it? Or is
it because their backend has been running with 30+ years worth of
poorly documented revisions and the status quo is that they've
literally lost track of everything that it does, so they dare not
touch it?
On topic, the same issue exists in the code for Windows, too.
> He then claimed that
> the PDF with that data was "forged" so I provided links to *every* link
> needed to verify it.
Yet you knowingly used a source that was known to not be the original,
and you also have since acknowledged that that source is known to not
be a 100% faithful copy of the original.
This process is fundamentally and fatally and irrevocably flawed.
End of story.
FYI, do keep in mind that 'Forgery' is the process of making or
adapting objects and/or documents with the intent to deceive.
Keywords here include "process".
What you have admitted to doing was to "adapt" a source of known to be
altered, non-original documents. As such, it doesn't matter if you
have a "TRUE COPY" (eg, your PDFs) since they were made from this
known-altered copy of the original: the PDFs are still represent a
forgery, just not necessarily at the PDF creation step itself.
And all you've really said is: "You can't prove that the forgery was
in Step#3".
Start with a counterfeit of a $10 bill and make a "True" photocopy of
it. Same thing.
And holistically, you're responsible for the entire process...not just
one little piece.
-hh
chrisv
>Well, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser said that he had to "prepare stuff"
>for the upcoming season in the phony "classes" he would be doing.
>
>So, he was using his phony "business" as an explanation why he would post
>somewhat less (and his sock puppet "Rekruled" would pop up out of thin air)
>
>Result: Because his sock puppet installation was somewhat less
>than "successful" he had to reappear much earlier than originally planned.
>
>I guess his wife will be thrilled to learn that Snot Glasser will be glued
>to his computer chair even weeks earlier, so that she has to do even more
>of the works to put food on the table
She's probably for anything that keeps the fsckwit away from her.
Snit
4:25 AM:
You babble ... a *lot*. Bur frankly you say *nothing* that puts *any* of
the validation errors in question. Why not pick a few of the actual errors
and show how the added *comments* to the code somehow made those errors
appear... or whatever it is you hope to prove.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Peter Köhlmann
The only person actually babbling is you, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
You should better engage in supporting your wife putting food on the table
instead of forging "evidence", lying and trolling usenet 24/7
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Tattoo Vampire
> She's probably for anything that keeps the fsckwit away from her.
LOL!!!
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Says the guy that claims to have proven the existence of God! :-)
Snit
C4D422E9.3373%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/21/08 5:01 PM:
...
>>> I used the term "sabbatical" after reading that he would be reducing
>>> the quantity of his posts while he went back work, or something.
>>
>> Amazing - you, Peter Köhlmann, and Geoff M. Fitton are just lashing out with
>> no evidence, no logic, no rationality. Weird. I would never lower myself
>> to your level.
>
> Says the guy that claims to have proven the existence of God! :-)
Hey, if you could actually rise to the level of offering reasoned and
logical arguments in that discussion it, at least, would be interesting.
I still want to know what you think "seven" is other than a concept. Have
you thought of anything yet?
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
chrisv
>>
>> I would never lower myself to your level.
LOL