Re: Uh, in case you missed it, the Mac is dead...

In article <C0ADAE66.51314%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

* You demanding that you have no responsibility for supporting
your accusations against me.

Incorrect, given that I have supported them since day one. You - on
the other hand, fail to support your claims - as I have outlined in
the paragraphs you so desperately keeps running from.

You made claims about me:
-----
No such thing has occured. You have claimed to teach web design. That's
totally absurd.
-----
A chimpanzee can use DreamWeaver to make just as ugly sites as you make.

Both valid and correct.

In an effort to run from your responsibility to support your accusations you
tried to turn things around and pretend I was responsible to show otherwise:

I did no such thing. I've explained this to you. You made the claim,
not I. I couldn't care less about sites I don't even think exist.

You claim to have supported your accusations. Quote where you have done so:
quote where you have shown that I do not teach a Dreamweaver class

Since I never claimed you don't teach a Dreamweaver class - this is an
irrelevant point.

Also remember I offered to give you conclusive proof that I teach such a
class. You ran.

I ignored any proof you teach a dreamweaver class, since it wouldn't
substantiate your claim that you teach a web design class - which is
something entirely different.

* You demanding that I have some responsibility to point you to *any*
site I have ever created.

I have demanded no such thing. Never happened. You're the one claiming
that they even exist. I don't even think they do exist. You are the
one that started talking about some sites you don't want to link to,
that somehow would prove me wrong. I couldn't care less about these
alleged sites.

Some *more* quotes from you:
-----
No, *you* are claiming things about yourself (that there are sites you
have yet to reveal that look good, in spite of all the sites that you
HAVE shown look like complete shit). You have yet to substantiate that
claim.
-----
I am able to understand that you want to imply that there are an
unknown number of gorgeous looking sites you have yet to reveal in
spite of the existance of such sites would make me look like a fool
and would lead to me having to apologize to you about my claims with
regards to your web design skills.
-----
Plus, let's say you DO have some gorgeous looking sites that would prove
me utterly wrong - you'd be the first to paste links to them,

Exactly - not one single request from me that you should reveal those
alleged sites, since I don't think they exist in the first place. You
made the claim.

That is just a quick check of Google. How many more times did you try to
cajole me to show you my sites

Not one single time.

* You denying that you took my advice for improving your site, even
though the Google cache proved you lied

This also never happened. Not only didn't you give any advice other
than the obvious "Uh, you should make your HTML validate". Other than
that, you merely listed incorrect and/or irrelevant claims about my
sites, mostly due to your own ignorance with regards to web design.

Advice I gave you:
* get your CSS to validate

Incorrect, since it was already validating.

* get your HTML to validate

That's not an advice, it's a suggestion - and the only suggestion on
your list.

* alter your white space to be more pleasing to the eye

You wouldn't know "pleasing to the eye" if it hit you in the stomach.
Plus, I've changed nothing about the spacing of the site.

* alter your use of contrast - you did this but I was not clear enough
and you did not do a good job

Given that the contrast was fine before and is fine now, it was an
incorrect suggestion born out of design ignorance. The contrast is
*lower* now than it was then.

* compress your images better - I do not know if you did this. Did you?

Since it's an incorrect presupposition, why would I follow it?

* You insisting you know the tiniest thing about any site I have
ever designed as you completely fail to be able to even find one!

I have "found" plenty, since you've linked to plenty. My claims apply
to all of them. If you want to counter the claim, merely claiming
there are others out there that doesn't like like shit that you've
made won't suffice. The claim stands.

Note: you *still* have failed to offer a single link, no less a relevant one
that I have done for a customer.

Any single one you've linked to from csma, Michael. All of them looks
like complete shit.

Do you see why your insisting on having knowledge while you completely fail
to support it makes your claims laughable. At best.

It would, if it were true.

What "fact" of yours do you think I neglect to list?

You didn't list any fact from me. I corrected your obfuscation and
lying above by directing your misinformation back to reality and
introduce the facts yet again - which means you'll run from it.

This conversation will go nowhere as long as you continue to lie like that.

Obviously lack of lying on my part doesn't prevent you from lying,
Michael.

Do you have any "fact" of yours you think I have neglected to list?

All of them, obviously.

Come on, Sandman - list those strong "facts" of yours. What the hell are
you afraid of?

Been there, done that.

I don't need to pretend. You make silly "summaries" of your trolling
because you can't face the truth point by point. That's why you
obfuscate by making a "summary" that doesn't contain any logic, fact
or even argument.

Blah blah blah... do you have something of value to add? Something honest?

Classic! What a perfect reply to my statement of "you can't face the
truth point by point" - you just demonstrated just that!

I deny ever having claimed you don't teach a "web class". That's a lie
from you. I haven't even claimed you don't teach "web design", I've
just *correctly* claimed that there mere thought that you do is
preposterous.

So you think I teach a web class that completely neglects to look at design.

If you teach a web class, it must totally neglect to look at design,
or you have someone else cover for you when design is under discussion.

You have not, of course, been able to show one shred of evidence for your
accusation about my life, but that is, to you, irrelevant.

What?? Your sites look like SHIT, Michael. They look like pure and
utter shit. That's all the evidence anyone needs.

You have never offered to show proof that you teach web *design*. You
have changed your tune from "web design" to "teach a dreamweaver
class", which a trained monkey could do, and doesn't require any
design skills at all.

I can write all sorts of insults about you, too, but that will not further
the discussion and I have no desire to sink to your level.

Why did you bring up the fact that you can insult me?

Seems you now think I teach a Dreamweaver class but that I completely
neglect the very important topic of design.

Obviiously, since you suck at it. Duh.

How absurd can you get... and
how far can you back pedal?

I wouldn't know, I haven't tried.

I haven't changed anything to "accomodate" anything.

I pointed to at least one example in the Google cache that proves you lied
about that.

Nopes.

I do think it's interesting that you claim that I was able to
redesign my entire web site in one single day. Not impossible, but
I don't have that much free time. Fact is, that particular redesign
has been living in a PhotoShop document for quite some time, and
while I did take some time to make my content management system
handel the - rather unimportant - valiidation errors, I also took
time to implement the already finnished redesign.

Interesting claim from you: do you have one iota of support?

Like what, the creation date from the photoshop document?

I do note that you finally have admitted you followed at least one of
my suggestions.

The "make your HTML validate" suggestion, Michael? Haha, yeah - I
mean, what a suggestion. I should? Really? :-D

The spacing of the site has not been changed. It's the same code. The
contrast has been *lowered*, which would be the exact opposite of your
erroneous claim - which is also why it looks good.

As I have said: you screwed up on following that suggestion from me.

Which was an erroneous claim, not a suggestion.

You still *altered* the contrast... which I suggested. I could have
been more clear and specified how you should have done so. Do not
blame me for your design with piss-poor contrast.

Hahahahaha! Michael claims my design has piss-poor contrast! Can one
get a better endorsement than that?? :-D

So, again - the only "suggestion" you made was "make your sites html
validate". That's really not rocket science, Michael.

How can you spew that same lie even after I list some of the other
suggestions?

Where did you do that?

Not do I ever lie, I have never denied that I now have a black
background, and that I've changed my content management system to
output better HTML in the instances where it affects the more common -
but unimportant - errors on the front page of www.sandman.net.

My CSS has remained unchanged (other than to accomodate for the new
layout, of course) and is as of today actually not validating.

Gee, your CSS has not changed... even though I posted proof from the Google
archive that it did.

Push your lies elsewhere, Sandman.

Try something new, Michael. You were wrong and you're just having a
hard time dealing with it.

Given the fact that I have given lengthy explanations, the above is
obviously a lie. You have run from every such explanation, obviously.

You posted denials... and now you have made up stories about Photoshop.

Yeah, those PhotoShop stories... Plural, by the way. :)

Do I deny that you are honest and honorable? If there is a better
place to use the abberivation "ROTFLMAO", I don't know what it is. You
are the groups biggest liar, and this thread has displayed that quite
nicely.

The irony of you stating that is amazing.

Given the proven fact that I never lie, the above is just obfuscation.

Do you have anything of value to add?

That you will be able to comprehend? No, probably not. I would be
writing it with simple words in English, which you're incompatible
with.



--
Sandman[.net]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uh, in case you missed it, the Mac is dead...
    ... Michael - I wouldn't have thought about that one by myself ... I gave specifics ... Obviously incorrect. ... I correctly pointed out that you such at web design, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Design tips
    ... graphic design tip ... web design tips and tutorials ... interior design tips ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • MICHAEL DORET ON THE NEW COVER
    ... Here are some excerpts from a recent Deuce News interview with Michael ... designer of the classic "Rock N Roll Over" album cover. ... Michael's latest design, the brand new KISS Album cover, will be ... soft focus photos of Paul, Gene, Tommy and Eric, and transform them ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: Absolute value of signed 32-bit random integer
    ... This is no more and no less incorrect than Math.abs ... More importantly of course, there are computational justifications for allowing silent overflow for basic arithmetic, but not for higher-level operations. ... would be incoherent with the rest of Java. ... Of course, in C# you can optionally force all run-time arithmetic computations to be checked for overflow too, for those who insist on 100% consistent behavior (i.e you get your "design #2" instead of a hybrid approach). ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Nice site for us laymen
    ... Are there some sort of web design nazi's ... prefer dark text on light background (rather than light text on dark ... This website discusses using images as backgrounds. ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)