It's possible that you have worked on more projects than are listed on Linkedin, but that's what you've offered as evidence of your "good portfolio" and growth as a developer (the reason, I assume, that you keep distancing yourself from those hapless beginners), so that's what I'll reply to.
You have three web projects and a personal website all listed on your profile.
1. "Metasyllabus Initiative": This is a generic Wordpress site using a contributed theme. I assume this is your first attempt at a personal blog. There doesn't appear to be anything technically special about it, and it hasn't been updated in 8 months. If you stick with web development, get used to that. I haven't updated my blog in a year and a half. Wordpress is great, though, because anyone can set it up and use it. Anyone.
2. "Decision Tree Generator": About as simple as it can get. An independent multi-page Javascript-dependent (Did you learn that on W3Schools?) post form that's easily broken and seems to offer very little utility to the user. The most complicated styling used in this project is probably the absolute-positioned results.
3. "OmicronAlpha.org": This site is down.
4. "www.sagegerard.com": I don't know any serious web developers who would use Concrete5, and the comments I've received even from novices about it (it seems to appeal primarily to novices) have all ended with disappointment.
My point is that you're still a beginner. As a beginner, you don't know as much as the people you're arguing with, and you're making yourself look a bit foolish. W3Schools is a fine resource for anyone who knows that it's often unsafe, inaccurate, and wrong. However, the people who know that don't use W3Schools. My biggest problems with W3Schools (other than the inaccurate information) are that 1) they don't explain that they are not associated in any way with the W3C and 2) they sell overpriced certifications that require a user learns inaccurate information.
I read an article a few years ago (that I'm not possibly going to look for now) about best practices when creating examples and guides. The most important lesson in the article was that you should almost never show wrong examples or antipatterns. I.e., don't show an example of what NOT to do. The reason was that the novice ends up remembering the wrong examples as often (or possibly more often) as the good examples. At that point, the example/guide has failed. That's what W3Schools does. They can add as many disclaimers to their site as they want, but that doesn't change the result. They aren't just not doing as much to help people as they could. They're doing harm to the internet.
And by the way, the second sentence of your blog post is both ambiguous and wrong. Was W3Fools created in 2008 (It wasn't.)? Or did W3Fools teleport back in time to only criticize a 2008 version of W3Schools (They didn't.)?