"You came in in Nov. 2004....they definitely had rules then!"
I posted many, many articles about the 2004 election without having to use the biased news service headlines (AP, Reuters, AFP). If these rules were in effect then, they certainly weren't enforced.
Even if that were true, it does not change the fact that these rules are being enforced now.
For the love of all the gods, drop it already.
No kidding?
Seattle Times Stumping for Votes in Gov.'s Race (for the Democrat of course)
Seattle Times ^ | 12/15/2004 | calreaganfan
Posted on 12/15/2004 3:26:28 PM EST by calreaganfan
Today, the Seattle Times has gone to the extraordinary length of publishing a list of the names and addresses of 1,555 voters (only in King County of course) whose absentee ballots were rejected due to signature problems. The newspaper is making an all-out effort to scrounge up every last vote for the Democrat candidate for governor.
Posted on 12/10/2004 8:24:36 PM EST by calreaganfan
The conventional wisdom of the political punditry has been proven wrong again. A huge national voter turnout was thought to favor the Democrat candidate, but Pres. Bush's national popular vote count from the Nov. 2, 2004 general election has now exceeded 62 million votes. As of 12/10/04, Pres. Bush has received 62,019,003 votes. The states of NY and PA have certified their official results in the past two days which pushed Pres. Bush's vote count over the 62 million mark. CA will certify its results tomorrow, but almost all CA votes are already included in the Bush total (by obtaining vote counts from CA county websites). Only MN, ME and a few other states have yet to certify their official results.
May I ask: what is so hard about following reasonable rules regarding titles of articles?