http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html
I'm so mad I could drive up to NY and choke each and every one of them!!!111



I'm so mad I could drive up to NY and choke each and every one of them!!!111




mine wasn't quite as nice, but be sure to include [email protected] as well.
I think we need to keep it respectful. You catch more flies with honey and all of that jazz
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
President/CORPHQ/[email protected]
(reason: 550 President/CORPHQ/[email protected]... No such user)
(expanded from: <[email protected]>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to notes-vip.nytimes.com.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 President/CORPHQ/[email protected]... No such user
550 5.1.1 President/CORPHQ/[email protected]... User unknown
<<< 503 Issue RCPT TO: command before DATA command
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email protected]
X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; President/CORPHQ/[email protected]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; notes-vip.nytimes.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 President/CORPHQ/[email protected]... No such user
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:15:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lack Of Intergrity In Journalism?
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html
I can't help but notice your intentional omission of Ron Paul on the Republican side for the results of the primaries thus far. Ron Paul beat both Giuliani and Fred Thompson in MI last night, beat Giuliani in Iowa, and beat Fred Thompson in NH. When you total up the votes from all primaries, Ron Paul is fourth, ahead of Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
Why then, the obvious, intentional omission of Ron Paul in your reporting? Is there any substansive basis for this? Any chance I could get an honest report back on this? I'm noticing a distinct lack of ethics being displayed in the New York Times. This certainly isn't honest reporting of the facts. Considering that your role as journalists directly influences Presidental elections, I would be one to think that your organization should be charged with sedition.