Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2025, 11:23:09 AMThere is no way those cowards will risk pissing off Daddy Trump
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2025, 11:10:30 AMWhen I began practising law, we still relied on something called the postal acceptance rule. I won't get into the details of what the rule was, but suffice it to say that it was necessary because communications were delayed by the time it took the post office to deliver a letter.
And that was in the early 90s. Think about how much more inefficient communications were during the time you are being critical of.
). 
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 02, 2025, 10:52:31 AMYes. They wrote and received letters, and had postal services. And yes, they had dated news, depending on the length of travel.
Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2025, 11:23:09 AMThere is no way those cowards will risk pissing off Daddy Trump
Quote from: Jacob on December 02, 2025, 10:21:55 AMPoor Ming![]()
Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2025, 08:40:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2025, 08:16:10 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 02, 2025, 02:01:52 AMStill if the "surrender" news came just before they went to print they could had put a question mark at the end of the headline news but they didn't because as HVC wrote they went for the "clickbait"
By that logic all headlines should have question marks. All reporting is based on what is known at the time the report is published.
If you are published weekly and a major news item JUST lands before you go to print perhaps indicate that fact? But no, a grabbing headline was just as important back then as it is now. That's my point. Grab the attention, clarify/disclaimer later. Just as nowadays. Same standards.
Quote from: Josquius on December 02, 2025, 10:25:40 AMIt's interesting to think how papers would have worked in earlier times. Pre radio, pre telegram....
Something happened in the US!... Last week.
Page created in 0.017 seconds with 11 queries.