>Not so. I gave you a good source (probably one of the best actually) for helping you find some of those numbers. There's a search engine there. Take a look under the phrase 'numbers and difference and media' or be creative and just dig around.

Doug, it was your argument that Drudge had more hits than misses than the other media sources. Now you want me to do your research for you? Hey, why don't you come over here and help me and my friend Huckleberry Finn paint my white picket fence? It's really fun!

You cited an article on the site. I read it, as you suggested. There was nothing in the article supporting your argument concerning Drudge having more hits than misses. Generally if you are going to have a theory, you have to support it, not ask the other side to do it for you.

>Goodnees you responded within minutes and that tells me you didn't do anything but respond without fact checking.

I am not going to do your research for you. If you have a source at the Media Research site, or anywhere else, please cite it. If you just have an article about one incident back in 1991, then it's just that: One article about one incident. Not even Matt Drudge can turn that into "numbers".

>When you didn't take the time to look around but just threw the same old "Well, the'ye conservative so they are biased" deflection it was apparent that this was turning into a 'I said you said' argument and I'm just not going to argue.

No, I looked at the site quite a bit, and you are ducking my other question. Where is the Republican bashing? You have looked at the site, right?

>If you want a source for information I gave it to you. I'm not going to spoon feed you though.

Again, you provided one article on one incidence as your "proof". If you want to make a theory, go ahead. Just don't count on the other side to do your research for you.

>About all those folks do is count news casts and what is reported in them.
>
>Regardless, have a great Christmas.. <g>

And Hanaukah, or Ramadan. < g >