It is a shame, as you have noticed....that Google, fat slut that it is, is starting to cherry pick items, but all is not lost.

Like all sluts, Google will move to its best advantage in any situation....so all anyone has to do......is play the slut's game..(trying very hard not to become one in the process)....promote google within your article and the bitch will come running.

Best of fun.

One mirror, the squid one (which id down at the moment) was serving the /robots.txt file from the publishing server -- this is the only tech excuse I can think of... but if they are still running other stories then it's not the issue.

"In my personal oversight, thumbnails of vandalizism and arsons with links to the criminals reports where no longer what google wanted to promote and link viewers too. "

Maybe they don't consider chucking a bit of paint at McDonalds to be news. Or maybe they think that the tone of the articles is quite clearly glorifying a criminal act and encouraging others to emulate it.

Just because you spray "A.L.F." instead of "kev luvs shaz", it doesn't make it any less of a crime - it could be argued that it is more of a crime as it touches on coercion of the victim. That takes it into the realms of terrorism - using force against people or property to force a change in a person's actions.

It may sound daft, but that's how lawyers think.

You say that somebody chucking a bit of paint over mcdonalds isn't news but when it happens half a douzen times a month surely it amounts to something more? When the US & UK government claim that the ALF & ELF are both the no.1 domestic terrorist threat, it kind of makes the "bit of paint" argument as a bit of a bigger issue when directed in a political way; in favour of the earth, non-human and/or human animals.

In regards to terrorism, I don't think you should be so quick to compare 9/11 or 7/7 to somebody writing Kim loves Shaz on the wall, or to somebody painting Love Animals on a building. It kind of diverts the attention from the thousands of people who lost their lives through violent terrorism.

Martin Luther King once said and stuck by the ideology that violence could only ever be through direct physical intervention towards a sentient being. For example kicking a bin over could be done in an angry way, but wouldn't be classified as "violent" unless the action was intended to harm somebody.

Using property destruction to pressure corporations into change can be classified as force, but can not be classified as terrorism. Intentional economic damage towards businesses are common pressure tactics by major charities such as the RSPCA and Greenpeace through activism such as letter writing, phone calls and boycotts. Despite the former being illegal, it is no different to the tactics of aboveground organisations; only that they property destruction causes significantly more economic damage than a boycott.