THE $0 CONTEST - PROVE THIS BLOG WRONG

At least one person has come to this blog to try and rustle feathers and otherwise intimidate the investigation into this contest "melt-down". They choose to post anonymously, and have offered little beyond fact-free threats to this blog. I want someone to prove me wrong on all this, not just come here to complain. If anyone is serious enough to discuss these potentially serious violations, please continue reading.

My challenge to them (and to anyone else) is rather than come here and launch verbal attacks for the sheer audacity to challenge Home Depot's opinion (gasp!), try posting reasons why you think there were no rules violations:

• Where in the contest rules does it say it is appropriate for Home Depot to change multiple content issues that would disqualify the video, AFTER the contest is over? Home Depot says it's what they offered to everyone. But I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that ANYONE was approached mid-contest and told what to change in their video to avoid being disqualified.".
• Will Home Depot go on the record telling us how many people they actually notified and gave instructions on how to fix their violating video?
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: Where in the contest rules does it say that it is Home Depot's responsibility to inform contestants whether or not they are violating the rules? In the contest rules, they do everything possible to lay responsibility on the person entering the contest, not Home Depot. If you were lucky enough to be contacted by Home Depot to fix something (which I highly doubt happened), it would still be a "favor" by Home Depot, not a right given to all entrants via the contest rules. Am I wrong?
• Why did Home Depot disqualify the Bork video from New York for rules violation, but not this video?Where in the contest rules does it say that you can re-submit a video after the December 15th deadline? Show me. Prove me wrong.
• Why did Home Depot (and the Long family) say they reposted a video that addressed the "shot" in question. Note, they say it singularly, as in ONE correction. They don't say "the five or more shots that violated rules". (UPDATE: Please read the addendum to the post above for some clarification here)
  
• Where in the contest rules does it state that after the contest is over, you can fix your video to remove copyright violations, but we'll still use the view count from your previously disqualified video. After all, that's 20% of the vote, according to them.
• Will Home Depot or you explain why a message from someone who said they were the marketing director for Home Depot went on their message board and insulted one of the contest entrants, then deleted his own message, then posted again admitting that he deleted it?
• Why is it alright for Home Depot to begin deleting messages on their board that contradict their opinion on the contest, or that contain information they deem irreconcilable?
• Will Home Depot or you explain why Patti Bond gave such a sunshine review of the $25,000 contest in the publication, then a week later is coincidentally working for Home Depot?

This isn't some mom-and-pop contest. This $25,000+ award puts it in a different category than your local grocery-store giveaway. Home Depot is legally obligated (as they have said themselves) to post the contest rules, and follow them to the letter, without modification. So, I say to all of you... if you want to be upset, be constructive and prove to me that any of these accusations are unfounded. I would be most grateful to you. Until then, this contest seems horribly executed and possibly legally unfounded. It began with the promise of collective intellectual challenges and excitement, and ended with a stink-bomb of people scratching their heads saying "what is going on here?". What say you?