Only because I am so comfortable with all the conservatives on this board am I giving them this fodder for further derision of the New York Times. If you've commited conservative hari-kiri and registered, here's the link. Click Here
If you're still pure, here the text:
Go ahead, knock yourselves out.
December 15, 2002
An article on Nov. 10 about animal rights referred erroneously to an island in the Indian Ocean and to events there involving goats and endangered giant sea sparrows that could possibly lead to the killing of goats by environmental groups. Wrightson Island does not exist; both the island and the events are hypothetical figments from a book (also mentioned in the article), ''Beginning Again,'' by David Ehrenfeld. No giant sea sparrow is known to be endangered by the eating habits of goats.
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
I wrote a thesis on the liberal bias of the Times 7 years ago, and had to use it as a source to go through French politics in the 1870's. If I never read it again, it will be to soon. God Bless the New York Post.
I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is all I have to say. Don't they even check their FACTS at that paper? Were the editors in the back having a bowl when that story crossed their desk? My question is, how prominant was the original story in the paper, and how far buried was that retraction?
Before, North Americian society was for the most part religous. Mostly everyone believed in God, and held morals that most would classify Christian. From family matters to swearing upon the Bible on the witness stand, many things were like this.