From: "Mark" 

I don't know if their defense of the funding of the second picture is true,
I'll take your word that it's not for expediency, but they did feel it
appropriate, incredibly, to publish it in lieu of the current cartoons when
they wrote about them. At least that's what I've read, I've given up on
actually reading the NYTs, they're simply not trustworthy, nor, IMHO, on
our (our being the USA) side.


"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5b146b34758c0a9897cb{at}news.barkto.com...
> In article , email{at}from_Gary_Britt.org says...
>> The New York Times defending the expenditure of
>> public money on the exhibition of crucifixes in urine and paintings of
>> the
>> virgin Mary covered in shit (literally shit).
>
> I can understand your outrage at the first one. But the second instance
> is not true.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5