Why the New York Times Magazine Cover Story on the New Year’s Eve Massacre at the Galley Cupcake Stand was so Lame

In January, the New Yorker magazine published an article about the “New Year’s Massacre at The Galley,” a restaurant in Manhattan’s Chinatown that was set on fire on New Year`s Eve.

The article included a photo of a New Year\’s Eve meal at the restaurant and the caption: “The New Year comes early.

A man sits down to eat a large cake, a woman drinks her wine, and a man and a woman play poker.

A woman comes to the table with a bottle of champagne.

They’re eating at the The Gally, a popular Chinese restaurant.”

The article also included a video of a man with a camera who said he was a reporter and that the restaurant was “a haven for criminals and fugitives,” but he also called the restaurant a “crime scene.”

A New Year is a special time, and it’s been said that New Year´s Eve is when we are supposed to get into the spirit of it.

Unfortunately, this article was a joke.

The New York Daily News and the New Orleans Times both wrote about the New Years Eve Massacre, and neither article mentioned the New Yorkers at all.

One New York City Times reporter called it a “sketchy, self-important joke,” while a New York Post reporter wrote that the article was “lame and, frankly, wrong.”

Both publications did not identify the woman who wrote the article as an “associate” of the Times, nor did they describe her as a journalist.

The Times even referred to the man who photographed the man with the camera as an associate of the magazine, but the New Times article did not include that description.

The cover story of the New Hampshire newspaper, The Concord Monitor, was titled “New Hampshire Woman Arrested in New Year Massacre,” which included a caption that read, “A woman has been arrested in connection with a mass shooting in New Hampshire.”

But the article did mention that the man in the video “is a reporter with the Times.”

In fact, the Times did not even say that the New England man had been identified as an employee of the newspaper.

It was simply written that the “woman is a reporter who works for the Times,” which is not the same thing as a person who actually works for The Times.

It is not clear if the New Jersey newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, or the Los Angeles Times were aware that they were reporting on the article.

The piece was published in January.

The Daily News was publishing its own article in February, which included the headline, “Woman charged with shooting at New Year�s Eve party.”

The Times was reporting on a shooting in Brooklyn that occurred on New Years Day, and did not mention the New Mexico woman who shot her roommate, although it was written that “she was arrested for the shooting.”

The New England woman was also arrested for firing a weapon into the air.

This is an incredibly silly piece of journalism, and the Times and the other publications that published it were doing a disservice to the victims of the massacre.

A New York Police Department spokesperson told Newsweek that the investigation into the shooting is ongoing, and that an “administrative resolution” was pending before a grand jury.

According to a law enforcement source, this resolution has been approved and is expected to be completed in the next few days.

The “administatory resolution” is the legal process that the Times is following in attempting to have this resolution overturned, and in order to do that, the “administration” must be changed to a “disciplinary resolution.”

The legal process for the investigation of the shooting was already in progress when the Times published the article, and this resolution was not a result of that investigation.

The shooting took place on New Days Eve, but it took place over two days, which is why the Times article was so “lampoonish.”

A review of the article showed that it was completely inaccurate and misleading.

First, the article failed to mention that police officers had already been on the scene at approximately 4:45 p.m.

The report of the incident said that the woman was “charged with three counts of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree assault with a firearm.”

The report also said that an investigation was underway.

This was not the case.

At 4:53 p.ms., the Times reported that officers were still in the restaurant, but were not in the area of the party.

They did not appear to be at the scene, but did not actually enter the restaurant at that time.

The story also said nothing about the woman’s “manual of events” at 4:54 p.mm., which is completely inaccurate.

The incident was over an hour old when the woman fired a gun, and was not reported until at least 5:08 p.me.

The officer