Misleading, kinda witty, pseudo-scientific headline

[pauamma]

Sensationalist announcement of upcoming paper in animal psychology.

Incorrect restatement of paper's abstract.

Irrelevant, mangled quote of one of the authors, with blatant misspelling of their name.

Attempt to either make a show of balanced reporting or cause controversy by mentioning alternate interpretation of experiments, not taken seriously but all but a fringe of the mainstream establishment in that discipline.

Comments

[rebelsheart]

[Use of large scale version of the biting bear of salamanca - aka, the LolWut Pear - dutifully hotlinked from the first place Google could find it.]

Inquiry as to if the poster even read the article they read.

Suggestion to right-click the red-underlined words to see what happens and that if the poster didn't see such, they should click a link leading to CP's browser of choice.

[pauamma]

Mockery for not using IE.

[jmtorres]

Link to article in respected newspaper, accessible only with password, without any descriptive text.

[pauamma]

Link to bugmenot entry for said newspaper.

[pauamma]

Questioning of objectivity of said newspaper. Unsupported assertions of substantial investment from Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, and Big Boobs.

[redbird]

Suggestion that one of the authors has falsified key data, carefully phrased so as not to be legally actionable.

[pauamma]

Thinly veiled threats about the successful completion of PC's graduate studies.