NYTimes.com Dark Citys the article I was going to make fun of and it's not fair!

I still read the dead tree edition of the New York Times on my morning commute. This morning, I read this paragraph in the paper of record about how Trump went uncharacteristically silent on twitter after the Iowa caucuses:

Finally, late Tuesday morning, following a hiatus on Twitter of 15 hrs and 29 seconds between posts — his 24th longest gap since he introduced in June he was running for leader — Mr. Trump resurfaced. 

"What the fuck?" thunked I. "Did the NYT really make someone go through Trump's twitter feed for the last 8 months to figure out each gap between posts and then rank them in order from longest to shortest, just so they could figure out where a 0:15:29 gap ranks compared to all the other gaps in his feed?!?!?" With that I started tapping out a post on my phone on that very point which would have surely shaken the blogosphere to its very foundation had I managed to finish it.

Except that when I got to finding the online version of the article, I could not find the quote. It wasn't there. I even searched for the first line of the above quote on the NYT web site. According to NYTimes.com, "a version of this article appears in print on February 3, 2016 on page A15 of the New York edition" of the paper. But that article not only lacks the quote I wanted to use for my blog post, it is almost completely different from the one I read on the train. The current online version isn't about twitter at all. While both the dead tree version and the online version are generally about how Trump reacted to the Iowa results, they are pretty different accounts of what that reaction was. The two are not really different "versions" of each other. They are different articles.

Luckily, google led me to someone who cut and pasted the version of the article I read in my dead tree edition on the train onto his/her web site before the NYTimes.com replaced it with the article that is currently online. At least that proves I'm not crazy, right? RIGHT?

I don't really care if the NYT edits their articles that they post online. But they should at least let people access the older versions of the article. Maybe there are too many versions of each article to do that reasonably. But at the very least any article that makes it into print should exist somewhere on the NYT site.