I get a lot of e-mails from readers wanting The Star to check info in them out. Many are good, legitimate news tips and they sometimes lead to good stories.

But I also get a lot of bad information, usually sent by people with all the best intentions. I truly can't hazard a guess about how many times I've received warnings about the dangers of aspartame, requests for postcards to be sent to a young boy with cancer, or information about Barack Obama's secret identity as a militant Muslim.

These, and many more like them, are nonsense. Any time you get something in your inbox that sounds outrageous, check out Barbara and David P. Mikkelson's excellent Snopes Web site. They've been collecting, cataloging and diligently researching claims like these for years, and are generally on top of all the latest messages by the time they make their way to the general public.

Reader JoLynne thinks The Star's coverage of the "Bodies Revealed" exhibit at Union Station hasn't given enough attention to critics who say the origin of the cadavers used hasn't been sufficiently explained by the show's organizers.

She points to the headline on this story: "Willing donors gave bodies to Union Station exhibit, says official," feeling it conveys the station's official point of view, but doesn't reflect that they still don't have any concrete assurance about where the bodies came from. Station CEO Andi Udris is quoted in the story:

Scott Jones made an interesting observation about a recent story on the staggered opening to businesses in the Kansas City Power & Light District.

He thought some language in the story was unfair, in particular this paragraph:

"City Manager Wayne Cauthen put on his best cheerleader face Thursday in discussing the opening delays from his office, which features a panoramic view of the district. Like a proud father, he pointed out the location of various establishments and bragged about several in particular, saying the district will feature restaurants and other businesses unique to the region."

Dan Klinger thinks an Associated Press story last Thursday was biased. In "Lawyers troll after sugar refinery blast," the AP wrote about lawyers soliciting clients in Port Wentworth, Ga. after a sugar-refinery explosion there. The story also mentions that a New York-based law firm has already registered sugarrefineryexplosion.com.

"By any chance, are there also 'many residents in that town and beyond' disgusted by Imperial Sugar's audacity in allowing such dangerous conditions at the plant that an explosion and fire that resulted in the deaths of at least 8 people and the severe injuries of many others (how many, the article omits) ever occurred in the first place?" he writes. "Also, how about government oversight agencies which failed to prevent such a powerful and deadly industrial explosion and fire?"

An e-mailer asks why crime stories say that a suspect "allegedly" stole an item, for example, while noting that police pursued or shot at the suspect -- without a similar "allegedly."

For a couple of reasons. Many crime stories come from police reports, and they note this. In the case above, the person who stole the items is being accused of a crime for which he hasn't been convicted -- hence the "allegedly." But the police giving chase or shooting isn't criminal, so no "allegedly" needed.

If the shoe were on the other foot and someone charged police officers with excessive use of force, then the language would shift.

I've heard from multiple readers today who frankly misread the Page A-2 story on the Great Seal of the United States.

Two readers read these sentences (re-punctuated in print) as calling the Freemasons a "cult":

"It is not a sign that Freemasons run the country. It has nothing to do with the occult. And it does not contain clues to a fabulous hidden treasure."

First of all, the second sentence doesn't necessarily imply that the Freemasons are an occult organization (though the primary adjectival definition of "occult," meaning "not revealed" or "secret" could certainly apply). And more importantly, "occult" is not the same word as "cult." "The occult" generally refers to the supernatural and secretive.

An e-mailer says he's disappointed because Jason Whitlock's columns, especially on K-State, aren't "objective."

Well, no -- but they have no pretense of being objective, either. That's why they, like all opinion columns, are labeled as "commentary." Jason often levels some heavy criticisms, and of course I completely understand that he angers and frustrates a lot of people.

But that really is the point of a column -- to provoke thought and disagreement. I don't think there are two people who agree on what constitutes "fair" in someone's opinion.

You'll notice I practically never mention mistakes of grammar or spelling, either here or in my column. Honestly, that's because they're nearly always minor and seldom impact the comprehensibility of the story -- and they're hardly what I'd call an epidemic.

I break my rule on these catches here because this one's funny. An item in "The Buzz" of Tuesday's Sports section wrote of Latrell Sprewell's financial woes: "The bank holding the mortgage on his yacht, originally worth about $1.5 million, was sold at auction for $856,000."

I don't think that's what the item meant to say. Obviou

A caller pointed out that this morning's sidebar on the six men charged with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks didn't mention their nationalities.

Actually, she'd missed the box inside about the men, but she was half right anyway. Of the six, two were identified as Saudi and one as Yemeni. But I agree that the list (which came from the Associated Press) should have been consistent. For the record:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is Kuwaiti.

Waleed bin Attash is a Yemeni who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia.

Ramzi Binalshibh is Yemeni.

Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali was born in Balochistan and raised in Kuwait.

A reader wrote this morning that Monday's front page didn't have a "whiff of news on it." In particular, he disapproved of the Grammys and writers' strike stories, which he considers entertainment news, and not worthy of Page A-1.

I played devil's advocate on the writers' strike at least, because I think The Star, like most newspapers, actually underplays the business side of entertainment. I happen to think a strike that crippled such a huge industry for three months is a big story, and it would have been covered if it had happened to the automotive or air-travel sectors, for instance.