Several readers this morning note that an item in today's "Buzz" includes a "quote" from Dick Cheney - citing The Onion as a source.

Richard Barger was one who thought that "the simple inclusion of the word 'satirical' would have told people that it's not a real quotation."

I think he's right. The Onion is widely known in some quarters, but I'm not sure that everyone, especially people who don't enjoy and seek out snarky humor, are as familiar with it as, say, Jay Leno or David

Dan Turner recently made a point that I'll be certain to hear more and more as the election season heats up. Pointing to a blogger who noted that The Star didn't always identify Paul Morrison's party affiliation in stories about his affair with a staffer and subsequent resignation.

"If it isn't the Star's policy for such stories to identify party affiliation early in the story, it certainly should be," he wrote.  "Doing so as a matter of policy would avoid a lot of hard feelings.  Many conservatives strongly suspect that the MSM tends to omit party affiliation when a Democrat is involved in a scandal, but tend to trumpet party affiliation when it embarrasses Republicans.  Such routine disclosure would help instill a certain amount of humbleness among members of both parties, since neither party has a corner on moral perfection."

Caller Dena Klein questioned the taste of an item in this morning's Preview: A "Knocked up next" contest to predict which young Hollywood teen star would get pregnant next. "Many of the young women that I know were very disturbed by Lindsay Lohan's troubles," she said. "I think the taste level of this today is very questionable."

I don't usually wade into matters of taste, as they're so subjective, but I can certainly see Ms. Klein's point here. What some people might find funny is too serious to joke about for others.

UPDATE: Wow, this is really hitting a nerve. I've heard from sever

I often hear questions about whether anyone would be interested in buying old copies of The Star that people find in old trunks or lining uninsulated plaster walls. Is there a market for papers from decades past?

In general, no for most. Pre-Civil War papers were printed on paper with very high rag content, and they're still supple and white today -- and there are definitely lots of collectors who want them. But the everyday newspapers from the past 150 years ago just aren't coveted most of the time. The only exception: If you have a copy of the first-day coverage of a major world news event from the city where it happened (like the first Dallas Morning News after Kennedy's assassination), you'd probably be able to find an interested buyer. But the same day's paper from The Star wouldn't have anywhere near the cachet.

A very nice caller just asked me if The Star runs letters to the editor complimenting a place of business. She says another newspaper in a city she lived in didn't allow those.

The Star does run letters like that occasionally, though the odds are never great that any individual letter will ever make the paper because of space limitations. Letters editor Lajean Keene doesn't allow complaints or accusations against businesses or individuals, though, because that wouldn't give the accused a chance to give their sides of the situations. Makes sense to me.

An e-mailer just hit The Star pretty hard for a caption on a photo in FYI today that puts Oslo in Sweden, not Norway:

"It is really sad that our education system has neglected world geography for so many years, and as a consequence writers don't have a clue about the world, but even more upsetting is that your paper can not afford a fact checker. Google is free, you might suggest its use by the writers."

Ouch. For the record, there is a large staff of copy editors at The Star. This error was noticed by the Features copy chief, but it still made it to print without getting fixed.

I hear very regular complaints about the behavior of people posting comments on the stories at KansasCity.com. In fact, I've seen three just this morning.

Here's a newsflash: Sadly, lots of people use the anonymity of the Internet to be rude, spiteful, vindictive and deceptive.

It's a headache for many Website operators. Some topics are especially likely to generate nastiness: Crime and race are always particularly hot ones, obviously. The rivalry between MU and KU generates some of the most childish behavior I've ever seen, spilling over into comments about stories that have nothing to do with sports whatsoever.

A fascinating distinction that I hadn't thought about since biology classes:

Jerry Feldner of the Arizona Herpetological Association saw a Kansas City Star story about Clay County's case against David S. Theiss, who is accused of possessing the Sonoran Desert toad of the Colorado River with the intent to extract its venom and smoke it.

Police reports use the word "venom," but Feldner says that's an incorrect, but sometimes common, misconception. "Most of the time, people, including journalists, mistakenly call venom 'poison,'" he writes. "In any case, toad secretions are poisons and not venoms. Here is an easy way to determine whether a foreign substance is a poison or a venom:

A brief in last Friday's paper didn't offer enough detail for a caller just now:

Shots fired at motorist

Investigators quickly ruled the shooting justified. Michelle M. Moleti, 34, was in guarded condition Thursday at a hospital. WABC-TV in New York reported that Moleti was hit in the chest, neck and arm.

"I want to know why the cops shot an unarmed woman," he said.

This is one of those cases where a brief didn't give enough info for readers to understand the situation fully. And yes, there's a lot more to the story, which is pretty big news in New Jersey right now.

A couple of readers suggested that The Star and other media simply not print the name of 19-year-old Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people in an Omaha mall last week.

"He said he wanted to be famous, and here you are giving him what he wanted," said one.

Sure, and I've heard similar objections many times before. But wouldn't it be strange journalistically not to name him? I think most people making this recommendation are probably very upset at the situation, and they feel the gunman doesn't deserve to be humanized or understood. But I still believe it's the media's responsibility t