" Is this man the first murderer ever convicted of committing a murder under the age of 10? 70 years old and the case is 6 decades old? I might not be doing NVR math here?! "

" No, no, no. Six counts of murders each of which is two to three decades old. The hyphen between "decades" and "old" shows that. Otherwise it would be "Six decades old" to mean sixty years. English is great!! "

" I think it means 6 deaths, which are decades old. It's not worded well. "

" I think the headline is a little confusing. He was convicted of 6 murders that are decades old. The headline makes it sound as though the murders are 6 decades old.

Either that, or he really was a bad little boy. "

" did I just read that: No math involved here it is your grammer that is flawed. The title states "6 decades-old . . . The hyphen clarifies the grammer and therefore the meaning of what is written. In other words, 6-deaths that are decades old. "

" 6 murders, not 6 decades "

" yes it's confusing but it got me to come and read the article :) "

" The original headline, "Murder conviction in 6 decades-old deaths," was grammatically correct, but it confused readers, so there is a new headline as of 4:30 p.m. "

" This is confusing considering that there was an "I-5 Killer," Randy Woodfield. It would be interesting to know who "dubbed" Kibbe the "I-5 Strangler." His supposed confessions to Napa murders may be only false confessions to garner himself some credibility in the twisted world of serial killers. It would be interesting to know the specifics of his confession. Once again, a Register article leaves its readers with more questions than facts. "

" Is this article a help wanted ad for wannabe proofreaders, or a story about a confessed murderer.

Dan Ross was mistaken when he stated that the first headline was grammatically correct. You should always spell out whole numbers less than 10, therefore the headline should have read: "Murder conviction in six decades-old deaths". This may have helped some of you whom only read the headlines to better understand the jist of the story.

It doesn't however explain your anal-retentiveness when it comes to commenting on NVR articles.

None of you are qualified to edit the stories posted by the writers that contribute to this outlet, so just shut up and be happy you don't have to wait until the newspaper is printed and delivered to read the stories that are posted online.

If you are so skeptical of the NVR, why do you rely solely on them for your news?

I'll set the over/under on senseless replies to this post at 4.5...Any takers? "

" If you want more information, google Roger Kibbe........you'll get all you want. "

" Dblue34 wrote on Oct 9, 2009 4:42 AM:

" ......None of you are qualified to edit the stories posted by the writers that contribute to this outlet, so just shut up ....... "

Well, now we know what the username of Alisha Wyman's mom is.;-)

Dblue34, the NVR makes plenty of mistakes, and I believe that often a middle school student could pick out the errors. Trust me, there are plenty of people who are qualified to point out the NVR mistakes. People who learned grammar without counting on spell-check and grammar-check software to teach them how to write are more equipped to proofread than those who rely solely on insufficient software.

I think much of the reader's fustration is because the NVR really wants us to believe that they NEVER make mistakes, when in fact they are human and far from perfect.

They would be much more credible if they admitted that they occasionally make mistakes instead of trying to create a myth of NVR perfection. When someone is wrong and refuses to ever acknowledge it, what they say automatically becomes more suspect than it would if they were NOT trying to pretend that they are perfect.

But then, I'm probably not qualified to notice the NVR's mistakes. Sorry, mom. "