Michele, I'll confirm our conversation. I've not had a chance to go get a copy of the dismissal; hopefully, tomorrow.

Lorie, why do you keep bringing the Daily into this? I haven't wanted to go there on this for Michele's sake -- don't want to seem to be bragging on her story -- but if we hadn't reported the story first, the Daily wouldn't even have known about it. As for her age, I go by what law enforcement officials provide me. As for Orleans County, we mentioned that in our initial story. I have no clue as to the status of the OC case. Tomorrow, I hope to get to County Court and confirm Judge Noonan's dismissal, but since we don't cover OC at all, and I have no sources/connections there, I wouldn't expect any information on the case there.

Lorie, I was not aware until I just went and read it right now that the Daily reported ANYTHING on this today. Having read the story I see where Scott Desmit wrote "remains under indictment." My guess, he didn't fact check that. Michele told me on Saturday that the charges had been dismissed. I wish now that while I was in court on Monday or Tuesday, I'd taken the time to go check that out (Michele wasn't actually too anxious for me to drag the story out again). As for getting things wrong -- I get things wrong, Scott gets things wrong, the cops get things wrong. So what? It's called being human. Saying you can't trust the cops because they get somebody's age wrong is really a pretty big stretch. The only thing any of us can do is do our best to be as accurate as we can, and when we're wrong, own up to our mistakes and correct them.

Lorie, I have no idea what you mean by getting the age wrong twice. And why is a typographical error such a big deal to you?

Lorie, there's been nothing changed from 35 to 45.

Lorie, I don't understand why you're hung up on such minor bullshit issue (because while I'm sure her age is very important to Michele, it has NOTHING to do with any significant fact related to her case), but since you keep coming back to it for no understandable reason ... -- I'm not sure of the significance of the link to the Daily above, but The Batavian and the Daily are not related in any fashion. If they write 35, 41, or 45 -- I have absolutely NOTHING to do with it. You do understand that, don't you? -- In the very first story I wrote about Michele, I listed her age as 45. I know this because when the age issue first came up yesterday, I went back and double-checked that post and her age was listed as 45. I did not change her age there. (However, I originally spelled her first name with two L's and corrected that last night -- When I received the press release from the Sheriff's Office on the bus issue, the PR listed her age as 41. Shame on me for not double-checking that fact, but obviously the Daily fell for the same deliberate attempt by the Sheriff's Office to mislead us on Michele's age (please catch satire there). -- After the age listed as 41 became an issue, I corrected this post to 45. I didn't do a strike-out or otherwise acknowledge the change because IT-DOESN"T-REALLY-FRIGGIN'-MATTER. We don't make a big deal of every minor correction. We only acknowledge corrections where the factual errors change the meaning of the story or could be considered misleading. Whether Michele is 41 or 45 is in no way significant to the meaning of the story. The wrong age is in no way misleading, not when the difference is 41 vs. 45. As for Kimberly and Beck, I know Kimberly reads the site because during the Cornona stuff, she contacted me to congratulate The Batavian on our coverage. Otherwise, I've had absolutely NO contact with anybody at that radio station. I got one single e-mail from Kim and I've sent her one single e-mail that was nothing more than a "Thank you." I have absolutely no clue what you mean by "the info you pulled earlier today." If you can find Michele's age listed on The Batavian as 35, tell me about it, because I don't know about it, and I'm 99 percent confident that I have never, ever listed Michele's age as 35. Now, can we please be done with this issue because it's a major waste of time, way out of proportion to its significance.

Lorie, until just now, you made no reference to removing posts from Dawn Hart. I can't lie about what I don't know about. So who's the one lying? And yes, I removed posts from Dawn Hart, and the only way you would know that is because you've been in communication with Dawn Hart, and so therefore you know the posts were removed because she violated the site rule by not posting under real name (she registered under her real name but then changed it before posting, so even if you saw the posts, you wouldn't know they were from Dawn Hart unless you've been in communication with Dawn), and you also know they were removed because they were offensive and personally insulting to a member of the site, which as you well know is against the site rules.