Good memory, Agrarian. In the body of the text, after verse 8 and before verse 9, my Bible inserts "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". But the whole section is there, red letters and all. :) I didn't know that was a KJV difference from many other versions. Even though some of the verses are a little weird sounding, I have always considered the passage to be fully scriptural.
Thank you for all of your comments on the KJV. I did Google as you suggested and found some sites that I will look into. It was funny that most on the first page were actually anti-KJV-only sites. They shouldn't get to be listed first. :)
The anti-KJV-only folks have some good points, and one should glance over them for some balance, especially since some of the KJV-only sites are so shrill in tone (which I think hurts their case, but then, I'm not a shrill guy.) The main value of the KJV-only sites is their exhaustive documentation of key differences between the Byzantine Greek text-type and the Alexandrian Greek text-type. As we have discussed, what they are defending is the TR, and there are a couple of differences between it and the Majority Byzantine text-type.
One should also keep in mind that the major uncials that make up the backbone of the modern critical school (Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) differ significantly from each other. Frequently the modern critical texts will have to choose *one* of these readings -- a phrase or word you are reading may be backed up, really, by only one manuscript. The rest of Church through the centuries was reading something else!