i'm sure some of you have seen this site, it's basically a "let's
rally behind the accuser" type site that someone put up:
www.webelieveher.com
i should have known better, but i actually took the time to post an
even-handed, "why don't we wait until we have all the facts in this
case before we go around calling anyone a 'liar,' 'rapist,' or
'victim'" entry in their public forum. within a matter of hours, it
was deleted--only blind support of the 'victim' is welcome, thank you
very much.
so i posted a couple of totally ridiculous, unbelievably biased,
over-the-top rants -- this time slanted to favor the accuser -- just
to see if they'd pass muster. well, golly gee whiz, will you look at
that? those are apparently just fine. as long as you agree with the
basic premise that kobe is guilty and the accuser is a "victim,"
lies, wishes of violence, prejudice, and complete bias are just fine.
just to clarify--i have no way of knowing at this point if kobe is
guilty. we just don't have enough information at this point to make a
decision with certainty. and i feel that people outside the case who
go around claiming 100% certainty that he's guilty or she's lying are
full of crap.
so here's my open letter to the site's editor:
------------------
Hello Miriam,
I wanted to comment on the irony of you editing my post in the forum
of webelieveher.com.
Early this week, after discovering your site, I took a moment to post
a comment in your forum. Basically something along the lines of "I am
skeptical of both the accuser and the accused in this case because we
do not have enough information at this point to corroborate either of
their stories beyond doubt. I'm sorry, but I find that any site that
assumes that she is telling the truth to be just as disgusting as a
site that assumes she is lying. Please understand, I believe that
she is entitled to a basic level of support (she is a human being and
deserves respect), but referring to her as a "victim" is an
assumption that the accused is guilty of an as yet unproven crime."
Well, this post was deleted within a day, I suppose because it wasn't
blindly "supportive" enough of the accuser. Whatever.
So just for kicks, I thought I'd test your editorial standards.
Would you let a post suggesting that "it's about time somebody did
the right thing and CASTRATED these woman-hating, abusive rapists
like Kobe Bryant" stay up? Yep. It's still there several days later.
How about one that uses made up statistics like "Studies have shown
that in 98 percent of these cases the man is guilty! And I think in
the other 2 percent he's probably guilty too! "? Check. Still there
a couple days later.
And how about false, irrational man-hating statements like "Women
simply DO NOT lie about things like this. Studies have shown that
women CAN be relied upon to tell the truth while MEN cannot be
believed." Apparently, this is condoned by the site as it too has
remained in place for several days.
I have to give you props, you *did* edit some of the content of my
posts. Apparently the lines "It's yet another example of how the
system favors people of color over whites. Just look at OJ--he was
guilty! And if he was guilty, then you KNOW Kobe Bryant is guilty!
Studies prove this!" were just too incendiary for a forum with such
high standards, and those lines were erased from one of my posts.
Hey, it's your right to put whatever you want on your site. Edit,
delete, and editorialize to your heart's content. Just don't fool
yourself into thinking you're any better than the "Katelyn's a slut!"
websites out there--you're just the other side of the same coin.

has anyone gone to a kobe post and posted something like this (even

middle of the road sorta thing)?

"Dan" <Pet_NO_SPAM_Sounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqar06$1vcgpa$1@ID-142071.news.uni-berlin.de...
honestly, no, but here's why:
i have no desire to visit a "kobe post" that slams the accuser without
knowing the facts. and quite frankly, i haven't seen publicity for
one of these sites in mainstream media that implies that it's
"legitimate."
i found the webelieveher.com site via s_knight's post from
vaildaily.com's story on the site. take a look at the article:

rs=2
nowhere does this article mention that perhaps the site is just as
biased as the pro-kobe sites out there. in fact, it seems to imply
that this is a welcome antidote to those sites. you'll also note
that they mention on the webelieveher.com site that they were
welcoming visitors who found them through the story the today show
did on them--i'm guessing if they're "welcoming" those visitors, it
was a fairly positive piece.
i say you can't fight hate, bias, and misinformation with more hate,
bias, and misinformation. you fight it with the truth.

so i went to their site with an open mind--i have no problem with a
site that takes the stance that they support true rape victims and
her story deserves to be heard and investigated seriously.

problem is, they go way beyond that. obviously they're not
interested in even-handedness--they deleted my evenhanded post. they
*do*, however, condone bias against kobe, as evidenced by my posts
remaining up for all to see.

i'm sure some of you have seen this site, it's basically a "let's rally
behind the accuser" type site that someone put up:
www.webelieveher.com
i should have known better, but i actually took the time to post an
even-handed, "why don't we wait until we have all the facts in this case
before we go around calling anyone a 'liar,' 'rapist,' or 'victim'" entry in
their public forum. within a matter of hours, it was deleted--only blind
support of the 'victim' is welcome, thank you very much.
so i posted a couple of totally ridiculous, unbelievably biased,
over-the-top rants -- this time slanted to favor the accuser -- just to see
if they'd pass muster. well, golly gee whiz, will you look at that? those
are apparently just fine. as long as you agree with the basic premise that
kobe is guilty and the accuser is a "victim," lies, wishes of violence,
prejudice, and complete bias are just fine.
just to clarify--i have no way of knowing at this point if kobe is guilty.
we just don't have enough information at this point to make a decision with
certainty. and i feel that people outside the case who go around claiming
100% certainty that he's guilty or she's lying are full of crap.
so here's my open letter to the site's editor:
------------------
Hello Miriam,
I wanted to comment on the irony of you editing my post in the forum of
webelieveher.com.
Early this week, after discovering your site, I took a moment to post a
comment in your forum. Basically something along the lines of "I am
skeptical of both the accuser and the accused in this case because we do not
have enough information at this point to corroborate either of their stories
beyond doubt. I'm sorry, but I find that any site that assumes that she is
telling the truth to be just as disgusting as a site that assumes she is
lying. Please understand, I believe that she is entitled to a basic level
of support (she is a human being and deserves respect), but referring to her
as a "victim" is an assumption that the accused is guilty of an as yet
unproven crime."
Well, this post was deleted within a day, I suppose because it wasn't
blindly "supportive" enough of the accuser. Whatever.
So just for kicks, I thought I'd test your editorial standards. Would you
let a post suggesting that "it's about time somebody did the right thing and
CASTRATED these woman-hating, abusive rapists like Kobe Bryant" stay up?
Yep. It's still there several days later.
How about one that uses made up statistics like "Studies have shown that in
98 percent of these cases the man is guilty! And I think in the other 2
percent he's probably guilty too! "? Check. Still there a couple days
later.
And how about false, irrational man-hating statements like "Women simply DO
NOT lie about things like this. Studies have shown that women CAN be relied
upon to tell the truth while MEN cannot be believed." Apparently, this is
condoned by the site as it too has remained in place for several days.
I have to give you props, you *did* edit some of the content of my posts.
Apparently the lines "It's yet another example of how the system favors
people of color over whites. Just look at OJ--he was guilty! And if he was
guilty, then you KNOW Kobe Bryant is guilty! Studies prove this!" were just
too incendiary for a forum with such high standards, and those lines were
erased from one of my posts.
Hey, it's your right to put whatever you want on your site. Edit, delete,
and editorialize to your heart's content. Just don't fool yourself into
thinking you're any better than the "Katelyn's a slut!" websites out
there--you're just the other side of the same coin.

brink wrote:
Amen, brutha

In article <3FCCEB05.232D2A21@netscape.net>,
Gary Collard <garycollard@netscape.net> wrote:
This implies that the two of you have the same low opinion of the
"Katelyn's a slut" websites (and by extension, like-minded posters
here) that you do of webelieveher.com. (Are you listening, Bob et al?)

tjab wrote:
Dunno about Bob, but I am. I have the same low opinion of the
"Katelyn's a slut" websites that I do of webelieveher.com.
I see no reason to trash the accuser or the accused. But I
also see no reason to believe either one of them implicitly,

nor do I see any reason for one to have their privacy protected
and the other not.

In article <bqj1pb$hma$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Agreed.
As near as I can tell, neither one has.

tjab wrote:
You musta missed the first 6 months or so... Faber had her identity
protected until a few brazen journalists outed it (to be followed
eventually by Kobe's attorney). Kobe's identity was revealed from
the first day.

In article <bqj833$i04$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Uh, six months isn't up yet. The date on which the rape was alleged
to have taken place was July 1.

The usenet attacks on Faber began as early as July 16.

As I said, neither has had their privacy protected,

tjab wrote:
Don't let's quibble. The point remains the same.

The State of Colorado continues to protect Faber's name
to the present day, as do a fair number of journalists.

NOBODY protected Kobe Bryant's name, EVER.

Then you continue to lie in the face of the obvious.

i'm sure some of you have seen this site, it's basically a "let's rally
behind the accuser" type site that someone put up:
www.webelieveher.com
i should have known better, but i actually took the time to post an
even-handed, "why don't we wait until we have all the facts in this case
before we go around calling anyone a 'liar,' 'rapist,' or 'victim'" entry in
their public forum. within a matter of hours, it was deleted--only blind
support of the 'victim' is welcome, thank you very much.
so i posted a couple of totally ridiculous, unbelievably biased,
over-the-top rants -- this time slanted to favor the accuser -- just to see
if they'd pass muster. well, golly gee whiz, will you look at that? those
are apparently just fine. as long as you agree with the basic premise that
kobe is guilty and the accuser is a "victim," lies, wishes of violence,
prejudice, and complete bias are just fine.
just to clarify--i have no way of knowing at this point if kobe is guilty.
we just don't have enough information at this point to make a decision with
certainty. and i feel that people outside the case who go around claiming
100% certainty that he's guilty or she's lying are full of crap.
so here's my open letter to the site's editor:
------------------
Hello Miriam,
I wanted to comment on the irony of you editing my post in the forum of
webelieveher.com.
Early this week, after discovering your site, I took a moment to post a
comment in your forum. Basically something along the lines of "I am
skeptical of both the accuser and the accused in this case because we do not
have enough information at this point to corroborate either of their stories
beyond doubt. I'm sorry, but I find that any site that assumes that she is
telling the truth to be just as disgusting as a site that assumes she is
lying. Please understand, I believe that she is entitled to a basic level
of support (she is a human being and deserves respect), but referring to her
as a "victim" is an assumption that the accused is guilty of an as yet
unproven crime."
Well, this post was deleted within a day, I suppose because it wasn't
blindly "supportive" enough of the accuser. Whatever.
So just for kicks, I thought I'd test your editorial standards. Would you
let a post suggesting that "it's about time somebody did the right thing and
CASTRATED these woman-hating, abusive rapists like Kobe Bryant" stay up?
Yep. It's still there several days later.
How about one that uses made up statistics like "Studies have shown that in
98 percent of these cases the man is guilty! And I think in the other 2
percent he's probably guilty too! "? Check. Still there a couple days
later.
And how about false, irrational man-hating statements like "Women simply DO
NOT lie about things like this. Studies have shown that women CAN be relied
upon to tell the truth while MEN cannot be believed." Apparently, this is
condoned by the site as it too has remained in place for several days.
I have to give you props, you *did* edit some of the content of my posts.
Apparently the lines "It's yet another example of how the system favors
people of color over whites. Just look at OJ--he was guilty! And if he was
guilty, then you KNOW Kobe Bryant is guilty! Studies prove this!" were just
too incendiary for a forum with such high standards, and those lines were
erased from one of my posts.
Hey, it's your right to put whatever you want on your site. Edit, delete,
and editorialize to your heart's content. Just don't fool yourself into
thinking you're any better than the "Katelyn's a slut!" websites out
there--you're just the other side of the same coin.

In article <3FCCEB05.232D2A21@netscape.net>,
Gary Collard <garycollard@netscape.net> wrote:
This implies that the two of you have the same low opinion of the
"Katelyn's a slut" websites (and by extension, like-minded posters
here) that you do of webelieveher.com.

In article <bqj1pb$hma$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Agreed.
As near as I can tell, neither one has.

In article <bqjecd$i8s$3@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
The practical effect of which is nil.

As I said, neither has had their privacy protected,
I'm not the one who was talking about six months when the
reality was two weeks, nor am I the one who snipped the
fact that Faber's home phone number has been published on
the web and Bryant's hasn't.

Faber received protection of her identity.

In article <0vpzb.558$XF6.13850@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
You understand the irony in that comment, I hope.

tjab wrote:
You understand the reality of the comment, I hope.
Faber's identity was revealed, EVENTUALLY, by a FEW sources.

tjab wrote:
You understand the reality of the comment, I hope.
Faber's identity was revealed, EVENTUALLY, by a FEW sources.
Bryant's identity was revealed IMMEDIATALY, by the state as
well as by ALL media that covered the event.

In article <bqlerv$lav$8@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Eventually meaning two weeks. And then every newspaper in
America reported that her name was available on the net.

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bqlerv$lav$8@stan.redhat.com...
Bryant was not treated any differently than anyone else arrested and charged
with a crime.

tjab wrote:
But note that 99.9% of those newspapers did NOT report
HER NAME.

While they DID report BRYANT'S name. You are
remarkably obtuse even for a feminist. Faber's name
WAS PROTECTED, even if the protection eventually (and
partially -- most journalists STILL will not use her name)
failed. Bryant's name was NEVER PROTECTED.

tinydancer wrote:
Exactly, which is precisely what I said. His identity was
not protected -- hers was.

In article <bqllhd$lkl$3@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
No, just where to find it.

In article <bqllic$lkl$4@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Define "protected." No, seriously.

tjab wrote:
You could have stopped after the word "No". The argument's over.
Faber's identity was protected (however imperfectly), and Bryant's
was not, ever, at all. Period.

tjab wrote:
I wouldn't want to strain your intellectual abilities,
so I'll use it in a sentence or two.

The Great Wall protected China for many years, until their
enemies overran it.
The Klingon Battle Cruiser's energy shields protected it,
until overcome by the superior fire power of the Enterprise's
phasers.
Kobe Bryant's accuser's identity was protected by law, by
the state, by the courts, and by the media, until a small
number of persons breached that protection (after which the
vast majority continued to protect it). Kobe Bryant's
identity, on the other hand, was never protected. Period.

In article <bqlr75$ltc$2@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Sure, if I had a problem with telling the whole truth.

In article <bqlrhg$lto$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
I wouldn't want to strain your intellectual abilities, so I won't
ask you again to define what "protected" means as you are using
it here, since that particular challenge seems to be beyond you.
I guess I also won't bother to ask you again if you owned a
newspaper whether your policy would be to name neither party or
to name both parties, since you seem to be more interested in
pushing an agenda than seriously addressing the underlying issues.
If you're going to complain about the existing situation, you really
should be prepared to say how you think it should be changed!

ROFLMAO. You? Problem with the whole truth? When you are
trying to pretend that Faber's identity WAS NOT PROTECTED?

tjab wrote:
Oh yeah, right: I'm the one who's pushing an agenda, when
you can't even admit that a rape victim's identity is protected,

How would I change it? I would treat the accused and the accuser
equally, until there was a reason not to. Since the accused has
not been convicted of a sex crime, and since being accused of a
sex crime carries AT LEAST as great a stigma as being the victim
of one, don't publish his identity either. This case would not
have the notoriety it does (and therefore would be more likely to
receive a fair trial) if the name of the accused had not been
made public.