Re: webelieveher.com

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Snyder  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>tjab wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Michael Snyder  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>>tinydancer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bryant was not treated any differently than anyone else arrested and charged
>>>>with a crime. 
>>>
>>>Exactly, which is precisely what I said.  His identity was
>>>not protected -- hers was.
>> 
>> 
>> Define "protected." No, seriously.
>
>I wouldn't want to strain your intellectual abilities,
>so I'll use it in a sentence or two.

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!


>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.