>> I carry water for those who are able to hold abstract arguments designed to answer basic questions of fact. You are, obviously, not in this group.
Is that why you so carefully evaded my basic questions of fact?
Or did my questions and comment make you uncomfortable, causing you to resort to such a lame ad hominem?
You want him guilty. What for? On what basis? Simply because he agreed to a lesser charge? Note the following article that explains part of the problem: HERE.
Like many people who cannot hold a rational, civil argument you rely on ad hominems and innuendo to massage your preconceptions.
"...Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport and the law firm it hired to prosecute the cases, said Craig was the only man charged with two offenses because he had peered into the police officer's stall and had used unspoken signals - foot tapping and hand motions - known as ways to solicit restroom sex. Craig, who insists he is not gay, said the arresting officer misinterpreted his actions.Craig was one of 20 men charged with interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor; the penalty is up to a year in jail. But the defense lawyers said the law, adopted two years ago in response to cases involving hidden cameras in girls' rooms, had never been used in a sex sting operation.