Because you claimed I was defending or excusing such which include burning, overturned police vehicles, etc. Can't you see that? I excused no such things.

You have defended/excused their "protest" inside a cathedral even though they were disrupting everything and using foul language.
Here are the other activities you've defended:

You've defended their interruption of the court hearing (according to the translation, they were using profane language there, too):

The trial they disrupted... interrupting the hearing set to send 2 leading curators of contemporary critical art in Russia to prison. needed interrupting. Simply respectfully "protesting" outside wouldn't accomplish diddly squat. That action most certainly WAS civil disobedience.

You defended their pranks:

The one with the guy running on foot over the top of the "KGB" political police official's car qualifies as a form of civil disobedience. It was funny in a way. The guy making a fool of himself did a good job of making a fool of the political minders/ political police.

You defended the women for walking up to and forcibly kissing policewomen who quite obviously were trying to fight them off:

The girls kissing other girls -- whom cunning fish termed "attacks on police cadets" --- were "attacks" of unasked for hugs and kisses. Oh the horror!

You have been consistently defending this group.

I can well enough imagine you posted that with a smug little smile on your face, too.

Not so. I'm not smiling at all. Discussions on the internet can be very frustrating because no one really knows each other and cannot see each other (therefore, cannot read facial expressions). So, everyone fills in the blanks with their own imagination, whether we realize we're doing it or not. When you read what I've written, you imagine me smiling smugly. And, when I read your posts, I hear the voice of Stewie on Family Guy. That's why these types of discussions never get anywhere.

Which ends up with YOU supporting the hate crime legislation! Even as it was misapplied! How's that for irony?

I oppose "hate crime" legislation because all crimes are hate crimes. IMHO, public disturbance and harassment are bad enough. I don't care what reason this group used for their public disturbance. I don't care if they were poking fun at the church (which they were) or criticizing Putin. Based on their other despicable behaviors (for example, having public sex as a form of protest), I wouldn't care if their message was the opposite of left-wing, and they were protesting in favor of traditional marriage and against abortion.

When I first heard the story, I was on their side... but decided to do some digging. When I found out what they actually did in the cathedral, I thought two years was too excessive. When I found out the maximum they faced was seven years - and that the prosecutor asked for three - two years didn't sound so long. And then when I found out about their other "performances" in public, the story was complete - it's obvious they've been a nuisance, and the public probably wanted to catch them on something and teach them a lesson.

There are other real cases of innocent people being thrown into prison wrongly in other countries (and in our country, too). The only reason these women are receiving so much international support is that they're left-wing.

Here's the parts of the paragraph you wrote which I objected to. Notice how it starts. With things I in no way defended, but which you lumped in there with all. Which is why I called you a LIAR.

On the one hand, you're very defensive of this group of hooligans who engage in sexual activities in public, flip police cars, set police vehicles on fire, and use profanity to disrupt the public, among other "activities."

The bolded portions I of course in no way defended, and objected to your adding those. Then you end with the twisted and specious

Because they were convicted for only ONE crime, you seem to think no one should criticize their other activities. You even excuse their other activities.

Which is galling, for you bring up these things consistently to provide cover for the sham of a trial, ending with them convicted of "hate crimes", which you otherwise claim to oppose. Some claim. HA.

I don't believe you. You seem all for it, in this instance. Along with having repeatedly reminded you they were not on trial for these other things mentioned (which you seem rather desperate to pin on myself also) I pointed out to you also, that they were not allowed much opportunity for defense against those particular "hate crime" charges, either.

As others here have mentioned, including myself, the charges didn't fit well. Something like trespass, disturbing the peace, etc., would be more fitting. I didn't as you say "excuse" the actions as much as you would like to twist my own words into meaning. They could well enough have been tried for other disturbances of "the peace", and I wouldn't much complain of criminal, "civic" charges in and of themselves, for those other offenses. But they were not put on trial for those other disturbances, no matter how much you'd like to obfuscate your way away from that. Which leaves us in the end with a misapplication or miscarriage of justice having your seeming support.

I can only assume, judging from your own words, it is because you find PR offensive. Jesus never promised us we would not be "offended" for His sake. He promised us the opposite.

What is truly frustrating here, is the scarce attention paid to all the rest of the pertinent issues touched upon. I can only conclude you wish to avoid looking into the more difficult elements which extend beyond that which I've mentioned. That sort of thing is near replica of how the social "conversation" went on in Russia concerning the trials, first of the art curators, then Pussy Riot.

Although it is easy enough to see how many of the "forbidden images" can be found offensive, the curators too, were brought up on "hate crimes". Concerning that trial; http://finrosforum.fi/art-trial-reveals-clash-of-russian-cultures

"The culture minister, Aleksandr Avdeyev, told the Itar-Tass news agency last month [in 2010] that he did not like the exhibition, but that criminal charges were excessive."

Russian society was pretty well split over that issue.

"Mr. Samodurov was convicted and fined on similar charges in 2005 for a 2003 exhibition at the museum called “Caution, Religion!” which he said was meant to provoke discussion about religion and modern society, but enraged the Russian Orthodox Church and was vandalized by fundamentalists, who damaged some of the art on display."

Of course no charges were brought against the "vandal", but I can easily enough understand why he tore the image in two which he did. It was without a doubt provocative. I don't much like that image, and another like it, in particular. Using the same reasoning which you've previously employed against my own person, (here used for "excusing" the vandal) am I now to be seated with the fundamentalist Orthodox babushkas?

"The trial, held in Moscow’s Tagansky District Court, has become almost a site of pilgrimage for fundamentalist Russian Orthodox believers. Women attend in head scarves and with prayer books to express support for the prosecution."

Yet you've continued here to make one over-simplistic statement after another, ending the latest diatribe with the partially true, (which results in coming across as another LIE);

The only reason these women are receiving so much international support is that they're left-wing.

The only" The ONLY? What of the Orthodox priests whom opposed the trial, conducted as it was, with the charges which were brought? Are they of the profane libertine left also?

I object to the phrasing, using the word "only". You have held closely to the Party line. Congratulations comrade. Putin and his band of powerful thieves thank you.

Alexander Kosolapov: Caviar-Icon

Bon Appetit!