I can't speak for Thomas. For myself, I don't believe I've said anything that qualifies as deriding anyone's credibility or history (or trying to make a post-h

I can't speak for Thomas. For myself, I don't believe I've said anything that qualifies as deriding anyone's credibility or history (or trying to make a post-hoc defense for myself). I'm just trying to bring facts to light -- because a relevant issue was brought up, I took the time to pore through details I otherwise would not have. In short, the issue brought up was that the sentence seems excessive given that "child porn" could mean a picture of 17 year olds. Having done the research, it's clear that the picture was of much younger children, and that the length of the sentence was due to several factors beyond the "child porn" issue. So the ancestor post to this raised a valid question, but was ultimately wrong on the relevant facts.