So you’ve got nothing, as expected.

Woman Charged in Evanston Target Restroom Explosion
Police say the Chicago woman wanted to produce a chemical high, and the attack was not related to Target's transgender bathroom policy.
So you’ve got nothing, as expected.
As compared to your usual “You shouldn’t post that” and “I don’t understand what you said.”, I’m a veritable treasure trove of information.
So post one example.
Are we even sure he’s a him? I don’t think he’s ever revealed his gender.
Serious question: do you have difficulty spotting sarcasm?
Because I’m agreeing with you.
Why the fuck would someone cook up meth in a Target bathroom? What, the ladies room at the deserted gas station around the corner was occupied?
Ok. Let’s clear up a few things.
In point of fact - I made no argument. I posted a bunch of facts (A bomb went off in a target bathroom in Evanston. It was small. No one was hurt. I was angry about it.) Later, I updated saying that police had a woman in custody and were saying it wasn’t related to the threats against Target. I reported the facts as best as I could and said that they made me angry.
Honey, everything we do on the internet is recreational outrage.
I can’t allow you to be an expert on how we do thing at the Straight Dope, except for the Dope part.
Yep.
And yes, of course it’s true that I assumed that this bombing was just the latest example of right-wing terrorism. I was possibly wrong - but what I was really wrong about was that it may not have been a bomb at all, not that right-wing extremists aren’t capable of terrorism.
See - I had no idea that one could make meth in a bottle just by shaking some things together. I thought you had to apply heat and there were deadly fumes? I certainly didn’t imagine that it was a thing one could whip up and then just carry it out with you to run errands.
If the thing that blew up was a portable meth concoction, not a bomb, then I apologize for spreading false info. I guess maybe I should have realized when they said “Evanston” that it was probably about the drugs.
Maybe the motive was simple misogyny?
Yep.
I mean, yes, you have to apply heat, but chemicals can be mixed inside the plastic bottle to make the heat. Also makes the boom if you’re not careful. http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/american-underworld-shake-n-bake-meth/
There’s really nowhere better around there. Evanston doesn’t hold with deserted gas stations. They fancy.
(In all seriousness…that’s the best, cleanest, quietest public bathroom in the area where you can go in without buying something first. It’s my bathroom of choice up there as well. Not for making meth. For peeing.)
I guess I do. :smack:
By Chicago-area, suburban, commuter standards they are practically next door. North Ave to the Tri-State, take a right at Golf, and there you are.
They’re an hour apart. Not close by this Chicago-area commuter’s standards. If I had an errand in Carol Stream and one in Evanston, I’d try very hard not to schedule them on the same day.
Evanston is near Wilmette, Niles and Skokie. It’s “anywhere near” Glenview, Park Ridge and, arguably, Des Plaines. Carol Stream is out on the part of the map where There Be Dragons. ![]()
By Chicago-area, suburban, commuter standards they are practically next door. North Ave to the Tri-State, take a right at Golf, and there you are.
I’ve spent the vast majority of my life in the Chicago area and have never set foot in Carol Stream or any of the towns bordering it. I grew up in the suburbs (though in Evanston, not a more typical far-flung suburb), and no, I don’t consider it close to Carol Stream.
There’s really nowhere better around there. Evanston doesn’t hold with deserted gas stations. They fancy.
(In all seriousness…that’s the best, cleanest, quietest public bathroom in the area where you can go in without buying something first. It’s my bathroom of choice up there as well. Not for making meth. For peeing.)
Yeah, looks like meth:

Police say the Chicago woman wanted to produce a chemical high, and the attack was not related to Target's transgender bathroom policy.
They’re an hour apart. Not close by this Chicago-area commuter’s standards. If I had an errand in Carol Stream and one in Evanston, I’d try very hard not to schedule them on the same day.
Evanston is near Wilmette, Niles and Skokie. It’s “anywhere near” Glenview, Park Ridge and, arguably, Des Plaines. Carol Stream is out on the part of the map where There Be Dragons.
I live in Dragon Land and, to make a living, drove to Skokie (22 miles one way), next to Evanston, for ten years. Then I spent a few years driving to Sugar Grove (30 miles one way) and another year to Crestwood (24 miles one way). My current commute is only six or seven miles, but I’m so used to driving that I now do it for fun.
Evanston? Is that anywhere near Carol Stream?
By Chicago-area, suburban, commuter standards they are practically next door. North Ave to the Tri-State, take a right at Golf, and there you are.
They’re an hour apart. Not close by this Chicago-area commuter’s standards. If I had an errand in Carol Stream and one in Evanston, I’d try very hard not to schedule them on the same day…
Well, they may not be close by car, but I thought Azeotrope was talking about taking the *whoosh, *in which case they’re adjacent.
If I may ask, since this appears to have nothing to with political opposition to transgender bathroom laws:
Why was the OP so “livid” and created this thread?
Was it not because the OP assumed this was a politically-motivated act against transgender bathroom laws?
If I may ask, since this appears to have nothing to with political opposition to transgender bathroom laws:
Why was the OP so “livid” and created this thread?
Was it not because the OP assumed this was a politically-motivated act against transgender bathroom laws?
Or could it be that the authorities on the scene identified it as a bomb? And stated the investigation included the possible link to Target’s restroom policy.
Considering the recent uproar over Target’s restroom policy, a possible link is not beyond reality.
Unlike you.
It was a quote from the article linked in the OP. It was not the view of the OP.
Nor did the OP state that it was.
So what? He supplied that quote that put the issue on the table. So the issue of transgender was, indeed, raised in the OP.