<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_1822251</id>
	<title>Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's Cyberlaw Record</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243585620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Thomas O'Toole writes that President Obama's choice for Associate Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, authored several <a href="http://pblog.bna.com/techlaw/2009/05/judge-sotomayor-is-first-nominee-with-cyberlaw-record.html">cyberlaw opinions</a> regarding online contracting law, domain names, and computer privacy while on the Second Circuit. Judge Sotomayor wrote the court's 2002 opinion in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., an important online contracting case. In Specht, the Second Circuit <a href="http://pub.bna.com/eclr/017860.pdf">declined to enforce contract terms</a> (PDF) that were available behind a hyperlink that could only be seen by scrolling down on a Web page. 'We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms,' wrote Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in a domain name case, Storey v. Cello Holdings LLC in 2003 that held that an adverse outcome in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not preclude a <a href="http://pub.bna.com/eclr/027281.pdf">later-initiated federal suit</a> (PDF) brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). In Leventhal v. Knapek, a privacy case, Judge Sotomayor wrote for the Second Circuit that New York state agency officials and investigators did not violate a state employee's Fourth Amendment rights when they <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=1&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.internetlibrary.com\%2Fpdf\%2FLeventhal.pdf&amp;ei=VBcgSpGxJt6ntgfTxcS2Bg&amp;usg=AFQjCNHOVlBdYPc-N8rc4\_J\_BencSU5hyg&amp;sig2=foXpAuwtWrfYHKtAUP8UPA">searched the contents of his office computer</a> (PDF) for evidence of unauthorized use of state equipment. While none of these cases may mean much as far as what Judge Sotomayor will do as an Associate Supreme Court Justice 'if confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,' writes O'Toole."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Thomas O'Toole writes that President Obama 's choice for Associate Supreme Court Justice , Sonia Sotomayor , authored several cyberlaw opinions regarding online contracting law , domain names , and computer privacy while on the Second Circuit .
Judge Sotomayor wrote the court 's 2002 opinion in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. , an important online contracting case .
In Specht , the Second Circuit declined to enforce contract terms ( PDF ) that were available behind a hyperlink that could only be seen by scrolling down on a Web page .
'We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms, ' wrote Sotomayor .
Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in a domain name case , Storey v. Cello Holdings LLC in 2003 that held that an adverse outcome in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not preclude a later-initiated federal suit ( PDF ) brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ( ACPA ) .
In Leventhal v. Knapek , a privacy case , Judge Sotomayor wrote for the Second Circuit that New York state agency officials and investigators did not violate a state employee 's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched the contents of his office computer ( PDF ) for evidence of unauthorized use of state equipment .
While none of these cases may mean much as far as what Judge Sotomayor will do as an Associate Supreme Court Justice 'if confirmed , she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court, ' writes O'Toole .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Thomas O'Toole writes that President Obama's choice for Associate Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, authored several cyberlaw opinions regarding online contracting law, domain names, and computer privacy while on the Second Circuit.
Judge Sotomayor wrote the court's 2002 opinion in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., an important online contracting case.
In Specht, the Second Circuit declined to enforce contract terms (PDF) that were available behind a hyperlink that could only be seen by scrolling down on a Web page.
'We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms,' wrote Sotomayor.
Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in a domain name case, Storey v. Cello Holdings LLC in 2003 that held that an adverse outcome in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not preclude a later-initiated federal suit (PDF) brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
In Leventhal v. Knapek, a privacy case, Judge Sotomayor wrote for the Second Circuit that New York state agency officials and investigators did not violate a state employee's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched the contents of his office computer (PDF) for evidence of unauthorized use of state equipment.
While none of these cases may mean much as far as what Judge Sotomayor will do as an Associate Supreme Court Justice 'if confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,' writes O'Toole.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1243591260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with her statement. You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society? You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula? He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person. He exists completely outside that part of the world and society. <div><p>
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped? This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face. </p><div><p>
He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with her statement .
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air , and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society ?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving , homeless , and steals a loaf of bread , and ( I shudder at the thought ) some baby formula ?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person .
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society .
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her , despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped ?
This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face .
He 'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders , but for those who live in the ghettos , someone from the ghettos will be better suited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with her statement.
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person.
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society.
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped?
This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face.
He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147053</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1243617240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's equivalent to saying "I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that doesn't know how to send email would".</p></div></blockquote><p>

So Microsoft's lawyers are all unable to send emails?</p><p>

You might get a more <b>informed</b> opinion, but a fair opinion is going to be an entirely separate matter.  For instance, a succession of Southern slave-owning judges who heard the Amistad case all ruled the same way, the way that their backgrounds would seemingly have made unlikely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's equivalent to saying " I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that does n't know how to send email would " .
So Microsoft 's lawyers are all unable to send emails ?
You might get a more informed opinion , but a fair opinion is going to be an entirely separate matter .
For instance , a succession of Southern slave-owning judges who heard the Amistad case all ruled the same way , the way that their backgrounds would seemingly have made unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's equivalent to saying "I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that doesn't know how to send email would".
So Microsoft's lawyers are all unable to send emails?
You might get a more informed opinion, but a fair opinion is going to be an entirely separate matter.
For instance, a succession of Southern slave-owning judges who heard the Amistad case all ruled the same way, the way that their backgrounds would seemingly have made unlikely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145253</id>
	<title>Can you say, "double standard"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The white rich guy is MORE suited to take the case.  He has less of a chance letting his emotions get in the way of his decisions.  Empathy comes from your jury, your group of peers to which everyone in a criminal trial has a right.  If the lawyer of the thief in your example is good, chances are they will get off light.  If not they go to a prison with square meals and if they were stealing baby formula guess what happens to the baby? It goes in to foster care (not the best alternative but it will get a roof and square meals too).</p><p>To think that, "oh he was forced to break the law, that makes breaking the law ok then" is stupid.</p><p>On topic:<br>"I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life."</p><p>-Any White Guy<br>This would have resulted in an almost instant action from the hundreds of minority activist groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The white rich guy is MORE suited to take the case .
He has less of a chance letting his emotions get in the way of his decisions .
Empathy comes from your jury , your group of peers to which everyone in a criminal trial has a right .
If the lawyer of the thief in your example is good , chances are they will get off light .
If not they go to a prison with square meals and if they were stealing baby formula guess what happens to the baby ?
It goes in to foster care ( not the best alternative but it will get a roof and square meals too ) .To think that , " oh he was forced to break the law , that makes breaking the law ok then " is stupid.On topic : " I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [ as a judge ] than a Latina female who has n't lived that life .
" -Any White GuyThis would have resulted in an almost instant action from the hundreds of minority activist groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The white rich guy is MORE suited to take the case.
He has less of a chance letting his emotions get in the way of his decisions.
Empathy comes from your jury, your group of peers to which everyone in a criminal trial has a right.
If the lawyer of the thief in your example is good, chances are they will get off light.
If not they go to a prison with square meals and if they were stealing baby formula guess what happens to the baby?
It goes in to foster care (not the best alternative but it will get a roof and square meals too).To think that, "oh he was forced to break the law, that makes breaking the law ok then" is stupid.On topic:"I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life.
"-Any White GuyThis would have resulted in an almost instant action from the hundreds of minority activist groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28149399</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1243698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you're the sort of person who subscribes to the myth that all poor are hardworking and noble and all wealthy are selfish exploiters who do nothing but play all day. If you got your education on what it's like to be wealthy from MTV, I guess I can't blame you. You remind me of this intern I had years ago, about as white a cracker as you'd ever find and from a wealthy town no less. This guy was big into hip hop and bought into all the anti-establishment propaganda that the man was keeping the poor down. His idea of connecting with the common person was drive through a lower income neighborhood on his way to run an errand.</p><p>I grew up in what most people would consider the inner city. Not the safe little trendy urban neighborhoods that successful young professionals create for themselves. I find that people who grew up in these neighborhoods, like myself, are less sympathetic than people who grew up in safe white bread suburbs. Certainly I saw plenty of people who were very hard working. But then although they had to struggle a bit more than some they weren't actually poor. The ones who were actually poor, with the exception of those who were disabled, were outright lazy or were antagonistic towards everything, finding problems where there were none. Of course, ultimately how you come down on all this depends on whether you find these people responsible for their own actions, or if it's the fault of a system which has let them down.</p><p>I personally blame these individuals and their parents for teaching a sense of entitlement instead of respect and hard work, assuming they were even around at all. There were kids of all races who went to the worst schools in this city and managed to get into some of the top universities in the country. If they could pull that off there's no real excuse why anyone couldn't do well, provided of course they had parents pushing them to excel.</p><p>Sotomayor may have grown up in that kind of environment, but I tend to believe she's been away from it so long that she might as well have grown up in some upscale community all her life. But even if she had never grown up in a poor neighborhood what would preclude her from making a just decision based on the evidence presented. A good judge should be able to make a decision independently of their upbringing. Listening to her comments I'm left with the impression that she approaches her job with an inherent bias. Is she going to judge for the poor, even if they're wrong, just because she feels she has a connection with them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you 're the sort of person who subscribes to the myth that all poor are hardworking and noble and all wealthy are selfish exploiters who do nothing but play all day .
If you got your education on what it 's like to be wealthy from MTV , I guess I ca n't blame you .
You remind me of this intern I had years ago , about as white a cracker as you 'd ever find and from a wealthy town no less .
This guy was big into hip hop and bought into all the anti-establishment propaganda that the man was keeping the poor down .
His idea of connecting with the common person was drive through a lower income neighborhood on his way to run an errand.I grew up in what most people would consider the inner city .
Not the safe little trendy urban neighborhoods that successful young professionals create for themselves .
I find that people who grew up in these neighborhoods , like myself , are less sympathetic than people who grew up in safe white bread suburbs .
Certainly I saw plenty of people who were very hard working .
But then although they had to struggle a bit more than some they were n't actually poor .
The ones who were actually poor , with the exception of those who were disabled , were outright lazy or were antagonistic towards everything , finding problems where there were none .
Of course , ultimately how you come down on all this depends on whether you find these people responsible for their own actions , or if it 's the fault of a system which has let them down.I personally blame these individuals and their parents for teaching a sense of entitlement instead of respect and hard work , assuming they were even around at all .
There were kids of all races who went to the worst schools in this city and managed to get into some of the top universities in the country .
If they could pull that off there 's no real excuse why anyone could n't do well , provided of course they had parents pushing them to excel.Sotomayor may have grown up in that kind of environment , but I tend to believe she 's been away from it so long that she might as well have grown up in some upscale community all her life .
But even if she had never grown up in a poor neighborhood what would preclude her from making a just decision based on the evidence presented .
A good judge should be able to make a decision independently of their upbringing .
Listening to her comments I 'm left with the impression that she approaches her job with an inherent bias .
Is she going to judge for the poor , even if they 're wrong , just because she feels she has a connection with them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you're the sort of person who subscribes to the myth that all poor are hardworking and noble and all wealthy are selfish exploiters who do nothing but play all day.
If you got your education on what it's like to be wealthy from MTV, I guess I can't blame you.
You remind me of this intern I had years ago, about as white a cracker as you'd ever find and from a wealthy town no less.
This guy was big into hip hop and bought into all the anti-establishment propaganda that the man was keeping the poor down.
His idea of connecting with the common person was drive through a lower income neighborhood on his way to run an errand.I grew up in what most people would consider the inner city.
Not the safe little trendy urban neighborhoods that successful young professionals create for themselves.
I find that people who grew up in these neighborhoods, like myself, are less sympathetic than people who grew up in safe white bread suburbs.
Certainly I saw plenty of people who were very hard working.
But then although they had to struggle a bit more than some they weren't actually poor.
The ones who were actually poor, with the exception of those who were disabled, were outright lazy or were antagonistic towards everything, finding problems where there were none.
Of course, ultimately how you come down on all this depends on whether you find these people responsible for their own actions, or if it's the fault of a system which has let them down.I personally blame these individuals and their parents for teaching a sense of entitlement instead of respect and hard work, assuming they were even around at all.
There were kids of all races who went to the worst schools in this city and managed to get into some of the top universities in the country.
If they could pull that off there's no real excuse why anyone couldn't do well, provided of course they had parents pushing them to excel.Sotomayor may have grown up in that kind of environment, but I tend to believe she's been away from it so long that she might as well have grown up in some upscale community all her life.
But even if she had never grown up in a poor neighborhood what would preclude her from making a just decision based on the evidence presented.
A good judge should be able to make a decision independently of their upbringing.
Listening to her comments I'm left with the impression that she approaches her job with an inherent bias.
Is she going to judge for the poor, even if they're wrong, just because she feels she has a connection with them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145041</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1243597680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a good quote.  A rich white male that's worked his way through the system may have rich latina associates that have also worked their way up.  There are many rich black CEOs and executives hanging around; but all I hear about from "People of Color" forums is the "Oppressive White Devil running our businesses" and how "they will fall."  Like, we see rich, white, male, and go, "SEE, THAT'S THE OPPRESSIVE EVERYONE!"  And, if you are a poor black man and all the white folks hate you, it may be because you shoot at people and sell cocaine to their kids rather than because you're black; obviously if you were a black hotel manager, nobody would give a shit, because you'd be rich, well dressed, NOT selling crack, and always HELPING them find their room key.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good quote .
A rich white male that 's worked his way through the system may have rich latina associates that have also worked their way up .
There are many rich black CEOs and executives hanging around ; but all I hear about from " People of Color " forums is the " Oppressive White Devil running our businesses " and how " they will fall .
" Like , we see rich , white , male , and go , " SEE , THAT 'S THE OPPRESSIVE EVERYONE !
" And , if you are a poor black man and all the white folks hate you , it may be because you shoot at people and sell cocaine to their kids rather than because you 're black ; obviously if you were a black hotel manager , nobody would give a shit , because you 'd be rich , well dressed , NOT selling crack , and always HELPING them find their room key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good quote.
A rich white male that's worked his way through the system may have rich latina associates that have also worked their way up.
There are many rich black CEOs and executives hanging around; but all I hear about from "People of Color" forums is the "Oppressive White Devil running our businesses" and how "they will fall.
"  Like, we see rich, white, male, and go, "SEE, THAT'S THE OPPRESSIVE EVERYONE!
"  And, if you are a poor black man and all the white folks hate you, it may be because you shoot at people and sell cocaine to their kids rather than because you're black; obviously if you were a black hotel manager, nobody would give a shit, because you'd be rich, well dressed, NOT selling crack, and always HELPING them find their room key.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144705</id>
	<title>Re:Yep, that's rasism.</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1243595820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had?</i> <br> <br>

I can.  I grew up around them, as that's who my dad worked for.  In general, the most horrific bunch of hideous, unhinged zombies I'll ever have the pleasure to meet.  No skills, no manners, no intelligence (no need, really, in this world, it's all about connections), and zero idea of how 99.99\% of their fellow humans live.<br> <br>

Not that it should be a requirement for rich people to be cognizant of how everybody else gets along, but insularity breeds contempt, so it's on them.<br> <br>

In short, rich white people* are fucking clueless, and I've certainly don't want some freak oligarchy being the one that calls the shots, especially when they're so woefully unprepared.<br> <br>

*Plenty of non-white rich assholes too. Though, to be fair, there's a certain curiosity still present in most cultures that the anglo ones I've experienced just don't have as much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had ?
I can .
I grew up around them , as that 's who my dad worked for .
In general , the most horrific bunch of hideous , unhinged zombies I 'll ever have the pleasure to meet .
No skills , no manners , no intelligence ( no need , really , in this world , it 's all about connections ) , and zero idea of how 99.99 \ % of their fellow humans live .
Not that it should be a requirement for rich people to be cognizant of how everybody else gets along , but insularity breeds contempt , so it 's on them .
In short , rich white people * are fucking clueless , and I 've certainly do n't want some freak oligarchy being the one that calls the shots , especially when they 're so woefully unprepared .
* Plenty of non-white rich assholes too .
Though , to be fair , there 's a certain curiosity still present in most cultures that the anglo ones I 've experienced just do n't have as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had?
I can.
I grew up around them, as that's who my dad worked for.
In general, the most horrific bunch of hideous, unhinged zombies I'll ever have the pleasure to meet.
No skills, no manners, no intelligence (no need, really, in this world, it's all about connections), and zero idea of how 99.99\% of their fellow humans live.
Not that it should be a requirement for rich people to be cognizant of how everybody else gets along, but insularity breeds contempt, so it's on them.
In short, rich white people* are fucking clueless, and I've certainly don't want some freak oligarchy being the one that calls the shots, especially when they're so woefully unprepared.
*Plenty of non-white rich assholes too.
Though, to be fair, there's a certain curiosity still present in most cultures that the anglo ones I've experienced just don't have as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146505</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1243610700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New TLD!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.law ahoy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>New TLD !
.law ahoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New TLD!
.law ahoy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145833</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thanks for the link, after all I keep hearing from the news folks its refreshing to read for myself the context behind the so called "controversy".  In the end, for me at least, it keeps putting one more reason for me not to trust the republican party as it exists today.  I won't say they can't recover from their current slump, but if they keep up petty and dishonest practices as they do today they won't likely be getting my votes anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks for the link , after all I keep hearing from the news folks its refreshing to read for myself the context behind the so called " controversy " .
In the end , for me at least , it keeps putting one more reason for me not to trust the republican party as it exists today .
I wo n't say they ca n't recover from their current slump , but if they keep up petty and dishonest practices as they do today they wo n't likely be getting my votes anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks for the link, after all I keep hearing from the news folks its refreshing to read for myself the context behind the so called "controversy".
In the end, for me at least, it keeps putting one more reason for me not to trust the republican party as it exists today.
I won't say they can't recover from their current slump, but if they keep up petty and dishonest practices as they do today they won't likely be getting my votes anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28164293</id>
	<title>except the AP is shit</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1243791540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She moved when she was 15 or 16 - hardly "most" of her teenage years.  And that's pretending her childhood didn't exist....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She moved when she was 15 or 16 - hardly " most " of her teenage years .
And that 's pretending her childhood did n't exist... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She moved when she was 15 or 16 - hardly "most" of her teenage years.
And that's pretending her childhood didn't exist....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144867</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>superdave80</author>
	<datestamp>1243596780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why say "Latina woman" and "White male" in that statement?  If the context is about your upbringing and such, then why mention race/gender?  She just as easily could have said:</p><p>"I would hope that a wise <b>person who grew up poor</b> with the richness of <b>their</b> experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a <b>person</b> who hasn't lived that life."</p><p>And yet she decide to include race/gender in the statement, and clearly pointed out that one race/gender would come to a better conclusion than another.  She is clearly a sexist racist.  If I ever said that "A white guy would come to a better conclusion than a latina woman", I'd be (rightly) called a racist sexist.  And my wife would slap me.  And if a white male up for appointment to the Supreme Court ever said it, his nomination would be withdrawn in five seconds flat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why say " Latina woman " and " White male " in that statement ?
If the context is about your upbringing and such , then why mention race/gender ?
She just as easily could have said : " I would hope that a wise person who grew up poor with the richness of their experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [ as a judge ] than a person who has n't lived that life .
" And yet she decide to include race/gender in the statement , and clearly pointed out that one race/gender would come to a better conclusion than another .
She is clearly a sexist racist .
If I ever said that " A white guy would come to a better conclusion than a latina woman " , I 'd be ( rightly ) called a racist sexist .
And my wife would slap me .
And if a white male up for appointment to the Supreme Court ever said it , his nomination would be withdrawn in five seconds flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why say "Latina woman" and "White male" in that statement?
If the context is about your upbringing and such, then why mention race/gender?
She just as easily could have said:"I would hope that a wise person who grew up poor with the richness of their experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a person who hasn't lived that life.
"And yet she decide to include race/gender in the statement, and clearly pointed out that one race/gender would come to a better conclusion than another.
She is clearly a sexist racist.
If I ever said that "A white guy would come to a better conclusion than a latina woman", I'd be (rightly) called a racist sexist.
And my wife would slap me.
And if a white male up for appointment to the Supreme Court ever said it, his nomination would be withdrawn in five seconds flat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28193927</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I grow tired of that too.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, sure you did. You read in Wired that it wasn't hip anymore and then you "grew tired of it".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grow tired of that too.Oh , sure you did .
You read in Wired that it was n't hip anymore and then you " grew tired of it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grow tired of that too.Oh, sure you did.
You read in Wired that it wasn't hip anymore and then you "grew tired of it".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401</id>
	<title>That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243589700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."</p><p>-Judge Sonia Sotomayor</p><p>I'm no expert, and usually the last to cry "racist!", but that sounds pretty racially-biased to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [ as a judge ] than a white male who has n't lived that life .
" -Judge Sonia SotomayorI 'm no expert , and usually the last to cry " racist !
" , but that sounds pretty racially-biased to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
"-Judge Sonia SotomayorI'm no expert, and usually the last to cry "racist!
", but that sounds pretty racially-biased to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143987</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1243592040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past.</p> </div><p>
So you prefer that they hide such things until after they take office? To be honest I would rather deal with a David Duke or Al Sharpton - at least they are more open about their racism and you know exactly what you are getting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past .
So you prefer that they hide such things until after they take office ?
To be honest I would rather deal with a David Duke or Al Sharpton - at least they are more open about their racism and you know exactly what you are getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past.
So you prefer that they hide such things until after they take office?
To be honest I would rather deal with a David Duke or Al Sharpton - at least they are more open about their racism and you know exactly what you are getting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1243590240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key part of the phrase here is <b>who hasn't lived that life.</b>  That's the context.</p><p>Now there's an understandable difference of opinion on whether the statement about reaching a "better" conclusion based on experiences similar to the plaintiff/defendant is valid, but I don't think it's racially biased in the sense of "race X is better than race Y."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key part of the phrase here is who has n't lived that life .
That 's the context.Now there 's an understandable difference of opinion on whether the statement about reaching a " better " conclusion based on experiences similar to the plaintiff/defendant is valid , but I do n't think it 's racially biased in the sense of " race X is better than race Y .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key part of the phrase here is who hasn't lived that life.
That's the context.Now there's an understandable difference of opinion on whether the statement about reaching a "better" conclusion based on experiences similar to the plaintiff/defendant is valid, but I don't think it's racially biased in the sense of "race X is better than race Y.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144671</id>
	<title>Also, she didn't grow up a "poor minority woman"</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1243595640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx -- she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale. </i></p><p>From the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gybh1tAJNK3I6fP1gJUsFOhJe5AAD98G55BO0" title="google.com">AP</a> [google.com].</p><p>How is that significantly different from the "old money white male" you so malign?</p><p>Just another elitist ivy leaguer, with a different spin on who is elite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx -- she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood , attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale .
From the AP [ google.com ] .How is that significantly different from the " old money white male " you so malign ? Just another elitist ivy leaguer , with a different spin on who is elite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx -- she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.
From the AP [google.com].How is that significantly different from the "old money white male" you so malign?Just another elitist ivy leaguer, with a different spin on who is elite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143657</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. It isn't 1995 anymore, I really thought we had grown out of the whole "cyber" thing, as it doesn't even really mean anything.<br> <br>

Amid all this security talk in the news, I even saw an article calling it the "information superhighway". Who really says that besides clueless journalists?<br> <br>
Please, Mr Obama, don't make the term "cyber-czar" an official term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It is n't 1995 anymore , I really thought we had grown out of the whole " cyber " thing , as it does n't even really mean anything .
Amid all this security talk in the news , I even saw an article calling it the " information superhighway " .
Who really says that besides clueless journalists ?
Please , Mr Obama , do n't make the term " cyber-czar " an official term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It isn't 1995 anymore, I really thought we had grown out of the whole "cyber" thing, as it doesn't even really mean anything.
Amid all this security talk in the news, I even saw an article calling it the "information superhighway".
Who really says that besides clueless journalists?
Please, Mr Obama, don't make the term "cyber-czar" an official term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</id>
	<title>Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243589400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we please stop with the "Cyber-" every damn thing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop with the " Cyber- " every damn thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop with the "Cyber-" every damn thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147189</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243619100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, basically, she's saying that her race and gender affect her judgments, but that's OK, because she's a Latina woman, and not a white man.</p><p>Wonderful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , she 's saying that her race and gender affect her judgments , but that 's OK , because she 's a Latina woman , and not a white man.Wonderful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, she's saying that her race and gender affect her judgments, but that's OK, because she's a Latina woman, and not a white man.Wonderful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143793</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1243591320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be quite, you cyber-whiner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be quite , you cyber-whiner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be quite, you cyber-whiner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145705</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1243602480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree with her statement. You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society? You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula? He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person. He exists completely outside that part of the world and society. </p><div><p>
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped? This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face. </p><div><p>
He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.</p></div></div></div><p>Bollocks. There are plenty of people from privileged backgrounds who can empathize with the underprivileged, and do so, even to the point of giving up many of their privileges in order to assist people who are less fortunate. Many of the greatest catalysts of social change throughout history (e.g. Gandhi, Siddhartha) come from the ranks of people who use their education and status for broader benefit. Making blanket generalizations about capabilities based on upbringing is certainly no less foolish than making blanket generalizations based on race.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with her statement .
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air , and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society ?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving , homeless , and steals a loaf of bread , and ( I shudder at the thought ) some baby formula ?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person .
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society .
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her , despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped ?
This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face .
He 'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders , but for those who live in the ghettos , someone from the ghettos will be better suited.Bollocks .
There are plenty of people from privileged backgrounds who can empathize with the underprivileged , and do so , even to the point of giving up many of their privileges in order to assist people who are less fortunate .
Many of the greatest catalysts of social change throughout history ( e.g .
Gandhi , Siddhartha ) come from the ranks of people who use their education and status for broader benefit .
Making blanket generalizations about capabilities based on upbringing is certainly no less foolish than making blanket generalizations based on race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with her statement.
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person.
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society.
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped?
This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face.
He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.Bollocks.
There are plenty of people from privileged backgrounds who can empathize with the underprivileged, and do so, even to the point of giving up many of their privileges in order to assist people who are less fortunate.
Many of the greatest catalysts of social change throughout history (e.g.
Gandhi, Siddhartha) come from the ranks of people who use their education and status for broader benefit.
Making blanket generalizations about capabilities based on upbringing is certainly no less foolish than making blanket generalizations based on race.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143607</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless of course it's cybersex</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless of course it 's cybersex</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless of course it's cybersex</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1243591440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let's talk about the politics.  I thought we were beyond the days when a nominee for the SCOTUS would say things like this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I would hope that a rich white male with the wisdom of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. - Sotomayor</p></div><p>I had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past. (Some details of the above quote may have been reversed in ways that do not change it's racist nature.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's talk about the politics .
I thought we were beyond the days when a nominee for the SCOTUS would say things like this : I would hope that a rich white male with the wisdom of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who has n't lived that life .
- SotomayorI had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past .
( Some details of the above quote may have been reversed in ways that do not change it 's racist nature .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's talk about the politics.
I thought we were beyond the days when a nominee for the SCOTUS would say things like this:I would hope that a rich white male with the wisdom of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
- SotomayorI had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past.
(Some details of the above quote may have been reversed in ways that do not change it's racist nature.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144103</id>
	<title>Yep, that's rasism.</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1243592520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I believe what she's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would.</i></p><p>Indeed she was trying to say exactly that, and that is exactly bullshit.</p><p>How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had?  Perhaps they had parents who forced them to toil, or by other means still instilled an excellent value of fairness.  Do you not think even people with money face many of the same life challenges that all humans face over the course of growing up?</p><p>Anytime you start saying "old white rich guys are all like X" you are a racist stereotyper and no better than the KKK claiming all non Aryans are inferior.  It's just that you are proclaiming poor people are the master race because they are theonly ones with the ability to be "fair" which in itself is a bullshit unmeasurable quantity.  Absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe what she 's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would.Indeed she was trying to say exactly that , and that is exactly bullshit.How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had ?
Perhaps they had parents who forced them to toil , or by other means still instilled an excellent value of fairness .
Do you not think even people with money face many of the same life challenges that all humans face over the course of growing up ? Anytime you start saying " old white rich guys are all like X " you are a racist stereotyper and no better than the KKK claiming all non Aryans are inferior .
It 's just that you are proclaiming poor people are the master race because they are theonly ones with the ability to be " fair " which in itself is a bullshit unmeasurable quantity .
Absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe what she's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would.Indeed she was trying to say exactly that, and that is exactly bullshit.How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had?
Perhaps they had parents who forced them to toil, or by other means still instilled an excellent value of fairness.
Do you not think even people with money face many of the same life challenges that all humans face over the course of growing up?Anytime you start saying "old white rich guys are all like X" you are a racist stereotyper and no better than the KKK claiming all non Aryans are inferior.
It's just that you are proclaiming poor people are the master race because they are theonly ones with the ability to be "fair" which in itself is a bullshit unmeasurable quantity.
Absurd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143539</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Naturalis Philosopho</author>
	<datestamp>1243590300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...than a white male who hasn't lived that life"</p><p>

It's called a dependent clause. Learn about it, says a white male (me). I've seen extreme poverty, I've lived around it, and therefore I have some understandings of it. But I don't know it the way someone who's lived it does. And I have no clue what it must be like to grow up as a female. Repeat after me, "I don't know everything."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...than a white male who has n't lived that life " It 's called a dependent clause .
Learn about it , says a white male ( me ) .
I 've seen extreme poverty , I 've lived around it , and therefore I have some understandings of it .
But I do n't know it the way someone who 's lived it does .
And I have no clue what it must be like to grow up as a female .
Repeat after me , " I do n't know everything .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...than a white male who hasn't lived that life"

It's called a dependent clause.
Learn about it, says a white male (me).
I've seen extreme poverty, I've lived around it, and therefore I have some understandings of it.
But I don't know it the way someone who's lived it does.
And I have no clue what it must be like to grow up as a female.
Repeat after me, "I don't know everything.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144737</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1243595940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was based purely on "hasn't lived that life" then there is no need to mention a white male or a Latina woman.</p><p>Not to mention the actual full context of more than just the short sentence:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.</p></div><p>It's not quite as blatant as most people are assuming from the one sentence at the end.  However, she clearly pits a "Latina woman" against a "white male."  That's a very interesting choice.  To me, it demonstrates that she has a bit of a bone to pick with "white males."  Why couldn't she have chosen, I dunno, an female Arab and a male Indian?  Why did she choose <i>her race/gender</i> and the <i>white male</i>.</p><p>Secondly, she seems to think that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" come to play in decisions.  I agree with what my definitions of those terms are, and my beliefs as to where they come from, but I don't know what her definitions of "physiological" and "cultural" and "inherent" are when used in the same phrase.... and later mentioning specific races.</p><p>All in all... it was, at the very least, an <i>unwise</i> thing to say.  I don't think she she was acting the part of the "wise Latina woman" at the time she gave this particular speech, nor at the time she delivered her opinion on the firefighter thing... which, interestingly, seems to be directly related to her thoughts about "white males" and "inherent" qualities.  If I put this speech and that decision together, I'd come up with something about white males being inherently racist and thus this firefighter promotion thing couldn't have been fair, because if it was fair, it would have to include more non-white males (and females?).  Because non-white people come to better decisions with their inherent physiological and cultural differences, and the different lives that they lived.</p><p>Well, more often than not.  Soften the blow a bit.  Just more often than not.  Or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was based purely on " has n't lived that life " then there is no need to mention a white male or a Latina woman.Not to mention the actual full context of more than just the short sentence : Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences , a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum , our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging .
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases .
I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle .
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement .
First , as Professor Martha Minnow has noted , there can never be a universal definition of wise .
Second , I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has n't lived that life.It 's not quite as blatant as most people are assuming from the one sentence at the end .
However , she clearly pits a " Latina woman " against a " white male .
" That 's a very interesting choice .
To me , it demonstrates that she has a bit of a bone to pick with " white males .
" Why could n't she have chosen , I dunno , an female Arab and a male Indian ?
Why did she choose her race/gender and the white male.Secondly , she seems to think that " inherent physiological or cultural differences " come to play in decisions .
I agree with what my definitions of those terms are , and my beliefs as to where they come from , but I do n't know what her definitions of " physiological " and " cultural " and " inherent " are when used in the same phrase.... and later mentioning specific races.All in all... it was , at the very least , an unwise thing to say .
I do n't think she she was acting the part of the " wise Latina woman " at the time she gave this particular speech , nor at the time she delivered her opinion on the firefighter thing... which , interestingly , seems to be directly related to her thoughts about " white males " and " inherent " qualities .
If I put this speech and that decision together , I 'd come up with something about white males being inherently racist and thus this firefighter promotion thing could n't have been fair , because if it was fair , it would have to include more non-white males ( and females ? ) .
Because non-white people come to better decisions with their inherent physiological and cultural differences , and the different lives that they lived.Well , more often than not .
Soften the blow a bit .
Just more often than not .
Or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was based purely on "hasn't lived that life" then there is no need to mention a white male or a Latina woman.Not to mention the actual full context of more than just the short sentence:Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.
I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise.
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.It's not quite as blatant as most people are assuming from the one sentence at the end.
However, she clearly pits a "Latina woman" against a "white male.
"  That's a very interesting choice.
To me, it demonstrates that she has a bit of a bone to pick with "white males.
"  Why couldn't she have chosen, I dunno, an female Arab and a male Indian?
Why did she choose her race/gender and the white male.Secondly, she seems to think that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" come to play in decisions.
I agree with what my definitions of those terms are, and my beliefs as to where they come from, but I don't know what her definitions of "physiological" and "cultural" and "inherent" are when used in the same phrase.... and later mentioning specific races.All in all... it was, at the very least, an unwise thing to say.
I don't think she she was acting the part of the "wise Latina woman" at the time she gave this particular speech, nor at the time she delivered her opinion on the firefighter thing... which, interestingly, seems to be directly related to her thoughts about "white males" and "inherent" qualities.
If I put this speech and that decision together, I'd come up with something about white males being inherently racist and thus this firefighter promotion thing couldn't have been fair, because if it was fair, it would have to include more non-white males (and females?).
Because non-white people come to better decisions with their inherent physiological and cultural differences, and the different lives that they lived.Well, more often than not.
Soften the blow a bit.
Just more often than not.
Or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145549</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people claimed that waterboarding was not torture, until they actually underwent the procedure and quickly changed their mind? You can be one of the most enlightened white males around and you won't have the same understanding, at a gut-level feeling, of the discrimination that many members of minorities undergo on a regular basis. That was what Sotomayor was saying.</p><p>Something that supports this concept is that in past gender discrimination cases that have come before the supreme court, the female members of the court have indicated that some of the male members of the court have been completely oblivious to aspects of the case that were readily apparent to the female members from personal experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people claimed that waterboarding was not torture , until they actually underwent the procedure and quickly changed their mind ?
You can be one of the most enlightened white males around and you wo n't have the same understanding , at a gut-level feeling , of the discrimination that many members of minorities undergo on a regular basis .
That was what Sotomayor was saying.Something that supports this concept is that in past gender discrimination cases that have come before the supreme court , the female members of the court have indicated that some of the male members of the court have been completely oblivious to aspects of the case that were readily apparent to the female members from personal experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people claimed that waterboarding was not torture, until they actually underwent the procedure and quickly changed their mind?
You can be one of the most enlightened white males around and you won't have the same understanding, at a gut-level feeling, of the discrimination that many members of minorities undergo on a regular basis.
That was what Sotomayor was saying.Something that supports this concept is that in past gender discrimination cases that have come before the supreme court, the female members of the court have indicated that some of the male members of the court have been completely oblivious to aspects of the case that were readily apparent to the female members from personal experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146711</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>narcberry</author>
	<datestamp>1243613460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may see a dependent clause, I see a qualifying description of what she views a white male as. From that perspective, her quote is offensively racist which reduces to, "white males cannot serve justice."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may see a dependent clause , I see a qualifying description of what she views a white male as .
From that perspective , her quote is offensively racist which reduces to , " white males can not serve justice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may see a dependent clause, I see a qualifying description of what she views a white male as.
From that perspective, her quote is offensively racist which reduces to, "white males cannot serve justice.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe what she's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would.  Specifically, I think she's referring here to questions about those issues: poverty and discrimination.</p><p>It's equivalent to saying "I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that doesn't know how to send email would".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe what she 's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would .
Specifically , I think she 's referring here to questions about those issues : poverty and discrimination.It 's equivalent to saying " I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that does n't know how to send email would " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe what she's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would.
Specifically, I think she's referring here to questions about those issues: poverty and discrimination.It's equivalent to saying "I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that doesn't know how to send email would".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1243590480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em><br>Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.</em></p><p><em>Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.</em></p><p><em>However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.<br></em> <a href="http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/on-racism-part-2.html" title="brianmclaren.net">http://www.brianmclaren.net</a> [brianmclaren.net]</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences , a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum , our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging .
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases .
I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle .
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement .
First , as Professor Martha Minnow has noted , there can never be a universal definition of wise .
Second , I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has n't lived that life.Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society .
Until 1972 , no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case .
I , like Professor Carter , believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group .
Many are so capable .
As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me , nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.However , to understand takes time and effort , something that not all people are willing to give .
For others , their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others .
Others simply do not care .
Hence , one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench .
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see .
My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar .
I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging .
But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage .
http : //www.brianmclaren.net [ brianmclaren.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.
I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise.
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.
Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.
Many are so capable.
As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.
For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others.
Others simply do not care.
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar.
I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging.
But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
http://www.brianmclaren.net [brianmclaren.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144425</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1243594200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We can't.  The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.</p></div><p>Just to make sure that this is directly pointed out, Sotomayor is not being nominated for Chief Justice. That would be John Roberts, who was appointed only a couple years ago, and will likely remain Chief Justice for somewhere around 20 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't .
The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.Just to make sure that this is directly pointed out , Sotomayor is not being nominated for Chief Justice .
That would be John Roberts , who was appointed only a couple years ago , and will likely remain Chief Justice for somewhere around 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't.
The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.Just to make sure that this is directly pointed out, Sotomayor is not being nominated for Chief Justice.
That would be John Roberts, who was appointed only a couple years ago, and will likely remain Chief Justice for somewhere around 20 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144383</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243594020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree with her statement. You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society?</p></div><p>Help me out here.  Are you saying that since she's a Purto Rican woman who has lived in NYC her entire life that we cannot expect her to be able to hand down a just sentence if the defendent is some white guy who's spent his whole life on farms in Kansas?  Or are you such a racist that you automatically assume compassion is exclusive to people labeled as minorities?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula? He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person.</p> </div><p>You (and many others posting to this thread) seem to confuse empathy with fairness.  Where's your sense of compassion for the store owner who's trying to keep the store open profitable so that he and his children don't end up starving and homeless?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with her statement .
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air , and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society ? Help me out here .
Are you saying that since she 's a Purto Rican woman who has lived in NYC her entire life that we can not expect her to be able to hand down a just sentence if the defendent is some white guy who 's spent his whole life on farms in Kansas ?
Or are you such a racist that you automatically assume compassion is exclusive to people labeled as minorities ? You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving , homeless , and steals a loaf of bread , and ( I shudder at the thought ) some baby formula ?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person .
You ( and many others posting to this thread ) seem to confuse empathy with fairness .
Where 's your sense of compassion for the store owner who 's trying to keep the store open profitable so that he and his children do n't end up starving and homeless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with her statement.
You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society?Help me out here.
Are you saying that since she's a Purto Rican woman who has lived in NYC her entire life that we cannot expect her to be able to hand down a just sentence if the defendent is some white guy who's spent his whole life on farms in Kansas?
Or are you such a racist that you automatically assume compassion is exclusive to people labeled as minorities?You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person.
You (and many others posting to this thread) seem to confuse empathy with fairness.
Where's your sense of compassion for the store owner who's trying to keep the store open profitable so that he and his children don't end up starving and homeless?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143617</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this is...oh God my cock is so fucking hard. I jerked off over lunch lying next to a beautiful woman who was fucking herself with a vibe. She wouldn't let me fuck her because she is married, but I did see her in all her nude glory. I also massaged her small, perky tits and her pencil eraser sized nipples were tweaked and pinched. She came first; I came second. I held out because I wanted her to watch me splurge all over, and what a huge load it was. She even said wow, you came a lot! Yes. Yes I did, my dear. Thinking about this now is why my dick is suffering from such a raging hard on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is...oh God my cock is so fucking hard .
I jerked off over lunch lying next to a beautiful woman who was fucking herself with a vibe .
She would n't let me fuck her because she is married , but I did see her in all her nude glory .
I also massaged her small , perky tits and her pencil eraser sized nipples were tweaked and pinched .
She came first ; I came second .
I held out because I wanted her to watch me splurge all over , and what a huge load it was .
She even said wow , you came a lot !
Yes. Yes I did , my dear .
Thinking about this now is why my dick is suffering from such a raging hard on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is...oh God my cock is so fucking hard.
I jerked off over lunch lying next to a beautiful woman who was fucking herself with a vibe.
She wouldn't let me fuck her because she is married, but I did see her in all her nude glory.
I also massaged her small, perky tits and her pencil eraser sized nipples were tweaked and pinched.
She came first; I came second.
I held out because I wanted her to watch me splurge all over, and what a huge load it was.
She even said wow, you came a lot!
Yes. Yes I did, my dear.
Thinking about this now is why my dick is suffering from such a raging hard on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144405</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1243594140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society? You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula? He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person. He exists completely outside that part of the world and society.</p><p>You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped?"</p><p>Yes, this is exactly what I expect of a judge.<br>To interpret the letter and spirit of the law without emotion or personal experience getting in the way.</p><p>(This is NOT to say a judge has to be a hard ass, or can never be lenient, or should not consider the circumstances surrounding a case.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air , and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society ?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving , homeless , and steals a loaf of bread , and ( I shudder at the thought ) some baby formula ?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person .
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society.You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her , despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped ?
" Yes , this is exactly what I expect of a judge.To interpret the letter and spirit of the law without emotion or personal experience getting in the way .
( This is NOT to say a judge has to be a hard ass , or can never be lenient , or should not consider the circumstances surrounding a case .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You expect a rich white man who lives in the Hamptons or Bel Air, and spends his days doing nothing but politicking and playing golf to be able to hand down a just sentence on someone who comes from a completely different part of society?
You expect him to fairly judge someone who is starving, homeless, and steals a loaf of bread, and (I shudder at the thought) some baby formula?
He has no context or even a remote claim to empathy with that person.
He exists completely outside that part of the world and society.You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped?
"Yes, this is exactly what I expect of a judge.To interpret the letter and spirit of the law without emotion or personal experience getting in the way.
(This is NOT to say a judge has to be a hard ass, or can never be lenient, or should not consider the circumstances surrounding a case.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28151433</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1243715400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>I think a white man, with the richness of his experiences (making the assumption of having had more money and better education), would make a better business person or doctor or scientist than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life.</b> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Was that statement racist?  How so?  What makes that statement racist, but her's not racist?  Why  isn't it racist to assume things about any group based on race?  Does being of one race or experience make one less just?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a white man , with the richness of his experiences ( making the assumption of having had more money and better education ) , would make a better business person or doctor or scientist than a latina woman who has n't lived that life .
  Was that statement racist ?
How so ?
What makes that statement racist , but her 's not racist ?
Why is n't it racist to assume things about any group based on race ?
Does being of one race or experience make one less just ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a white man, with the richness of his experiences (making the assumption of having had more money and better education), would make a better business person or doctor or scientist than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
  Was that statement racist?
How so?
What makes that statement racist, but her's not racist?
Why  isn't it racist to assume things about any group based on race?
Does being of one race or experience make one less just?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1243590480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't.  The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.  However, the Slashdot editors also know that this discussion has been driving traffic through the roof at other discussion sites, and want in on the action.  I'm guessing maybe a lot of people have the Politics section blocked, so they need to find a way to put it in another section to generate the maximum hit count.  So, we now have "cyberlaw".  I'm sure we'll eventually have "cyberidle" so samzenpus can get more of his lame stories out of the Idle section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't .
The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section .
However , the Slashdot editors also know that this discussion has been driving traffic through the roof at other discussion sites , and want in on the action .
I 'm guessing maybe a lot of people have the Politics section blocked , so they need to find a way to put it in another section to generate the maximum hit count .
So , we now have " cyberlaw " .
I 'm sure we 'll eventually have " cyberidle " so samzenpus can get more of his lame stories out of the Idle section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't.
The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.
However, the Slashdot editors also know that this discussion has been driving traffic through the roof at other discussion sites, and want in on the action.
I'm guessing maybe a lot of people have the Politics section blocked, so they need to find a way to put it in another section to generate the maximum hit count.
So, we now have "cyberlaw".
I'm sure we'll eventually have "cyberidle" so samzenpus can get more of his lame stories out of the Idle section.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145021</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1243597620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to cyber-check your cyber-spelling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to cyber-check your cyber-spelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to cyber-check your cyber-spelling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146511</id>
	<title>Is the converse also true?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.</p><p>Let's turn that around, shall we?  Doesn't this also mean that a ghetto person has no right to judge a white collar criminal, because that person has never known the pressures faced by a CEO who has to answer to stockholders?  Our jury system seems to think otherwise.  You can be judged by either, depending on who is drawn into the jury pool.</p><p>Frankly, I don't buy it in either case.  People are capable of understanding things they haven't experienced personally, or communication would be pointless.  People are capable of having empathy for their fellow human beings, even if they don't come from the slums.  Yes, different life experiences do give you different perspectives.  But I don't buy the notion that it's impossible for us to understand each other.  Difficult, maybe, but not impossible.</p><p>Saying that we can't understand each other implies that we should stick with our "own kind" (as if there was a "kind" other than humankind).  I don't like that at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; He 'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders , but for those who live in the ghettos , someone from the ghettos will be better suited.Let 's turn that around , shall we ?
Does n't this also mean that a ghetto person has no right to judge a white collar criminal , because that person has never known the pressures faced by a CEO who has to answer to stockholders ?
Our jury system seems to think otherwise .
You can be judged by either , depending on who is drawn into the jury pool.Frankly , I do n't buy it in either case .
People are capable of understanding things they have n't experienced personally , or communication would be pointless .
People are capable of having empathy for their fellow human beings , even if they do n't come from the slums .
Yes , different life experiences do give you different perspectives .
But I do n't buy the notion that it 's impossible for us to understand each other .
Difficult , maybe , but not impossible.Saying that we ca n't understand each other implies that we should stick with our " own kind " ( as if there was a " kind " other than humankind ) .
I do n't like that at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.Let's turn that around, shall we?
Doesn't this also mean that a ghetto person has no right to judge a white collar criminal, because that person has never known the pressures faced by a CEO who has to answer to stockholders?
Our jury system seems to think otherwise.
You can be judged by either, depending on who is drawn into the jury pool.Frankly, I don't buy it in either case.
People are capable of understanding things they haven't experienced personally, or communication would be pointless.
People are capable of having empathy for their fellow human beings, even if they don't come from the slums.
Yes, different life experiences do give you different perspectives.
But I don't buy the notion that it's impossible for us to understand each other.
Difficult, maybe, but not impossible.Saying that we can't understand each other implies that we should stick with our "own kind" (as if there was a "kind" other than humankind).
I don't like that at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146489</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1243610400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, except that statement isn't racist.  Sotomayor's statement is quite openly racist, which is very troubling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except that statement is n't racist .
Sotomayor 's statement is quite openly racist , which is very troubling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except that statement isn't racist.
Sotomayor's statement is quite openly racist, which is very troubling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberlaw</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1243590420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I grow tired of that too. But I think of no more concise way to define laws relating to IT principles. I am open to suggestions however. Maybe, "Elaw" or "Etherlaw"??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grow tired of that too .
But I think of no more concise way to define laws relating to IT principles .
I am open to suggestions however .
Maybe , " Elaw " or " Etherlaw " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grow tired of that too.
But I think of no more concise way to define laws relating to IT principles.
I am open to suggestions however.
Maybe, "Elaw" or "Etherlaw"?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146341</id>
	<title>Re:That's what she said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you would expect a racist latina woman to hand down a fair sentence or fairly judge a rich white man?  Or a landlord accused of neglecting tenants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you would expect a racist latina woman to hand down a fair sentence or fairly judge a rich white man ?
Or a landlord accused of neglecting tenants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you would expect a racist latina woman to hand down a fair sentence or fairly judge a rich white man?
Or a landlord accused of neglecting tenants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28164293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28151433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28193927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28149399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1822251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1822251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28193927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143827
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145041
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1822251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28147053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144103
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144671
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28164293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28143779
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146341
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28149399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28151433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144383
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28146511
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28145705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1822251.28144737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
