<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_1521236</id>
	<title>Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243785540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/1415254&amp;tid=188">whether to grant the film industry's petition</a> for certiorari seeking to overturn the important <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents.htm#Cartoon\_v\_CSC">Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings</a> decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf">the content of the brief</a> (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/06/2342251&amp;tid=266">highest echelons of the Obama DoJ</a>. Instead, however, <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#5094320521493067879">the brief eloquently argued <em>against</em> the film companies' position</a>, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot , I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism .
Well here 's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism .
Chalk one up for those who like to point out that , occasionally , the system does work .
You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry 's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit .
This was the case which held that Cablevision 's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision 's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision , there being no 'copy ' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory ' duration .
The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief , giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies ' petition for review should be granted .
The government did indeed file such a brief , but the content of the brief ( PDF ) is probably not what the film companies were expecting .
They probably thought they had this one in the bag , since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ .
Instead , however , the brief eloquently argued against the film companies ' position , dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism.
Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work.
You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration.
The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted.
The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting.
They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ.
Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159963</id>
	<title>MDY vs. Blizzard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>". This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration."</p><p>Didn't MDY lose on a decision recently regarding this? They were found to be infringing copyright because the game was loaded into RAM, which was considered a "copy" of the game, and MDY's wowglider program was modifying it (or something like that). So isn't this this opposite?</p><p>-AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .
This was the case which held that Cablevision 's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision 's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision , there being no 'copy ' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory ' duration .
" Did n't MDY lose on a decision recently regarding this ?
They were found to be infringing copyright because the game was loaded into RAM , which was considered a " copy " of the game , and MDY 's wowglider program was modifying it ( or something like that ) .
So is n't this this opposite ? -AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".
This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration.
"Didn't MDY lose on a decision recently regarding this?
They were found to be infringing copyright because the game was loaded into RAM, which was considered a "copy" of the game, and MDY's wowglider program was modifying it (or something like that).
So isn't this this opposite?-AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159977</id>
	<title>Limited Impact</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1243798620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This way the ruling is limited to the Second Court of Appeals district only, and can be re-litigated in more friendly climes - like the Ninth Circuit Court, or Marshall, TX.  If the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court then this ruling would hold throughout the country. Why else tell the Supreme Court that "This isn't important enough for you to bother with. Leave it to the other cable companies in the other areas of the country to work this all out."
<br> <br>
After all, when have we seen the MPAA/RIAA litigation machine go away after only one defeat? Also, when have we seen them go in for the big one - besides Grokster, that is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This way the ruling is limited to the Second Court of Appeals district only , and can be re-litigated in more friendly climes - like the Ninth Circuit Court , or Marshall , TX .
If the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court then this ruling would hold throughout the country .
Why else tell the Supreme Court that " This is n't important enough for you to bother with .
Leave it to the other cable companies in the other areas of the country to work this all out .
" After all , when have we seen the MPAA/RIAA litigation machine go away after only one defeat ?
Also , when have we seen them go in for the big one - besides Grokster , that is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This way the ruling is limited to the Second Court of Appeals district only, and can be re-litigated in more friendly climes - like the Ninth Circuit Court, or Marshall, TX.
If the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court then this ruling would hold throughout the country.
Why else tell the Supreme Court that "This isn't important enough for you to bother with.
Leave it to the other cable companies in the other areas of the country to work this all out.
"
 
After all, when have we seen the MPAA/RIAA litigation machine go away after only one defeat?
Also, when have we seen them go in for the big one - besides Grokster, that is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169901</id>
	<title>Re:one of these days</title>
	<author>Joe Snipe</author>
	<datestamp>1243879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So whats up with your low budget movie?  last update 2006?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So whats up with your low budget movie ?
last update 2006 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So whats up with your low budget movie?
last update 2006?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164669</id>
	<title>Lawyer modding</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1243795560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers have their trolls too. It seems that the RIAA/MPAA have many of them working their bridges, but only the judges get to mod them "-1 Misconduct", and you need to be a Jack Thompson to get modded "-5 disbarred"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers have their trolls too .
It seems that the RIAA/MPAA have many of them working their bridges , but only the judges get to mod them " -1 Misconduct " , and you need to be a Jack Thompson to get modded " -5 disbarred " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers have their trolls too.
It seems that the RIAA/MPAA have many of them working their bridges, but only the judges get to mod them "-1 Misconduct", and you need to be a Jack Thompson to get modded "-5 disbarred" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160205</id>
	<title>Re:Please let this be a trend</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1243800420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't do that? Why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't do that ?
Why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't do that?
Why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159455</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks.  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate.  Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate .
Only about 65 \ % of them supported Obama .
If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks.
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate.
Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28177605</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1243876140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b>It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.</b></i> </p><p>I think the one thing that worries me most.... this that if  he continues to exhibit these positive attributes and is able to act effectively he may get rewarded the way JFK did.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>I am slightly too young to have witnessed the events of 11/22/63, and the immediate aftermath.  Yet, I have been profoundly aware and influenced by the reverberations it has caused in our nation.  More recently I have seen disturbing parallels following the events of 9/11....</p><p>Maybe this feeling comes from subtle inherited guilt that somehow, we as a people and a nation were not deserving of Kennedy, now that you mention it....  Obama seems to have a similar quality about him....  God, preserve him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is said that within a democracy , a people get the leader they deserve .
I 'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama 's comparitive level of decency , especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite , but even for us outside America , Obama 's integrity is certainly very welcome .
I think the one thing that worries me most.... this that if he continues to exhibit these positive attributes and is able to act effectively he may get rewarded the way JFK did .
: ( I am slightly too young to have witnessed the events of 11/22/63 , and the immediate aftermath .
Yet , I have been profoundly aware and influenced by the reverberations it has caused in our nation .
More recently I have seen disturbing parallels following the events of 9/11....Maybe this feeling comes from subtle inherited guilt that somehow , we as a people and a nation were not deserving of Kennedy , now that you mention it.... Obama seems to have a similar quality about him.... God , preserve him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve.
I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
I think the one thing that worries me most.... this that if  he continues to exhibit these positive attributes and is able to act effectively he may get rewarded the way JFK did.
:(I am slightly too young to have witnessed the events of 11/22/63, and the immediate aftermath.
Yet, I have been profoundly aware and influenced by the reverberations it has caused in our nation.
More recently I have seen disturbing parallels following the events of 9/11....Maybe this feeling comes from subtle inherited guilt that somehow, we as a people and a nation were not deserving of Kennedy, now that you mention it....  Obama seems to have a similar quality about him....  God, preserve him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162701</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>3vi1</author>
	<datestamp>1243778340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be considered a redneck by geography/accent (grew up in Louisiana and Texas), but I completely support everything you said.  Good job.</p><p>Cretinous was the only insult in that comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be considered a redneck by geography/accent ( grew up in Louisiana and Texas ) , but I completely support everything you said .
Good job.Cretinous was the only insult in that comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be considered a redneck by geography/accent (grew up in Louisiana and Texas), but I completely support everything you said.
Good job.Cretinous was the only insult in that comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159559</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1243795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, that doesn't actually work outside of Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , that does n't actually work outside of Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, that doesn't actually work outside of Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160507</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox is having issues with this page</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1243802700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now my comment headings have returned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now my comment headings have returned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now my comment headings have returned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159985</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1243798620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.</p></div><p>This is time that would be better spent building a reinforced, manure-proof umbrella.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm staring at my window now , waiting for a pig fly-by.This is time that would be better spent building a reinforced , manure-proof umbrella .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.This is time that would be better spent building a reinforced, manure-proof umbrella.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159039</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243791720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a simpler statement: Most people don't have principles.</p><p>Sure, people have lots of preferences and things that they feel squeamish about, but most people don't let those things get in the way of their own gratification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a simpler statement : Most people do n't have principles.Sure , people have lots of preferences and things that they feel squeamish about , but most people do n't let those things get in the way of their own gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a simpler statement: Most people don't have principles.Sure, people have lots of preferences and things that they feel squeamish about, but most people don't let those things get in the way of their own gratification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159003</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>maharb</author>
	<datestamp>1243791360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe.  Lawyers, despite having no morals, are smart enough to know they can't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle.  This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak.  If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down, but I still think it's too early to tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
Lawyers , despite having no morals , are smart enough to know they ca n't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle .
This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak .
If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down , but I still think it 's too early to tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
Lawyers, despite having no morals, are smart enough to know they can't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle.
This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak.
If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down, but I still think it's too early to tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158735</id>
	<title>FURSTEST!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>furst poast!<br>spammity spam pam spam oh yeam oh yeah spammitiiiy spam paaam spaam oh yeeeeeah   yyadda yadda yadda<br>In probability theory, the law of total variance or variance decomposition formula states that if X and Y are random variables on the same probability space, and the variance of X is finite, then</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; \operatorname{var}(X)=\operatorname{E}(\operatorname{var}(X\mid Y))+\operatorname{var}(\operatorname{E}(X\mid Y)).\,</p><p>In language perhaps better known to statisticians than to probabilists, the two terms are the "unexplained" and the "explained component of the variance" (cf. explained variation).</p><p>The nomenclature in this article's title parallels the phrase law of total probability. Some writers on probability call this the "conditional variance formula" or use other names.</p><p>(The conditional expected value E( X | Y ) is a random variable in its own right, whose value depends on the value of Y. Notice that the conditional expected value of X given the event Y = y is a function of y (this is where adherence to the conventional rigidly case-sensitive notation of probability theory becomes important!). If we write E( X | Y = y) = g(y) then the random variable E( X | Y ) is just g(Y). Similar comments apply to the conditional variance.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>furst poast ! spammity spam pam spam oh yeam oh yeah spammitiiiy spam paaam spaam oh yeeeeeah yyadda yadda yaddaIn probability theory , the law of total variance or variance decomposition formula states that if X and Y are random variables on the same probability space , and the variance of X is finite , then         \ operatorname { var } ( X ) = \ operatorname { E } ( \ operatorname { var } ( X \ mid Y ) ) + \ operatorname { var } ( \ operatorname { E } ( X \ mid Y ) ) . \ ,In language perhaps better known to statisticians than to probabilists , the two terms are the " unexplained " and the " explained component of the variance " ( cf .
explained variation ) .The nomenclature in this article 's title parallels the phrase law of total probability .
Some writers on probability call this the " conditional variance formula " or use other names .
( The conditional expected value E ( X | Y ) is a random variable in its own right , whose value depends on the value of Y. Notice that the conditional expected value of X given the event Y = y is a function of y ( this is where adherence to the conventional rigidly case-sensitive notation of probability theory becomes important ! ) .
If we write E ( X | Y = y ) = g ( y ) then the random variable E ( X | Y ) is just g ( Y ) .
Similar comments apply to the conditional variance .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>furst poast!spammity spam pam spam oh yeam oh yeah spammitiiiy spam paaam spaam oh yeeeeeah   yyadda yadda yaddaIn probability theory, the law of total variance or variance decomposition formula states that if X and Y are random variables on the same probability space, and the variance of X is finite, then
        \operatorname{var}(X)=\operatorname{E}(\operatorname{var}(X\mid Y))+\operatorname{var}(\operatorname{E}(X\mid Y)).\,In language perhaps better known to statisticians than to probabilists, the two terms are the "unexplained" and the "explained component of the variance" (cf.
explained variation).The nomenclature in this article's title parallels the phrase law of total probability.
Some writers on probability call this the "conditional variance formula" or use other names.
(The conditional expected value E( X | Y ) is a random variable in its own right, whose value depends on the value of Y. Notice that the conditional expected value of X given the event Y = y is a function of y (this is where adherence to the conventional rigidly case-sensitive notation of probability theory becomes important!).
If we write E( X | Y = y) = g(y) then the random variable E( X | Y ) is just g(Y).
Similar comments apply to the conditional variance.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1243792080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can someone mod those lawyers up?"</p><p>Something I would never expect to see here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>Furthermore, it's modded 4 Insightful.</p><p>I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can someone mod those lawyers up ?
" Something I would never expect to see here on /.Furthermore , it 's modded 4 Insightful.I 'm staring at my window now , waiting for a pig fly-by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can someone mod those lawyers up?
"Something I would never expect to see here on /.Furthermore, it's modded 4 Insightful.I'm staring at my window now, waiting for a pig fly-by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159247</id>
	<title>Re:lawyers are mercenaries</title>
	<author>moviepig.com</author>
	<datestamp>1243793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."</p></div><p>Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer.  Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)</p></div><p>I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than <i>you</i> could.  Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just <i>might</i> be voicing their <i>own</i> position...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably thought they had this one in the bag , since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ .
Instead , however , the brief eloquently argued against the film companies ' position , dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced .
" Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer .
Unless you are still paying him , of course .
( sorry nycLawyer ) I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation ( e.g. , chase ambulances ) ... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could .
Moreover , it seems here there 's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ.
Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced.
"Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer.
Unless you are still paying him, of course.
(sorry nycLawyer)I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could.
Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169061</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>Sun.Jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1243875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was not intending to comment on this particular case. I was commenting on the flip-flop. Ray corrected that thought in saying the RIAA/MPAA lawyers we recused for 2 years, so there is no flip-flop.

And also, it's not so much a wish to punish, as much as a wish to understand how they get to do that in the first place. I do see your point, and agree in large part with the sentiment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was not intending to comment on this particular case .
I was commenting on the flip-flop .
Ray corrected that thought in saying the RIAA/MPAA lawyers we recused for 2 years , so there is no flip-flop .
And also , it 's not so much a wish to punish , as much as a wish to understand how they get to do that in the first place .
I do see your point , and agree in large part with the sentiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was not intending to comment on this particular case.
I was commenting on the flip-flop.
Ray corrected that thought in saying the RIAA/MPAA lawyers we recused for 2 years, so there is no flip-flop.
And also, it's not so much a wish to punish, as much as a wish to understand how they get to do that in the first place.
I do see your point, and agree in large part with the sentiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159423</id>
	<title>Pretty big 2nd circuit opinion</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling.  In fact, the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case, and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that.  But I don't see her opinion on -any- of them.  Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling .
In fact , the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case , and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that .
But I do n't see her opinion on -any- of them .
Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling.
In fact, the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case, and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that.
But I don't see her opinion on -any- of them.
Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158981</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>tim\_darklighter</author>
	<datestamp>1243791120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's an amusing speculation: maybe when they worked for the film companies, they got sick of losing case after frivolous case (looks bad on their record). The lawyers might even have smarted up and thought to themselves that they could stick it to the film companies as a bit of sweet revenge (granted they get paid either way, but I like to think they went into law with a least a shred of dignity and morality).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an amusing speculation : maybe when they worked for the film companies , they got sick of losing case after frivolous case ( looks bad on their record ) .
The lawyers might even have smarted up and thought to themselves that they could stick it to the film companies as a bit of sweet revenge ( granted they get paid either way , but I like to think they went into law with a least a shred of dignity and morality ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an amusing speculation: maybe when they worked for the film companies, they got sick of losing case after frivolous case (looks bad on their record).
The lawyers might even have smarted up and thought to themselves that they could stick it to the film companies as a bit of sweet revenge (granted they get paid either way, but I like to think they went into law with a least a shred of dignity and morality).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164509</id>
	<title>Re:Even a broken clock...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1243793700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A broken clock is right twice a day, a clock that spins like a fan is right much more often! Let's vote batshit crazy people into power hoping they'll do the right thing by mistake even more often!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A broken clock is right twice a day , a clock that spins like a fan is right much more often !
Let 's vote batshit crazy people into power hoping they 'll do the right thing by mistake even more often !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A broken clock is right twice a day, a clock that spins like a fan is right much more often!
Let's vote batshit crazy people into power hoping they'll do the right thing by mistake even more often!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>Sun.Jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1243793880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.</p></div><p>If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf" title="beckermanlegal.com">brief</a> [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed. If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'. If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans? Are there penalties for such behavior?<br> <br>

I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys argued the other side forever , they * should * know how to tear that apart now.If they knew how to tear it apart , and they did by my understanding of the brief [ beckermanlegal.com ] , then they knew the original case was flawed .
If the case was flawed , a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning' .
If they are not trying to win , then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans ?
Are there penalties for such behavior ?
I guess I 'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the brief [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed.
If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'.
If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans?
Are there penalties for such behavior?
I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163183</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243782060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve.</p></div><p>What court do you appeal to when the Supreme Court of the United States rules in a way you don't like?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve.What court do you appeal to when the Supreme Court of the United States rules in a way you do n't like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve.What court do you appeal to when the Supreme Court of the United States rules in a way you don't like?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158821</id>
	<title>Wiretapping</title>
	<author>Nigel Stepp</author>
	<datestamp>1243789920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if they can only come around on <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">Warrantless Wiretapping</a> [eff.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping [ eff.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping [eff.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159311</id>
	<title>Ray... what's with the frames?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243793820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.</p><p>Here's a direct link to the PDF:</p><p><a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf" title="beckermanlegal.com">http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf</a> [beckermanlegal.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious why you feel it 's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the " sidebar " I could care less about.Here 's a direct link to the PDF : http : //beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer \ _Copyright \ _Internet \ _Law/cartoonnetwork \ _csc \ _090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf [ beckermanlegal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.Here's a direct link to the PDF:http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf [beckermanlegal.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160005</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite as surprising as everyone thinks</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1243798800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was surprised to find out some things that the President and other people in the US government don't know. GW Bush and Bill Clinton had a "debate" last week in Toronto and when someone asked about the new requirement to have a passport to cross the Canadian border (oops sorry, the "Northern" border) they were both taken aback. Clinton ok maybe but GW? His government instigated this for Pete's sake.</p><p>Also recently Janet Napolitano the Sec of Homeland Security claimed that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US via Canada. False. No single US/Canada issue makes Canadians more wild with frustration than this one and the freaking Sec of HS doesn't freaking know the truth. Anyways.</p><p>The point I'm trying to make is that yes it's quite possible Obama knows nothing about what's going on with copyright law and his government's role in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was surprised to find out some things that the President and other people in the US government do n't know .
GW Bush and Bill Clinton had a " debate " last week in Toronto and when someone asked about the new requirement to have a passport to cross the Canadian border ( oops sorry , the " Northern " border ) they were both taken aback .
Clinton ok maybe but GW ?
His government instigated this for Pete 's sake.Also recently Janet Napolitano the Sec of Homeland Security claimed that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US via Canada .
False. No single US/Canada issue makes Canadians more wild with frustration than this one and the freaking Sec of HS does n't freaking know the truth .
Anyways.The point I 'm trying to make is that yes it 's quite possible Obama knows nothing about what 's going on with copyright law and his government 's role in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was surprised to find out some things that the President and other people in the US government don't know.
GW Bush and Bill Clinton had a "debate" last week in Toronto and when someone asked about the new requirement to have a passport to cross the Canadian border (oops sorry, the "Northern" border) they were both taken aback.
Clinton ok maybe but GW?
His government instigated this for Pete's sake.Also recently Janet Napolitano the Sec of Homeland Security claimed that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US via Canada.
False. No single US/Canada issue makes Canadians more wild with frustration than this one and the freaking Sec of HS doesn't freaking know the truth.
Anyways.The point I'm trying to make is that yes it's quite possible Obama knows nothing about what's going on with copyright law and his government's role in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159101</id>
	<title>NO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We want cases like this to lose. We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.<br>Nothing will change until Joe can't record American Idol and starts to wonder why.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration.</p></div><p>So, with a really big RAM-disk it's impossible to violate copyright?</p><p><i>I didn't "download" the movies, I was only buffering them for a transitory period.</i><br>Yeah, that'd work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want cases like this to lose .
We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.Nothing will change until Joe ca n't record American Idol and starts to wonder why .
  there being no 'copy ' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory ' duration.So , with a really big RAM-disk it 's impossible to violate copyright ? I did n't " download " the movies , I was only buffering them for a transitory period.Yeah , that 'd work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want cases like this to lose.
We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.Nothing will change until Joe can't record American Idol and starts to wonder why.
  there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration.So, with a really big RAM-disk it's impossible to violate copyright?I didn't "download" the movies, I was only buffering them for a transitory period.Yeah, that'd work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160455</id>
	<title>Firefox is having issues with this page</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one having issues reading this page in Firefox?  None of the reply subheadings are showing properly.  Posting AC just in case I'm making a really dumb mistake which is causing this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one having issues reading this page in Firefox ?
None of the reply subheadings are showing properly .
Posting AC just in case I 'm making a really dumb mistake which is causing this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one having issues reading this page in Firefox?
None of the reply subheadings are showing properly.
Posting AC just in case I'm making a really dumb mistake which is causing this issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163493</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1243784460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.</p><p>Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.</p><p>It is so blatant that I cannot believe so many slashdotters fall for it.</p><p>These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message, just racial hatred.  (And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism.)</p><p>Honestly, if these "redneck conservatives" are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage, why would they post anonymously?  Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.It is so blatant that I can not believe so many slashdotters fall for it.These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message , just racial hatred .
( And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism .
) Honestly , if these " redneck conservatives " are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage , why would they post anonymously ?
Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.It is so blatant that I cannot believe so many slashdotters fall for it.These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message, just racial hatred.
(And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism.
)Honestly, if these "redneck conservatives" are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage, why would they post anonymously?
Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162403</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty big 2nd circuit opinion</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1243775340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because Circuit decisions are rendered by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Courts\_of\_Appeals" title="wikipedia.org">three-judge panels chosen at random from the judges of that Circuit</a> [wikipedia.org], and there are 22 judges on the Second Circuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because Circuit decisions are rendered by three-judge panels chosen at random from the judges of that Circuit [ wikipedia.org ] , and there are 22 judges on the Second Circuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because Circuit decisions are rendered by three-judge panels chosen at random from the judges of that Circuit [wikipedia.org], and there are 22 judges on the Second Circuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162025</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243772100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah I love the smell of panicking conservative dickhead in the morning. It smells like Victory.</p><p>I enjoy the rampant paranoia of posts like this.</p><p>Of course they really voted for Obama because they learned the lesson that Republicans are usueless in govt.</p><p>But keep trying to put your racial spin on it, i for one enjoy your paranoid delusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah I love the smell of panicking conservative dickhead in the morning .
It smells like Victory.I enjoy the rampant paranoia of posts like this.Of course they really voted for Obama because they learned the lesson that Republicans are usueless in govt.But keep trying to put your racial spin on it , i for one enjoy your paranoid delusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah I love the smell of panicking conservative dickhead in the morning.
It smells like Victory.I enjoy the rampant paranoia of posts like this.Of course they really voted for Obama because they learned the lesson that Republicans are usueless in govt.But keep trying to put your racial spin on it, i for one enjoy your paranoid delusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163547</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1243784880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't touch the Fed.  <br> <br>

Google "The Money Myth Exploded" and read the story.  It's not what you think.  It de-bunks both the Fed and Gold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama can do whatever he wants as long as he does n't touch the Fed .
Google " The Money Myth Exploded " and read the story .
It 's not what you think .
It de-bunks both the Fed and Gold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't touch the Fed.
Google "The Money Myth Exploded" and read the story.
It's not what you think.
It de-bunks both the Fed and Gold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159091</id>
	<title>I'm not cynical</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1243792140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The promise of the Singularity is too strong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The promise of the Singularity is too strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The promise of the Singularity is too strong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077</id>
	<title>one of these days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you will get your head out of your ass and find out that those who rule us aren't alien beings, but human beings just like you. it will probably coincide roughly around the time you realize that you yourself are not some vanguard of moral precision, nor whatever other heroes you have right now that you somehow view as morally perfect</p><p>in fact, if there is such a thing as a truly "evil" politician who achieves success, it is by manipulating the thinking of people just like you, who have this ridiculously sophomoric view of politics, as if it were some sort of gateway to the devil. no, its mostly just well-meaning people trying to do good, with varying degrees of understanding what "good" is</p><p>bush is not evil, he's just stupid. he genuinely means well. he just doesn't have a good grasp on it all</p><p>and even cheney is not evil. the man genuinely believes in a set of principles he identifies with virtue. of course, those principles he believes in are outrageously fucked up, but he's not some sort of lord voldemort or emperor palpatine, which is what your apparent idiotic and simplisitic view of politics suggests. if you were stuck in mineshaft with dick cheney for a month, you would probable emerge thinking that this is no man you would vote for, or even respect, but you would begrudgingly acknowledge that the man has a set of solid beliefs he fights for and thoroughly believes are good for you</p><p>but don't take my word for it, take obama's: the era of moronic partisanship should end. as a paragon of integrity, one of the most integral aspects of obama's integrity is that he knows this painting your political opponents as "evil" is plain wrong. so if you really admire obama, learn from him and change your incredibly moronic way of thinking about politics and politicians</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you will get your head out of your ass and find out that those who rule us are n't alien beings , but human beings just like you .
it will probably coincide roughly around the time you realize that you yourself are not some vanguard of moral precision , nor whatever other heroes you have right now that you somehow view as morally perfectin fact , if there is such a thing as a truly " evil " politician who achieves success , it is by manipulating the thinking of people just like you , who have this ridiculously sophomoric view of politics , as if it were some sort of gateway to the devil .
no , its mostly just well-meaning people trying to do good , with varying degrees of understanding what " good " isbush is not evil , he 's just stupid .
he genuinely means well .
he just does n't have a good grasp on it alland even cheney is not evil .
the man genuinely believes in a set of principles he identifies with virtue .
of course , those principles he believes in are outrageously fucked up , but he 's not some sort of lord voldemort or emperor palpatine , which is what your apparent idiotic and simplisitic view of politics suggests .
if you were stuck in mineshaft with dick cheney for a month , you would probable emerge thinking that this is no man you would vote for , or even respect , but you would begrudgingly acknowledge that the man has a set of solid beliefs he fights for and thoroughly believes are good for youbut do n't take my word for it , take obama 's : the era of moronic partisanship should end .
as a paragon of integrity , one of the most integral aspects of obama 's integrity is that he knows this painting your political opponents as " evil " is plain wrong .
so if you really admire obama , learn from him and change your incredibly moronic way of thinking about politics and politicians</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you will get your head out of your ass and find out that those who rule us aren't alien beings, but human beings just like you.
it will probably coincide roughly around the time you realize that you yourself are not some vanguard of moral precision, nor whatever other heroes you have right now that you somehow view as morally perfectin fact, if there is such a thing as a truly "evil" politician who achieves success, it is by manipulating the thinking of people just like you, who have this ridiculously sophomoric view of politics, as if it were some sort of gateway to the devil.
no, its mostly just well-meaning people trying to do good, with varying degrees of understanding what "good" isbush is not evil, he's just stupid.
he genuinely means well.
he just doesn't have a good grasp on it alland even cheney is not evil.
the man genuinely believes in a set of principles he identifies with virtue.
of course, those principles he believes in are outrageously fucked up, but he's not some sort of lord voldemort or emperor palpatine, which is what your apparent idiotic and simplisitic view of politics suggests.
if you were stuck in mineshaft with dick cheney for a month, you would probable emerge thinking that this is no man you would vote for, or even respect, but you would begrudgingly acknowledge that the man has a set of solid beliefs he fights for and thoroughly believes are good for youbut don't take my word for it, take obama's: the era of moronic partisanship should end.
as a paragon of integrity, one of the most integral aspects of obama's integrity is that he knows this painting your political opponents as "evil" is plain wrong.
so if you really admire obama, learn from him and change your incredibly moronic way of thinking about politics and politicians</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160293</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1243801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see this "integrity" with Obama's bailout effort, particularly, the US auto companies. The GM and Chrysler bailouts heavily favor the labor union, UAW at the expense of everyone else. From an integrity angle, this means two things. First, that it's a gross subversion of the rule of law. These companies could have gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was designed precisely for this sort of thing. Second, the Obama administration is playing favorites.<p><div class="quote"><p>It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.</p></div><p>While I suppose it's possible that someone can maintain great integrity while going far outside the "rules", a US president cannot do this. The Bush administration's willingness to ignore the rule of law and other rules is one of the reasons it is so reviled now. I don't see a need for a Democratic version of the G. W. Bush administration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this " integrity " with Obama 's bailout effort , particularly , the US auto companies .
The GM and Chrysler bailouts heavily favor the labor union , UAW at the expense of everyone else .
From an integrity angle , this means two things .
First , that it 's a gross subversion of the rule of law .
These companies could have gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was designed precisely for this sort of thing .
Second , the Obama administration is playing favorites.It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established , conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.While I suppose it 's possible that someone can maintain great integrity while going far outside the " rules " , a US president can not do this .
The Bush administration 's willingness to ignore the rule of law and other rules is one of the reasons it is so reviled now .
I do n't see a need for a Democratic version of the G. W. Bush administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this "integrity" with Obama's bailout effort, particularly, the US auto companies.
The GM and Chrysler bailouts heavily favor the labor union, UAW at the expense of everyone else.
From an integrity angle, this means two things.
First, that it's a gross subversion of the rule of law.
These companies could have gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was designed precisely for this sort of thing.
Second, the Obama administration is playing favorites.It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.While I suppose it's possible that someone can maintain great integrity while going far outside the "rules", a US president cannot do this.
The Bush administration's willingness to ignore the rule of law and other rules is one of the reasons it is so reviled now.
I don't see a need for a Democratic version of the G. W. Bush administration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053</id>
	<title>Not quite as surprising as everyone thinks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243791840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, at least on the surface, Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently.  Perhaps it is a misperception on my part.  And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president.  It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and hasn't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected, but I don't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , at least on the surface , Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently .
Perhaps it is a misperception on my part .
And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president .
It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and has n't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected , but I do n't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, at least on the surface, Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently.
Perhaps it is a misperception on my part.
And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president.
It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and hasn't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected, but I don't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243772640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no need to hide behind the AC mask.  Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate.  OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black.  It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black.  I happen to be non-black.  I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain.  So - why didn't I?  Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama.  McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference.  Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white?  Not much.  I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will.  The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet.  Tremendously different perspective.  The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets.  McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century.  It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2\% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.</p><p>With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control.  Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2\%.  That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.</p><p>While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief.   My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.</p><p>Bottom line?  Fuck off, you cretinous redneck!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no need to hide behind the AC mask .
Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate .
OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama , just because he 's black .
It 's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he 's black .
I happen to be non-black .
I 'm a veteran , for that and some other reasons , I really WANTED to vote for McCain .
So - why did n't I ?
Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama .
McCain would n't have exactly followed in Bush 's steps , but he would have followed closely enough that it would n't have made a tremendous difference .
Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white ?
Not much .
I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did , or will .
The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet .
Tremendously different perspective .
The black guy can relate to the world , whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets .
McCain may not be a pure neocon , but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century .
It is McCain 's mission to spread corporate control around the world , supposedly for the benefit of Americans , but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2 \ % of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.With one son in the Army , and one son in the Navy , I really feared for their lives with Bush in control .
Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I 'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2 \ % .
That is exactly what Iraq accomplished , with the neocons in charge.While you bitch and belly ache about the " nigger " in the White House , I breathe a sigh of relief .
My own funny looking kids ( sans the nappy heads ) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.Bottom line ?
Fuck off , you cretinous redneck !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no need to hide behind the AC mask.
Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate.
OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black.
It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black.
I happen to be non-black.
I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain.
So - why didn't I?
Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama.
McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference.
Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white?
Not much.
I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will.
The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet.
Tremendously different perspective.
The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets.
McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century.
It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2\% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control.
Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2\%.
That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief.
My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.Bottom line?
Fuck off, you cretinous redneck!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164153</id>
	<title>Victory? They punted...</title>
	<author>BillX</author>
	<datestamp>1243790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took a while to RTFAC, but one of the major "decisions" I drew away from this was that the brief recommends against taking up the case because it is not a good test case, not because they believe the **AAs are twisting arms. Specifically, the fact that the parties waived claims for contributory infringement and fair use, respectively, was an important factor in the decision. FTFAC:
<p>
<i>"Network-based technologies for copying and replaying
television programming raise potentially significant
questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion
for this Court to address them. The Second Circuit
is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications
of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop
DVRs, and its decision does not conflict with any
decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The
parties&#226;(TM) stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical
issues&#226;"contributory infringement and fair use&#226;"
from this case. That artificial truncation of the possible
grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable
vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright
principles to technologies like the one at issue here."</i>
</p><p>
It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company, without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims, and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court. The extreme quibbling over (to quote the brief) <i>&#226;oewho&#226; would &#226;oemake&#226; the copies that would be
stored</i> does not inspire my confidence, as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory. The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower. (You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe? You're a contributory infringer!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took a while to RTFAC , but one of the major " decisions " I drew away from this was that the brief recommends against taking up the case because it is not a good test case , not because they believe the * * AAs are twisting arms .
Specifically , the fact that the parties waived claims for contributory infringement and fair use , respectively , was an important factor in the decision .
FTFAC : " Network-based technologies for copying and replaying television programming raise potentially significant questions , but this case does not provide a suitable occasion for this Court to address them .
The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop DVRs , and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals .
The parties   ( TM ) stipulations , moreover , have removed two critical issues   " contributory infringement and fair use   " from this case .
That artificial truncation of the possible grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright principles to technologies like the one at issue here .
" It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company , without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims , and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court .
The extreme quibbling over ( to quote the brief )   oewho   would   oemake   the copies that would be stored does not inspire my confidence , as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory .
The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower .
( You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe ?
You 're a contributory infringer !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took a while to RTFAC, but one of the major "decisions" I drew away from this was that the brief recommends against taking up the case because it is not a good test case, not because they believe the **AAs are twisting arms.
Specifically, the fact that the parties waived claims for contributory infringement and fair use, respectively, was an important factor in the decision.
FTFAC:

"Network-based technologies for copying and replaying
television programming raise potentially significant
questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion
for this Court to address them.
The Second Circuit
is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications
of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop
DVRs, and its decision does not conflict with any
decision of this Court or another court of appeals.
The
partiesâ(TM) stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical
issuesâ"contributory infringement and fair useâ"
from this case.
That artificial truncation of the possible
grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable
vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright
principles to technologies like the one at issue here.
"

It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company, without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims, and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court.
The extreme quibbling over (to quote the brief) âoewhoâ would âoemakeâ the copies that would be
stored does not inspire my confidence, as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory.
The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower.
(You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe?
You're a contributory infringer!
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163661</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243785660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see, let me get this straight. Your sons, joined the Army and Navy to cruise around and walk around with guns and not get involved in any possible fighting, so like a 4 year vacation. Your a jerk that if its true you have two sons who by their own free will joined the armed (get that armed) services to serve, which just might mean fighting in a war with or without your permission. I didn't vote for Obama, not because of his race, but because of his policies and liberalism. You sir, are a bigoted racist who has not a clue as to why we have a armed services. Dont call me a redneck you liberal who I doubt has any sons or ever served in the armed services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see , let me get this straight .
Your sons , joined the Army and Navy to cruise around and walk around with guns and not get involved in any possible fighting , so like a 4 year vacation .
Your a jerk that if its true you have two sons who by their own free will joined the armed ( get that armed ) services to serve , which just might mean fighting in a war with or without your permission .
I did n't vote for Obama , not because of his race , but because of his policies and liberalism .
You sir , are a bigoted racist who has not a clue as to why we have a armed services .
Dont call me a redneck you liberal who I doubt has any sons or ever served in the armed services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see, let me get this straight.
Your sons, joined the Army and Navy to cruise around and walk around with guns and not get involved in any possible fighting, so like a 4 year vacation.
Your a jerk that if its true you have two sons who by their own free will joined the armed (get that armed) services to serve, which just might mean fighting in a war with or without your permission.
I didn't vote for Obama, not because of his race, but because of his policies and liberalism.
You sir, are a bigoted racist who has not a clue as to why we have a armed services.
Dont call me a redneck you liberal who I doubt has any sons or ever served in the armed services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161389</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243766460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is a neo Marxist who just mugged rightful creditors of Chrysler and gave their money to his union supporters. He broke the bank intentionally with debt that will consume over 80\% of GDP in ten years. He is giving money to his political units while inflating (stealing) money away from people who worked and saved, He wants US capitalist economy crippled while he coverts over to his Marxist "green jobs" economy that he sees as "social justice." Obama is a Marxist  indoctrinated head case and a lot of Americans are just too stupid to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is a neo Marxist who just mugged rightful creditors of Chrysler and gave their money to his union supporters .
He broke the bank intentionally with debt that will consume over 80 \ % of GDP in ten years .
He is giving money to his political units while inflating ( stealing ) money away from people who worked and saved , He wants US capitalist economy crippled while he coverts over to his Marxist " green jobs " economy that he sees as " social justice .
" Obama is a Marxist indoctrinated head case and a lot of Americans are just too stupid to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is a neo Marxist who just mugged rightful creditors of Chrysler and gave their money to his union supporters.
He broke the bank intentionally with debt that will consume over 80\% of GDP in ten years.
He is giving money to his political units while inflating (stealing) money away from people who worked and saved, He wants US capitalist economy crippled while he coverts over to his Marxist "green jobs" economy that he sees as "social justice.
" Obama is a Marxist  indoctrinated head case and a lot of Americans are just too stupid to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159159</id>
	<title>It's a curious case...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1243792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like the argument is consistent with the Betamax decision.  This is essentially a VCR as a service rather than a product.  I have no idea why it matters that storage is in RAM.  There are systems that have stored data in RAM for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like the argument is consistent with the Betamax decision .
This is essentially a VCR as a service rather than a product .
I have no idea why it matters that storage is in RAM .
There are systems that have stored data in RAM for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like the argument is consistent with the Betamax decision.
This is essentially a VCR as a service rather than a product.
I have no idea why it matters that storage is in RAM.
There are systems that have stored data in RAM for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160309</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your answer to combating racism is to become racist?  Barack Obama (I'm not going to use his middle name, which you continually do to try to make people think there's some relation there that there is not) would not have won if many people that were not minorities had not also voted for him.</p><p>Someone sounds like a very bitter conservative.  What happened to the cries of "Support our President" you guys were screaming when Bush was starting wars on false pretenses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your answer to combating racism is to become racist ?
Barack Obama ( I 'm not going to use his middle name , which you continually do to try to make people think there 's some relation there that there is not ) would not have won if many people that were not minorities had not also voted for him.Someone sounds like a very bitter conservative .
What happened to the cries of " Support our President " you guys were screaming when Bush was starting wars on false pretenses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your answer to combating racism is to become racist?
Barack Obama (I'm not going to use his middle name, which you continually do to try to make people think there's some relation there that there is not) would not have won if many people that were not minorities had not also voted for him.Someone sounds like a very bitter conservative.
What happened to the cries of "Support our President" you guys were screaming when Bush was starting wars on false pretenses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159051</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1243791840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, like many experts, they have whatever principles you are willing to fund.</p><p>More seriously, they are the champions in the "battle of chapions" that is a US courtroom. So many, as individuals, have excellent principles which they try to support by the clients they accept. And they can lose their license for not doing their courthouse best for their clients, even if their violation of legal "canons" helps keep a child rapist or Dick Cheney from hurting society as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , like many experts , they have whatever principles you are willing to fund.More seriously , they are the champions in the " battle of chapions " that is a US courtroom .
So many , as individuals , have excellent principles which they try to support by the clients they accept .
And they can lose their license for not doing their courthouse best for their clients , even if their violation of legal " canons " helps keep a child rapist or Dick Cheney from hurting society as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, like many experts, they have whatever principles you are willing to fund.More seriously, they are the champions in the "battle of chapions" that is a US courtroom.
So many, as individuals, have excellent principles which they try to support by the clients they accept.
And they can lose their license for not doing their courthouse best for their clients, even if their violation of legal "canons" helps keep a child rapist or Dick Cheney from hurting society as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158907</id>
	<title>lawyers are mercenaries</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1243790520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."</p></div><p>Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer.  Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably thought they had this one in the bag , since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ .
Instead , however , the brief eloquently argued against the film companies ' position , dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced .
" Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer .
Unless you are still paying him , of course .
( sorry nycLawyer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ.
Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced.
"Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer.
Unless you are still paying him, of course.
(sorry nycLawyer)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159089</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1243792140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA, MAPP, or have some other connection to them?</p><p>I don't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I can't find one of their names behind the brief submitted. Chances are, the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief, it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA , MAPP , or have some other connection to them ? I do n't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I ca n't find one of their names behind the brief submitted .
Chances are , the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief , it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA, MAPP, or have some other connection to them?I don't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I can't find one of their names behind the brief submitted.
Chances are, the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief, it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164799</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>The Grand Falloon</author>
	<datestamp>1243797180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></div><p>Guess I'll vote for the nigger next time, too.  I dunno, man.  I haven't known many black people in my life, nor wetbacks, camel-jockeys or whatever.  Some folks in my situation distrust such people.  Fear of the unkown, I guess.  Me, I think I understand my fellow white man pretty well, and I know what kind of treacherous assholery we can get up to.  Maybe those weird darkies are different by nature.  I'll take the unknown evil over the known.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values.Guess I 'll vote for the nigger next time , too .
I dunno , man .
I have n't known many black people in my life , nor wetbacks , camel-jockeys or whatever .
Some folks in my situation distrust such people .
Fear of the unkown , I guess .
Me , I think I understand my fellow white man pretty well , and I know what kind of treacherous assholery we can get up to .
Maybe those weird darkies are different by nature .
I 'll take the unknown evil over the known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.Guess I'll vote for the nigger next time, too.
I dunno, man.
I haven't known many black people in my life, nor wetbacks, camel-jockeys or whatever.
Some folks in my situation distrust such people.
Fear of the unkown, I guess.
Me, I think I understand my fellow white man pretty well, and I know what kind of treacherous assholery we can get up to.
Maybe those weird darkies are different by nature.
I'll take the unknown evil over the known.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160321</id>
	<title>Nelson Muntz sends his regards</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1243801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161615</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243768320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good old Dick and Bush!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good old Dick and Bush !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good old Dick and Bush!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163713</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute...</p><p>Following your logic, if black voters had voted for Obama on the basis of policy etc, then only 65\% would have voted for him, as happened in the hispanic &amp; asian demographics.</p><p>Um, maybe I'm missing something, but if we assume Obama gets 65\% of votes *across the board*, then surely that means he wins the election?</p><p>Oh, wait.  You're figuring that white voters vote vastly in favour of McCain.  "Purely on policy grounds", naturally.</p><p>Dude, if it's racist for 95\% of blacks to vote *for* Obama, then it's racist for more than 35\% of whites to vote *against* him, by your figures.</p><p>Unless you're willing to admit that maybe, perhaps, different ethnic groups within the US might have different policy interests, due to different demographics such as wealth, education, employment, etc etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute...Following your logic , if black voters had voted for Obama on the basis of policy etc , then only 65 \ % would have voted for him , as happened in the hispanic &amp; asian demographics.Um , maybe I 'm missing something , but if we assume Obama gets 65 \ % of votes * across the board * , then surely that means he wins the election ? Oh , wait .
You 're figuring that white voters vote vastly in favour of McCain .
" Purely on policy grounds " , naturally.Dude , if it 's racist for 95 \ % of blacks to vote * for * Obama , then it 's racist for more than 35 \ % of whites to vote * against * him , by your figures.Unless you 're willing to admit that maybe , perhaps , different ethnic groups within the US might have different policy interests , due to different demographics such as wealth , education , employment , etc etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute...Following your logic, if black voters had voted for Obama on the basis of policy etc, then only 65\% would have voted for him, as happened in the hispanic &amp; asian demographics.Um, maybe I'm missing something, but if we assume Obama gets 65\% of votes *across the board*, then surely that means he wins the election?Oh, wait.
You're figuring that white voters vote vastly in favour of McCain.
"Purely on policy grounds", naturally.Dude, if it's racist for 95\% of blacks to vote *for* Obama, then it's racist for more than 35\% of whites to vote *against* him, by your figures.Unless you're willing to admit that maybe, perhaps, different ethnic groups within the US might have different policy interests, due to different demographics such as wealth, education, employment, etc etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159209</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1243793040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...</p><p>PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot , I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism .
      Yeah right .
Like we 're expected to believe what you think about slashdot 's opinion .
You know , it 's summaries like this that prove we ca n't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...PS : For the HUMOR impaired , the above was meant to be a skeptical , cynical comment .
But THIS bit is actually sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.
      Yeah right.
Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion.
You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment.
But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161915</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1243771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating</i></p><p>Warrantless wiretapping.  Whitewashing torture.  Iraq policy indistinguishable from Bush's.  Reversal on single payer health care.  There's plenty not to like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's level of integrity is genuinely intimidatingWarrantless wiretapping .
Whitewashing torture .
Iraq policy indistinguishable from Bush 's .
Reversal on single payer health care .
There 's plenty not to like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidatingWarrantless wiretapping.
Whitewashing torture.
Iraq policy indistinguishable from Bush's.
Reversal on single payer health care.
There's plenty not to like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158935</id>
	<title>Oh, do I, did I, Oh Yes I Did!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243790760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FROST<br>POST<br>BITCHES</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FROSTPOSTBITCHES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FROSTPOSTBITCHES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158911</id>
	<title>Even a broken clock...</title>
	<author>xZoomerZx</author>
	<datestamp>1243790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is right twice a day.

Despite the common belief that the US government is way beyond screwed up, occasionally there is an outbreak of common sense. (Once you stop laughing about the words 'common sense' and 'government' in the same sentence, you can mod me up.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is right twice a day .
Despite the common belief that the US government is way beyond screwed up , occasionally there is an outbreak of common sense .
( Once you stop laughing about the words 'common sense ' and 'government ' in the same sentence , you can mod me up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is right twice a day.
Despite the common belief that the US government is way beyond screwed up, occasionally there is an outbreak of common sense.
(Once you stop laughing about the words 'common sense' and 'government' in the same sentence, you can mod me up.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161005</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1243762800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they should. The surprising thing about this is that they decided to do so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they should .
The surprising thing about this is that they decided to do so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they should.
The surprising thing about this is that they decided to do so...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158831</id>
	<title>Indeed.</title>
	<author>viyh</author>
	<datestamp>1243789980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen. While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are. They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money. Hopefully this will open up the debate about rewriting copyright and property laws in the age of information and the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen .
While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people , they are appointed by people who are .
They are , in theory , supposed to represent the will and needs of the people , not corporations or lobbyists with money .
Hopefully this will open up the debate about rewriting copyright and property laws in the age of information and the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen.
While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are.
They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money.
Hopefully this will open up the debate about rewriting copyright and property laws in the age of information and the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159565</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1243795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.</i>
<br>
<br>
Whoa, stop the presses...you mean lawyers act as advocates for their clients??  That's crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck .
Whoa , stop the presses...you mean lawyers act as advocates for their clients ? ?
That 's crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.
Whoa, stop the presses...you mean lawyers act as advocates for their clients??
That's crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159491</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1243795080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am actually surprised the Obama administration actually went against the wishes of a powerful cartel, maybe there is some hope we might get a wee bit of real change.

I haven't seen any flying pigs, but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and he just shat an ice cube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am actually surprised the Obama administration actually went against the wishes of a powerful cartel , maybe there is some hope we might get a wee bit of real change .
I have n't seen any flying pigs , but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and he just shat an ice cube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am actually surprised the Obama administration actually went against the wishes of a powerful cartel, maybe there is some hope we might get a wee bit of real change.
I haven't seen any flying pigs, but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and he just shat an ice cube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28174601</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243854360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ass-clown can't even do the math properly, or reseatrch the history... clearly a disgruntled Bush voter. And yet, he's fine with stupid people voting for one of their own, while black people can't?</p><p>Don't trust me... here's some actual reference material:<br>http://racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/african\_american\_voting\_patterns<br>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m1365/is\_1\_35/ai\_n6145431/</p><p>I will summerize. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Kennedy and Johnson, black voters have supported the Democratic Party very strongly. This is no surprise... the Republicans have, at various times, openly courted white racists. This was what Nixon did, and it's what swung the US South strongly to the Republicans for, well, until this last election, at the least. 82\% of black voters went Democratic in 1964; 92\% in 1968. With a very few exceptions, black voters have exceeded 80\% vote for Democratic Presidents ever since. There was not rational reason to have expected fewer to vote for Obama than voted for Clinton (83\% in 1992, 84\% in 1996), Gore (90\%), or Kerry (88\%).</p><p>Obama and the Democrats clearly do represent the general populus more than the increasingly Far Right and Radically Christian Republicans. The Republican Party is openly supported by as few as 21\% of the country today (based on those who self-identify as Republican), and those numbers are falling, as the leadership of the party goes increasingly into Wing-Nut territory. When morons like Rush Limbaugh effectively run the Party, no mainstream voters will be attracted, period.</p><p>I think this is a great chance for the Libertarian Party to grab some market share, maybe even replacing the Republicans as #2. They espouse most of what the "better angels" of the old (pre-deficit spending, pre-Reagan) Republican Party stood for, without all that bad stuff (warmongering, theocratics, racism, elitisim, etc), and while I voted Democratic in most elections, they represent a belief system that would give me (and many other thinking people) a real choice in future elections. They might need to expand their platform a bit, but with the Republicans' contracting theirs, the door it open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ass-clown ca n't even do the math properly , or reseatrch the history... clearly a disgruntled Bush voter .
And yet , he 's fine with stupid people voting for one of their own , while black people ca n't ? Do n't trust me... here 's some actual reference material : http : //racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/african \ _american \ _voting \ _patternshttp : //findarticles.com/p/articles/mi \ _m1365/is \ _1 \ _35/ai \ _n6145431/I will summerize .
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Kennedy and Johnson , black voters have supported the Democratic Party very strongly .
This is no surprise... the Republicans have , at various times , openly courted white racists .
This was what Nixon did , and it 's what swung the US South strongly to the Republicans for , well , until this last election , at the least .
82 \ % of black voters went Democratic in 1964 ; 92 \ % in 1968 .
With a very few exceptions , black voters have exceeded 80 \ % vote for Democratic Presidents ever since .
There was not rational reason to have expected fewer to vote for Obama than voted for Clinton ( 83 \ % in 1992 , 84 \ % in 1996 ) , Gore ( 90 \ % ) , or Kerry ( 88 \ % ) .Obama and the Democrats clearly do represent the general populus more than the increasingly Far Right and Radically Christian Republicans .
The Republican Party is openly supported by as few as 21 \ % of the country today ( based on those who self-identify as Republican ) , and those numbers are falling , as the leadership of the party goes increasingly into Wing-Nut territory .
When morons like Rush Limbaugh effectively run the Party , no mainstream voters will be attracted , period.I think this is a great chance for the Libertarian Party to grab some market share , maybe even replacing the Republicans as # 2 .
They espouse most of what the " better angels " of the old ( pre-deficit spending , pre-Reagan ) Republican Party stood for , without all that bad stuff ( warmongering , theocratics , racism , elitisim , etc ) , and while I voted Democratic in most elections , they represent a belief system that would give me ( and many other thinking people ) a real choice in future elections .
They might need to expand their platform a bit , but with the Republicans ' contracting theirs , the door it open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ass-clown can't even do the math properly, or reseatrch the history... clearly a disgruntled Bush voter.
And yet, he's fine with stupid people voting for one of their own, while black people can't?Don't trust me... here's some actual reference material:http://racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/african\_american\_voting\_patternshttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m1365/is\_1\_35/ai\_n6145431/I will summerize.
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Kennedy and Johnson, black voters have supported the Democratic Party very strongly.
This is no surprise... the Republicans have, at various times, openly courted white racists.
This was what Nixon did, and it's what swung the US South strongly to the Republicans for, well, until this last election, at the least.
82\% of black voters went Democratic in 1964; 92\% in 1968.
With a very few exceptions, black voters have exceeded 80\% vote for Democratic Presidents ever since.
There was not rational reason to have expected fewer to vote for Obama than voted for Clinton (83\% in 1992, 84\% in 1996), Gore (90\%), or Kerry (88\%).Obama and the Democrats clearly do represent the general populus more than the increasingly Far Right and Radically Christian Republicans.
The Republican Party is openly supported by as few as 21\% of the country today (based on those who self-identify as Republican), and those numbers are falling, as the leadership of the party goes increasingly into Wing-Nut territory.
When morons like Rush Limbaugh effectively run the Party, no mainstream voters will be attracted, period.I think this is a great chance for the Libertarian Party to grab some market share, maybe even replacing the Republicans as #2.
They espouse most of what the "better angels" of the old (pre-deficit spending, pre-Reagan) Republican Party stood for, without all that bad stuff (warmongering, theocratics, racism, elitisim, etc), and while I voted Democratic in most elections, they represent a belief system that would give me (and many other thinking people) a real choice in future elections.
They might need to expand their platform a bit, but with the Republicans' contracting theirs, the door it open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks.  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate.  Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate .
Only about 65 \ % of them supported Obama .
If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks.
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate.
Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28233999</id>
	<title>Re:one of these days</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244309640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, and for the record, I don't consider it appropriate that you got modded down to -1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , and for the record , I do n't consider it appropriate that you got modded down to -1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, and for the record, I don't consider it appropriate that you got modded down to -1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159933</id>
	<title>Partly right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read Glen Greenwald at Salon.</p><p>Summary is that Obama's DOJ has largely followed Bush's policies, indeed has pushed the secrecy defense of gov actions far beyond anything that Bush's DOJ claimed.</p><p>Obama' has NOT repealed ANY of Bush's laws extending the power of gov to wiretap, spy, make the telcos immune to prosecution, etc.</p><p>Obama's DOJ has NOT pursued the crimes relating to torture, which is required by international treaty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read Glen Greenwald at Salon.Summary is that Obama 's DOJ has largely followed Bush 's policies , indeed has pushed the secrecy defense of gov actions far beyond anything that Bush 's DOJ claimed.Obama ' has NOT repealed ANY of Bush 's laws extending the power of gov to wiretap , spy , make the telcos immune to prosecution , etc.Obama 's DOJ has NOT pursued the crimes relating to torture , which is required by international treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read Glen Greenwald at Salon.Summary is that Obama's DOJ has largely followed Bush's policies, indeed has pushed the secrecy defense of gov actions far beyond anything that Bush's DOJ claimed.Obama' has NOT repealed ANY of Bush's laws extending the power of gov to wiretap, spy, make the telcos immune to prosecution, etc.Obama's DOJ has NOT pursued the crimes relating to torture, which is required by international treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164415</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1243792680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, that's what you guys say now? When the DoJ hired RIAA lawyers, all you'd see on Slashdot was !change tags and such comments as "Now that's change you can believe in!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm". I guess it shows that Slashdot's collective knee jerk reactions are full of shit. Unable to see anything positive about the RIAA lawyers being hired, NOW you all see it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , that 's what you guys say now ?
When the DoJ hired RIAA lawyers , all you 'd see on Slashdot was ! change tags and such comments as " Now that 's change you can believe in !
/sarcasm " . I guess it shows that Slashdot 's collective knee jerk reactions are full of shit .
Unable to see anything positive about the RIAA lawyers being hired , NOW you all see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, that's what you guys say now?
When the DoJ hired RIAA lawyers, all you'd see on Slashdot was !change tags and such comments as "Now that's change you can believe in!
/sarcasm". I guess it shows that Slashdot's collective knee jerk reactions are full of shit.
Unable to see anything positive about the RIAA lawyers being hired, NOW you all see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28167007</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1243866480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last forty years have seen four of the most corrupt administrations in US history, all Republican:</p><p>Nixon: Laos, Cambodia, Watergate, he extended Vietnam for political reasons.</p><p>Reagan: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran-contra, in which Reagan sold weapons to the Anti-American Iranian revolution, and used the money to illegally fund Contra terrorists in Nicaragua who were trying to bring down a freely elected government.</p><p>Bush I:  Implicated in Iran-Contra, but also created a scandal all his own when he secretly funded Saddam Hussein after Congress had outlawed it (because he'd gassed his own people!).</p><p>Bush II:  Iraq  (such a rich vein), Wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention and lots of little things.</p><p>The two Democratic administrations were some of the most ethical in modern times.  Carter is famously a goody two-shoes, and while Republicans were quite successful in getting media play for a bunch of phony baloney Clinton scandals, they didn't land a real one until The Blue Dress.  The Lewinsky Blowjob, of course, had zero to do with the running of the administration, as the American people understood perfectly well.</p><p>Why these facts don't form the basis for current opinion, which holds that the parties are the same, that presidents are corrupt, is an interesting question.  The last four Republican presidents have all committed war crimes all in violation not just of international law, but of US law. Two of them have got thousands of US soldiers killed over a pack of lies.  Only Nixon was forced to resign over a robbery coverup. He got a pardon.  I think our system's complete failure to bring these guys to account is the chief reason why everyone starts to think of it as normal.  Clinton was impeached.  Doesn't that make him worse than Reagan?</p><p><i>It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparative level of decency</i></p><p>They voted for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last forty years have seen four of the most corrupt administrations in US history , all Republican : Nixon : Laos , Cambodia , Watergate , he extended Vietnam for political reasons.Reagan : El Salvador , Nicaragua , Iran-contra , in which Reagan sold weapons to the Anti-American Iranian revolution , and used the money to illegally fund Contra terrorists in Nicaragua who were trying to bring down a freely elected government.Bush I : Implicated in Iran-Contra , but also created a scandal all his own when he secretly funded Saddam Hussein after Congress had outlawed it ( because he 'd gassed his own people !
) .Bush II : Iraq ( such a rich vein ) , Wiretapping , torture , indefinite detention and lots of little things.The two Democratic administrations were some of the most ethical in modern times .
Carter is famously a goody two-shoes , and while Republicans were quite successful in getting media play for a bunch of phony baloney Clinton scandals , they did n't land a real one until The Blue Dress .
The Lewinsky Blowjob , of course , had zero to do with the running of the administration , as the American people understood perfectly well.Why these facts do n't form the basis for current opinion , which holds that the parties are the same , that presidents are corrupt , is an interesting question .
The last four Republican presidents have all committed war crimes all in violation not just of international law , but of US law .
Two of them have got thousands of US soldiers killed over a pack of lies .
Only Nixon was forced to resign over a robbery coverup .
He got a pardon .
I think our system 's complete failure to bring these guys to account is the chief reason why everyone starts to think of it as normal .
Clinton was impeached .
Does n't that make him worse than Reagan ? It is said that within a democracy , a people get the leader they deserve .
I 'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama 's comparative level of decencyThey voted for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last forty years have seen four of the most corrupt administrations in US history, all Republican:Nixon: Laos, Cambodia, Watergate, he extended Vietnam for political reasons.Reagan: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran-contra, in which Reagan sold weapons to the Anti-American Iranian revolution, and used the money to illegally fund Contra terrorists in Nicaragua who were trying to bring down a freely elected government.Bush I:  Implicated in Iran-Contra, but also created a scandal all his own when he secretly funded Saddam Hussein after Congress had outlawed it (because he'd gassed his own people!
).Bush II:  Iraq  (such a rich vein), Wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention and lots of little things.The two Democratic administrations were some of the most ethical in modern times.
Carter is famously a goody two-shoes, and while Republicans were quite successful in getting media play for a bunch of phony baloney Clinton scandals, they didn't land a real one until The Blue Dress.
The Lewinsky Blowjob, of course, had zero to do with the running of the administration, as the American people understood perfectly well.Why these facts don't form the basis for current opinion, which holds that the parties are the same, that presidents are corrupt, is an interesting question.
The last four Republican presidents have all committed war crimes all in violation not just of international law, but of US law.
Two of them have got thousands of US soldiers killed over a pack of lies.
Only Nixon was forced to resign over a robbery coverup.
He got a pardon.
I think our system's complete failure to bring these guys to account is the chief reason why everyone starts to think of it as normal.
Clinton was impeached.
Doesn't that make him worse than Reagan?It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve.
I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparative level of decencyThey voted for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159185</id>
	<title>Duh, it's the Jews.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jews run Hollywood,<br>Lawyers are Jews,<br>Whoever wins,<br>we lose.</p><p>It rhymes so it can't be wrong.  Therefore, I think it is appropriate to blame the Jews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews run Hollywood,Lawyers are Jews,Whoever wins,we lose.It rhymes so it ca n't be wrong .
Therefore , I think it is appropriate to blame the Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews run Hollywood,Lawyers are Jews,Whoever wins,we lose.It rhymes so it can't be wrong.
Therefore, I think it is appropriate to blame the Jews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159525</id>
	<title>Re:Gov representing reality is rare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243795380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you ever read <i>Snow Crash</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you ever read Snow Crash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you ever read Snow Crash?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160981</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1243762620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You said a lot of words. What you have left out is quantifiable evidence that Obama is any better than Bush. Can we list a few things that has been done that shows he's the vehicle of significant change in Washington (which is what we were sold on)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You said a lot of words .
What you have left out is quantifiable evidence that Obama is any better than Bush .
Can we list a few things that has been done that shows he 's the vehicle of significant change in Washington ( which is what we were sold on ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said a lot of words.
What you have left out is quantifiable evidence that Obama is any better than Bush.
Can we list a few things that has been done that shows he's the vehicle of significant change in Washington (which is what we were sold on)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159615</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1243795980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.</p></div><p>I'm sure Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglin, Larry Rosen, and even NYCL would be glad to hear that.  Oh wait, you just mean lawyers who fight for people you disagree with?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.I 'm sure Lawrence Lessig , Eben Moglin , Larry Rosen , and even NYCL would be glad to hear that .
Oh wait , you just mean lawyers who fight for people you disagree with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.I'm sure Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglin, Larry Rosen, and even NYCL would be glad to hear that.
Oh wait, you just mean lawyers who fight for people you disagree with?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160861</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1243761780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have a twisted view of "principles".</p><p>Representation irregardless of personal feels to me is a principle.  IANAL but as far as I'm concerned my lawyer isn't on any sort mission he's out to protect me and my interests just as passionately as I would but with significantly more legal knowledge.</p><p>Criminal defense lawyers are some of the most important defenders of civil liberties in the world.  Sure sometimes murderers get off on some technicality.  But that technicality is usually a case where the police infringed the dependent's constitutional law.</p><p>Guns don't keep the government from infringing our rights. Lawyers do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have a twisted view of " principles " .Representation irregardless of personal feels to me is a principle .
IANAL but as far as I 'm concerned my lawyer is n't on any sort mission he 's out to protect me and my interests just as passionately as I would but with significantly more legal knowledge.Criminal defense lawyers are some of the most important defenders of civil liberties in the world .
Sure sometimes murderers get off on some technicality .
But that technicality is usually a case where the police infringed the dependent 's constitutional law.Guns do n't keep the government from infringing our rights .
Lawyers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have a twisted view of "principles".Representation irregardless of personal feels to me is a principle.
IANAL but as far as I'm concerned my lawyer isn't on any sort mission he's out to protect me and my interests just as passionately as I would but with significantly more legal knowledge.Criminal defense lawyers are some of the most important defenders of civil liberties in the world.
Sure sometimes murderers get off on some technicality.
But that technicality is usually a case where the police infringed the dependent's constitutional law.Guns don't keep the government from infringing our rights.
Lawyers do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159539</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1243795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'.</i>
<br>
<br>
That is faulty reasoning.  Just about every side of every case is flawed in some ways.  A flawed argument is not necessarily wrong, and in this case many of the issues hinge on interpretations of law that it is not the attorney's job to be the final arbiter on.
<br>
<br>
Can't we just applaud a good ruling without the kneejerk slashdot desire to punish people we disagree with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the case was flawed , a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning' .
That is faulty reasoning .
Just about every side of every case is flawed in some ways .
A flawed argument is not necessarily wrong , and in this case many of the issues hinge on interpretations of law that it is not the attorney 's job to be the final arbiter on .
Ca n't we just applaud a good ruling without the kneejerk slashdot desire to punish people we disagree with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'.
That is faulty reasoning.
Just about every side of every case is flawed in some ways.
A flawed argument is not necessarily wrong, and in this case many of the issues hinge on interpretations of law that it is not the attorney's job to be the final arbiter on.
Can't we just applaud a good ruling without the kneejerk slashdot desire to punish people we disagree with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159461</id>
	<title>cynicism</title>
	<author>rhesuspieces00</author>
	<datestamp>1243794840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Supreme Court was thinking about overturning an important and just ruling but decided to just maintain the status quo.  Oooooh, I suddenly feel so optimistic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court was thinking about overturning an important and just ruling but decided to just maintain the status quo .
Oooooh , I suddenly feel so optimistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court was thinking about overturning an important and just ruling but decided to just maintain the status quo.
Oooooh, I suddenly feel so optimistic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158807</id>
	<title>Gov representing reality is rare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every time the gov deals with external reality, there are 100s of instances of decisions and actions based on some ideology or political interest.</p><p>This is why big government inevitably produces a low economic growth rate, eventually leading to the collapse of the society.</p><p>The only limit to the growth of gov is that collapse of the economic-social-political system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every time the gov deals with external reality , there are 100s of instances of decisions and actions based on some ideology or political interest.This is why big government inevitably produces a low economic growth rate , eventually leading to the collapse of the society.The only limit to the growth of gov is that collapse of the economic-social-political system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every time the gov deals with external reality, there are 100s of instances of decisions and actions based on some ideology or political interest.This is why big government inevitably produces a low economic growth rate, eventually leading to the collapse of the society.The only limit to the growth of gov is that collapse of the economic-social-political system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159773</id>
	<title>Re:NO</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1243797000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We want cases like this to lose. We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.<br>Nothing will change until Joe can't record American Idol and starts to wonder why.</p></div></blockquote><p>We want cases like this to lose to set an example kind of like we want to implement Stalinist communism so that everyone will feel the pain of it and fight against it.</p><p>you are an idiot</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want cases like this to lose .
We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.Nothing will change until Joe ca n't record American Idol and starts to wonder why.We want cases like this to lose to set an example kind of like we want to implement Stalinist communism so that everyone will feel the pain of it and fight against it.you are an idiot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want cases like this to lose.
We need Joe Sixpack to start feeling the pain of the broken copyright system.Nothing will change until Joe can't record American Idol and starts to wonder why.We want cases like this to lose to set an example kind of like we want to implement Stalinist communism so that everyone will feel the pain of it and fight against it.you are an idiot
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160195</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>fugue</author>
	<datestamp>1243800360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People vote based on feelings of solidarity far more often than on reason.  Plenty of people voted for McCain because his competitor was a nigger.  Many millions voted for Bush because he was in or below their own IQ bracket.  What's your point?

</p><p>Of course, it's also possible that blacks are just that much more intelligent than mainstream Americans.

</p><p>What you say is interesting, but it's off-topic.  Why am I even responding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People vote based on feelings of solidarity far more often than on reason .
Plenty of people voted for McCain because his competitor was a nigger .
Many millions voted for Bush because he was in or below their own IQ bracket .
What 's your point ?
Of course , it 's also possible that blacks are just that much more intelligent than mainstream Americans .
What you say is interesting , but it 's off-topic .
Why am I even responding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People vote based on feelings of solidarity far more often than on reason.
Plenty of people voted for McCain because his competitor was a nigger.
Many millions voted for Bush because he was in or below their own IQ bracket.
What's your point?
Of course, it's also possible that blacks are just that much more intelligent than mainstream Americans.
What you say is interesting, but it's off-topic.
Why am I even responding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789</id>
	<title>Good call</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone mod those lawyers up? +1 insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone mod those lawyers up ?
+ 1 insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone mod those lawyers up?
+1 insightful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160663</id>
	<title>Never Woulda Thunk It</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1243760520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like Obama's blatantly retarded cabinet appointments weren't so retarded after all. Hopefully he <b>knew</b> that these people would go against the industry that they have been representing, and hopefully he didn't appoint them because he thought they would help to bring along the policies that the industry has been fighting for. I'm really interested to see what the Administration does in the future, though... hopefully they can make a trend out of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like Obama 's blatantly retarded cabinet appointments were n't so retarded after all .
Hopefully he knew that these people would go against the industry that they have been representing , and hopefully he did n't appoint them because he thought they would help to bring along the policies that the industry has been fighting for .
I 'm really interested to see what the Administration does in the future , though... hopefully they can make a trend out of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like Obama's blatantly retarded cabinet appointments weren't so retarded after all.
Hopefully he knew that these people would go against the industry that they have been representing, and hopefully he didn't appoint them because he thought they would help to bring along the policies that the industry has been fighting for.
I'm really interested to see what the Administration does in the future, though... hopefully they can make a trend out of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162119</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243773000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

I disagree.  I think salespeople and marketers are even lower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers .
I disagree .
I think salespeople and marketers are even lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.
I disagree.
I think salespeople and marketers are even lower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159071</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed.</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1243792020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision. The judge could read it and still rule the other way.<br><br>Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say "well played, you got us on that one."? Or do you think it's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / removed?<br><br>Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve. Only when they've exhausted all of that, or gotten one of them to agree will they accept it's over.<br><br>Corporations don't take kindly to those who stand up to them, regardless of who they are. It's not about the law or fairness, it's about winning and making sure to keep your revenue stream unblocked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory you 're right , but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge , it 's not a judge 's final decision .
The judge could read it and still rule the other way.Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say " well played , you got us on that one. " ?
Or do you think it 's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / removed ? Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve .
Only when they 've exhausted all of that , or gotten one of them to agree will they accept it 's over.Corporations do n't take kindly to those who stand up to them , regardless of who they are .
It 's not about the law or fairness , it 's about winning and making sure to keep your revenue stream unblocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision.
The judge could read it and still rule the other way.Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say "well played, you got us on that one."?
Or do you think it's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / removed?Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve.
Only when they've exhausted all of that, or gotten one of them to agree will they accept it's over.Corporations don't take kindly to those who stand up to them, regardless of who they are.
It's not about the law or fairness, it's about winning and making sure to keep your revenue stream unblocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159833</id>
	<title>It's obvious what the approach is going to be</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1243797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take.  In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content (it is indeed a crime, if not one that deserves much punishment), the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.</p><p>While this is not an ideal situation (there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers), it's better the previous situation, where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take .
In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content ( it is indeed a crime , if not one that deserves much punishment ) , the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.While this is not an ideal situation ( there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers ) , it 's better the previous situation , where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take.
In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content (it is indeed a crime, if not one that deserves much punishment), the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.While this is not an ideal situation (there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers), it's better the previous situation, where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162131</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1243773060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and...</p></div><p>You're a Sony BMI exec?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and...You 're a Sony BMI exec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I do keep Lucifer on retainer and...You're a Sony BMI exec?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159149</id>
	<title>Re:If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>A. Kim</author>
	<datestamp>1243792560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So can we expect a situation similar to the business world, with top-ranking guys going back and forth between wall street and the SEC with knowledge of all the government loopholes, etc? Has Obama taken a page from this manipulative book in order to take the copyright juggernauts down a peg?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So can we expect a situation similar to the business world , with top-ranking guys going back and forth between wall street and the SEC with knowledge of all the government loopholes , etc ?
Has Obama taken a page from this manipulative book in order to take the copyright juggernauts down a peg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can we expect a situation similar to the business world, with top-ranking guys going back and forth between wall street and the SEC with knowledge of all the government loopholes, etc?
Has Obama taken a page from this manipulative book in order to take the copyright juggernauts down a peg?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727</id>
	<title>If a laywer is any good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He knows the opposition's position as well as his so he can counter it up front.  If he can't put himself in the opposition's shoes and argue against them, then they're going to suck.</p><p>These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows the opposition 's position as well as his so he can counter it up front .
If he ca n't put himself in the opposition 's shoes and argue against them , then they 're going to suck.These guys argued the other side forever , they * should * know how to tear that apart now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows the opposition's position as well as his so he can counter it up front.
If he can't put himself in the opposition's shoes and argue against them, then they're going to suck.These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160055</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1243799100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being</i></p><p>I find it thoroughly depressing that that seems to be the prevailing opinion.  That in itself just shows what a tremendous amount of damage Bush has not only caused to the IMAGE of the US, but to the US itself.  Having said that, they had willing assistance from the UK New Labour government in this, so I hope the current "it was within the rules" expense claim abusers get chucked out on their ears soon.</p><p>I've seen it in the UK, no sooner did they step through the doors of No10, out came the efforts to switch off as many controls as they could get away with so they could fill their pockets as quickly as possible.  Regulators?  Take away their power.  Competent people in government?  Lose them to consultancies, then re-employ them and pretend that's the same thing (try saying "no" as a consultant if you have a family).  Protests?  Tarnish those who do, and bury it under spin.  The worrying thing is that it has at both sides of the ocean worked so well that it has taken TWO terms for the damage to show up.  And then they vanish, publishing "memoirs", hit the speaking circuit or, in the case of Blair, apparently go and work for the people who stand to profit from the collapse.  No, I don't believe in coincidences.</p><p>The main problem with such an attitude is that it flows downwards.  As soon as industry sees this happening, they realise it's time to do the same because farming the economy to death MUST lead to a crash.  so everyone was trousering wadfulls of cash while the going was good.  Screw the man in the street, he's there to take the hit when it goes wrong.  So it has, and he does.</p><p>If Obama is tring to do The Right Thing (and so far, the signs are good even though he has to do this very slowly) he must alreday have discovered that this will take more than the time he has, even assuming he can serve TWO tems.  I'm going to be very interested in what he does for long term planning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an American President is , at this point in history , expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human beingI find it thoroughly depressing that that seems to be the prevailing opinion .
That in itself just shows what a tremendous amount of damage Bush has not only caused to the IMAGE of the US , but to the US itself .
Having said that , they had willing assistance from the UK New Labour government in this , so I hope the current " it was within the rules " expense claim abusers get chucked out on their ears soon.I 've seen it in the UK , no sooner did they step through the doors of No10 , out came the efforts to switch off as many controls as they could get away with so they could fill their pockets as quickly as possible .
Regulators ? Take away their power .
Competent people in government ?
Lose them to consultancies , then re-employ them and pretend that 's the same thing ( try saying " no " as a consultant if you have a family ) .
Protests ? Tarnish those who do , and bury it under spin .
The worrying thing is that it has at both sides of the ocean worked so well that it has taken TWO terms for the damage to show up .
And then they vanish , publishing " memoirs " , hit the speaking circuit or , in the case of Blair , apparently go and work for the people who stand to profit from the collapse .
No , I do n't believe in coincidences.The main problem with such an attitude is that it flows downwards .
As soon as industry sees this happening , they realise it 's time to do the same because farming the economy to death MUST lead to a crash .
so everyone was trousering wadfulls of cash while the going was good .
Screw the man in the street , he 's there to take the hit when it goes wrong .
So it has , and he does.If Obama is tring to do The Right Thing ( and so far , the signs are good even though he has to do this very slowly ) he must alreday have discovered that this will take more than the time he has , even assuming he can serve TWO tems .
I 'm going to be very interested in what he does for long term planning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human beingI find it thoroughly depressing that that seems to be the prevailing opinion.
That in itself just shows what a tremendous amount of damage Bush has not only caused to the IMAGE of the US, but to the US itself.
Having said that, they had willing assistance from the UK New Labour government in this, so I hope the current "it was within the rules" expense claim abusers get chucked out on their ears soon.I've seen it in the UK, no sooner did they step through the doors of No10, out came the efforts to switch off as many controls as they could get away with so they could fill their pockets as quickly as possible.
Regulators?  Take away their power.
Competent people in government?
Lose them to consultancies, then re-employ them and pretend that's the same thing (try saying "no" as a consultant if you have a family).
Protests?  Tarnish those who do, and bury it under spin.
The worrying thing is that it has at both sides of the ocean worked so well that it has taken TWO terms for the damage to show up.
And then they vanish, publishing "memoirs", hit the speaking circuit or, in the case of Blair, apparently go and work for the people who stand to profit from the collapse.
No, I don't believe in coincidences.The main problem with such an attitude is that it flows downwards.
As soon as industry sees this happening, they realise it's time to do the same because farming the economy to death MUST lead to a crash.
so everyone was trousering wadfulls of cash while the going was good.
Screw the man in the street, he's there to take the hit when it goes wrong.
So it has, and he does.If Obama is tring to do The Right Thing (and so far, the signs are good even though he has to do this very slowly) he must alreday have discovered that this will take more than the time he has, even assuming he can serve TWO tems.
I'm going to be very interested in what he does for long term planning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28171881</id>
	<title>client-attorney privilege is valued over truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243887420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will go down in history as the worst thing about how our age handled jurisdiction/law.<br>If the defendant secretly knows he is guilty, he must lie to his lawyer too. And upon his admission of guilt, the lawyer must feel stabbed in the back, in the courtroom, since the client lied to him too.</p><p><strong>The current system of client-attorney privilege where the defendant admits his guilt in private and pays off or pleads the lawyer to defend his position using argumentative skills and experience, but without ethics, *guarantees* that at any point in time, 50\% of the lawyers,  intelligent and resourceful individuals in society with great proximity and familiarity to the seat of legal power *are cheating the court, the state and the public*</strong><br>This is a <strong>glaring flaw in the system</strong> as far as criminal justice is concerned - in cases of serious nature like murder, fraud, violence, harassment and injustice in business and employment.<br>"Defective by design" is an understatement for this situation.<br>Any possible remedies for this absurd anomaly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will go down in history as the worst thing about how our age handled jurisdiction/law.If the defendant secretly knows he is guilty , he must lie to his lawyer too .
And upon his admission of guilt , the lawyer must feel stabbed in the back , in the courtroom , since the client lied to him too.The current system of client-attorney privilege where the defendant admits his guilt in private and pays off or pleads the lawyer to defend his position using argumentative skills and experience , but without ethics , * guarantees * that at any point in time , 50 \ % of the lawyers , intelligent and resourceful individuals in society with great proximity and familiarity to the seat of legal power * are cheating the court , the state and the public * This is a glaring flaw in the system as far as criminal justice is concerned - in cases of serious nature like murder , fraud , violence , harassment and injustice in business and employment .
" Defective by design " is an understatement for this situation.Any possible remedies for this absurd anomaly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will go down in history as the worst thing about how our age handled jurisdiction/law.If the defendant secretly knows he is guilty, he must lie to his lawyer too.
And upon his admission of guilt, the lawyer must feel stabbed in the back, in the courtroom, since the client lied to him too.The current system of client-attorney privilege where the defendant admits his guilt in private and pays off or pleads the lawyer to defend his position using argumentative skills and experience, but without ethics, *guarantees* that at any point in time, 50\% of the lawyers,  intelligent and resourceful individuals in society with great proximity and familiarity to the seat of legal power *are cheating the court, the state and the public*This is a glaring flaw in the system as far as criminal justice is concerned - in cases of serious nature like murder, fraud, violence, harassment and injustice in business and employment.
"Defective by design" is an understatement for this situation.Any possible remedies for this absurd anomaly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159907</id>
	<title>Pushing Buttons?</title>
	<author>pgn674</author>
	<datestamp>1243798200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I RTF Brief. It was a good read. There is one issue that was mentioned and claimed to be explored, but I don't understand the reasoning.<br>
<br>
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10, on page 19, they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR, with some help from the respondents (the cable company). In fact, through out the brief, it is emphasized that <i>who makes</i> the copy is very important, and in this case it is always the customer that does.<br>
<br>
But, this paragraph and foot note strikes me. It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the "who" and who makes a copy. Like "if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied, but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine, it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails." The brief argues that this doesn't happen; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button.<br>
<br>
Why is pushing the button important? If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed, then nothing has happened. If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then, then again nothing happens. The customer is always the one that makes the selection; pushing a button is the extension of that selection. Hmm, maybe it is important, actually.<br>
<br>
But, in the case of RS-DVR, the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds. The customer can make a decision, then press a button on their remote. This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company's location, and the server presses it's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel, and then presses some more when the right time comes. If these internal server buttons were not pressed, then nothing would happen. To me, they look just as important to the process as the remote control.<br>
<br>
Hmm, maybe the server's internal buttons usage are considered a service, while the remote control's buttons usage is not?<br>
<br>
I think the only thing that's clear here is that I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTF Brief .
It was a good read .
There is one issue that was mentioned and claimed to be explored , but I do n't understand the reasoning .
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10 , on page 19 , they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR , with some help from the respondents ( the cable company ) .
In fact , through out the brief , it is emphasized that who makes the copy is very important , and in this case it is always the customer that does .
But , this paragraph and foot note strikes me .
It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the " who " and who makes a copy .
Like " if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied , but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine , it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails .
" The brief argues that this does n't happen ; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button .
Why is pushing the button important ?
If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed , then nothing has happened .
If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then , then again nothing happens .
The customer is always the one that makes the selection ; pushing a button is the extension of that selection .
Hmm , maybe it is important , actually .
But , in the case of RS-DVR , the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds .
The customer can make a decision , then press a button on their remote .
This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company 's location , and the server presses it 's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel , and then presses some more when the right time comes .
If these internal server buttons were not pressed , then nothing would happen .
To me , they look just as important to the process as the remote control .
Hmm , maybe the server 's internal buttons usage are considered a service , while the remote control 's buttons usage is not ?
I think the only thing that 's clear here is that I 'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTF Brief.
It was a good read.
There is one issue that was mentioned and claimed to be explored, but I don't understand the reasoning.
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10, on page 19, they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR, with some help from the respondents (the cable company).
In fact, through out the brief, it is emphasized that who makes the copy is very important, and in this case it is always the customer that does.
But, this paragraph and foot note strikes me.
It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the "who" and who makes a copy.
Like "if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied, but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine, it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails.
" The brief argues that this doesn't happen; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button.
Why is pushing the button important?
If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed, then nothing has happened.
If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then, then again nothing happens.
The customer is always the one that makes the selection; pushing a button is the extension of that selection.
Hmm, maybe it is important, actually.
But, in the case of RS-DVR, the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds.
The customer can make a decision, then press a button on their remote.
This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company's location, and the server presses it's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel, and then presses some more when the right time comes.
If these internal server buttons were not pressed, then nothing would happen.
To me, they look just as important to the process as the remote control.
Hmm, maybe the server's internal buttons usage are considered a service, while the remote control's buttons usage is not?
I think the only thing that's clear here is that I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160069</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243799280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/pigscanfly/" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">Pigs *can* fly.</a> [msdn.com] MS developer said that so it must be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigs * can * fly .
[ msdn.com ] MS developer said that so it must be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigs *can* fly.
[msdn.com] MS developer said that so it must be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158979</id>
	<title>:Head Asplode:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243791120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer said:<br>
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. <br>
<br>
It's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer said : Well here 's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism .
It 's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer said:
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism.
It's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164283</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1243791360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.</p></div><p>Well, considering his health care plan isn't even universal/single-payer, but instead includes and relies on insurance companies, I'm gonna say he's not planning on going outside any rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established , conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.Well , considering his health care plan is n't even universal/single-payer , but instead includes and relies on insurance companies , I 'm gon na say he 's not planning on going outside any rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.Well, considering his health care plan isn't even universal/single-payer, but instead includes and relies on insurance companies, I'm gonna say he's not planning on going outside any rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</id>
	<title>I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243794180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was initially skeptical about the alleged, lauded virtue of Barrack Obama, but the more I see of his actions, the more I'm forced to concede that I was wrong, and that in this case, water genuinely has flowed uphill, to use that analogy.</p><p>Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating, for the simple reason that an American President is, at this point in history, <i>expected</i> to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being.  That he isn't, is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law.  Bush's degree of evil had almost become reassuring, purely because of its' level of routine familiarity.  When he attempted to do something monstrous, it was entirely expected.</p><p>Even with Bush aside, it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general.  Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject, one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality, to the extent that it can be said that an individual's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.</p><p>Given this, Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President, morally speaking, than Obama.  Cheney is, according to virtually every depiction of him, a consciously, willingly, and indeed enthusiastically evil individual.  He is, therefore, far more consistent, both from study of political theory in general, and observation of American political history in particular, with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.</p><p>It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve.  I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.</p><p>It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was initially skeptical about the alleged , lauded virtue of Barrack Obama , but the more I see of his actions , the more I 'm forced to concede that I was wrong , and that in this case , water genuinely has flowed uphill , to use that analogy.Obama 's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating , for the simple reason that an American President is , at this point in history , expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being .
That he is n't , is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law .
Bush 's degree of evil had almost become reassuring , purely because of its ' level of routine familiarity .
When he attempted to do something monstrous , it was entirely expected.Even with Bush aside , it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general .
Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject , one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality , to the extent that it can be said that an individual 's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.Given this , Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President , morally speaking , than Obama .
Cheney is , according to virtually every depiction of him , a consciously , willingly , and indeed enthusiastically evil individual .
He is , therefore , far more consistent , both from study of political theory in general , and observation of American political history in particular , with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.It is said that within a democracy , a people get the leader they deserve .
I 'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama 's comparitive level of decency , especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite , but even for us outside America , Obama 's integrity is certainly very welcome.It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established , conventional rules Obama is permitted to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was initially skeptical about the alleged, lauded virtue of Barrack Obama, but the more I see of his actions, the more I'm forced to concede that I was wrong, and that in this case, water genuinely has flowed uphill, to use that analogy.Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating, for the simple reason that an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being.
That he isn't, is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law.
Bush's degree of evil had almost become reassuring, purely because of its' level of routine familiarity.
When he attempted to do something monstrous, it was entirely expected.Even with Bush aside, it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general.
Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject, one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality, to the extent that it can be said that an individual's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.Given this, Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President, morally speaking, than Obama.
Cheney is, according to virtually every depiction of him, a consciously, willingly, and indeed enthusiastically evil individual.
He is, therefore, far more consistent, both from study of political theory in general, and observation of American political history in particular, with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve.
I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161061</id>
	<title>Re:I expect we'll see more of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243763220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have had 8 years of Bush, that in itself deserves a reasonable leader. The interesting question is would we have had Obama the first black president if we had not had the Bush years first. I doubt it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have had 8 years of Bush , that in itself deserves a reasonable leader .
The interesting question is would we have had Obama the first black president if we had not had the Bush years first .
I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have had 8 years of Bush, that in itself deserves a reasonable leader.
The interesting question is would we have had Obama the first black president if we had not had the Bush years first.
I doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163755</id>
	<title>This is the system working?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a horribly broken system slightly fixing itself. It's the government that created the unnatural monopoly of copyright and granted copyright holders such tremendous powers to slow innovation simply by suing. In the end, the fact that Cablevision decided not to settle but, rather, to spend millions of dollars to fight this is not the system "working"--it's practically a miracle. So, no, NewYorkCountryLawyer, you have not instilled an ounce of scepticism about my own distrust of government. You have only increased my distrust and strengthened my support for competition and free markets. The skewed way non-libertarians view the world never ceases to amaze me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a horribly broken system slightly fixing itself .
It 's the government that created the unnatural monopoly of copyright and granted copyright holders such tremendous powers to slow innovation simply by suing .
In the end , the fact that Cablevision decided not to settle but , rather , to spend millions of dollars to fight this is not the system " working " --it 's practically a miracle .
So , no , NewYorkCountryLawyer , you have not instilled an ounce of scepticism about my own distrust of government .
You have only increased my distrust and strengthened my support for competition and free markets .
The skewed way non-libertarians view the world never ceases to amaze me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a horribly broken system slightly fixing itself.
It's the government that created the unnatural monopoly of copyright and granted copyright holders such tremendous powers to slow innovation simply by suing.
In the end, the fact that Cablevision decided not to settle but, rather, to spend millions of dollars to fight this is not the system "working"--it's practically a miracle.
So, no, NewYorkCountryLawyer, you have not instilled an ounce of scepticism about my own distrust of government.
You have only increased my distrust and strengthened my support for competition and free markets.
The skewed way non-libertarians view the world never ceases to amaze me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159205</id>
	<title>Re:Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1243793040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawyers do have principles.  One of the most important is to represent their clients.  It most likely doesn't matter to them personally all that much which side they're arguing for.  Unlike us, most people don't see the right to make copies as an ideological point.  <br> <br>
Lawyers don't make findings.  They make arguments for one side, in an incredibly biased manner.  Being biased is how the whole adversarial system works.  There's another guy arguing against them who is employed to be incredibly biased to the other side.  As such, their job when working for the MPAA was simply to put forth the argument as to why the MPAA is going to be harmed.  They did that to the best of their abilities.  <br> <br>
Their job when working for the DOJ is to put forward the argument that is in the best interests of America, and in this case, American businesses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers do have principles .
One of the most important is to represent their clients .
It most likely does n't matter to them personally all that much which side they 're arguing for .
Unlike us , most people do n't see the right to make copies as an ideological point .
Lawyers do n't make findings .
They make arguments for one side , in an incredibly biased manner .
Being biased is how the whole adversarial system works .
There 's another guy arguing against them who is employed to be incredibly biased to the other side .
As such , their job when working for the MPAA was simply to put forth the argument as to why the MPAA is going to be harmed .
They did that to the best of their abilities .
Their job when working for the DOJ is to put forward the argument that is in the best interests of America , and in this case , American businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers do have principles.
One of the most important is to represent their clients.
It most likely doesn't matter to them personally all that much which side they're arguing for.
Unlike us, most people don't see the right to make copies as an ideological point.
Lawyers don't make findings.
They make arguments for one side, in an incredibly biased manner.
Being biased is how the whole adversarial system works.
There's another guy arguing against them who is employed to be incredibly biased to the other side.
As such, their job when working for the MPAA was simply to put forth the argument as to why the MPAA is going to be harmed.
They did that to the best of their abilities.
Their job when working for the DOJ is to put forward the argument that is in the best interests of America, and in this case, American businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164483</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites &amp; Asian</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1243793460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white?</p></div><p>I found parts of your post such as this to be extremely objectionable. Seriously, this sort of thing is agony to read.</p><p>Please don't capitalise part of a sentence like that. Emphasis like that doesn't help everyone hear your tone, it just makes those of us who don't hear your tone wince. Think about caps as shouting. Would you really SAY something like that, shouting out one word in the middle of everything?</p><p>Try using <em>italics</em>. It WILL NOT BE as annoying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white ? I found parts of your post such as this to be extremely objectionable .
Seriously , this sort of thing is agony to read.Please do n't capitalise part of a sentence like that .
Emphasis like that does n't help everyone hear your tone , it just makes those of us who do n't hear your tone wince .
Think about caps as shouting .
Would you really SAY something like that , shouting out one word in the middle of everything ? Try using italics .
It WILL NOT BE as annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white?I found parts of your post such as this to be extremely objectionable.
Seriously, this sort of thing is agony to read.Please don't capitalise part of a sentence like that.
Emphasis like that doesn't help everyone hear your tone, it just makes those of us who don't hear your tone wince.
Think about caps as shouting.
Would you really SAY something like that, shouting out one word in the middle of everything?Try using italics.
It WILL NOT BE as annoying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883</id>
	<title>Tricky things, lawyers.</title>
	<author>dominion</author>
	<datestamp>1243790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ."</p><p>Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.  We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA.  But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.</p><p>And in this situation, it worked out in our favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ .
" Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers .
We made the assumption that , since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ , that they would find in favor of the RIAA .
But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.And in this situation , it worked out in our favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ.
"Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers.
We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA.
But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.And in this situation, it worked out in our favor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158797</id>
	<title>Please let this be a trend</title>
	<author>Nesman64</author>
	<datestamp>1243789800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it isn't likely, but I would love to see this evolve into a situation where I could time shift my MythTV recordings with other users over BitTorrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it is n't likely , but I would love to see this evolve into a situation where I could time shift my MythTV recordings with other users over BitTorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it isn't likely, but I would love to see this evolve into a situation where I could time shift my MythTV recordings with other users over BitTorrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160471</id>
	<title>Re:Good call</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close that window, you'll get swine flu!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close that window , you 'll get swine flu !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close that window, you'll get swine flu!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28171881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28174601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28233999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28167007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28177605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1521236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28167007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28177605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28233999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159491
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28174601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162701
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163661
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164483
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28163493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28164415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159539
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28169061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28171881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28161005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1521236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28158981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28162119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28160861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1521236.28159205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
