<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_0322249</id>
	<title>The Real British X-Files</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243884240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://x-journals.com/" rel="nofollow">blakeharris</a> snips from a site called The X-Journals: <i>"Nick Pope used to work for the British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project. His remit was <a href="http://x-journals.com/2009/the-real-british-x-files/">to investigate UFO sightings reported to the British government</a>, looking for evidence of any potential threat, or anything judged to be of any 'defence significance.'"</i> Some very interesting anecdotes in here, as well as some background on how certain files about these sightings came to be preserved in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>blakeharris snips from a site called The X-Journals : " Nick Pope used to work for the British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project .
His remit was to investigate UFO sightings reported to the British government , looking for evidence of any potential threat , or anything judged to be of any 'defence significance .
' " Some very interesting anecdotes in here , as well as some background on how certain files about these sightings came to be preserved in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blakeharris snips from a site called The X-Journals: "Nick Pope used to work for the British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project.
His remit was to investigate UFO sightings reported to the British government, looking for evidence of any potential threat, or anything judged to be of any 'defence significance.
'" Some very interesting anecdotes in here, as well as some background on how certain files about these sightings came to be preserved in the first place.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, every strange sighting is recorded and studied and, in most of the cases, totally explained. I have watched a lot of movies and pictures of UFOs. The number of insects, weather balloons, clouds, or even moon shots is staggering. <br> <br>
A professional astronomer was making the following remark : "it is our job to observe the sky and find uncommon things. Occasionally we do, but it is impressive to see how a professional with good tools is less likely to observe UFOs than an amateur with bad tools is."<br> <br>UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object. It does not mean "Alien spaceship". When an astronaut says "hey, I saw something passig by there !" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , every strange sighting is recorded and studied and , in most of the cases , totally explained .
I have watched a lot of movies and pictures of UFOs .
The number of insects , weather balloons , clouds , or even moon shots is staggering .
A professional astronomer was making the following remark : " it is our job to observe the sky and find uncommon things .
Occasionally we do , but it is impressive to see how a professional with good tools is less likely to observe UFOs than an amateur with bad tools is .
" UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object .
It does not mean " Alien spaceship " .
When an astronaut says " hey , I saw something passig by there !
" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, every strange sighting is recorded and studied and, in most of the cases, totally explained.
I have watched a lot of movies and pictures of UFOs.
The number of insects, weather balloons, clouds, or even moon shots is staggering.
A professional astronomer was making the following remark : "it is our job to observe the sky and find uncommon things.
Occasionally we do, but it is impressive to see how a professional with good tools is less likely to observe UFOs than an amateur with bad tools is.
" UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object.
It does not mean "Alien spaceship".
When an astronaut says "hey, I saw something passig by there !
" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165909</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243857360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Respect for the righteous analogy m8, Statistics are like bikini's. Spot on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Respect for the righteous analogy m8 , Statistics are like bikini 's .
Spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Respect for the righteous analogy m8, Statistics are like bikini's.
Spot on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.</p><p>That's the irony of the UFO vs SETI situation, we as a whole just sit on a shitload of easily available information and better yet easy oppotunities to find out more about what could possibly be alien life artifacts flying in our own atmosphere, yet we insist to ignore it all, throw it in the loony bin and rather look for radioscopic needles in the haystack of the stars that are tens of light years away from us.</p><p>Methinks rather than pointing radio telescopes at the stars we should point more modest telescopes at whatever's flying in our sky. A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones would offer great insight on the nature and characteristics of whatever those unidentified objects are, but no, no one cares, most shockingly not even scientists, who obviously have no interest in explaining the unexplained that occurs frequently in our atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots , as well as air traffic control staff , radar operators , military base personel , and yes , even astronauts who went to the Moon.That 's the irony of the UFO vs SETI situation , we as a whole just sit on a shitload of easily available information and better yet easy oppotunities to find out more about what could possibly be alien life artifacts flying in our own atmosphere , yet we insist to ignore it all , throw it in the loony bin and rather look for radioscopic needles in the haystack of the stars that are tens of light years away from us.Methinks rather than pointing radio telescopes at the stars we should point more modest telescopes at whatever 's flying in our sky .
A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones would offer great insight on the nature and characteristics of whatever those unidentified objects are , but no , no one cares , most shockingly not even scientists , who obviously have no interest in explaining the unexplained that occurs frequently in our atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.That's the irony of the UFO vs SETI situation, we as a whole just sit on a shitload of easily available information and better yet easy oppotunities to find out more about what could possibly be alien life artifacts flying in our own atmosphere, yet we insist to ignore it all, throw it in the loony bin and rather look for radioscopic needles in the haystack of the stars that are tens of light years away from us.Methinks rather than pointing radio telescopes at the stars we should point more modest telescopes at whatever's flying in our sky.
A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones would offer great insight on the nature and characteristics of whatever those unidentified objects are, but no, no one cares, most shockingly not even scientists, who obviously have no interest in explaining the unexplained that occurs frequently in our atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165135</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1243888980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</p></div><p>What do you have, then? Ministry of Peace?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also do n't have a TV License either.What do you have , then ?
Ministry of Peace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.What do you have, then?
Ministry of Peace?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165433</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Listen: The British don't have much in the way of technology; hot women (at least not when they smile or have sex); they've only managed to make a few good meals that aren't Indian food -- and that's been limited to the last ten years or so; and despite being renowned for wit, all of their laughs since Churchill died has revolved around stupid people -- even the good stuff, like The Office or Red Dwarf or Monty Python, will never adventure into actual wit.
<br> <br>Really all Britain has is some good music, goofy looking people with titles and Nazi halloween costumes, and silly spelling differences from American English. Don't let take away a third of their cultural heritage. I mean, these are people who are desperate enough to pick on the Welsh in order to feel good about themselves. That's like if Obama declared a national policy of mandatory insult humor against toddlers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen : The British do n't have much in the way of technology ; hot women ( at least not when they smile or have sex ) ; they 've only managed to make a few good meals that are n't Indian food -- and that 's been limited to the last ten years or so ; and despite being renowned for wit , all of their laughs since Churchill died has revolved around stupid people -- even the good stuff , like The Office or Red Dwarf or Monty Python , will never adventure into actual wit .
Really all Britain has is some good music , goofy looking people with titles and Nazi halloween costumes , and silly spelling differences from American English .
Do n't let take away a third of their cultural heritage .
I mean , these are people who are desperate enough to pick on the Welsh in order to feel good about themselves .
That 's like if Obama declared a national policy of mandatory insult humor against toddlers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen: The British don't have much in the way of technology; hot women (at least not when they smile or have sex); they've only managed to make a few good meals that aren't Indian food -- and that's been limited to the last ten years or so; and despite being renowned for wit, all of their laughs since Churchill died has revolved around stupid people -- even the good stuff, like The Office or Red Dwarf or Monty Python, will never adventure into actual wit.
Really all Britain has is some good music, goofy looking people with titles and Nazi halloween costumes, and silly spelling differences from American English.
Don't let take away a third of their cultural heritage.
I mean, these are people who are desperate enough to pick on the Welsh in order to feel good about themselves.
That's like if Obama declared a national policy of mandatory insult humor against toddlers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</id>
	<title>British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also do n't have a TV License either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165983</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</p></div><p>What do you have, then? Ministry of Peace?</p></div><p>Don't you mean Ministry of Pease?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also do n't have a TV License either.What do you have , then ?
Ministry of Peace ? Do n't you mean Ministry of Pease ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.What do you have, then?
Ministry of Peace?Don't you mean Ministry of Pease?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165959</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1243858020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object. It does not mean "Alien spaceship". When an astronaut says "hey, I saw something passig by there !" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed.</i> <br> <br>Including such things as waste water dumped by the spacecraft... There's going to be more concern if there is a risk of collision or the whatever is identified as something which should be attached to the spacecraft!</htmltext>
<tokenext>UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object .
It does not mean " Alien spaceship " .
When an astronaut says " hey , I saw something passig by there !
" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed .
Including such things as waste water dumped by the spacecraft... There 's going to be more concern if there is a risk of collision or the whatever is identified as something which should be attached to the spacecraft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UFO = Unindentified Flying/Floating Object.
It does not mean "Alien spaceship".
When an astronaut says "hey, I saw something passig by there !
" it is classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed.
Including such things as waste water dumped by the spacecraft... There's going to be more concern if there is a risk of collision or the whatever is identified as something which should be attached to the spacecraft!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165617</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a grey area. Let's not labour the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a grey area .
Let 's not labour the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a grey area.
Let's not labour the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170405</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243881720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government, OR we could presume there really isn't much to see here... Occam's razor makes this an easy one. And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place, which it isn't. Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings (as stated in the article, which you "read so carefully")</p></div><p> <strong>M I C</strong> underground bases dominating the British government<br>The flying wing UFO in the US is the B-52<br>Please read Edward Ruppelt's book - he headed Project Bluebook and he has never admitted to anyone having seen an alien provably, but there's been a bit of news recently about secret aircraft being considered UFOs back then. And the whole point of secret aircraft testing is to make sure they remain secret in public gaze. The alien distraction is a deliberate strawman argument to drown the sane voices talking of secret aircraft being tested before being considered perfected for real use. The USAF and the US armed forces command has done more heinous things, denied them for decades and now accepted them hesitantly - the US soldiers who were guines pigs for chemical weapons used in Viet Nam, much after the Geneva convention was accepted as reasonable and under implementation. Agent Orange and Dow can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.</p><p><strong>I would love to see you deny the Vietnam Veterans' claims.</strong></p><p>Aliens <strong>do</strong> exist, <strong>but probably not in our galaxy</strong> and therefore it is highly likely that <strong>they can NOT travel to here</strong>, (and only to meet a still-barbaric species of upright standing bipeds with a vast amount of knowledge but shockingly limited application of it. )<br>OTOH, secret aircraft, secret tests and secret weapons are in every country, sniffing out these being the <strong>ordinary daily business</strong> of the opposite country's secret services.<br>And use of social engineering tricks like <strong>using strawman arguments such as aliens</strong> to reduce the credibility of the pointed questioners is the daily business of every govt and media organisation.</p><p>You and your razor can go to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... those basements<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government , OR we could presume there really is n't much to see here... Occam 's razor makes this an easy one .
And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place , which it is n't .
Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings ( as stated in the article , which you " read so carefully " ) M I C underground bases dominating the British governmentThe flying wing UFO in the US is the B-52Please read Edward Ruppelt 's book - he headed Project Bluebook and he has never admitted to anyone having seen an alien provably , but there 's been a bit of news recently about secret aircraft being considered UFOs back then .
And the whole point of secret aircraft testing is to make sure they remain secret in public gaze .
The alien distraction is a deliberate strawman argument to drown the sane voices talking of secret aircraft being tested before being considered perfected for real use .
The USAF and the US armed forces command has done more heinous things , denied them for decades and now accepted them hesitantly - the US soldiers who were guines pigs for chemical weapons used in Viet Nam , much after the Geneva convention was accepted as reasonable and under implementation .
Agent Orange and Dow can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.I would love to see you deny the Vietnam Veterans ' claims.Aliens do exist , but probably not in our galaxy and therefore it is highly likely that they can NOT travel to here , ( and only to meet a still-barbaric species of upright standing bipeds with a vast amount of knowledge but shockingly limited application of it .
) OTOH , secret aircraft , secret tests and secret weapons are in every country , sniffing out these being the ordinary daily business of the opposite country 's secret services.And use of social engineering tricks like using strawman arguments such as aliens to reduce the credibility of the pointed questioners is the daily business of every govt and media organisation.You and your razor can go to ... those basements : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government, OR we could presume there really isn't much to see here... Occam's razor makes this an easy one.
And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place, which it isn't.
Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings (as stated in the article, which you "read so carefully") M I C underground bases dominating the British governmentThe flying wing UFO in the US is the B-52Please read Edward Ruppelt's book - he headed Project Bluebook and he has never admitted to anyone having seen an alien provably, but there's been a bit of news recently about secret aircraft being considered UFOs back then.
And the whole point of secret aircraft testing is to make sure they remain secret in public gaze.
The alien distraction is a deliberate strawman argument to drown the sane voices talking of secret aircraft being tested before being considered perfected for real use.
The USAF and the US armed forces command has done more heinous things, denied them for decades and now accepted them hesitantly - the US soldiers who were guines pigs for chemical weapons used in Viet Nam, much after the Geneva convention was accepted as reasonable and under implementation.
Agent Orange and Dow can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.I would love to see you deny the Vietnam Veterans' claims.Aliens do exist, but probably not in our galaxy and therefore it is highly likely that they can NOT travel to here, (and only to meet a still-barbaric species of upright standing bipeds with a vast amount of knowledge but shockingly limited application of it.
)OTOH, secret aircraft, secret tests and secret weapons are in every country, sniffing out these being the ordinary daily business of the opposite country's secret services.And use of social engineering tricks like using strawman arguments such as aliens to reduce the credibility of the pointed questioners is the daily business of every govt and media organisation.You and your razor can go to ... those basements :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165705</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1243854240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.</p></div><p>The answer is clear, then... the aliens must be using advanced computers with scanner technology to detect camera and recording devices, and only show up where those devices aren't present! That way they can remain undetected to continue conducting their nefarious experiments on us!</p><p>But the cows know when the aliens are coming, and get real apprehensive about it! If you keep a pet cow in your house, it'll wake you up at night before you can be abducted!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures , but that has n't happened.The answer is clear , then... the aliens must be using advanced computers with scanner technology to detect camera and recording devices , and only show up where those devices are n't present !
That way they can remain undetected to continue conducting their nefarious experiments on us ! But the cows know when the aliens are coming , and get real apprehensive about it !
If you keep a pet cow in your house , it 'll wake you up at night before you can be abducted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.The answer is clear, then... the aliens must be using advanced computers with scanner technology to detect camera and recording devices, and only show up where those devices aren't present!
That way they can remain undetected to continue conducting their nefarious experiments on us!But the cows know when the aliens are coming, and get real apprehensive about it!
If you keep a pet cow in your house, it'll wake you up at night before you can be abducted!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165615</id>
	<title>Careful on using "deliberately"</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1243853100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody might think it was a conspiracy or soemthing sinister to destroy proof or something. Actually as the article wrote : <br> <br> <br>QUOTE:What this meant was that prior to 1967, few UFO files had survived this process and with a few exceptions, UFO files from the Fifties and early Sixties had been destroyed.<b>There was nothing sinister about this and such decisions were made all the time on a wide range of subjects</b> <br> <br> <br> emphasis mine. Furthermore the reading of your post make it sound as if there was something to read that it is intentionnaly kept from eye as something sinister. but the conclusion of the author is different : <br> <br>QUOTE:
I am always reluctant to use the word disclosure, because in ufology the word is often associated with the work of Dr Steven Greer, whose Disclosure Project has become something resembling a political campaign (as has Exopolitics) aimed at ending the UFO cover-up in which many conspiracy theorists believe. But I do use the word (with a small d and not a capital letter!) because in a very real sense, disclosure is precisely what the MoD is doing in relation to documents and files.<b> Much has already been released and there's more to come. These are exciting times.<b> <br> <br> <br>
Emphasis mine. You sound more like thos conspiracy theorist he speaks of in his conclusion than somebody open to all possibilities, including the very highly probable possibility that there is indeed NOTHING really important to be disclosed, except data for a sociologic/psychologic study.</b></b></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody might think it was a conspiracy or soemthing sinister to destroy proof or something .
Actually as the article wrote : QUOTE : What this meant was that prior to 1967 , few UFO files had survived this process and with a few exceptions , UFO files from the Fifties and early Sixties had been destroyed.There was nothing sinister about this and such decisions were made all the time on a wide range of subjects emphasis mine .
Furthermore the reading of your post make it sound as if there was something to read that it is intentionnaly kept from eye as something sinister .
but the conclusion of the author is different : QUOTE : I am always reluctant to use the word disclosure , because in ufology the word is often associated with the work of Dr Steven Greer , whose Disclosure Project has become something resembling a political campaign ( as has Exopolitics ) aimed at ending the UFO cover-up in which many conspiracy theorists believe .
But I do use the word ( with a small d and not a capital letter !
) because in a very real sense , disclosure is precisely what the MoD is doing in relation to documents and files .
Much has already been released and there 's more to come .
These are exciting times .
Emphasis mine .
You sound more like thos conspiracy theorist he speaks of in his conclusion than somebody open to all possibilities , including the very highly probable possibility that there is indeed NOTHING really important to be disclosed , except data for a sociologic/psychologic study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody might think it was a conspiracy or soemthing sinister to destroy proof or something.
Actually as the article wrote :   QUOTE:What this meant was that prior to 1967, few UFO files had survived this process and with a few exceptions, UFO files from the Fifties and early Sixties had been destroyed.There was nothing sinister about this and such decisions were made all the time on a wide range of subjects    emphasis mine.
Furthermore the reading of your post make it sound as if there was something to read that it is intentionnaly kept from eye as something sinister.
but the conclusion of the author is different :  QUOTE:
I am always reluctant to use the word disclosure, because in ufology the word is often associated with the work of Dr Steven Greer, whose Disclosure Project has become something resembling a political campaign (as has Exopolitics) aimed at ending the UFO cover-up in which many conspiracy theorists believe.
But I do use the word (with a small d and not a capital letter!
) because in a very real sense, disclosure is precisely what the MoD is doing in relation to documents and files.
Much has already been released and there's more to come.
These are exciting times.
Emphasis mine.
You sound more like thos conspiracy theorist he speaks of in his conclusion than somebody open to all possibilities, including the very highly probable possibility that there is indeed NOTHING really important to be disclosed, except data for a sociologic/psychologic study.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165189</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You be surprised to find out how many of those pilots that have seen / chased planets for example, when they swear that something was maneuvering in great speed around their craft. Having read most on the subject, I'm not optimistic about finding a real solid case that could include something that would look like hard  evidence.</p><p>The only good "evidences" that have been in the past are photos and movies, which in these days are almost worthless due to technological advancements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You be surprised to find out how many of those pilots that have seen / chased planets for example , when they swear that something was maneuvering in great speed around their craft .
Having read most on the subject , I 'm not optimistic about finding a real solid case that could include something that would look like hard evidence.The only good " evidences " that have been in the past are photos and movies , which in these days are almost worthless due to technological advancements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You be surprised to find out how many of those pilots that have seen / chased planets for example, when they swear that something was maneuvering in great speed around their craft.
Having read most on the subject, I'm not optimistic about finding a real solid case that could include something that would look like hard  evidence.The only good "evidences" that have been in the past are photos and movies, which in these days are almost worthless due to technological advancements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166311</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>muzicman</author>
	<datestamp>1243862040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was that that just went over head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was that that just went over head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was that that just went over head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whooo<b>c</b>h</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoooch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoooch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading the article carefully? Amazing, your brain turns off at all the sections that would counter your conspiracy-theories.</p><p>Some quotes:<br>"I never authorized the destruction of a UFO file and following the 1967 ruling, nobody should."</p><p>"The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act (passed in November 2000 and coming fully into force in January 2005) effectively reversed the default position and the presumption now is that information is released, unless any of the formal exemptions apply."</p><p>Another interesting tidbit: they are so busy with FOI requests, they can't spare the time to investigate new incidents.</p><p>You also say "What has been released are sightings that can be/have been proven to be false sightings". Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government, OR we could presume there really isn't much to see here... Occam's razor makes this an easy one. And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place, which it isn't. Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings (as stated in the article, which you "read so carefully")</p><p>"Some of the more interesting incidents included: 26th April 1984: Members of the public report a UFO in Stanmore. Two police officers attend the scene, witness the craft and sketch it.<br>13th October 1984: a saucer-shaped UFO is seen from Waterloo Bridge in London by numerous witnesses.<br>11th September 1985: 2 UFOs tracked on a military radar system travelling 10 nautical miles in 12 seconds.<br>4th September 1986: a UFO passes an estimated 1.5 nautical miles from the port side of a commercial aircraft.<br>"</p><p>Apparently you can prove them to be false sightings - I'd recommend you contact the British MoD and tell them the good news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the article carefully ?
Amazing , your brain turns off at all the sections that would counter your conspiracy-theories.Some quotes : " I never authorized the destruction of a UFO file and following the 1967 ruling , nobody should .
" " The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act ( passed in November 2000 and coming fully into force in January 2005 ) effectively reversed the default position and the presumption now is that information is released , unless any of the formal exemptions apply .
" Another interesting tidbit : they are so busy with FOI requests , they ca n't spare the time to investigate new incidents.You also say " What has been released are sightings that can be/have been proven to be false sightings " .
Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government , OR we could presume there really is n't much to see here... Occam 's razor makes this an easy one .
And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place , which it is n't .
Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings ( as stated in the article , which you " read so carefully " ) " Some of the more interesting incidents included : 26th April 1984 : Members of the public report a UFO in Stanmore .
Two police officers attend the scene , witness the craft and sketch it.13th October 1984 : a saucer-shaped UFO is seen from Waterloo Bridge in London by numerous witnesses.11th September 1985 : 2 UFOs tracked on a military radar system travelling 10 nautical miles in 12 seconds.4th September 1986 : a UFO passes an estimated 1.5 nautical miles from the port side of a commercial aircraft .
" Apparently you can prove them to be false sightings - I 'd recommend you contact the British MoD and tell them the good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the article carefully?
Amazing, your brain turns off at all the sections that would counter your conspiracy-theories.Some quotes:"I never authorized the destruction of a UFO file and following the 1967 ruling, nobody should.
""The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act (passed in November 2000 and coming fully into force in January 2005) effectively reversed the default position and the presumption now is that information is released, unless any of the formal exemptions apply.
"Another interesting tidbit: they are so busy with FOI requests, they can't spare the time to investigate new incidents.You also say "What has been released are sightings that can be/have been proven to be false sightings".
Now we could presume a huge conspiracy and alien underground bases dominating the British government, OR we could presume there really isn't much to see here... Occam's razor makes this an easy one.
And that is if you consider that your statement is correct in the first place, which it isn't.
Unless you can prove the following sightings to be false sightings (as stated in the article, which you "read so carefully")"Some of the more interesting incidents included: 26th April 1984: Members of the public report a UFO in Stanmore.
Two police officers attend the scene, witness the craft and sketch it.13th October 1984: a saucer-shaped UFO is seen from Waterloo Bridge in London by numerous witnesses.11th September 1985: 2 UFOs tracked on a military radar system travelling 10 nautical miles in 12 seconds.4th September 1986: a UFO passes an estimated 1.5 nautical miles from the port side of a commercial aircraft.
"Apparently you can prove them to be false sightings - I'd recommend you contact the British MoD and tell them the good news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165493</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1243851600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</i></p><p>What about smug Englishmen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also do n't have a TV License either.What about smug Englishmen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.What about smug Englishmen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165885</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1243857120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That is well and true, it however has a little problem: Those are UFOs in the literal sense, they are "unidentified flying object", not extra terrestrial spacecrafts. When you can't tell what something is, it simply means you don't know, it doesn't confirm that aliens are involved.</i> <br> <br>Indeed the whole "don't know what it is, so it must be aliens" idea is rather irrational. It's not unlike our ancestors saying "can't explain that, a god did it"...<br> <br> <i>When it comes to hard evidence, there is simply nothing that points to E.T. Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things, clouds, planets, satellites, floating lanterns, lense flare, insects and tons of more stuff.</i> <br> <br>All of which are a lot more likely than "aliens". <i> <br> <br>How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts? None. You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.</i> <br> <br>Most likely non blurry pictures would equate to less things which can't be identified. However camera in phones is likely to mean more blurry pictures and vidoes which could be just about anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is well and true , it however has a little problem : Those are UFOs in the literal sense , they are " unidentified flying object " , not extra terrestrial spacecrafts .
When you ca n't tell what something is , it simply means you do n't know , it does n't confirm that aliens are involved .
Indeed the whole " do n't know what it is , so it must be aliens " idea is rather irrational .
It 's not unlike our ancestors saying " ca n't explain that , a god did it " ... When it comes to hard evidence , there is simply nothing that points to E.T .
Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things , clouds , planets , satellites , floating lanterns , lense flare , insects and tons of more stuff .
All of which are a lot more likely than " aliens " .
How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts ?
None. You 'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures , but that has n't happened .
Most likely non blurry pictures would equate to less things which ca n't be identified .
However camera in phones is likely to mean more blurry pictures and vidoes which could be just about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is well and true, it however has a little problem: Those are UFOs in the literal sense, they are "unidentified flying object", not extra terrestrial spacecrafts.
When you can't tell what something is, it simply means you don't know, it doesn't confirm that aliens are involved.
Indeed the whole "don't know what it is, so it must be aliens" idea is rather irrational.
It's not unlike our ancestors saying "can't explain that, a god did it"...  When it comes to hard evidence, there is simply nothing that points to E.T.
Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things, clouds, planets, satellites, floating lanterns, lense flare, insects and tons of more stuff.
All of which are a lot more likely than "aliens".
How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts?
None. You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.
Most likely non blurry pictures would equate to less things which can't be identified.
However camera in phones is likely to mean more blurry pictures and vidoes which could be just about anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166279</id>
	<title>Re:Parent wears a Tinfoil hat to work</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1243861560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far.</i> <br> <br>Paranoid may or may not be justified. However considering the sort of people you find involved in government, especially national governments, distrust by default is the only rational position.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far .
Paranoid may or may not be justified .
However considering the sort of people you find involved in government , especially national governments , distrust by default is the only rational position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far.
Paranoid may or may not be justified.
However considering the sort of people you find involved in government, especially national governments, distrust by default is the only rational position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165215</id>
	<title>Parent wears a Tinfoil hat to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243847100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember to wear your tinfoil hat when you go outdoors, and don't forget to tell everyone that we never landed on the moon. Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember to wear your tinfoil hat when you go outdoors , and do n't forget to tell everyone that we never landed on the moon .
Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember to wear your tinfoil hat when you go outdoors, and don't forget to tell everyone that we never landed on the moon.
Paranoia and distrust of the Government should only be taken so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1243888680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Britain "definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense"???  How about a "Ministry of Defence", then?  You're either spectacularly ignorant, or a nitpicking pedant.  In either case, you're full of meadow muffins. </p><p> <a href="http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/home" title="www.mod.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/home</a> [www.mod.uk] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain " definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense " ? ? ?
How about a " Ministry of Defence " , then ?
You 're either spectacularly ignorant , or a nitpicking pedant .
In either case , you 're full of meadow muffins .
http : //www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/home [ www.mod.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Britain "definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense"???
How about a "Ministry of Defence", then?
You're either spectacularly ignorant, or a nitpicking pedant.
In either case, you're full of meadow muffins.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/home [www.mod.uk] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170633</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243882740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that reality, it would be <em>America</em>, and not the US that has the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon operated by <em>America's</em> Department of Defence.</p><p>Back to the real reality: Britain is <em>covered</em> by the <em>UK</em> Ministry of Defence, but it doesn't have one of its own; and British citizens can purchase a <em>UK</em> TV Licence,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that reality , it would be America , and not the US that has the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon operated by America 's Department of Defence.Back to the real reality : Britain is covered by the UK Ministry of Defence , but it does n't have one of its own ; and British citizens can purchase a UK TV Licence,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that reality, it would be America, and not the US that has the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon operated by America's Department of Defence.Back to the real reality: Britain is covered by the UK Ministry of Defence, but it doesn't have one of its own; and British citizens can purchase a UK TV Licence,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28172813</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1243847700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this particular astronaut is being truthful or lost his mind or not, but in this case, this particular astronaut certainly goes beyond your descriptor "classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed."</p><p>------------------</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar\_Mitchell</p><p>Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of several UFO visits during his career, but each one had been covered up.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The 77-year-old, who was a crew member of the Apollo 14 mission, said sources at the space agency had described aliens as resembling &#226;oelittle people who look strange to us&#226;.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dr Mitchell told Kerrang! Radio that human technology was &#226;oenot nearly as sophisticated&#226; as theirs and had they been hostile, he warned: &#226;oeWe would be been gone by now&#226;.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#226;oeI happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we&#226;(TM)ve been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#226;oeIt&#226;(TM)s been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it&#226;(TM)s leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#226;oeI&#226;(TM)ve been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes &#226;" we have been visited. &#226;oe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this particular astronaut is being truthful or lost his mind or not , but in this case , this particular astronaut certainly goes beyond your descriptor " classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed .
" ------------------http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar \ _MitchellDr Edgar Mitchell , said he was aware of several UFO visits during his career , but each one had been covered up .
        The 77-year-old , who was a crew member of the Apollo 14 mission , said sources at the space agency had described aliens as resembling   oelittle people who look strange to us   .
        Dr Mitchell told Kerrang !
Radio that human technology was   oenot nearly as sophisticated   as theirs and had they been hostile , he warned :   oeWe would be been gone by now   .
          oeI happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we   ( TM ) ve been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real .
          oeIt   ( TM ) s been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so , but slowly it   ( TM ) s leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it .
          oeI   ( TM ) ve been in military and intelligence circles , who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge , yes   " we have been visited .
  oe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this particular astronaut is being truthful or lost his mind or not, but in this case, this particular astronaut certainly goes beyond your descriptor "classified as a UFO because no one wants to take the time to find the identification of the debris he observed.
"------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar\_MitchellDr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of several UFO visits during his career, but each one had been covered up.
        The 77-year-old, who was a crew member of the Apollo 14 mission, said sources at the space agency had described aliens as resembling âoelittle people who look strange to usâ.
        Dr Mitchell told Kerrang!
Radio that human technology was âoenot nearly as sophisticatedâ as theirs and had they been hostile, he warned: âoeWe would be been gone by nowâ.
        âoeI happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that weâ(TM)ve been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real.
        âoeItâ(TM)s been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly itâ(TM)s leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.
        âoeIâ(TM)ve been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes â" we have been visited.
âoe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165335</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1243848780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As one modern philosopher said: "Statistics are like Bikinis. They reveal what is known and hide what is vital."</i>
<br> <br>
Actually Aaron Levenstein's qualifications were in law, the same proffession that legislated pi=3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As one modern philosopher said : " Statistics are like Bikinis .
They reveal what is known and hide what is vital .
" Actually Aaron Levenstein 's qualifications were in law , the same proffession that legislated pi = 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one modern philosopher said: "Statistics are like Bikinis.
They reveal what is known and hide what is vital.
"
 
Actually Aaron Levenstein's qualifications were in law, the same proffession that legislated pi=3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</id>
	<title>Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the article carefully it is clear:<br>1) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed, deliberately.<br>2) All UFO related files from 1967 (when it peaked) have been "deemed" classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details.<br>What has been released are a few harmless sightings which can be/has been proven as false sightings.<br>All the perfectly good material, from 1950s onwards have been either wiped or still kept hidden from public eye.<br>As one modern philosopher said: "Statistics are like Bikinis. They reveal what is known and hide what is vital."<br>Same here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article carefully it is clear : 1 ) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed , deliberately.2 ) All UFO related files from 1967 ( when it peaked ) have been " deemed " classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details.What has been released are a few harmless sightings which can be/has been proven as false sightings.All the perfectly good material , from 1950s onwards have been either wiped or still kept hidden from public eye.As one modern philosopher said : " Statistics are like Bikinis .
They reveal what is known and hide what is vital .
" Same here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article carefully it is clear:1) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed, deliberately.2) All UFO related files from 1967 (when it peaked) have been "deemed" classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details.What has been released are a few harmless sightings which can be/has been proven as false sightings.All the perfectly good material, from 1950s onwards have been either wiped or still kept hidden from public eye.As one modern philosopher said: "Statistics are like Bikinis.
They reveal what is known and hide what is vital.
"Same here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28186461</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1243974660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wooooooooooooooooorcestershire</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wooooooooooooooooorcestershire</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wooooooooooooooooorcestershire</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28175335</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1243858020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>defense is french for defence, was the writer french ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>defense is french for defence , was the writer french ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>defense is french for defence, was the writer french ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165775</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243855740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In case you haven't got it yet, we have a Ministry of Defen<b>c</b>e and a TV Licen<b>c</b>e</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you have n't got it yet , we have a Ministry of Defence and a TV Licence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you haven't got it yet, we have a Ministry of Defence and a TV Licence</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165817</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>ufoolme</author>
	<datestamp>1243856280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
1) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed, deliberately.
</p></div><p>Probably cuz they didn't want the embarrassment, of such a crappy investigation. I would imagine, if you worked in the MOD in the 1950's had to deal with psychologically disturbed people on a daily basis your report might included some derogatory remarks.
I'm not saying everyone's a crank etc, but it would be more than the usually MOD officer could handle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed , deliberately .
Probably cuz they did n't want the embarrassment , of such a crappy investigation .
I would imagine , if you worked in the MOD in the 1950 's had to deal with psychologically disturbed people on a daily basis your report might included some derogatory remarks .
I 'm not saying everyone 's a crank etc , but it would be more than the usually MOD officer could handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
1) All UFO related files from 1950s and early 1960s were destroyed, deliberately.
Probably cuz they didn't want the embarrassment, of such a crappy investigation.
I would imagine, if you worked in the MOD in the 1950's had to deal with psychologically disturbed people on a daily basis your report might included some derogatory remarks.
I'm not saying everyone's a crank etc, but it would be more than the usually MOD officer could handle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165099</id>
	<title>Uh-huh.</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1243888320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nick Pope used to work for the
British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And then, in 2002, they transferred him over to the MOD Iraq Intelligence Gathering Service...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nick Pope used to work for the British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project .
And then , in 2002 , they transferred him over to the MOD Iraq Intelligence Gathering Service.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nick Pope used to work for the
British Ministry of Defense and for 3 years headed up their UFO project.
And then, in 2002, they transferred him over to the MOD Iraq Intelligence Gathering Service...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165719</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1243854360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.</i> <br> <br>Except presumably in the same reality where the US has a "World Trade Centre" in New Your and "The Pentagon" is operated by the "Department of Defence". (Both of which were attacked on 119.) For that matter a "meter" is a measuring device, not a unit of measurement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also do n't have a TV License either .
Except presumably in the same reality where the US has a " World Trade Centre " in New Your and " The Pentagon " is operated by the " Department of Defence " .
( Both of which were attacked on 119 .
) For that matter a " meter " is a measuring device , not a unit of measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense and we also don't have a TV License either.
Except presumably in the same reality where the US has a "World Trade Centre" in New Your and "The Pentagon" is operated by the "Department of Defence".
(Both of which were attacked on 119.
) For that matter a "meter" is a measuring device, not a unit of measurement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166223</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1243860840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nitpicking picknicker.</p><p>Always seems funny when people want to point out nitpicking - and complain about it - which in turn makes them worse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Like me now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitpicking picknicker.Always seems funny when people want to point out nitpicking - and complain about it - which in turn makes them worse : ) Like me now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitpicking picknicker.Always seems funny when people want to point out nitpicking - and complain about it - which in turn makes them worse :)Like me now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165259</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1243847700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A really good pratical joke takes a lot of effort and planning, just ask the crop circle guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A really good pratical joke takes a lot of effort and planning , just ask the crop circle guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A really good pratical joke takes a lot of effort and planning, just ask the crop circle guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166435</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1243862940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of people is starting to look up in infrared. Interesting stuff is going on up there.
<br> <br>
Watch this YouTube video for example:
<br> <br>
ULM1RbK1Lwo
<br> <br>
This is just a tip of an big iceberg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people is starting to look up in infrared .
Interesting stuff is going on up there .
Watch this YouTube video for example : ULM1RbK1Lwo This is just a tip of an big iceberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people is starting to look up in infrared.
Interesting stuff is going on up there.
Watch this YouTube video for example:
 
ULM1RbK1Lwo
 
This is just a tip of an big iceberg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347</id>
	<title>Re:UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.</p></div><p>That is well and true, it however has a little problem: Those are UFOs in the literal sense, they are "unidentified flying object", not extra terrestrial spacecrafts. When you can't tell what something is, it simply means you don't know, it doesn't confirm that aliens are involved.</p><p>When it comes to hard evidence, there is simply nothing that points to E.T. Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things, clouds, planets, satellites, floating lanterns, lense flare, insects and tons of more stuff. How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts? None. You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots , as well as air traffic control staff , radar operators , military base personel , and yes , even astronauts who went to the Moon.That is well and true , it however has a little problem : Those are UFOs in the literal sense , they are " unidentified flying object " , not extra terrestrial spacecrafts .
When you ca n't tell what something is , it simply means you do n't know , it does n't confirm that aliens are involved.When it comes to hard evidence , there is simply nothing that points to E.T .
Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things , clouds , planets , satellites , floating lanterns , lense flare , insects and tons of more stuff .
How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts ?
None. You 'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures , but that has n't happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.That is well and true, it however has a little problem: Those are UFOs in the literal sense, they are "unidentified flying object", not extra terrestrial spacecrafts.
When you can't tell what something is, it simply means you don't know, it doesn't confirm that aliens are involved.When it comes to hard evidence, there is simply nothing that points to E.T.
Blobs of light in the sky can be lots of things, clouds, planets, satellites, floating lanterns, lense flare, insects and tons of more stuff.
How many clear non-blurry pictures are there of alien space crafts?
None. You'd guess in a time where every mobile has camera people would come up with some good pictures, but that hasn't happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165801</id>
	<title>Re:Lameduck release. RTFA carefully</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1243856160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>2) All UFO related files from 1967 (when it peaked) have been "deemed" classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details.</i> <br>
<br>
This, ladies and gents, is fascinating. Ordinarily, to varying degrees, governments use fear to keep the populace in check and maintain the status quo. This is every government, to an extent. To state that doesn't make me a conspiracy nut, does it? Even <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/best-way-to-beat-the-bnp-is-to-vote-green-1678539.html" title="independent.co.uk">honourable causes</a> [independent.co.uk] use fear as a motivator. So. Why surpress this?<br>
<br>
There is a school of thought which says "In order for people to set aside their differences, they need a common enemy". E.g. If France started saturation bombing Northern Ireland tomorrow, you can bet they'd pull together. It works to a global scale. Movie metaphors: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen" title="wikipedia.org">Watchmen</a> [wikipedia.org] or, more alieny but cheesy example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence\_Day\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">Independence Day</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>
<br>
My point (I have one) is: Surpressed forever... is it us they really fear?</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) All UFO related files from 1967 ( when it peaked ) have been " deemed " classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details .
This , ladies and gents , is fascinating .
Ordinarily , to varying degrees , governments use fear to keep the populace in check and maintain the status quo .
This is every government , to an extent .
To state that does n't make me a conspiracy nut , does it ?
Even honourable causes [ independent.co.uk ] use fear as a motivator .
So. Why surpress this ?
There is a school of thought which says " In order for people to set aside their differences , they need a common enemy " .
E.g. If France started saturation bombing Northern Ireland tomorrow , you can bet they 'd pull together .
It works to a global scale .
Movie metaphors : Watchmen [ wikipedia.org ] or , more alieny but cheesy example , Independence Day [ wikipedia.org ] .
My point ( I have one ) is : Surpressed forever... is it us they really fear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) All UFO related files from 1967 (when it peaked) have been "deemed" classified and the Eurocrats in collusion with MoD has voted NEVER to release those details.
This, ladies and gents, is fascinating.
Ordinarily, to varying degrees, governments use fear to keep the populace in check and maintain the status quo.
This is every government, to an extent.
To state that doesn't make me a conspiracy nut, does it?
Even honourable causes [independent.co.uk] use fear as a motivator.
So. Why surpress this?
There is a school of thought which says "In order for people to set aside their differences, they need a common enemy".
E.g. If France started saturation bombing Northern Ireland tomorrow, you can bet they'd pull together.
It works to a global scale.
Movie metaphors: Watchmen [wikipedia.org] or, more alieny but cheesy example, Independence Day [wikipedia.org].
My point (I have one) is: Surpressed forever... is it us they really fear?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165605</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243852980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you do have a Ministry of Sound!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do have a Ministry of Sound !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you do have a Ministry of Sound!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166819</id>
	<title>Constructive criticism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243865400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. You misuse Occam's razor.<br>2. It makes you look like an idiot.<br><b>3. Stop doing it.</b><br>4. Profit!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
You misuse Occam 's razor.2 .
It makes you look like an idiot.3 .
Stop doing it.4 .
Profit ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
You misuse Occam's razor.2.
It makes you look like an idiot.3.
Stop doing it.4.
Profit!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125</id>
	<title>UFO stories from airline pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard that lots of airline pilots have UFO stories they won't talk about, since questions about their psychological stability would be the kiss of death in that particular career field.</p><p>I don't know if that's true or not. It sounds like a good book opportunity would be to go around and interview a bunch of *retired* airline pilots.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - AJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that lots of airline pilots have UFO stories they wo n't talk about , since questions about their psychological stability would be the kiss of death in that particular career field.I do n't know if that 's true or not .
It sounds like a good book opportunity would be to go around and interview a bunch of * retired * airline pilots .
    - AJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that lots of airline pilots have UFO stories they won't talk about, since questions about their psychological stability would be the kiss of death in that particular career field.I don't know if that's true or not.
It sounds like a good book opportunity would be to go around and interview a bunch of *retired* airline pilots.
    - AJ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165179</id>
	<title>Re:British English</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1243889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense</i>
<br> <br>
Well that explains why your crops keep getting attacked by artistic aliens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense Well that explains why your crops keep getting attacked by artistic aliens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain definitely does not have a Ministry of Defense
 
Well that explains why your crops keep getting attacked by artistic aliens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28175335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28186461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28172813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_0322249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_0322249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28172813
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165959
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_0322249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_0322249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28175335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166311
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28186461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_0322249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28170405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28166819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_0322249.28165909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
