<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_2238213</id>
	<title>$33 Million In Poker Winnings Seized By US Govt</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244635320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/10poker.html">freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online</a>. ... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said. He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A New York Times story reports that , 'Opening a new front in the government 's battle against Internet gambling , federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online .
... " It 's very aggressive , and I think it 's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors , " Mr. Rose said .
He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players , as opposed to the money of the companies involved .
' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online.
... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.
He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.
' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287995</id>
	<title>Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more.</p><p>Will us gov be able to hit a over seas bank that you have money at?&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more.Will us gov be able to hit a over seas bank that you have money at ? &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more.Will us gov be able to hit a over seas bank that you have money at?&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered about you types.  'I'm a great poker player'.</p><p>Really?  A game of pure chance and luck and yet you types are experts at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered about you types .
'I 'm a great poker player'.Really ?
A game of pure chance and luck and yet you types are experts at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered about you types.
'I'm a great poker player'.Really?
A game of pure chance and luck and yet you types are experts at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291339</id>
	<title>American government won, mafia lost.</title>
	<author>boltik</author>
	<datestamp>1244724120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In "Who can steal more" competition.
I believe this time they "score" more $$$ than mafia in the famous airport robbery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In " Who can steal more " competition .
I believe this time they " score " more $ $ $ than mafia in the famous airport robbery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "Who can steal more" competition.
I believe this time they "score" more $$$ than mafia in the famous airport robbery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289153</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1244653620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the heck would they monitor it? You open a bank account in a different country, most likely without income tax regulations, get a VISA/MasterCard (Maestro) for the account and then use that for general expenses or to get cash out of an ATM. You can get $900 per day out of an ATM with a foreign Maestro card - yes I have an oversees account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the heck would they monitor it ?
You open a bank account in a different country , most likely without income tax regulations , get a VISA/MasterCard ( Maestro ) for the account and then use that for general expenses or to get cash out of an ATM .
You can get $ 900 per day out of an ATM with a foreign Maestro card - yes I have an oversees account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the heck would they monitor it?
You open a bank account in a different country, most likely without income tax regulations, get a VISA/MasterCard (Maestro) for the account and then use that for general expenses or to get cash out of an ATM.
You can get $900 per day out of an ATM with a foreign Maestro card - yes I have an oversees account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289799</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Canberra Bob</author>
	<datestamp>1244659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I make a LOT more now playing full time than I did working as a software engineer.  I would not say I am a great player but I am a sh!tload better than average.  Yes everyone gets an equal distribution of the same cards and same situations.  It is the ones who have a higher understanding of the underlying statistical probabilities of those situations that will profit from the ones who don't.  The University of Alberta has an entire team devoted to trying to solve poker.  The best bot they could produce can only equal the best players in the world heads up and cannot beat the best players in a multi-handed games - and this is only limit hold em.  To equate a game of poker to a game of dice shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.  Dice is solvable - if you get 6:1 odds on your number coming up, your net result will be 0 no matter what number you chose in the long run.  Poker is not remotely in the same domain.  The information is incomplete.  There is no simple case of "if I follow strategy X then I will lose the least / win the most" ie. a Game Theory Optimal solution.  In a game of pure chance and luck such a strategy would exist.  Please get your facts straight before trying to sound clever and coming off as completely ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I make a LOT more now playing full time than I did working as a software engineer .
I would not say I am a great player but I am a sh ! tload better than average .
Yes everyone gets an equal distribution of the same cards and same situations .
It is the ones who have a higher understanding of the underlying statistical probabilities of those situations that will profit from the ones who do n't .
The University of Alberta has an entire team devoted to trying to solve poker .
The best bot they could produce can only equal the best players in the world heads up and can not beat the best players in a multi-handed games - and this is only limit hold em .
To equate a game of poker to a game of dice shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the subject at hand .
Dice is solvable - if you get 6 : 1 odds on your number coming up , your net result will be 0 no matter what number you chose in the long run .
Poker is not remotely in the same domain .
The information is incomplete .
There is no simple case of " if I follow strategy X then I will lose the least / win the most " ie .
a Game Theory Optimal solution .
In a game of pure chance and luck such a strategy would exist .
Please get your facts straight before trying to sound clever and coming off as completely ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make a LOT more now playing full time than I did working as a software engineer.
I would not say I am a great player but I am a sh!tload better than average.
Yes everyone gets an equal distribution of the same cards and same situations.
It is the ones who have a higher understanding of the underlying statistical probabilities of those situations that will profit from the ones who don't.
The University of Alberta has an entire team devoted to trying to solve poker.
The best bot they could produce can only equal the best players in the world heads up and cannot beat the best players in a multi-handed games - and this is only limit hold em.
To equate a game of poker to a game of dice shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.
Dice is solvable - if you get 6:1 odds on your number coming up, your net result will be 0 no matter what number you chose in the long run.
Poker is not remotely in the same domain.
The information is incomplete.
There is no simple case of "if I follow strategy X then I will lose the least / win the most" ie.
a Game Theory Optimal solution.
In a game of pure chance and luck such a strategy would exist.
Please get your facts straight before trying to sound clever and coming off as completely ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287963</id>
	<title>Ready...Set....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just the start of what a Gov't scrambling to increase revenues will do.  I have an equation that will amuse everyone.

 Insurance company that was to big + Banks that were to big to fail = ????


Yep a Gov't that is to big to fail, hide your wallets everyone.  This is only a preview of whats to come.  Guess what else I don't blame this on Obama or Bush for that matter.  I blame the citizens.  We must become a nation of informed citizens if we want to compete in the global market in the future.


Time to make some tough decisions...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just the start of what a Gov't scrambling to increase revenues will do .
I have an equation that will amuse everyone .
Insurance company that was to big + Banks that were to big to fail = ? ? ? ?
Yep a Gov't that is to big to fail , hide your wallets everyone .
This is only a preview of whats to come .
Guess what else I do n't blame this on Obama or Bush for that matter .
I blame the citizens .
We must become a nation of informed citizens if we want to compete in the global market in the future .
Time to make some tough decisions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just the start of what a Gov't scrambling to increase revenues will do.
I have an equation that will amuse everyone.
Insurance company that was to big + Banks that were to big to fail = ????
Yep a Gov't that is to big to fail, hide your wallets everyone.
This is only a preview of whats to come.
Guess what else I don't blame this on Obama or Bush for that matter.
I blame the citizens.
We must become a nation of informed citizens if we want to compete in the global market in the future.
Time to make some tough decisions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288245</id>
	<title>Legalize it again</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the Democrats were working to legalize Internet poker again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the Democrats were working to legalize Internet poker again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the Democrats were working to legalize Internet poker again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288521</id>
	<title>Poker?  Poker!!???</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1244647620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want to see is legal (or at least allowed bank transfers) for casino games like slots, blackjack and maybe roulette.  These are all extremely easy to rig, will draw millions of US citizens in with the hopes of a quick buck and make the operators very, very rich.</p><p>This can all be operated overseas without any possibility of government interference or regulation, just as soon as the credit cards companies will allow transfers to such businesses.  Poker is a drop in the bucket, and certain is meaningless in terms of getting huge returns on gaming.  The real thing happens when they legalize transfers for gaming, period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to see is legal ( or at least allowed bank transfers ) for casino games like slots , blackjack and maybe roulette .
These are all extremely easy to rig , will draw millions of US citizens in with the hopes of a quick buck and make the operators very , very rich.This can all be operated overseas without any possibility of government interference or regulation , just as soon as the credit cards companies will allow transfers to such businesses .
Poker is a drop in the bucket , and certain is meaningless in terms of getting huge returns on gaming .
The real thing happens when they legalize transfers for gaming , period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to see is legal (or at least allowed bank transfers) for casino games like slots, blackjack and maybe roulette.
These are all extremely easy to rig, will draw millions of US citizens in with the hopes of a quick buck and make the operators very, very rich.This can all be operated overseas without any possibility of government interference or regulation, just as soon as the credit cards companies will allow transfers to such businesses.
Poker is a drop in the bucket, and certain is meaningless in terms of getting huge returns on gaming.
The real thing happens when they legalize transfers for gaming, period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310375</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1244830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.</i></p><p>So, um, what exactly are you practicing for here?  Do you play 4-6 tables at a time at casinos?  Or perhaps you close your eyes and only open them for a few seconds to make a decision when the dealer calls your name?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does however , limit what I use online poker for...practice .
I can play 4-6 tables at one time online , so I can see many , many more hands per hour than live at a single table.So , um , what exactly are you practicing for here ?
Do you play 4-6 tables at a time at casinos ?
Or perhaps you close your eyes and only open them for a few seconds to make a decision when the dealer calls your name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice.
I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.So, um, what exactly are you practicing for here?
Do you play 4-6 tables at a time at casinos?
Or perhaps you close your eyes and only open them for a few seconds to make a decision when the dealer calls your name?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287367</id>
	<title>Lame Gov</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello.... Government.... <br>
Don't you have more important things to be thinking about than `internet poker`?<br>
Like an economy on the rocks?<br>
or maybe nearly 10\% of the folks in this nation who have no source of income? <br>
<br>
Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time, thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello.... Government... . Do n't you have more important things to be thinking about than ` internet poker ` ?
Like an economy on the rocks ?
or maybe nearly 10 \ % of the folks in this nation who have no source of income ?
Honestly , I 'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time , thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello.... Government.... 
Don't you have more important things to be thinking about than `internet poker`?
Like an economy on the rocks?
or maybe nearly 10\% of the folks in this nation who have no source of income?
Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time, thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28298849</id>
	<title>The question is a rhetorical one</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1244752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows these are just mob wars, plain and simple. The Sopranos get to control real-life casinos, and the Obamos get to control virtual casinos. Government is just a form of mafia, only the more so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows these are just mob wars , plain and simple .
The Sopranos get to control real-life casinos , and the Obamos get to control virtual casinos .
Government is just a form of mafia , only the more so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows these are just mob wars, plain and simple.
The Sopranos get to control real-life casinos, and the Obamos get to control virtual casinos.
Government is just a form of mafia, only the more so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290063</id>
	<title>Re:Arrest the prosecutor</title>
	<author>Sneeze1066</author>
	<datestamp>1244662500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to call the prosecutors bluff.........I'm all in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to call the prosecutors bluff.........I 'm all in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to call the prosecutors bluff.........I'm all in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287537</id>
	<title>Saw it Coming</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1244640360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I wondered why this hadn't happen sooner.</p><p>Now, instead of the people taking a risk of getting cheated out of their money, they 100\% did get cheated out of their money.</p><p>The companies should be allowed to pay-out what has already been accumulated, but no more after that.  There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I wondered why this had n't happen sooner.Now , instead of the people taking a risk of getting cheated out of their money , they 100 \ % did get cheated out of their money.The companies should be allowed to pay-out what has already been accumulated , but no more after that .
There 's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves were n't going to pay taxes on the money that they won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I wondered why this hadn't happen sooner.Now, instead of the people taking a risk of getting cheated out of their money, they 100\% did get cheated out of their money.The companies should be allowed to pay-out what has already been accumulated, but no more after that.
There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289667</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244658360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>United States v. $124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.</p><p>My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it, then, logically, it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.</p><p>It's absurd, but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it's a damn sight more logical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>United States v. $ 124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it , then , logically , it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.It 's absurd , but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it 's a damn sight more logical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>United States v. $124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it, then, logically, it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.It's absurd, but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it's a damn sight more logical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>venicebeach</author>
	<datestamp>1244641320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First, you ahve no garuntee you will get paid.
second, you ahve no way of knowing if it's fair.

You can skew the odds 10\% in the houses favor, and no one would notice. probably more.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable, and may have something to do with the current legal situation. <br> <br>
As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor.  The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake.  In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.  In the long run, the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make.   That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction.  Poker is legal in California, for example, because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill.<br> <br>
What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground.  The prosecutor has cited the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Wire\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Wire Act</a> [wikipedia.org], but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting.  It's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year.  <br> <br>
As to the fairness of the games, that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation.  Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified.  Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker.  If this is an issue you support, I urge you to <a href="http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=13289011&amp;type=CO" title="capwiz.com">let your congressperson know</a> [capwiz.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you ahve no garuntee you will get paid .
second , you ahve no way of knowing if it 's fair .
You can skew the odds 10 \ % in the houses favor , and no one would notice .
probably more .
The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable , and may have something to do with the current legal situation .
As others have pointed out , poker is not a game which is skewed in the house 's favor .
The house takes a percentage of every pot , called the rake .
In poker players play against one another , and while there is a chance element , chance does not favor anyone in the long run .
In the long run , the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make .
That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction .
Poker is legal in California , for example , because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill .
What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground .
The prosecutor has cited the Wire Act [ wikipedia.org ] , but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting .
It 's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year .
As to the fairness of the games , that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation .
Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified .
Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker .
If this is an issue you support , I urge you to let your congressperson know [ capwiz.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you ahve no garuntee you will get paid.
second, you ahve no way of knowing if it's fair.
You can skew the odds 10\% in the houses favor, and no one would notice.
probably more.
The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable, and may have something to do with the current legal situation.
As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor.
The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake.
In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.
In the long run, the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make.
That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction.
Poker is legal in California, for example, because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill.
What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground.
The prosecutor has cited the Wire Act [wikipedia.org], but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting.
It's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year.
As to the fairness of the games, that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation.
Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified.
Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker.
If this is an issue you support, I urge you to let your congressperson know [capwiz.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290107</id>
	<title>pun intended....</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1244662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors"    ha  ha   ha ha, you are very funny!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and I think it 's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors " ha ha ha ha , you are very funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors"    ha  ha   ha ha, you are very funny!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>panthroman</author>
	<datestamp>1244641620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house.  Or car insurance.  Or the state lottery.  Or mutual funds.  Or health insurance.</p><p>We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege.  I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike homeowner 's insurance , where you ARE playing against the house .
Or car insurance .
Or the state lottery .
Or mutual funds .
Or health insurance.We manage risk all the time , and happily pay people for the privilege .
I 've never understood why poker got such a bad rep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house.
Or car insurance.
Or the state lottery.
Or mutual funds.
Or health insurance.We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege.
I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290373</id>
	<title>As usual, the discussion is missing the point.</title>
	<author>ThEATrE</author>
	<datestamp>1244752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't play poker and consider it a vapid waste of time and energy better spent on doing something productive, I will say this.

To everyone replying that the government is "wasting time and money" and is suggesting that there more important matters to be concerned with than shutting down internet poker. I will remind all of you of a seldom talked about and suppressed fact about our society.

In a society as civilly disengaged, disillusioned, propagandized, and atomized as ours, the government will be able to get away with continuing and escalating their ongoing efforts to continue shaping society in the current negative direction by keeping up with their current and developing new means of doing what it does: engaging in social control while multinational unaccountable private tyrannies have their way with us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't play poker and consider it a vapid waste of time and energy better spent on doing something productive , I will say this .
To everyone replying that the government is " wasting time and money " and is suggesting that there more important matters to be concerned with than shutting down internet poker .
I will remind all of you of a seldom talked about and suppressed fact about our society .
In a society as civilly disengaged , disillusioned , propagandized , and atomized as ours , the government will be able to get away with continuing and escalating their ongoing efforts to continue shaping society in the current negative direction by keeping up with their current and developing new means of doing what it does : engaging in social control while multinational unaccountable private tyrannies have their way with us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't play poker and consider it a vapid waste of time and energy better spent on doing something productive, I will say this.
To everyone replying that the government is "wasting time and money" and is suggesting that there more important matters to be concerned with than shutting down internet poker.
I will remind all of you of a seldom talked about and suppressed fact about our society.
In a society as civilly disengaged, disillusioned, propagandized, and atomized as ours, the government will be able to get away with continuing and escalating their ongoing efforts to continue shaping society in the current negative direction by keeping up with their current and developing new means of doing what it does: engaging in social control while multinational unaccountable private tyrannies have their way with us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290297</id>
	<title>What a delicious irony..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they really think going after formal gambling will make people forget they did little to stop that other gambling racket at Wall Street?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they really think going after formal gambling will make people forget they did little to stop that other gambling racket at Wall Street ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they really think going after formal gambling will make people forget they did little to stop that other gambling racket at Wall Street?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289217</id>
	<title>Re:Saw it Coming</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1244654400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.</p></div><p>Awesome excuse!</p><p>They should just say "No no your honor, we do not have *illegal* gambling!  The house wasn't taking a cut, we were *withholding taxes*"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves were n't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.Awesome excuse ! They should just say " No no your honor , we do not have * illegal * gambling !
The house was n't taking a cut , we were * withholding taxes * "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.Awesome excuse!They should just say "No no your honor, we do not have *illegal* gambling!
The house wasn't taking a cut, we were *withholding taxes*"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287993</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>smegmatic</author>
	<datestamp>1244643480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll deposit mine in Kinakuta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll deposit mine in Kinakuta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll deposit mine in Kinakuta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291103</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>Sabz5150</author>
	<datestamp>1244720820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Governments, however, do. And are able to monitor such activity. Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.</p></div><p>Really? Last time I looked, activities concerning money in non-US banks, illegal gambling and seizure of homes was all the norm these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments , however , do .
And are able to monitor such activity .
Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity ' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.Really ?
Last time I looked , activities concerning money in non-US banks , illegal gambling and seizure of homes was all the norm these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments, however, do.
And are able to monitor such activity.
Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.Really?
Last time I looked, activities concerning money in non-US banks, illegal gambling and seizure of homes was all the norm these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289165</id>
	<title>Re:Let's push poker underground too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...safe online format..</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh, you're adorable! There's no such thing sweetheart!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...safe online format. . Oh , you 're adorable !
There 's no such thing sweetheart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...safe online format..
Oh, you're adorable!
There's no such thing sweetheart!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</id>
	<title>Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you ahve no garuntee you will get paid.<br>second, you ahve no way of knowing if it's fair.</p><p>You can skew the odds 10\% in the houses favor, and no one would notice. probably more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you ahve no garuntee you will get paid.second , you ahve no way of knowing if it 's fair.You can skew the odds 10 \ % in the houses favor , and no one would notice .
probably more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you ahve no garuntee you will get paid.second, you ahve no way of knowing if it's fair.You can skew the odds 10\% in the houses favor, and no one would notice.
probably more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289469</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seems like more of a reason to leave this joke of a country</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seems like more of a reason to leave this joke of a country</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems like more of a reason to leave this joke of a country</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905</id>
	<title>US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244642820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably sued the money first.</p><p>US v $124,700</p><p>Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.</p><p>Besides, if money can be sued by the government, and thus deprived of its liberty, doesn't the money have the right to legal counsel?</p><p>What about the money's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...need I go on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably sued the money first.US v $ 124,700Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.Besides , if money can be sued by the government , and thus deprived of its liberty , does n't the money have the right to legal counsel ? What about the money 's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination ?
...need I go on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably sued the money first.US v $124,700Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.Besides, if money can be sued by the government, and thus deprived of its liberty, doesn't the money have the right to legal counsel?What about the money's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination?
...need I go on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291257</id>
	<title>Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1244723100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Casinos are notorious for money laundering. Buy a few chips, get handed a bundle more from your customer and cash out your "winnings". Or there's the slots. It is superb for relatively low-level money laundering, especially since winnings are not taxable.</p><p>Online casinos, not so much. You can't just hand over a sack of chips in the toilets. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Casinos are notorious for money laundering .
Buy a few chips , get handed a bundle more from your customer and cash out your " winnings " .
Or there 's the slots .
It is superb for relatively low-level money laundering , especially since winnings are not taxable.Online casinos , not so much .
You ca n't just hand over a sack of chips in the toilets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casinos are notorious for money laundering.
Buy a few chips, get handed a bundle more from your customer and cash out your "winnings".
Or there's the slots.
It is superb for relatively low-level money laundering, especially since winnings are not taxable.Online casinos, not so much.
You can't just hand over a sack of chips in the toilets. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288359</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
with insurance, you have an interest in the thing that's being insured.  You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person.  At least in the old days you couldn't.  Credit Default Swaps were insurance where neither party had an interest in the underlying product, and those didn't turn out so well.
</p><p>
State lottery?  That's gambling, but the state makes the laws.
</p><p>
Stocks and mutual funds?  Those are ownership stakes.
</p><p>
All of the above (except maybe state lotteries) are heavily regulated.  In states where gambling is legal, it's heavily regulated.  Can you say the same for offshore online poker?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with insurance , you have an interest in the thing that 's being insured .
You ca n't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person .
At least in the old days you could n't .
Credit Default Swaps were insurance where neither party had an interest in the underlying product , and those did n't turn out so well .
State lottery ?
That 's gambling , but the state makes the laws .
Stocks and mutual funds ?
Those are ownership stakes .
All of the above ( except maybe state lotteries ) are heavily regulated .
In states where gambling is legal , it 's heavily regulated .
Can you say the same for offshore online poker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
with insurance, you have an interest in the thing that's being insured.
You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person.
At least in the old days you couldn't.
Credit Default Swaps were insurance where neither party had an interest in the underlying product, and those didn't turn out so well.
State lottery?
That's gambling, but the state makes the laws.
Stocks and mutual funds?
Those are ownership stakes.
All of the above (except maybe state lotteries) are heavily regulated.
In states where gambling is legal, it's heavily regulated.
Can you say the same for offshore online poker?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287559</id>
	<title>Morally, ethically, and legally unjustifiable.</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1244640540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing more needs to be said.</p><p>Except, maybe.. that the prosecutor(s) should be fired, forced to wear yellow, and barred from working with or for the American government for the next 20 years.</p><p>How far America has fallen from the beautiful ideal of <i>the land of the free.</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing more needs to be said.Except , maybe.. that the prosecutor ( s ) should be fired , forced to wear yellow , and barred from working with or for the American government for the next 20 years.How far America has fallen from the beautiful ideal of the land of the free .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing more needs to be said.Except, maybe.. that the prosecutor(s) should be fired, forced to wear yellow, and barred from working with or for the American government for the next 20 years.How far America has fallen from the beautiful ideal of the land of the free.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288069</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1244644080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're the second person who has said something like this.  You do realize that the federal government has millions of employees, and is in fact capable of focusing on more than a thousand things at the same time?  It's not like budget-planning is being put off to focus on this, or President Obama personally ordered it himself.  Someone down the chain thought it would be a good idea.  It's a weird idea, but at least this will bring some attention to the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the second person who has said something like this .
You do realize that the federal government has millions of employees , and is in fact capable of focusing on more than a thousand things at the same time ?
It 's not like budget-planning is being put off to focus on this , or President Obama personally ordered it himself .
Someone down the chain thought it would be a good idea .
It 's a weird idea , but at least this will bring some attention to the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the second person who has said something like this.
You do realize that the federal government has millions of employees, and is in fact capable of focusing on more than a thousand things at the same time?
It's not like budget-planning is being put off to focus on this, or President Obama personally ordered it himself.
Someone down the chain thought it would be a good idea.
It's a weird idea, but at least this will bring some attention to the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287899</id>
	<title>This should be interesting</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1244642760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be fun to see how American conservatives respond to this, seeing how they balance their desire to purge us of our moral evils with the desire to scream that Obama is a communist for seizing people's hard-earned property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be fun to see how American conservatives respond to this , seeing how they balance their desire to purge us of our moral evils with the desire to scream that Obama is a communist for seizing people 's hard-earned property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be fun to see how American conservatives respond to this, seeing how they balance their desire to purge us of our moral evils with the desire to scream that Obama is a communist for seizing people's hard-earned property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299933</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1244713620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person</p></div><p>Sure you can, just ask Wal-Mart.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't buy a life insurance policy on J Random PersonSure you can , just ask Wal-Mart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random PersonSure you can, just ask Wal-Mart.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288645</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1244648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were all chance and luck, then everyone would be equal. It isn't chance and luck, there is a great deal of skill required. Math and People skills.</p><p>The average math geek can play well, if he can calculate odds, implied odds, pot odds etc. And a People person can know what a person has by looking at them. The great ones, the truly great players can do both, and it is very rare.</p><p>If you count on luck, and chance, I'd love to play with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were all chance and luck , then everyone would be equal .
It is n't chance and luck , there is a great deal of skill required .
Math and People skills.The average math geek can play well , if he can calculate odds , implied odds , pot odds etc .
And a People person can know what a person has by looking at them .
The great ones , the truly great players can do both , and it is very rare.If you count on luck , and chance , I 'd love to play with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were all chance and luck, then everyone would be equal.
It isn't chance and luck, there is a great deal of skill required.
Math and People skills.The average math geek can play well, if he can calculate odds, implied odds, pot odds etc.
And a People person can know what a person has by looking at them.
The great ones, the truly great players can do both, and it is very rare.If you count on luck, and chance, I'd love to play with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311</id>
	<title>Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia, and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.</p><p>Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments, and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder. The location of the account holder is verifiable, because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.</p><p>Through proper regulation, and well built systems, issues such as "who gets the tax" and "how can the site be trusted" are solvable, and have already been solved in many countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia , and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments , and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes , based on the location of the account holder .
The location of the account holder is verifiable , because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.Through proper regulation , and well built systems , issues such as " who gets the tax " and " how can the site be trusted " are solvable , and have already been solved in many countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia, and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments, and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder.
The location of the account holder is verifiable, because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.Through proper regulation, and well built systems, issues such as "who gets the tax" and "how can the site be trusted" are solvable, and have already been solved in many countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288529</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insightful? What BS.</p><p>If it's nothing more than a game of chance then why are there professional poker players who are well-known to poker fans? How about knowing how to play the positions, number possibilities, and reading the other players in a live game?<br>You don't know a damn thing about poker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
What BS.If it 's nothing more than a game of chance then why are there professional poker players who are well-known to poker fans ?
How about knowing how to play the positions , number possibilities , and reading the other players in a live game ? You do n't know a damn thing about poker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
What BS.If it's nothing more than a game of chance then why are there professional poker players who are well-known to poker fans?
How about knowing how to play the positions, number possibilities, and reading the other players in a live game?You don't know a damn thing about poker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288739</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>pem</author>
	<datestamp>1244649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He knows what the hell he's talking about.
<p>
The government uses fancy lawyers like you to steal from people, in civil court, where they don't have to provide a lawyer, instead of actually proving that a crime was committed.
</p><p>
The fact that you seem to think this is peachy-keen fine is a reflection on your morals, not on the parent's education or intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows what the hell he 's talking about .
The government uses fancy lawyers like you to steal from people , in civil court , where they do n't have to provide a lawyer , instead of actually proving that a crime was committed .
The fact that you seem to think this is peachy-keen fine is a reflection on your morals , not on the parent 's education or intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows what the hell he's talking about.
The government uses fancy lawyers like you to steal from people, in civil court, where they don't have to provide a lawyer, instead of actually proving that a crime was committed.
The fact that you seem to think this is peachy-keen fine is a reflection on your morals, not on the parent's education or intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289027</id>
	<title>Re:Laws, schmores</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.</p><p>In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy. They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we did n't create or agree to.In short , the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy .
They attempted to use clauses we are n't subject to for the ruling and therefore it is n't illegal by any means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy.
They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288101</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>anaphora</author>
	<datestamp>1244644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a Government Briefing Book hosted at <a href="http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/ideaList.apexp?c=09a800000004fo6&amp;lsi=2" title="change.gov" rel="nofollow">change.gov</a> [change.gov] that asks citizens to rank issues they are concerned with. Online poker is the <b>number one issue</b> in the Technology category. Maybe you're not concerned with the fight against classifying poker as a game of 'chance', while horsebetting is a game of 'skill', but many of us make our living doing this and pay our taxes on it like normal people. Countless others enjoy depositing $50 and enjoying their evening gambling. By a wide margin, most online poker deposits are $100 and 50\% of them are made by Americans, and yet there are billions of dollars in prize money handed out every year, so that illustrates the scale of which Americans enjoy a very popular pasttime which the government is trying to end because of a desire to prohibit gambling inside the United States.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a Government Briefing Book hosted at change.gov [ change.gov ] that asks citizens to rank issues they are concerned with .
Online poker is the number one issue in the Technology category .
Maybe you 're not concerned with the fight against classifying poker as a game of 'chance ' , while horsebetting is a game of 'skill ' , but many of us make our living doing this and pay our taxes on it like normal people .
Countless others enjoy depositing $ 50 and enjoying their evening gambling .
By a wide margin , most online poker deposits are $ 100 and 50 \ % of them are made by Americans , and yet there are billions of dollars in prize money handed out every year , so that illustrates the scale of which Americans enjoy a very popular pasttime which the government is trying to end because of a desire to prohibit gambling inside the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a Government Briefing Book hosted at change.gov [change.gov] that asks citizens to rank issues they are concerned with.
Online poker is the number one issue in the Technology category.
Maybe you're not concerned with the fight against classifying poker as a game of 'chance', while horsebetting is a game of 'skill', but many of us make our living doing this and pay our taxes on it like normal people.
Countless others enjoy depositing $50 and enjoying their evening gambling.
By a wide margin, most online poker deposits are $100 and 50\% of them are made by Americans, and yet there are billions of dollars in prize money handed out every year, so that illustrates the scale of which Americans enjoy a very popular pasttime which the government is trying to end because of a desire to prohibit gambling inside the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287759</id>
	<title>and I pay my taxes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if I were a player, and honestly pay taxes on my winnings?  What gives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I were a player , and honestly pay taxes on my winnings ?
What gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I were a player, and honestly pay taxes on my winnings?
What gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287519</id>
	<title>E4s!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">but many find it t8oubles of those bleak future. In arseholes at Walnut</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>but many find it t8oubles of those bleak future .
In arseholes at Walnut [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but many find it t8oubles of those bleak future.
In arseholes at Walnut [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289017</id>
	<title>Guess my Full Tilt money is stuck</title>
	<author>Punchinello</author>
	<datestamp>1244652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cashed out $200 a few weeks ago from Full Tilt and it was released successfully to my bank account.  I guess the rest of my bankroll is stuck.  I cannot even fathom how the government thinks thy can lock up my money like this.</p><p>Poker should be legalized.  It is not gambling.  The casino only takes a rake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cashed out $ 200 a few weeks ago from Full Tilt and it was released successfully to my bank account .
I guess the rest of my bankroll is stuck .
I can not even fathom how the government thinks thy can lock up my money like this.Poker should be legalized .
It is not gambling .
The casino only takes a rake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cashed out $200 a few weeks ago from Full Tilt and it was released successfully to my bank account.
I guess the rest of my bankroll is stuck.
I cannot even fathom how the government thinks thy can lock up my money like this.Poker should be legalized.
It is not gambling.
The casino only takes a rake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288531</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1244647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you explain what you mean?  My first reaction to your post was to mock it as making no sense, then I decided that maybe I'm just missing something.  Please clarify what you mean by "money can be sued" and by the idea that money can be "deprived of its liberty"?
<br> <br>
If this wasn't intended as a joke, it's one of the strangest posts I've seen in a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you explain what you mean ?
My first reaction to your post was to mock it as making no sense , then I decided that maybe I 'm just missing something .
Please clarify what you mean by " money can be sued " and by the idea that money can be " deprived of its liberty " ?
If this was n't intended as a joke , it 's one of the strangest posts I 've seen in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you explain what you mean?
My first reaction to your post was to mock it as making no sense, then I decided that maybe I'm just missing something.
Please clarify what you mean by "money can be sued" and by the idea that money can be "deprived of its liberty"?
If this wasn't intended as a joke, it's one of the strangest posts I've seen in a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1244647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Courts not only have jurisdiction <i>in personam</i>, over people, but also <i>in rem</i>, over property. Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets, where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question.
<br> <br>

The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure. Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
<br> <br>

Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
<br> <br>

Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts not only have jurisdiction in personam , over people , but also in rem , over property .
Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets , where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question .
The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure .
Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable , and thus the Fourth Amendment is n't violated .
Also , you might want to reread the Fifth , Sixth , and Seventh Amendments ; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials .
Further , the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons , and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law , which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets .
Sure , there are problems with civil forfeiture , but if you want to oppose the practice , it 'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts not only have jurisdiction in personam, over people, but also in rem, over property.
Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets, where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question.
The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure.
Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials.
Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289111</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>humphrm</author>
	<datestamp>1244653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You still believe the myth that the pretty pixels they program their computers to display on the screen are real.</p><p>In real poker, you see your opponents faces.  You learn to read their actions.  You see them get paid what amounts to cash for their wins.  You see the house rake.</p><p>In computer poker, you see pretty pixels that they program their computers to show you, with a promise that it's all real.  I guess it boils down to, do you trust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You still believe the myth that the pretty pixels they program their computers to display on the screen are real.In real poker , you see your opponents faces .
You learn to read their actions .
You see them get paid what amounts to cash for their wins .
You see the house rake.In computer poker , you see pretty pixels that they program their computers to show you , with a promise that it 's all real .
I guess it boils down to , do you trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still believe the myth that the pretty pixels they program their computers to display on the screen are real.In real poker, you see your opponents faces.
You learn to read their actions.
You see them get paid what amounts to cash for their wins.
You see the house rake.In computer poker, you see pretty pixels that they program their computers to show you, with a promise that it's all real.
I guess it boils down to, do you trust them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288553</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1244647860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hands are pure chance.  The bluffing isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hands are pure chance .
The bluffing is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hands are pure chance.
The bluffing isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509</id>
	<title>Wont work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They may successfully grab the money of these unfortunates, but then
people will stop depositing winnings in US banks.  The internet does not
respect borders or jurisdictions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They may successfully grab the money of these unfortunates , but then people will stop depositing winnings in US banks .
The internet does not respect borders or jurisdictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may successfully grab the money of these unfortunates, but then
people will stop depositing winnings in US banks.
The internet does not
respect borders or jurisdictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295261</id>
	<title>Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1244740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.</i>

</p><p>That's <i>exactly</i> what's going on.  And it's not about drugs or terrorists.  It's about taxes.  The government is concerned about any flow of money it doesn't control - that's why we have currency transaction reporting laws and that's why you can get five years in jail for trying to sneak your own money out of the country.  Do you realize "money laundering" wasn't even a crime until 1985?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money .
That 's exactly what 's going on .
And it 's not about drugs or terrorists .
It 's about taxes .
The government is concerned about any flow of money it does n't control - that 's why we have currency transaction reporting laws and that 's why you can get five years in jail for trying to sneak your own money out of the country .
Do you realize " money laundering " was n't even a crime until 1985 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.
That's exactly what's going on.
And it's not about drugs or terrorists.
It's about taxes.
The government is concerned about any flow of money it doesn't control - that's why we have currency transaction reporting laws and that's why you can get five years in jail for trying to sneak your own money out of the country.
Do you realize "money laundering" wasn't even a crime until 1985?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289991</id>
	<title>Absurd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UIGEA is bad enough (amazing that it could pass) and this is just becoming ridiculous. People have a right to use their money as they see fit as long as it does not invalidate the rights of other individuals. Spending money on poker is a personal choice. It's true that some people lose money doing so but it's their own fault and we should not be made to pay for their mistakes. What's next, if a couple goes on a vacation they truly can't afford we will outlaw vacations? Moreover, poker is popular and growing. All this is doing is creating more problems and an underground movement that will not be pretty. For example, No-Limit-Hold'em is illegal in San Jose (yes, those idiots actually decided what games they'd like you to gamble in with your own money), but do you really think it isn't played for big stakes?</p><p>Finally, poker is not gambling in the pure sense. There is AT LEAST 25\% skill and over time, better players just win much more and lose less. 25\% is a very large degree when you consider that in just an hour you may play 40 or more hands. It's not chess, but it is a rational game. It's far from bingo, slot machines or the lottery. Good poker players play when they know they have an edge and make plays that have positive expectation. Some of them, like Ed Miller are actually Harvard graduates with degrees in mathematics. Many of them even say outright that they are not gamblers and have never played a slot machine in their life because they know that it has negative expectation and is a mathematically losing situation.</p><p>The government cannot and should not regulate this. It's making a mockery of our tax money, capitalism as well as the idea of personal responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UIGEA is bad enough ( amazing that it could pass ) and this is just becoming ridiculous .
People have a right to use their money as they see fit as long as it does not invalidate the rights of other individuals .
Spending money on poker is a personal choice .
It 's true that some people lose money doing so but it 's their own fault and we should not be made to pay for their mistakes .
What 's next , if a couple goes on a vacation they truly ca n't afford we will outlaw vacations ?
Moreover , poker is popular and growing .
All this is doing is creating more problems and an underground movement that will not be pretty .
For example , No-Limit-Hold'em is illegal in San Jose ( yes , those idiots actually decided what games they 'd like you to gamble in with your own money ) , but do you really think it is n't played for big stakes ? Finally , poker is not gambling in the pure sense .
There is AT LEAST 25 \ % skill and over time , better players just win much more and lose less .
25 \ % is a very large degree when you consider that in just an hour you may play 40 or more hands .
It 's not chess , but it is a rational game .
It 's far from bingo , slot machines or the lottery .
Good poker players play when they know they have an edge and make plays that have positive expectation .
Some of them , like Ed Miller are actually Harvard graduates with degrees in mathematics .
Many of them even say outright that they are not gamblers and have never played a slot machine in their life because they know that it has negative expectation and is a mathematically losing situation.The government can not and should not regulate this .
It 's making a mockery of our tax money , capitalism as well as the idea of personal responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UIGEA is bad enough (amazing that it could pass) and this is just becoming ridiculous.
People have a right to use their money as they see fit as long as it does not invalidate the rights of other individuals.
Spending money on poker is a personal choice.
It's true that some people lose money doing so but it's their own fault and we should not be made to pay for their mistakes.
What's next, if a couple goes on a vacation they truly can't afford we will outlaw vacations?
Moreover, poker is popular and growing.
All this is doing is creating more problems and an underground movement that will not be pretty.
For example, No-Limit-Hold'em is illegal in San Jose (yes, those idiots actually decided what games they'd like you to gamble in with your own money), but do you really think it isn't played for big stakes?Finally, poker is not gambling in the pure sense.
There is AT LEAST 25\% skill and over time, better players just win much more and lose less.
25\% is a very large degree when you consider that in just an hour you may play 40 or more hands.
It's not chess, but it is a rational game.
It's far from bingo, slot machines or the lottery.
Good poker players play when they know they have an edge and make plays that have positive expectation.
Some of them, like Ed Miller are actually Harvard graduates with degrees in mathematics.
Many of them even say outright that they are not gamblers and have never played a slot machine in their life because they know that it has negative expectation and is a mathematically losing situation.The government cannot and should not regulate this.
It's making a mockery of our tax money, capitalism as well as the idea of personal responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28298457</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>LordRobin</author>
	<datestamp>1244751540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not so sure.  $33 million sounds like a lot, but it was the total for 27,000 players.  That's an average of about $1,200 each.  A nice check, but these guys aren't exactly high rollers.  I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority had the funds to open offshore accounts.<br><b> <b>------RM</b></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so sure .
$ 33 million sounds like a lot , but it was the total for 27,000 players .
That 's an average of about $ 1,200 each .
A nice check , but these guys are n't exactly high rollers .
I 'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority had the funds to open offshore accounts .
------RM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not so sure.
$33 million sounds like a lot, but it was the total for 27,000 players.
That's an average of about $1,200 each.
A nice check, but these guys aren't exactly high rollers.
I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority had the funds to open offshore accounts.
------RM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289981</id>
	<title>The government lacks the power to seize private pr</title>
	<author>Paleolibertarian</author>
	<datestamp>1244661660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.   Seizing private property is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government by the constitution.</p><p>2.   Article 5 of the Bill of rights states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."</p><p>Notice the clause, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"</p><p>Notice the clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."</p><p>Congress cannot make a constitutional which violates the constitution. Unfortunately however the 3 branches of the federal government have not payed more than lip service to the constitution since the Lincoln administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Seizing private property is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government by the constitution.2 .
Article 5 of the Bill of rights states : " No person shall be held to answer for a capital , or otherwise infamous crime , unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury , except in cases arising in the land or naval forces , or in the Militia , when in actual service in time of War or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself , nor be deprived of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation .
" Notice the clause , " nor be deprived of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; " Notice the clause , " nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation .
" Congress can not make a constitutional which violates the constitution .
Unfortunately however the 3 branches of the federal government have not payed more than lip service to the constitution since the Lincoln administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Seizing private property is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government by the constitution.2.
Article 5 of the Bill of rights states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Notice the clause, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"Notice the clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Congress cannot make a constitutional which violates the constitution.
Unfortunately however the 3 branches of the federal government have not payed more than lip service to the constitution since the Lincoln administration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290161</id>
	<title>The Casino Lobby</title>
	<author>raehl</author>
	<datestamp>1244663580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big casino folks pay a lot of money to make sure an online alternative to gambling in casinos is not created.  They don't care about Poker so much, but they care very much that if poker is legal, it's only a short hop to online blackjack being legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big casino folks pay a lot of money to make sure an online alternative to gambling in casinos is not created .
They do n't care about Poker so much , but they care very much that if poker is legal , it 's only a short hop to online blackjack being legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big casino folks pay a lot of money to make sure an online alternative to gambling in casinos is not created.
They don't care about Poker so much, but they care very much that if poker is legal, it's only a short hop to online blackjack being legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290323</id>
	<title>Re:Arrest the prosecutor</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1244752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.</p></div> </blockquote><p>What gamble? The WTO has already ruled that offshore online gambling was legal. </p><p>This is just shifting money around. By interfering with online casinos, the US is only bringing down on itself trade retaliations sanctioned by the WTO. This is basically what happened the last time Kentucky tried to pull the same stunt. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's very aggressive , and I think it 's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors , " Mr. Rose said .
What gamble ?
The WTO has already ruled that offshore online gambling was legal .
This is just shifting money around .
By interfering with online casinos , the US is only bringing down on itself trade retaliations sanctioned by the WTO .
This is basically what happened the last time Kentucky tried to pull the same stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.
What gamble?
The WTO has already ruled that offshore online gambling was legal.
This is just shifting money around.
By interfering with online casinos, the US is only bringing down on itself trade retaliations sanctioned by the WTO.
This is basically what happened the last time Kentucky tried to pull the same stunt. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299205</id>
	<title>The battle against free trade.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244710980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The double standards of the federal government makes the USA lose high ground. Respect the WTO when it rules against you, or stop relying on it to solve free trade issues that affect you. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments not to allow online gambling, despite the WTO telling them to, was that they couldn't guarantee that the gamblers will get their money. This became a reality because they themselves froze the assets. I see you were right all along, how silly of me to silently condemn the USA for abusing their powers when you refused to respect the WTO ruling against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The double standards of the federal government makes the USA lose high ground .
Respect the WTO when it rules against you , or stop relying on it to solve free trade issues that affect you .
If I recall correctly , one of the arguments not to allow online gambling , despite the WTO telling them to , was that they could n't guarantee that the gamblers will get their money .
This became a reality because they themselves froze the assets .
I see you were right all along , how silly of me to silently condemn the USA for abusing their powers when you refused to respect the WTO ruling against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The double standards of the federal government makes the USA lose high ground.
Respect the WTO when it rules against you, or stop relying on it to solve free trade issues that affect you.
If I recall correctly, one of the arguments not to allow online gambling, despite the WTO telling them to, was that they couldn't guarantee that the gamblers will get their money.
This became a reality because they themselves froze the assets.
I see you were right all along, how silly of me to silently condemn the USA for abusing their powers when you refused to respect the WTO ruling against you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299827</id>
	<title>Re:Why does the gov care?</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1244713260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They haven't figured out how to tax it yet, so they'd rather try to make it go away. See RIAA, etc. If they'd just get on board, everyone would be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't figured out how to tax it yet , so they 'd rather try to make it go away .
See RIAA , etc .
If they 'd just get on board , everyone would be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't figured out how to tax it yet, so they'd rather try to make it go away.
See RIAA, etc.
If they'd just get on board, everyone would be happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293787</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1244735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games of pure chance and luck are not illegal... they are called lotteries and sweepstakes. You put the money down and get a chance to win the pot minus the house take. Anything else is a game of skill and is regulated and taxed heavily where it is legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games of pure chance and luck are not illegal... they are called lotteries and sweepstakes .
You put the money down and get a chance to win the pot minus the house take .
Anything else is a game of skill and is regulated and taxed heavily where it is legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games of pure chance and luck are not illegal... they are called lotteries and sweepstakes.
You put the money down and get a chance to win the pot minus the house take.
Anything else is a game of skill and is regulated and taxed heavily where it is legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288365</id>
	<title>A New Poker Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History</p><p>In early January of 2006 two Texas Hold 'Em players began a search for a new form of poker.  Using aspects from other card games, a new breed of poker was created.  By adding a new skill set to such a hugely popular game like Hold 'Em&#226;&#166;ooMBaa is the latest craze to hit the poker world!  No chips required!</p><p>Objective</p><p>Like all other poker games, the best hand wins.  An understanding of poker hands and basic Hold 'Em strategy is required for this game.  Unlike Texas Hold 'Em it is not always in the player's best interest to hold the cards that he is dealt.  In fact, the player may not have the luxury of holding onto his cards at crucial points during the game and that is what makes ooMBaa revolutionary!</p><p>Rules</p><p>Two Player game<br>Best hand wins<br>Match is best of five games<br>Alternate dealing, cut high card for first deal<br>Basic deck of cards used, no jokers</p><p>Terms</p><p>The Board: the location of the community cards consisting of at least 3 and no more than 5 cards<br>The Pile: the remaining cards after the deal<br>Re-shuffle: if there are no cards left from the Pile at any point during the game, the Trash discard pile is re-shuffled and the game continues<br>Empty spot: when there are 3 cards on the board, there are two empty spots; when there are 4 cards on the board, there is one empty spot<br>Knocker: person who knocks, signifying the beginning of the end of the game</p><p>The Deal and the Draw</p><p>Each player is dealt two cards face down and flop is dealt face up (no burn).  The player opposite the dealer goes first.  Any time a player has less than two cards, he or she must immediately draw until the hand has two cards.</p><p>The Turn</p><p>A turn consists of either altering the opponent's hand, or possibly altering your hand.  This can be done in numerous ways.</p><p>At the start of your turn you have one option to try to alter your opponent's hand by either asking for a suit or asking for a number.  If you choose to try this, you must select a primary and secondary location on the board for your opponent to fill if they have one or both cards matching your criteria (see figure 1).  Keep in mind, that a location may correspond to an existing card to be replaced, or an empty spot.  If your opponent's hand is altered, your turn is over.  If you don't try, or you fail to alter your opponent's hand, your turn continues.</p><p>If you do not alter your opponent's hand, your turn can be used to alter your hand.  You can:</p><p>Swap one card on the board for one card in your hand<br>Remove one card from the board if there are more than three on the board<br>Draw one card from the pile and<br>replace a card in your hand<br>add to an empty spot on the board if one exists<br>discard it, and choose not to alter your hand<br>The Knock</p><p>Play continues until one person thinks they have an unbeatable hand and knocks.  A player can only knock on their turn before any attempt to alter a hand.  The opponent then has one last turn.  If the opponent fails to alter or chooses not to alter the other player's hand the game is over after the opponent's turn.  If the knocker's hand is altered, the knocker refills his or her hand as mentioned above.</p><p>The person who knocks can choose to fill the board if there are still empty spots after any final action by the knocker's opponent.  The best five card hand wins.  In the case of a tie, neither player is awarded a win and the deal alternates with the next game in the match.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HistoryIn early January of 2006 two Texas Hold 'Em players began a search for a new form of poker .
Using aspects from other card games , a new breed of poker was created .
By adding a new skill set to such a hugely popular game like Hold 'Em     ooMBaa is the latest craze to hit the poker world !
No chips required ! ObjectiveLike all other poker games , the best hand wins .
An understanding of poker hands and basic Hold 'Em strategy is required for this game .
Unlike Texas Hold 'Em it is not always in the player 's best interest to hold the cards that he is dealt .
In fact , the player may not have the luxury of holding onto his cards at crucial points during the game and that is what makes ooMBaa revolutionary ! RulesTwo Player gameBest hand winsMatch is best of five gamesAlternate dealing , cut high card for first dealBasic deck of cards used , no jokersTermsThe Board : the location of the community cards consisting of at least 3 and no more than 5 cardsThe Pile : the remaining cards after the dealRe-shuffle : if there are no cards left from the Pile at any point during the game , the Trash discard pile is re-shuffled and the game continuesEmpty spot : when there are 3 cards on the board , there are two empty spots ; when there are 4 cards on the board , there is one empty spotKnocker : person who knocks , signifying the beginning of the end of the gameThe Deal and the DrawEach player is dealt two cards face down and flop is dealt face up ( no burn ) .
The player opposite the dealer goes first .
Any time a player has less than two cards , he or she must immediately draw until the hand has two cards.The TurnA turn consists of either altering the opponent 's hand , or possibly altering your hand .
This can be done in numerous ways.At the start of your turn you have one option to try to alter your opponent 's hand by either asking for a suit or asking for a number .
If you choose to try this , you must select a primary and secondary location on the board for your opponent to fill if they have one or both cards matching your criteria ( see figure 1 ) .
Keep in mind , that a location may correspond to an existing card to be replaced , or an empty spot .
If your opponent 's hand is altered , your turn is over .
If you do n't try , or you fail to alter your opponent 's hand , your turn continues.If you do not alter your opponent 's hand , your turn can be used to alter your hand .
You can : Swap one card on the board for one card in your handRemove one card from the board if there are more than three on the boardDraw one card from the pile andreplace a card in your handadd to an empty spot on the board if one existsdiscard it , and choose not to alter your handThe KnockPlay continues until one person thinks they have an unbeatable hand and knocks .
A player can only knock on their turn before any attempt to alter a hand .
The opponent then has one last turn .
If the opponent fails to alter or chooses not to alter the other player 's hand the game is over after the opponent 's turn .
If the knocker 's hand is altered , the knocker refills his or her hand as mentioned above.The person who knocks can choose to fill the board if there are still empty spots after any final action by the knocker 's opponent .
The best five card hand wins .
In the case of a tie , neither player is awarded a win and the deal alternates with the next game in the match .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>HistoryIn early January of 2006 two Texas Hold 'Em players began a search for a new form of poker.
Using aspects from other card games, a new breed of poker was created.
By adding a new skill set to such a hugely popular game like Hold 'Emâ¦ooMBaa is the latest craze to hit the poker world!
No chips required!ObjectiveLike all other poker games, the best hand wins.
An understanding of poker hands and basic Hold 'Em strategy is required for this game.
Unlike Texas Hold 'Em it is not always in the player's best interest to hold the cards that he is dealt.
In fact, the player may not have the luxury of holding onto his cards at crucial points during the game and that is what makes ooMBaa revolutionary!RulesTwo Player gameBest hand winsMatch is best of five gamesAlternate dealing, cut high card for first dealBasic deck of cards used, no jokersTermsThe Board: the location of the community cards consisting of at least 3 and no more than 5 cardsThe Pile: the remaining cards after the dealRe-shuffle: if there are no cards left from the Pile at any point during the game, the Trash discard pile is re-shuffled and the game continuesEmpty spot: when there are 3 cards on the board, there are two empty spots; when there are 4 cards on the board, there is one empty spotKnocker: person who knocks, signifying the beginning of the end of the gameThe Deal and the DrawEach player is dealt two cards face down and flop is dealt face up (no burn).
The player opposite the dealer goes first.
Any time a player has less than two cards, he or she must immediately draw until the hand has two cards.The TurnA turn consists of either altering the opponent's hand, or possibly altering your hand.
This can be done in numerous ways.At the start of your turn you have one option to try to alter your opponent's hand by either asking for a suit or asking for a number.
If you choose to try this, you must select a primary and secondary location on the board for your opponent to fill if they have one or both cards matching your criteria (see figure 1).
Keep in mind, that a location may correspond to an existing card to be replaced, or an empty spot.
If your opponent's hand is altered, your turn is over.
If you don't try, or you fail to alter your opponent's hand, your turn continues.If you do not alter your opponent's hand, your turn can be used to alter your hand.
You can:Swap one card on the board for one card in your handRemove one card from the board if there are more than three on the boardDraw one card from the pile andreplace a card in your handadd to an empty spot on the board if one existsdiscard it, and choose not to alter your handThe KnockPlay continues until one person thinks they have an unbeatable hand and knocks.
A player can only knock on their turn before any attempt to alter a hand.
The opponent then has one last turn.
If the opponent fails to alter or chooses not to alter the other player's hand the game is over after the opponent's turn.
If the knocker's hand is altered, the knocker refills his or her hand as mentioned above.The person who knocks can choose to fill the board if there are still empty spots after any final action by the knocker's opponent.
The best five card hand wins.
In the case of a tie, neither player is awarded a win and the deal alternates with the next game in the match.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287475</id>
	<title>mod D0wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>new faces and mrany for electioWn, I</htmltext>
<tokenext>new faces and mrany for electioWn , I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>new faces and mrany for electioWn, I</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483</id>
	<title>Arrest the prosecutor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.</i> <br>


The prosecution should be brought up on illegal gambling charges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's very aggressive , and I think it 's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors , " Mr. Rose said .
The prosecution should be brought up on illegal gambling charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.
The prosecution should be brought up on illegal gambling charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287651</id>
	<title>REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DEAR SIR/MADAM,</p><p>MY NAME IS ARIZONA SLIM, ORIGINATOR OF MORTGAGES AND PATRON OF VEGAS.  I AM NEPHEW OF UNITED STATES POKER PROFESSIONAL WITH WINNINGS OF $2.2 MILLION U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.  THE GOVERNMENT IS THREATENED BY COUP OF LEFTIST GUERRILLAS WHO ATTEMPT TO NATIONALIZE BANKS, INDUSTRIALS, PROFITS OF WINDFALL AND PRIVATE ASSETS OTHER.  MY FAMILY IS WITHOUT CONFIDENCE TO RETRIEVE GROSS PROCEEDS OF ONLINE POKER.  I WISH TO ESTABLISH YOUR TRUST FOR I AM WITHOUT VIRTUE TO RETRIEVE FUNDS IN OUR NAMES.  THIS UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND 'TOP  SECRET'. I AM SURE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR ABILITY AND RELIABILITY TO PROSECUTE A  TRANSACTION OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE INVOLVING A PENDING  TRANSACTION REQUIRING  MAXIIMUM CONFIDENCE.</p><p>THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IS AS FOLLOWS.  MY UNCLE PROGRAMMED POKE BOT FOR TWENTY-FOUR BY SEVEN PLAYING FOR FLEECING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS.  ASSETS ACCUMULATED IN CAYMAN ISLANDS POKER PARTY.   TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE US TRANSFER INTO YOUR ACCOUNT THE SAID  TRAPPED FUNDS.</p><p>
&nbsp; I HAVE  THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY UNCLE TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD  TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$2,220,000.00(TWO MILLION, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER.  WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20\% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70\% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10\% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES. IT IS FROM THE 70\% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION BUSINESS.</p><p>PLEASE,NOTE  THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100\% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 212-555-1212ext419, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.</p><p>WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING  THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX  NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.</p><p>YOURS FAITHFULLY,<br>HONORABLE ARIZONA SLIM ESQ.</p><p>NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DEAR SIR/MADAM,MY NAME IS ARIZONA SLIM , ORIGINATOR OF MORTGAGES AND PATRON OF VEGAS .
I AM NEPHEW OF UNITED STATES POKER PROFESSIONAL WITH WINNINGS OF $ 2.2 MILLION U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES .
THE GOVERNMENT IS THREATENED BY COUP OF LEFTIST GUERRILLAS WHO ATTEMPT TO NATIONALIZE BANKS , INDUSTRIALS , PROFITS OF WINDFALL AND PRIVATE ASSETS OTHER .
MY FAMILY IS WITHOUT CONFIDENCE TO RETRIEVE GROSS PROCEEDS OF ONLINE POKER .
I WISH TO ESTABLISH YOUR TRUST FOR I AM WITHOUT VIRTUE TO RETRIEVE FUNDS IN OUR NAMES .
THIS UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND 'TOP SECRET' .
I AM SURE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR ABILITY AND RELIABILITY TO PROSECUTE A TRANSACTION OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE INVOLVING A PENDING TRANSACTION REQUIRING MAXIIMUM CONFIDENCE.THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IS AS FOLLOWS .
MY UNCLE PROGRAMMED POKE BOT FOR TWENTY-FOUR BY SEVEN PLAYING FOR FLEECING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS .
ASSETS ACCUMULATED IN CAYMAN ISLANDS POKER PARTY .
TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE US TRANSFER INTO YOUR ACCOUNT THE SAID TRAPPED FUNDS .
  I HAVE THEREFORE , BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY UNCLE TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US $ 2,220,000.00 ( TWO MILLION , TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS ) .
HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER .
WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS ; 1 .
20 \ % FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2 .
70 \ % FOR US ( THE OFFICIALS ) 3 .
10 \ % TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES .
IT IS FROM THE 70 \ % THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION BUSINESS.PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100 \ % SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN ( 7 ) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX ; 212-555-1212ext419 , YOUR COMPANY 'S SIGNED , AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY .
THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY 'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY 'S NAME.WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION .
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS .
I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.YOURS FAITHFULLY,HONORABLE ARIZONA SLIM ESQ.NOTE ; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER ( VE/S/09/99 ) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DEAR SIR/MADAM,MY NAME IS ARIZONA SLIM, ORIGINATOR OF MORTGAGES AND PATRON OF VEGAS.
I AM NEPHEW OF UNITED STATES POKER PROFESSIONAL WITH WINNINGS OF $2.2 MILLION U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.
THE GOVERNMENT IS THREATENED BY COUP OF LEFTIST GUERRILLAS WHO ATTEMPT TO NATIONALIZE BANKS, INDUSTRIALS, PROFITS OF WINDFALL AND PRIVATE ASSETS OTHER.
MY FAMILY IS WITHOUT CONFIDENCE TO RETRIEVE GROSS PROCEEDS OF ONLINE POKER.
I WISH TO ESTABLISH YOUR TRUST FOR I AM WITHOUT VIRTUE TO RETRIEVE FUNDS IN OUR NAMES.
THIS UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND 'TOP  SECRET'.
I AM SURE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR ABILITY AND RELIABILITY TO PROSECUTE A  TRANSACTION OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE INVOLVING A PENDING  TRANSACTION REQUIRING  MAXIIMUM CONFIDENCE.THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IS AS FOLLOWS.
MY UNCLE PROGRAMMED POKE BOT FOR TWENTY-FOUR BY SEVEN PLAYING FOR FLEECING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS.
ASSETS ACCUMULATED IN CAYMAN ISLANDS POKER PARTY.
TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE US TRANSFER INTO YOUR ACCOUNT THE SAID  TRAPPED FUNDS.
  I HAVE  THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY UNCLE TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD  TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$2,220,000.00(TWO MILLION, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS).
HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER.
WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1.
20\% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2.
70\% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3.
10\% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES.
IT IS FROM THE 70\% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION BUSINESS.PLEASE,NOTE  THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100\% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 212-555-1212ext419, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING  THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX  NUMBERS.
I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.YOURS FAITHFULLY,HONORABLE ARIZONA SLIM ESQ.NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287555</id>
	<title>Laws, schmores</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, you're missing the big picture...</p><p>Since the laws against internet gambling <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/07/12/21/1745231/WTO-Rules-on-Internet-Gambling-Case?art\_pos=2" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">are themselves illegal</a> [slashdot.org], it's important to put the casinos out of business so that they can't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , you 're missing the big picture...Since the laws against internet gambling are themselves illegal [ slashdot.org ] , it 's important to put the casinos out of business so that they ca n't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, you're missing the big picture...Since the laws against internet gambling are themselves illegal [slashdot.org], it's important to put the casinos out of business so that they can't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288969</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1244651880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>I agree that you are correctly stating the current legal paradigm.</p><p>However, IMHO the seizure of property in a civil action because it is alleged to be the fruit of a crime is itself a penalty for an alleged criminal activity (illegally obtaining the property).  As such, it should not be a civil matter and subject only to civil proceedings unless the alleged criminal act which makes it the fruit of a crime has already been proven under criminal law procedures and standards of proof.  To do otherwise is, again IMHO, a "taking" and/or "deprivation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... property" "without due process" under the Fifth Amendment.</p><p>(Similarly, the state level treatment of traffic violations as "civil infractions" is also a transparent move to impose what are indistinguishable from criminal penalties under the more lax civil law procedures and standards of proof.  These procedures should also be banned and the associated laws stricken.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials .
Further , the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons ...I agree that you are correctly stating the current legal paradigm.However , IMHO the seizure of property in a civil action because it is alleged to be the fruit of a crime is itself a penalty for an alleged criminal activity ( illegally obtaining the property ) .
As such , it should not be a civil matter and subject only to civil proceedings unless the alleged criminal act which makes it the fruit of a crime has already been proven under criminal law procedures and standards of proof .
To do otherwise is , again IMHO , a " taking " and/or " deprivation of ... property " " without due process " under the Fifth Amendment .
( Similarly , the state level treatment of traffic violations as " civil infractions " is also a transparent move to impose what are indistinguishable from criminal penalties under the more lax civil law procedures and standards of proof .
These procedures should also be banned and the associated laws stricken .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials.
Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons ...I agree that you are correctly stating the current legal paradigm.However, IMHO the seizure of property in a civil action because it is alleged to be the fruit of a crime is itself a penalty for an alleged criminal activity (illegally obtaining the property).
As such, it should not be a civil matter and subject only to civil proceedings unless the alleged criminal act which makes it the fruit of a crime has already been proven under criminal law procedures and standards of proof.
To do otherwise is, again IMHO, a "taking" and/or "deprivation of ... property" "without due process" under the Fifth Amendment.
(Similarly, the state level treatment of traffic violations as "civil infractions" is also a transparent move to impose what are indistinguishable from criminal penalties under the more lax civil law procedures and standards of proof.
These procedures should also be banned and the associated laws stricken.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28306395</id>
	<title>Deposits (never gambled $) not just profits frozen</title>
	<author>inmytaxi</author>
	<datestamp>1244812320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't seize winnings, they froze money the players requested be returned to them from the site, which often includes money deposited by the played and never gambled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't seize winnings , they froze money the players requested be returned to them from the site , which often includes money deposited by the played and never gambled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't seize winnings, they froze money the players requested be returned to them from the site, which often includes money deposited by the played and never gambled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288395</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with just playing yahoo poker?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with just playing yahoo poker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with just playing yahoo poker?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287727</id>
	<title>Re:Arrest the prosecutor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+6, Absolute Win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 6 , Absolute Win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+6, Absolute Win</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291109</id>
	<title>Re:Why does the gov care?</title>
	<author>Sabz5150</author>
	<datestamp>1244720940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling?  What makes online poker worthy of the government's time?  Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling?</p></div><p>One word: <i>Lottery.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling ?
What makes online poker worthy of the government 's time ?
Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling ? One word : Lottery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling?
What makes online poker worthy of the government's time?
Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling?One word: Lottery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871</id>
	<title>Just splendid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I happen to be a better than average poker player. Just today, I played in the $60 Freezeout at a local casino (died pushing an 18 outer), came home, played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.</p><p>Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention. Well, not the way we hoped!</p><p>Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos, this newest stupidity doesn't hurt my bankroll directly. It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.</p><p>I do own poker simulation software, so I can use that for a similar purpose. The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.</p><p>I don't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress, but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed, the annual nut was over $10 billion. That's not small change.</p><p>This is a prime example of solving a problem that doesn't exist in the most ignorant way possible. Give me a freaking break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to be a better than average poker player .
Just today , I played in the $ 60 Freezeout at a local casino ( died pushing an 18 outer ) , came home , played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention .
Well , not the way we hoped ! Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos , this newest stupidity does n't hurt my bankroll directly .
It does however , limit what I use online poker for...practice .
I can play 4-6 tables at one time online , so I can see many , many more hands per hour than live at a single table.I do own poker simulation software , so I can use that for a similar purpose .
The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.I do n't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress , but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed , the annual nut was over $ 10 billion .
That 's not small change.This is a prime example of solving a problem that does n't exist in the most ignorant way possible .
Give me a freaking break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to be a better than average poker player.
Just today, I played in the $60 Freezeout at a local casino (died pushing an 18 outer), came home, played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention.
Well, not the way we hoped!Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos, this newest stupidity doesn't hurt my bankroll directly.
It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice.
I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.I do own poker simulation software, so I can use that for a similar purpose.
The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.I don't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress, but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed, the annual nut was over $10 billion.
That's not small change.This is a prime example of solving a problem that doesn't exist in the most ignorant way possible.
Give me a freaking break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287545</id>
	<title>Let's push poker underground too!</title>
	<author>CaptainPatent</author>
	<datestamp>1244640420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in the Washington DC area - a place where you can't get a legal hand of poker dealt for literally 200 miles around. There are still plenty of really big games around here - you just need to bring a firearm to some of them.<br> <br>

It sounds like a <b> <i>great</i> </b> idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms. Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that?<br> <br>

I play on FullTiltPoker all the time. It's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament. How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that aren't legal, they can't afford? You think gambling is a problem? Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.<br> <br>

Great move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the Washington DC area - a place where you ca n't get a legal hand of poker dealt for literally 200 miles around .
There are still plenty of really big games around here - you just need to bring a firearm to some of them .
It sounds like a great idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms .
Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that ?
I play on FullTiltPoker all the time .
It 's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament .
How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that are n't legal , they ca n't afford ?
You think gambling is a problem ?
Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark , or shot because they ca n't pay .
Great move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the Washington DC area - a place where you can't get a legal hand of poker dealt for literally 200 miles around.
There are still plenty of really big games around here - you just need to bring a firearm to some of them.
It sounds like a  great  idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms.
Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that?
I play on FullTiltPoker all the time.
It's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament.
How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that aren't legal, they can't afford?
You think gambling is a problem?
Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.
Great move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301649</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1244720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure I do.  if I get 40 hands of shit,and bluff every time, by hand 12, everyone else is gonna know I'm full of shit.</p><p>You make money playing card....big deal.  Don't call it a skill, that no one else has.  It's pure luck you got that queen when you needed it.</p><p>Plus if all these well known players get together, say in the WSOP how do any of them win?  Shouldn't they all be bluffing and faking people out with their sunglasses and hats?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure I do .
if I get 40 hands of shit,and bluff every time , by hand 12 , everyone else is gon na know I 'm full of shit.You make money playing card....big deal .
Do n't call it a skill , that no one else has .
It 's pure luck you got that queen when you needed it.Plus if all these well known players get together , say in the WSOP how do any of them win ?
Should n't they all be bluffing and faking people out with their sunglasses and hats ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure I do.
if I get 40 hands of shit,and bluff every time, by hand 12, everyone else is gonna know I'm full of shit.You make money playing card....big deal.
Don't call it a skill, that no one else has.
It's pure luck you got that queen when you needed it.Plus if all these well known players get together, say in the WSOP how do any of them win?
Shouldn't they all be bluffing and faking people out with their sunglasses and hats?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289733</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>Canberra Bob</author>
	<datestamp>1244658960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a huge leap of faith (which you fail to backup with any fact) that all the money goes offshore.  So you are stating that Americans on average are worse poker players than the rest of the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a huge leap of faith ( which you fail to backup with any fact ) that all the money goes offshore .
So you are stating that Americans on average are worse poker players than the rest of the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a huge leap of faith (which you fail to backup with any fact) that all the money goes offshore.
So you are stating that Americans on average are worse poker players than the rest of the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081</id>
	<title>Why does the gov care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling?  What makes online poker worthy of the government's time?  Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling ?
What makes online poker worthy of the government 's time ?
Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling?
What makes online poker worthy of the government's time?
Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288389</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random". I want to make it clear that I have profited from online poker, but this is not from playing poker per-se but instead playing the "site". To play online I must adjust my game significantly for the different hand probabilities one expects. It's a game of chance, but it is not poker as we know it.</p><p>As a side note. There are many ways for a poker site to extract money from their players. Increasing pot sizes increases their rake (no need to be playing the house). But I expect (pure speculation) there are a "few" house players out there.... Hence there are many motives for poker sites to want to increase the pot contributions of the players.</p><p>Add to this that most online poker sites are run from some less trustworthy geographical and political locations....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not " random " .
I want to make it clear that I have profited from online poker , but this is not from playing poker per-se but instead playing the " site " .
To play online I must adjust my game significantly for the different hand probabilities one expects .
It 's a game of chance , but it is not poker as we know it.As a side note .
There are many ways for a poker site to extract money from their players .
Increasing pot sizes increases their rake ( no need to be playing the house ) .
But I expect ( pure speculation ) there are a " few " house players out there.... Hence there are many motives for poker sites to want to increase the pot contributions of the players.Add to this that most online poker sites are run from some less trustworthy geographical and political locations... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random".
I want to make it clear that I have profited from online poker, but this is not from playing poker per-se but instead playing the "site".
To play online I must adjust my game significantly for the different hand probabilities one expects.
It's a game of chance, but it is not poker as we know it.As a side note.
There are many ways for a poker site to extract money from their players.
Increasing pot sizes increases their rake (no need to be playing the house).
But I expect (pure speculation) there are a "few" house players out there.... Hence there are many motives for poker sites to want to increase the pot contributions of the players.Add to this that most online poker sites are run from some less trustworthy geographical and political locations....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.</p><p>(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake. They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around. This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10\% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness. I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's poker , you 're not playing against the house .
There 's no reason to skew the odds .
( Before somebody else says it , yeah , they could try to generate " action " hands to increase the rake .
They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around .
This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10 \ % more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played , it 's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness .
I doubt that it 's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected , your gold mine will be deserted the next day ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's poker, you're not playing against the house.
There's no reason to skew the odds.
(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake.
They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around.
This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10\% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness.
I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28305897</id>
	<title>Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>Dexter Herbivore</author>
	<datestamp>1244806740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and I am one of the people employed by a regulatory state agency to oversee the activities of organisations like those mentioned above. Australia has some of the most stringent regulations put into place to ensure integrity and to remove the risk of money laundering. Although I'm not really involved in the taxation side of things I'm intrigued by your statement "our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder". It supports it maybe, but as I understand the current situation the taxes still all go to the host state of the site in question and not the state of origin of the account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I am one of the people employed by a regulatory state agency to oversee the activities of organisations like those mentioned above .
Australia has some of the most stringent regulations put into place to ensure integrity and to remove the risk of money laundering .
Although I 'm not really involved in the taxation side of things I 'm intrigued by your statement " our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes , based on the location of the account holder " .
It supports it maybe , but as I understand the current situation the taxes still all go to the host state of the site in question and not the state of origin of the account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I am one of the people employed by a regulatory state agency to oversee the activities of organisations like those mentioned above.
Australia has some of the most stringent regulations put into place to ensure integrity and to remove the risk of money laundering.
Although I'm not really involved in the taxation side of things I'm intrigued by your statement "our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder".
It supports it maybe, but as I understand the current situation the taxes still all go to the host state of the site in question and not the state of origin of the account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301569</id>
	<title>Re:Just splendid...</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1244719680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh dear lord you just didn't claim people skills.....I've heard it all now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear lord you just did n't claim people skills.....I 've heard it all now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear lord you just didn't claim people skills.....I've heard it all now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287691</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.</p></div><p>For all one knows, one could very well be playing against the house.  Any guarantee that one or more of the other players aren't automated agents there to pull in winnings for the casino?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's poker , you 're not playing against the house .
There 's no reason to skew the odds.For all one knows , one could very well be playing against the house .
Any guarantee that one or more of the other players are n't automated agents there to pull in winnings for the casino ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's poker, you're not playing against the house.
There's no reason to skew the odds.For all one knows, one could very well be playing against the house.
Any guarantee that one or more of the other players aren't automated agents there to pull in winnings for the casino?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287867</id>
	<title>Re:Arrest the prosecutor</title>
	<author>MetinAustralia</author>
	<datestamp>1244642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293799</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>tshak</author>
	<datestamp>1244735220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house. Or car insurance. Or the state lottery. Or mutual funds. Or health insurance.</i></p><p><i>We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege. I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.</i></p><p>Ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike homeowner 's insurance , where you ARE playing against the house .
Or car insurance .
Or the state lottery .
Or mutual funds .
Or health insurance.We manage risk all the time , and happily pay people for the privilege .
I 've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.Ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house.
Or car insurance.
Or the state lottery.
Or mutual funds.
Or health insurance.We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege.
I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.Ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310269</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1244829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then people will live in off-shore houses.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then people will live in off-shore houses .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then people will live in off-shore houses.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495</id>
	<title>Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1244640000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?  Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways ?
Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?
Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288407</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Main Gauche</author>
	<datestamp>1244646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering they can't even prevent <i>former</i> employees from doing it, I'd say yeah, you're right.  (Google NioNio if you don't know the story.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering they ca n't even prevent former employees from doing it , I 'd say yeah , you 're right .
( Google NioNio if you do n't know the story .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering they can't even prevent former employees from doing it, I'd say yeah, you're right.
(Google NioNio if you don't know the story.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289079</id>
	<title>Time to stand up</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244652960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously? WTF? What will it take. I am grabbing my flaming pitchfork.
Had to consolidate the torch and pitchfork to save money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
WTF ? What will it take .
I am grabbing my flaming pitchfork .
Had to consolidate the torch and pitchfork to save money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
WTF? What will it take.
I am grabbing my flaming pitchfork.
Had to consolidate the torch and pitchfork to save money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288547</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1244647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.</p></div><p>Nor the latency.  And in some tragic cases, the packet loss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.Nor the latency .
And in some tragic cases , the packet loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.Nor the latency.
And in some tragic cases, the packet loss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289697</id>
	<title>These comments are just stupid</title>
	<author>Canberra Bob</author>
	<datestamp>1244658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading through this it is amazing the ignorance shown in a lot of the comments.</p><p>To elaborate - I will come out and say it.  I play poker professionally online.  Mid stakes limit hold em to be precise.  Firstly, I have been paid in full every time I have made a withdrawal.  There are PokerStars offices (yes, real offices, with people working in them) in many countries around the world.  I have bought many items, including cash bonuses, through the site store.  I have received every single one (including the cash) in a timely manner and have not once had an issue.  International freight is via DHL and usually arrives within a week (with no charge on shipping to me).  The statement that you will not get paid just shows pure ignorance of the subject.  I am sure there are some dodgy sites out there, but there are many dodgy sites out there in other activities too.  I suppose you should never buy anything off a site because there are some dodgy sites?</p><p>As for fair or not, let me continue...</p><p>You can purchase quite sophisticated statistical analysis software for poker.  Most (possibly all) professional and serious amateur players use it.  It will break down every single part of all the games you have played and you can pull numbers on almost any conceivable situation you have ever been in to find flaws in your game ("leaks" in poker jargon).  The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database for you to access if you care to write your own front end.  This software stores every single hand I have ever played in.  Included is analysis that shows if you are running "lucky" - you can prove mathematically if you have been "lucky" or "unlucky" with how the cards have come out - that is - if your results are skewed due to the cards being dealt giving you statistically more or less wins than you should have on average.  There are some VERY smart guys playing (as one would imagine with the money that is at stake) including pros who have post grads in statistics, finance etc.  I personally studied electrical engineering and am currently doing some stats study on my own to improve my game and move my play towards the holy grail that is Game Theory Optimal (which may not even exist in multi-handed poker due to incomplete information).  These guys are not some country yokels who have no idea if they are being duped or not.</p><p>As for bots...<br>Firstly, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, get a bot and play some mid stakes or higher multi-way poker (6-max or full ring).  Your bot will be crushed.  Period.  Yes I know about Polaris (the University of Alberta bot which can match it with the best heads up limit players in the world).  A few points to note.  This is for heads up limit - more players than 2 and the game becomes exponentially more difficult for a bot to play.  Bots are not all conquering in the poker world as some assume, a good player will crush almost any bot.  Unlike other games poker is a loooooong way from being solved (if it can be).  As for collusion, this happens unfortunately from time to time (as it does in a real casino) but there are protection mechanisms in place against it.  Firstly, the sites employ poker and statistical specialists who have no other job than to keep the games honest.  You can see if someone is playing statistically better than they should.  Added to that, as a professional player many can quite easily spot when people are colluding on the table.  If someone is caught cheating they have their entire playing account funds frozen and anybody who has played against them has their money refunded.</p><p>I have played pro live and online.  I play online as I can get multiples more hands per hour against weak player in than I can in a live game.  Also the rake is a small fraction of what I pay live.  The only ones who say "omgz online is rigged" either have no idea what they are talking about, or are players who just suck at poker and instead of working on their game find something else to blame for why they always lose.</p><p>Plenty more to say but that will do for now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading through this it is amazing the ignorance shown in a lot of the comments.To elaborate - I will come out and say it .
I play poker professionally online .
Mid stakes limit hold em to be precise .
Firstly , I have been paid in full every time I have made a withdrawal .
There are PokerStars offices ( yes , real offices , with people working in them ) in many countries around the world .
I have bought many items , including cash bonuses , through the site store .
I have received every single one ( including the cash ) in a timely manner and have not once had an issue .
International freight is via DHL and usually arrives within a week ( with no charge on shipping to me ) .
The statement that you will not get paid just shows pure ignorance of the subject .
I am sure there are some dodgy sites out there , but there are many dodgy sites out there in other activities too .
I suppose you should never buy anything off a site because there are some dodgy sites ? As for fair or not , let me continue...You can purchase quite sophisticated statistical analysis software for poker .
Most ( possibly all ) professional and serious amateur players use it .
It will break down every single part of all the games you have played and you can pull numbers on almost any conceivable situation you have ever been in to find flaws in your game ( " leaks " in poker jargon ) .
The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database for you to access if you care to write your own front end .
This software stores every single hand I have ever played in .
Included is analysis that shows if you are running " lucky " - you can prove mathematically if you have been " lucky " or " unlucky " with how the cards have come out - that is - if your results are skewed due to the cards being dealt giving you statistically more or less wins than you should have on average .
There are some VERY smart guys playing ( as one would imagine with the money that is at stake ) including pros who have post grads in statistics , finance etc .
I personally studied electrical engineering and am currently doing some stats study on my own to improve my game and move my play towards the holy grail that is Game Theory Optimal ( which may not even exist in multi-handed poker due to incomplete information ) .
These guys are not some country yokels who have no idea if they are being duped or not.As for bots...Firstly , I invite you to put your money where your mouth is , get a bot and play some mid stakes or higher multi-way poker ( 6-max or full ring ) .
Your bot will be crushed .
Period. Yes I know about Polaris ( the University of Alberta bot which can match it with the best heads up limit players in the world ) .
A few points to note .
This is for heads up limit - more players than 2 and the game becomes exponentially more difficult for a bot to play .
Bots are not all conquering in the poker world as some assume , a good player will crush almost any bot .
Unlike other games poker is a loooooong way from being solved ( if it can be ) .
As for collusion , this happens unfortunately from time to time ( as it does in a real casino ) but there are protection mechanisms in place against it .
Firstly , the sites employ poker and statistical specialists who have no other job than to keep the games honest .
You can see if someone is playing statistically better than they should .
Added to that , as a professional player many can quite easily spot when people are colluding on the table .
If someone is caught cheating they have their entire playing account funds frozen and anybody who has played against them has their money refunded.I have played pro live and online .
I play online as I can get multiples more hands per hour against weak player in than I can in a live game .
Also the rake is a small fraction of what I pay live .
The only ones who say " omgz online is rigged " either have no idea what they are talking about , or are players who just suck at poker and instead of working on their game find something else to blame for why they always lose.Plenty more to say but that will do for now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading through this it is amazing the ignorance shown in a lot of the comments.To elaborate - I will come out and say it.
I play poker professionally online.
Mid stakes limit hold em to be precise.
Firstly, I have been paid in full every time I have made a withdrawal.
There are PokerStars offices (yes, real offices, with people working in them) in many countries around the world.
I have bought many items, including cash bonuses, through the site store.
I have received every single one (including the cash) in a timely manner and have not once had an issue.
International freight is via DHL and usually arrives within a week (with no charge on shipping to me).
The statement that you will not get paid just shows pure ignorance of the subject.
I am sure there are some dodgy sites out there, but there are many dodgy sites out there in other activities too.
I suppose you should never buy anything off a site because there are some dodgy sites?As for fair or not, let me continue...You can purchase quite sophisticated statistical analysis software for poker.
Most (possibly all) professional and serious amateur players use it.
It will break down every single part of all the games you have played and you can pull numbers on almost any conceivable situation you have ever been in to find flaws in your game ("leaks" in poker jargon).
The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database for you to access if you care to write your own front end.
This software stores every single hand I have ever played in.
Included is analysis that shows if you are running "lucky" - you can prove mathematically if you have been "lucky" or "unlucky" with how the cards have come out - that is - if your results are skewed due to the cards being dealt giving you statistically more or less wins than you should have on average.
There are some VERY smart guys playing (as one would imagine with the money that is at stake) including pros who have post grads in statistics, finance etc.
I personally studied electrical engineering and am currently doing some stats study on my own to improve my game and move my play towards the holy grail that is Game Theory Optimal (which may not even exist in multi-handed poker due to incomplete information).
These guys are not some country yokels who have no idea if they are being duped or not.As for bots...Firstly, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, get a bot and play some mid stakes or higher multi-way poker (6-max or full ring).
Your bot will be crushed.
Period.  Yes I know about Polaris (the University of Alberta bot which can match it with the best heads up limit players in the world).
A few points to note.
This is for heads up limit - more players than 2 and the game becomes exponentially more difficult for a bot to play.
Bots are not all conquering in the poker world as some assume, a good player will crush almost any bot.
Unlike other games poker is a loooooong way from being solved (if it can be).
As for collusion, this happens unfortunately from time to time (as it does in a real casino) but there are protection mechanisms in place against it.
Firstly, the sites employ poker and statistical specialists who have no other job than to keep the games honest.
You can see if someone is playing statistically better than they should.
Added to that, as a professional player many can quite easily spot when people are colluding on the table.
If someone is caught cheating they have their entire playing account funds frozen and anybody who has played against them has their money refunded.I have played pro live and online.
I play online as I can get multiples more hands per hour against weak player in than I can in a live game.
Also the rake is a small fraction of what I pay live.
The only ones who say "omgz online is rigged" either have no idea what they are talking about, or are players who just suck at poker and instead of working on their game find something else to blame for why they always lose.Plenty more to say but that will do for now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28313627</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless your congressperson has as much pull as Harry Reid from Nevada, you won't go anywhere.  The Nevada Gambling Commission is his biggest local sponsor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your congressperson has as much pull as Harry Reid from Nevada , you wo n't go anywhere .
The Nevada Gambling Commission is his biggest local sponsor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your congressperson has as much pull as Harry Reid from Nevada, you won't go anywhere.
The Nevada Gambling Commission is his biggest local sponsor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28353253</id>
	<title>GOV'T GAMBLEs WITH OUR MONEY all the time.</title>
	<author>America2Inc</author>
	<datestamp>1245145260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, so the Gov't can gamble with our money to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS betting on worn out losers like GM, CHRYSLER, AIG, Bank of America etc.

AND, they don't ask us.  It's only OUR DAMN MONEY, but they can gamble with it and then pass laws that WE CANNOT GAMBLE WITH OUR OWN DAMN MONEY.

That's freedom and democracy???

We have a better idea.

<a href="http://www.america2inc.com/" title="america2inc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.america2inc.com/</a> [america2inc.com]  Get your stock in America today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so the Gov't can gamble with our money to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS betting on worn out losers like GM , CHRYSLER , AIG , Bank of America etc .
AND , they do n't ask us .
It 's only OUR DAMN MONEY , but they can gamble with it and then pass laws that WE CAN NOT GAMBLE WITH OUR OWN DAMN MONEY .
That 's freedom and democracy ? ? ?
We have a better idea .
http : //www.america2inc.com/ [ america2inc.com ] Get your stock in America today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so the Gov't can gamble with our money to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS betting on worn out losers like GM, CHRYSLER, AIG, Bank of America etc.
AND, they don't ask us.
It's only OUR DAMN MONEY, but they can gamble with it and then pass laws that WE CANNOT GAMBLE WITH OUR OWN DAMN MONEY.
That's freedom and democracy???
We have a better idea.
http://www.america2inc.com/ [america2inc.com]  Get your stock in America today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287815</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1244642340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's pretty high on some of the special-interest-groups' <a href="http://www.ncalg.org/" title="ncalg.org" rel="nofollow">lists</a> [ncalg.org].
</p><p>
The number of <a href="http://www.cagnyinf.org/links.htm" title="cagnyinf.org" rel="nofollow">anti-gaming</a> [cagnyinf.org] groups is obscene.
</p><p>
And apparently their voices are heard louder than most.
</p><p>
Also, they have a lot of ammunition to use against "online poker" sites, partly because politicans can easily be made suspicious of online services...
</p><p>
There are lots of negative connotations about "online gambling" sites
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty high on some of the special-interest-groups ' lists [ ncalg.org ] .
The number of anti-gaming [ cagnyinf.org ] groups is obscene .
And apparently their voices are heard louder than most .
Also , they have a lot of ammunition to use against " online poker " sites , partly because politicans can easily be made suspicious of online services.. . There are lots of negative connotations about " online gambling " sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's pretty high on some of the special-interest-groups' lists [ncalg.org].
The number of anti-gaming [cagnyinf.org] groups is obscene.
And apparently their voices are heard louder than most.
Also, they have a lot of ammunition to use against "online poker" sites, partly because politicans can easily be made suspicious of online services...

There are lots of negative connotations about "online gambling" sites
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591</id>
	<title>'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a <i>great</i> idea. How about the government makes a list of the <i>most important</i> issues facing the United States today. Hell, I'll even be happy to let the party in power at the moment dictate the order of this list.</p><p>Where do you all think <i>internet poker</i> falls on that list? Is it even in the top <b>thousand</b>?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a great idea .
How about the government makes a list of the most important issues facing the United States today .
Hell , I 'll even be happy to let the party in power at the moment dictate the order of this list.Where do you all think internet poker falls on that list ?
Is it even in the top thousand ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a great idea.
How about the government makes a list of the most important issues facing the United States today.
Hell, I'll even be happy to let the party in power at the moment dictate the order of this list.Where do you all think internet poker falls on that list?
Is it even in the top thousand?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments, however, do. And are able to monitor such activity. Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments , however , do .
And are able to monitor such activity .
Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity ' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments, however, do.
And are able to monitor such activity.
Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288559</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>pete6677</author>
	<datestamp>1244647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker. </i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Bawney Fwank's idea of online poker does not involve cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker .
  Bawney Fwank 's idea of online poker does not involve cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker.
  Bawney Fwank's idea of online poker does not involve cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295061</id>
	<title>Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is amazing conservatively backward.  This country actually passed a constitutional amendment outlawing alcohol! LOL  I  have a $1,000 worthless check and am POBAR (Pissed off beyond all recognition...) COL (Cry...)</p><p>21 year old drinking age.  Federaly mandated because states lose Fed. highway funds if they don't toe the line.  A quick little on-line research showed that every single non-Islamic country is younger than this.  Imagine it being legal for a 16 year old in France to be able to have a glass of wine at dinner with his parents!!  Shocking.</p><p>I think Obama will be a breath of fresh air with regards to social policy.  Good ridance to Republicans with their right wing Bible thumping zealots.  Our drug laws are more dangerous than the drugs, and now our on-line gambling laws are more dangerous than on-line gambling...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is amazing conservatively backward .
This country actually passed a constitutional amendment outlawing alcohol !
LOL I have a $ 1,000 worthless check and am POBAR ( Pissed off beyond all recognition... ) COL ( Cry... ) 21 year old drinking age .
Federaly mandated because states lose Fed .
highway funds if they do n't toe the line .
A quick little on-line research showed that every single non-Islamic country is younger than this .
Imagine it being legal for a 16 year old in France to be able to have a glass of wine at dinner with his parents ! !
Shocking.I think Obama will be a breath of fresh air with regards to social policy .
Good ridance to Republicans with their right wing Bible thumping zealots .
Our drug laws are more dangerous than the drugs , and now our on-line gambling laws are more dangerous than on-line gambling.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is amazing conservatively backward.
This country actually passed a constitutional amendment outlawing alcohol!
LOL  I  have a $1,000 worthless check and am POBAR (Pissed off beyond all recognition...) COL (Cry...)21 year old drinking age.
Federaly mandated because states lose Fed.
highway funds if they don't toe the line.
A quick little on-line research showed that every single non-Islamic country is younger than this.
Imagine it being legal for a 16 year old in France to be able to have a glass of wine at dinner with his parents!!
Shocking.I think Obama will be a breath of fresh air with regards to social policy.
Good ridance to Republicans with their right wing Bible thumping zealots.
Our drug laws are more dangerous than the drugs, and now our on-line gambling laws are more dangerous than on-line gambling...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287767</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1244641980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't think we'll do our best to hassle foreign banks into compliance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think we 'll do our best to hassle foreign banks into compliance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think we'll do our best to hassle foreign banks into compliance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289197</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it should be near the top of the list. This is especially true given the state of the economy.</p><p>Online gambling generally results in more losses then winning as it true for most gambling with the exception of professional gamblers. When these sites are hosted outside the country, we have the problem or our wealth being distributed to places that won't benefit us anymore. When this happens, jobs are lost, and so on which is sort of what we should be attempting to counter right now.</p><p>Think of it this way, if you and your neighbor trade for stuff that each other needs (suppose you raise meat and he raises vegetables), then the exchange and wealth stays there. But suppose I purchase all his vegetables (take the money by online gambling offshore), he now has nothing to offer you and you either need to sell your meat or take a loss on it. Either way, it's worth is less then it was when you could get what you needed. Now suppose this happens again, you have to find something else worth of value or accept the loss or raise less meat. The effect is that your neighbor can purchase less, you can purchase and do less, it just detracts from everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it should be near the top of the list .
This is especially true given the state of the economy.Online gambling generally results in more losses then winning as it true for most gambling with the exception of professional gamblers .
When these sites are hosted outside the country , we have the problem or our wealth being distributed to places that wo n't benefit us anymore .
When this happens , jobs are lost , and so on which is sort of what we should be attempting to counter right now.Think of it this way , if you and your neighbor trade for stuff that each other needs ( suppose you raise meat and he raises vegetables ) , then the exchange and wealth stays there .
But suppose I purchase all his vegetables ( take the money by online gambling offshore ) , he now has nothing to offer you and you either need to sell your meat or take a loss on it .
Either way , it 's worth is less then it was when you could get what you needed .
Now suppose this happens again , you have to find something else worth of value or accept the loss or raise less meat .
The effect is that your neighbor can purchase less , you can purchase and do less , it just detracts from everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it should be near the top of the list.
This is especially true given the state of the economy.Online gambling generally results in more losses then winning as it true for most gambling with the exception of professional gamblers.
When these sites are hosted outside the country, we have the problem or our wealth being distributed to places that won't benefit us anymore.
When this happens, jobs are lost, and so on which is sort of what we should be attempting to counter right now.Think of it this way, if you and your neighbor trade for stuff that each other needs (suppose you raise meat and he raises vegetables), then the exchange and wealth stays there.
But suppose I purchase all his vegetables (take the money by online gambling offshore), he now has nothing to offer you and you either need to sell your meat or take a loss on it.
Either way, it's worth is less then it was when you could get what you needed.
Now suppose this happens again, you have to find something else worth of value or accept the loss or raise less meat.
The effect is that your neighbor can purchase less, you can purchase and do less, it just detracts from everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287599</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason not to gamble online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in online poker, you have access to all the cards you ever played.  You can look at your last 10,000 hands and see if the cards you get have any statistical anomalies.  Try doing that at a bricks-and-mortar casino.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in online poker , you have access to all the cards you ever played .
You can look at your last 10,000 hands and see if the cards you get have any statistical anomalies .
Try doing that at a bricks-and-mortar casino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in online poker, you have access to all the cards you ever played.
You can look at your last 10,000 hands and see if the cards you get have any statistical anomalies.
Try doing that at a bricks-and-mortar casino.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288693</id>
	<title>Re:US v. $124,700</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1244649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also,</p><blockquote><div><p>Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable</p></div></blockquote><p>You don't know the property is illegally obtained until a proper trial has been conducted. Part of any sane interpretation of the presumption of innocence is that the current possessor of an item is its rightful owner. Forfeiture is <i>literally</i> a <i>de jure</i> presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also,Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonableYou do n't know the property is illegally obtained until a proper trial has been conducted .
Part of any sane interpretation of the presumption of innocence is that the current possessor of an item is its rightful owner .
Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property , and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also,Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonableYou don't know the property is illegally obtained until a proper trial has been conducted.
Part of any sane interpretation of the presumption of innocence is that the current possessor of an item is its rightful owner.
Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290421</id>
	<title>Given Other "Investments" Lately</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1244753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could have sunk your 401K into an online poker site or, for that matter, lotto tickets and you'd be in about the same place right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have sunk your 401K into an online poker site or , for that matter , lotto tickets and you 'd be in about the same place right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have sunk your 401K into an online poker site or, for that matter, lotto tickets and you'd be in about the same place right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28330417</id>
	<title>Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"it was <b>not clear what law</b>would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players"</p><p>Eh???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it was not clear what lawwould cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players " Eh ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it was not clear what lawwould cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players"Eh??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289205</id>
	<title>Re:Wont work.</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1244654280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you live? I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.</p><p>Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape? Pay your own goddamn tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you live ?
I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape ?
Pay your own goddamn tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you live?
I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape?
Pay your own goddamn tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28305897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28313627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28298457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2238213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28298457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28310375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288529
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28301649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288359
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28299933
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28293799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28313627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28289667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28290323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2238213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28287495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28288311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28291257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28305897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2238213.28295261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
