<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1625215</id>
	<title>British Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245258780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"In a dangerous judgment for British bloggers and whistleblowers, a British court has ruled (absurdly) that because blogging itself is a public activity, bloggers have '<a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article6509677.ece">no reasonable expectation of privacy</a>' regarding their identities, and newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means. A British police detective who recently won the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell\_Prize">Orwell Prize</a> for his excellent political writing used his blog to write highly critical accounts of police activities and unethical behavior, making very powerful enemies in the process. A well-funded newspaper with powerful connections quickly heard of his blog and decided it was absolutely vital to <a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article6511393.ece">expose his identity using an investigative journalist</a>. Like any good newspaper, the blogger anonymized the people and the locations in all the cases he discussed on his blog, but the newspaper alleges these were not sufficiently anonymized and complains that they could work out the identities, though British newspapers don't complain that they are allowed to publish the identities of men who are <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127303/BBC-personality-40-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriend.html">falsely accused of rape and cleared in court</a>. The newspaper also helpfully contacted the blogger's employer, and his job is now threatened."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " In a dangerous judgment for British bloggers and whistleblowers , a British court has ruled ( absurdly ) that because blogging itself is a public activity , bloggers have 'no reasonable expectation of privacy ' regarding their identities , and newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means .
A British police detective who recently won the Orwell Prize for his excellent political writing used his blog to write highly critical accounts of police activities and unethical behavior , making very powerful enemies in the process .
A well-funded newspaper with powerful connections quickly heard of his blog and decided it was absolutely vital to expose his identity using an investigative journalist .
Like any good newspaper , the blogger anonymized the people and the locations in all the cases he discussed on his blog , but the newspaper alleges these were not sufficiently anonymized and complains that they could work out the identities , though British newspapers do n't complain that they are allowed to publish the identities of men who are falsely accused of rape and cleared in court .
The newspaper also helpfully contacted the blogger 's employer , and his job is now threatened .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "In a dangerous judgment for British bloggers and whistleblowers, a British court has ruled (absurdly) that because blogging itself is a public activity, bloggers have 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' regarding their identities, and newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.
A British police detective who recently won the Orwell Prize for his excellent political writing used his blog to write highly critical accounts of police activities and unethical behavior, making very powerful enemies in the process.
A well-funded newspaper with powerful connections quickly heard of his blog and decided it was absolutely vital to expose his identity using an investigative journalist.
Like any good newspaper, the blogger anonymized the people and the locations in all the cases he discussed on his blog, but the newspaper alleges these were not sufficiently anonymized and complains that they could work out the identities, though British newspapers don't complain that they are allowed to publish the identities of men who are falsely accused of rape and cleared in court.
The newspaper also helpfully contacted the blogger's employer, and his job is now threatened.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364543</id>
	<title>This is not at all surprising.</title>
	<author>superdude72</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The right to privacy is pretty much limited to things you do inside your own home. Once you put something in a public space, it's not longer private. There has never been any right to publish anonymously, or be quoted anonymously. Think of all those investigative reporters who spent years trying to uncover Deep Throat. (Yes this is a US example, but law in the US and the UK are based on the same common law principles.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to privacy is pretty much limited to things you do inside your own home .
Once you put something in a public space , it 's not longer private .
There has never been any right to publish anonymously , or be quoted anonymously .
Think of all those investigative reporters who spent years trying to uncover Deep Throat .
( Yes this is a US example , but law in the US and the UK are based on the same common law principles .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to privacy is pretty much limited to things you do inside your own home.
Once you put something in a public space, it's not longer private.
There has never been any right to publish anonymously, or be quoted anonymously.
Think of all those investigative reporters who spent years trying to uncover Deep Throat.
(Yes this is a US example, but law in the US and the UK are based on the same common law principles.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28374429</id>
	<title>UK Sucks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UK is turning into soviet russia.  Revolt and take back your freedom, you limey serfs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UK is turning into soviet russia .
Revolt and take back your freedom , you limey serfs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK is turning into soviet russia.
Revolt and take back your freedom, you limey serfs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663</id>
	<title>Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1245263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The blogger in question left enough clues around in his postings that he could be easily identified.  Like he for instance referred to his position in the Force, and then referred to his membership in an athletic club.  There only was one office of that rank in that club's membership.  He then described cases he had been involved in, without adequately disguising the details, so it was clear that it could only have been that case that the blog referred to as having been one the blogger had been involved in.</p><p>He then sought to prevent the Times from publishing his name.</p><p>Well, surely, if you want anonymity, make at least some effort to stop people finding out who you are?  It does not seem very rational to leave around all the clues anyone needs to identify you, but to focus your efforts on making it legally impossible for them to publish it, once they have made the fairly small effort required to find out.</p><p>A case which really touched on the anonymity of bloggers would be one in which it was undiscoverable by ordinary means such as the above, but the courts ordered the ISP or provider to disclose the identity.  Now that would be a different and much more serious issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The blogger in question left enough clues around in his postings that he could be easily identified .
Like he for instance referred to his position in the Force , and then referred to his membership in an athletic club .
There only was one office of that rank in that club 's membership .
He then described cases he had been involved in , without adequately disguising the details , so it was clear that it could only have been that case that the blog referred to as having been one the blogger had been involved in.He then sought to prevent the Times from publishing his name.Well , surely , if you want anonymity , make at least some effort to stop people finding out who you are ?
It does not seem very rational to leave around all the clues anyone needs to identify you , but to focus your efforts on making it legally impossible for them to publish it , once they have made the fairly small effort required to find out.A case which really touched on the anonymity of bloggers would be one in which it was undiscoverable by ordinary means such as the above , but the courts ordered the ISP or provider to disclose the identity .
Now that would be a different and much more serious issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blogger in question left enough clues around in his postings that he could be easily identified.
Like he for instance referred to his position in the Force, and then referred to his membership in an athletic club.
There only was one office of that rank in that club's membership.
He then described cases he had been involved in, without adequately disguising the details, so it was clear that it could only have been that case that the blog referred to as having been one the blogger had been involved in.He then sought to prevent the Times from publishing his name.Well, surely, if you want anonymity, make at least some effort to stop people finding out who you are?
It does not seem very rational to leave around all the clues anyone needs to identify you, but to focus your efforts on making it legally impossible for them to publish it, once they have made the fairly small effort required to find out.A case which really touched on the anonymity of bloggers would be one in which it was undiscoverable by ordinary means such as the above, but the courts ordered the ISP or provider to disclose the identity.
Now that would be a different and much more serious issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389</id>
	<title>No wayback archive copy available.</title>
	<author>auric\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1245262740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The blog is no longer accessible <a href="http://nightjack.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">http://nightjack.wordpress.com/</a> [wordpress.com] and can not be reached via  <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/</a> [archive.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The blog is no longer accessible http : //nightjack.wordpress.com/ [ wordpress.com ] and can not be reached via http : //web.archive.org/web/ * /http : //nightjack.wordpress.com/ [ archive.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blog is no longer accessible http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] and can not be reached via  http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ [archive.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365775</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal?</title>
	<author>wasabii</author>
	<datestamp>1245230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with the ruling. Seems retarded to remove the paper's free speech. Good job judge!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the ruling .
Seems retarded to remove the paper 's free speech .
Good job judge !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the ruling.
Seems retarded to remove the paper's free speech.
Good job judge!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365031</id>
	<title>Fight Back!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All's fair in love and war. Let's turn the tables and every time that newspaper mentions a "Government Source" or "A Source close to..." or "An anonymous source", we as bloggers unite and do everything we can to find out who their source is and spill the beans. Tit for tat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All 's fair in love and war .
Let 's turn the tables and every time that newspaper mentions a " Government Source " or " A Source close to... " or " An anonymous source " , we as bloggers unite and do everything we can to find out who their source is and spill the beans .
Tit for tat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All's fair in love and war.
Let's turn the tables and every time that newspaper mentions a "Government Source" or "A Source close to..." or "An anonymous source", we as bloggers unite and do everything we can to find out who their source is and spill the beans.
Tit for tat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366347</id>
	<title>Slashdotted out of existence!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245233460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The blog is no longer accessible <a href="http://nightjack.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">http://nightjack.wordpress.com/</a> [wordpress.com] and can not be reached via <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/</a> [archive.org] </i></p><p>It finally happened. This is the first recorded instance of a site being slashdotted not only in the present but also in the past and the future. Be very afraid. Your personal web page, not updated since the 90s, might be next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The blog is no longer accessible http : //nightjack.wordpress.com/ [ wordpress.com ] and can not be reached via http : //web.archive.org/web/ * /http : //nightjack.wordpress.com/ [ archive.org ] It finally happened .
This is the first recorded instance of a site being slashdotted not only in the present but also in the past and the future .
Be very afraid .
Your personal web page , not updated since the 90s , might be next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blog is no longer accessible http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] and can not be reached via http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ [archive.org] It finally happened.
This is the first recorded instance of a site being slashdotted not only in the present but also in the past and the future.
Be very afraid.
Your personal web page, not updated since the 90s, might be next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367181</id>
	<title>Wait Wait Wait</title>
	<author>teknosapien</author>
	<datestamp>1245237540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspapers and News outlets in general want that "special treatment" as a news outlet.
They have stated that bloggers are not real news people yet now they want them treated as such

seems like a double standard they are trying to achieve here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers and News outlets in general want that " special treatment " as a news outlet .
They have stated that bloggers are not real news people yet now they want them treated as such seems like a double standard they are trying to achieve here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers and News outlets in general want that "special treatment" as a news outlet.
They have stated that bloggers are not real news people yet now they want them treated as such

seems like a double standard they are trying to achieve here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368003</id>
	<title>Re:Headline Spin</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1245243780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain doesn't want the truth anyway.  They have the worst libel laws in the universe.  Fuck the British legal system.  It's broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain does n't want the truth anyway .
They have the worst libel laws in the universe .
Fuck the British legal system .
It 's broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain doesn't want the truth anyway.
They have the worst libel laws in the universe.
Fuck the British legal system.
It's broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367323</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1245238680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.<br>Dwight D. Eisenhower</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want total security , go to prison .
There you 're fed , clothed , given medical care and so on .
The only thing lacking... is freedom.Dwight D. Eisenhower</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want total security, go to prison.
There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on.
The only thing lacking... is freedom.Dwight D. Eisenhower</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367149</id>
	<title>Re:Rights means responsibility</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1245237360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see why he should expect a right to privacy. If you are going to make public accusations and attacks, then the other parties have a right to defend.</p></div><p>Well done, Dave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why he should expect a right to privacy .
If you are going to make public accusations and attacks , then the other parties have a right to defend.Well done , Dave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why he should expect a right to privacy.
If you are going to make public accusations and attacks, then the other parties have a right to defend.Well done, Dave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365691</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1245230220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So maybe they got the wrong guy?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Seriously, though....did you really expect this anonymous blogger to give his real name so he could win the prize?  If he did, he's an idiot who deserves to be outed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So maybe they got the wrong guy ?
: - ) Seriously , though....did you really expect this anonymous blogger to give his real name so he could win the prize ?
If he did , he 's an idiot who deserves to be outed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So maybe they got the wrong guy?
:-)Seriously, though....did you really expect this anonymous blogger to give his real name so he could win the prize?
If he did, he's an idiot who deserves to be outed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364823</id>
	<title>F@ck the police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I've always said- F@ck the police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've always said- F @ ck the police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've always said- F@ck the police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364983</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed! A country who's legal system upheld the freedom of the press!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed !
A country who 's legal system upheld the freedom of the press !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed!
A country who's legal system upheld the freedom of the press!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365835</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>WildStreet</author>
	<datestamp>1245230940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wondering. Will the populous at large continue to allow these small steps in the erosion of personal liberties and privacy, or when too many people have become uncomfortable, will they finally stand up and revolt. Even then it might be too late. Part of me hopes to live long enough to see the uprising, but a part of me cringes at the thought of being around if it fails. Here in the States, most people turn a blind eye, as long as their way of life is not directly affected. I realize that a blogger is much different in the eyes of many journalists, than the traditional view. But when the line becomes hazy, where will legitimate on-line journalists fall. This will slowly affect more and more people that publish on-line. Laws are more apt to be expanded to include more violations, rather then spin the other way. Just wondering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering .
Will the populous at large continue to allow these small steps in the erosion of personal liberties and privacy , or when too many people have become uncomfortable , will they finally stand up and revolt .
Even then it might be too late .
Part of me hopes to live long enough to see the uprising , but a part of me cringes at the thought of being around if it fails .
Here in the States , most people turn a blind eye , as long as their way of life is not directly affected .
I realize that a blogger is much different in the eyes of many journalists , than the traditional view .
But when the line becomes hazy , where will legitimate on-line journalists fall .
This will slowly affect more and more people that publish on-line .
Laws are more apt to be expanded to include more violations , rather then spin the other way .
Just wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering.
Will the populous at large continue to allow these small steps in the erosion of personal liberties and privacy, or when too many people have become uncomfortable, will they finally stand up and revolt.
Even then it might be too late.
Part of me hopes to live long enough to see the uprising, but a part of me cringes at the thought of being around if it fails.
Here in the States, most people turn a blind eye, as long as their way of life is not directly affected.
I realize that a blogger is much different in the eyes of many journalists, than the traditional view.
But when the line becomes hazy, where will legitimate on-line journalists fall.
This will slowly affect more and more people that publish on-line.
Laws are more apt to be expanded to include more violations, rather then spin the other way.
Just wondering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366021</id>
	<title>No Individual Rights in Britain</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245232020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad you don't have individual rights in Britain. No wonder the people who wanted the government out of their lives crossed the pond and eventually founded America. This is an open invitation to break the laws regarding privacy without consequences, which just goes to show you how far Britain has really fallen. Even America isn't this bad yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you do n't have individual rights in Britain .
No wonder the people who wanted the government out of their lives crossed the pond and eventually founded America .
This is an open invitation to break the laws regarding privacy without consequences , which just goes to show you how far Britain has really fallen .
Even America is n't this bad yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you don't have individual rights in Britain.
No wonder the people who wanted the government out of their lives crossed the pond and eventually founded America.
This is an open invitation to break the laws regarding privacy without consequences, which just goes to show you how far Britain has really fallen.
Even America isn't this bad yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364323</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1245267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He won the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/24/orwell-prize-jack-night-winner-blog" title="guardian.co.uk">2009 Orwell special prize</a> [guardian.co.uk] for blogs - under the pseudonym he used on the blog, Jack Night.</p><p>Wikipedia doesn't say much about the special prizes, only the Journalism and Book prizes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He won the 2009 Orwell special prize [ guardian.co.uk ] for blogs - under the pseudonym he used on the blog , Jack Night.Wikipedia does n't say much about the special prizes , only the Journalism and Book prizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He won the 2009 Orwell special prize [guardian.co.uk] for blogs - under the pseudonym he used on the blog, Jack Night.Wikipedia doesn't say much about the special prizes, only the Journalism and Book prizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</id>
	<title>As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should have the right to privacy if you want it, but I can't really take anyone seriously that doesn't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be, corruption or the like.  If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.</p><p>Quite frankly, if you don't have guts, don't bother.  AC because I don't have an account and this post, quite frankly, worth the time of making one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have the right to privacy if you want it , but I ca n't really take anyone seriously that does n't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be , corruption or the like .
If it 's not worth putting yourself on the line , it 's not worth reading.Quite frankly , if you do n't have guts , do n't bother .
AC because I do n't have an account and this post , quite frankly , worth the time of making one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have the right to privacy if you want it, but I can't really take anyone seriously that doesn't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be, corruption or the like.
If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.Quite frankly, if you don't have guts, don't bother.
AC because I don't have an account and this post, quite frankly, worth the time of making one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28370019</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because we all know how well David Kelly fared by not being anonymous !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because we all know how well David Kelly fared by not being anonymous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because we all know how well David Kelly fared by not being anonymous !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364107</id>
	<title>Re:No wayback archive copy available.</title>
	<author>Spyware23</author>
	<datestamp>1245265800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com</a> [google.com]</p><p>"In Cache" link works as usual. I think most/all data can be recovered this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/search ? q = site \ % 3Ahttp \ % 3A \ % 2F \ % 2Fnightjack.wordpress.com [ google.com ] " In Cache " link works as usual .
I think most/all data can be recovered this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/search?q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com [google.com]"In Cache" link works as usual.
I think most/all data can be recovered this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369033</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the spin</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1245253680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>By the way, Does Britain even have "free speech"?</i> </p><p>Somewhat more after this ruling it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , Does Britain even have " free speech " ?
Somewhat more after this ruling it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> By the way, Does Britain even have "free speech"?
Somewhat more after this ruling it seems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363571</id>
	<title>It is becoming ever more clear that V was right</title>
	<author>Derekloffin</author>
	<datestamp>1245263580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't be the US that falls into a totalitarian regime masking itself as a democracy.  Not for lack of trying, but the UK has a lead on them they'll never catch up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be the US that falls into a totalitarian regime masking itself as a democracy .
Not for lack of trying , but the UK has a lead on them they 'll never catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be the US that falls into a totalitarian regime masking itself as a democracy.
Not for lack of trying, but the UK has a lead on them they'll never catch up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28371137</id>
	<title>"Falsely" Accused of rape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245319080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost everyone cleared of rape in court is guilty as hell. There's no getting away from the fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost everyone cleared of rape in court is guilty as hell .
There 's no getting away from the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost everyone cleared of rape in court is guilty as hell.
There's no getting away from the fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368077</id>
	<title>Re:Shameful excuse for a democracy...</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1245244380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real story here, is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees. This is totally unacceptable. The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants, including being critical of his superiors, as long as he does it when he is off-duty.</p> </div><p>I'm sympathetic in this particular case however a few months ago a BNP membership list was published, amongst the many names were a few serving police officers. Now for good reason serving Police officers are not allowed to be BNP members. With the vile racial prejudices inherent in the BNP you don't really want police officers who subscribe to these extremest views.</p><p>What i'm trying to say is that censoring the opinion of Police officers isn't always unjustified however the difference here is that this would be personal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real story here , is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees .
This is totally unacceptable .
The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants , including being critical of his superiors , as long as he does it when he is off-duty .
I 'm sympathetic in this particular case however a few months ago a BNP membership list was published , amongst the many names were a few serving police officers .
Now for good reason serving Police officers are not allowed to be BNP members .
With the vile racial prejudices inherent in the BNP you do n't really want police officers who subscribe to these extremest views.What i 'm trying to say is that censoring the opinion of Police officers is n't always unjustified however the difference here is that this would be personal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real story here, is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees.
This is totally unacceptable.
The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants, including being critical of his superiors, as long as he does it when he is off-duty.
I'm sympathetic in this particular case however a few months ago a BNP membership list was published, amongst the many names were a few serving police officers.
Now for good reason serving Police officers are not allowed to be BNP members.
With the vile racial prejudices inherent in the BNP you don't really want police officers who subscribe to these extremest views.What i'm trying to say is that censoring the opinion of Police officers isn't always unjustified however the difference here is that this would be personal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366267</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>chdig</author>
	<datestamp>1245233040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm, my question back at you is, do you really think that TheTimes/Fox News (same ownership group=same thing) have "trustworthy investigative journalists"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , my question back at you is , do you really think that TheTimes/Fox News ( same ownership group = same thing ) have " trustworthy investigative journalists " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, my question back at you is, do you really think that TheTimes/Fox News (same ownership group=same thing) have "trustworthy investigative journalists"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327</id>
	<title>Uh, what about newspapers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't newspapers public?

This ruling really makes no sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't newspapers public ?
This ruling really makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't newspapers public?
This ruling really makes no sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364237</id>
	<title>Re:Common sense ruling.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1245266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a "public interest" that overrides it, but a person's identity is not protected.</p></div></blockquote><p>When we talk about freedom of speech, "speech" means the expression (and usually distribution) of ideas. Supressing speech is censorship. There cannot be true freedom of speech without anonymity. There cannot be true freedom without freedom of speech.</p><p>I know the British people have never been all that excited about their individual rights, but the police state that's sprung up there in the last decade is not going away now. (At least not, without some major revolution... you tell me what the odds are on that.) The thing I fear most is that American goverment is going to look over the pond one day and go, "hmm, maybe we can learn a few tricks from those blokes." If they aren't already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a " public interest " that overrides it , but a person 's identity is not protected.When we talk about freedom of speech , " speech " means the expression ( and usually distribution ) of ideas .
Supressing speech is censorship .
There can not be true freedom of speech without anonymity .
There can not be true freedom without freedom of speech.I know the British people have never been all that excited about their individual rights , but the police state that 's sprung up there in the last decade is not going away now .
( At least not , without some major revolution... you tell me what the odds are on that .
) The thing I fear most is that American goverment is going to look over the pond one day and go , " hmm , maybe we can learn a few tricks from those blokes .
" If they are n't already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a "public interest" that overrides it, but a person's identity is not protected.When we talk about freedom of speech, "speech" means the expression (and usually distribution) of ideas.
Supressing speech is censorship.
There cannot be true freedom of speech without anonymity.
There cannot be true freedom without freedom of speech.I know the British people have never been all that excited about their individual rights, but the police state that's sprung up there in the last decade is not going away now.
(At least not, without some major revolution... you tell me what the odds are on that.
) The thing I fear most is that American goverment is going to look over the pond one day and go, "hmm, maybe we can learn a few tricks from those blokes.
" If they aren't already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363705</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\% because you should be willing to lose your job solely because you disagree with your boss' ethics or illegal behavior that you witnessed.</p><p>I mean, nobody should value their livelihood more than justice. Justice can't exist if whistlerblowers hide their identity. Especially if you live and work in a state such as mine that has "at-will employment" laws that state you can be fired for *any* reason...(yes any reason, doesn't have to be legal).</p><p>I can't tell if the OP has been completely brainwashed by the socialist's big brother or if they were just trolling. If you can't tell I was being 110\% sarcastic with this post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % because you should be willing to lose your job solely because you disagree with your boss ' ethics or illegal behavior that you witnessed.I mean , nobody should value their livelihood more than justice .
Justice ca n't exist if whistlerblowers hide their identity .
Especially if you live and work in a state such as mine that has " at-will employment " laws that state you can be fired for * any * reason... ( yes any reason , does n't have to be legal ) .I ca n't tell if the OP has been completely brainwashed by the socialist 's big brother or if they were just trolling .
If you ca n't tell I was being 110 \ % sarcastic with this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\% because you should be willing to lose your job solely because you disagree with your boss' ethics or illegal behavior that you witnessed.I mean, nobody should value their livelihood more than justice.
Justice can't exist if whistlerblowers hide their identity.
Especially if you live and work in a state such as mine that has "at-will employment" laws that state you can be fired for *any* reason...(yes any reason, doesn't have to be legal).I can't tell if the OP has been completely brainwashed by the socialist's big brother or if they were just trolling.
If you can't tell I was being 110\% sarcastic with this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368519</id>
	<title>Re:Headline Spin</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1245248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in turn, he should reveal the names of the sources that pressured the press to reveal his name!</p><p>the solution is for bloggers to attack "paper" journalists and their sources in the same way, directly on their blogs, then see how cute it is.  Find your local reporters and start the investigating and dumpster diving!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in turn , he should reveal the names of the sources that pressured the press to reveal his name ! the solution is for bloggers to attack " paper " journalists and their sources in the same way , directly on their blogs , then see how cute it is .
Find your local reporters and start the investigating and dumpster diving ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in turn, he should reveal the names of the sources that pressured the press to reveal his name!the solution is for bloggers to attack "paper" journalists and their sources in the same way, directly on their blogs, then see how cute it is.
Find your local reporters and start the investigating and dumpster diving!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363487</id>
	<title>WTF, sensationalize much?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1245263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no there there in this ruling. All the court said was that if a newspaper can find out who a blogger is, they can publish that information. This was not the court saying that the blog host had to tell the police who it was. There is some questionable logic used by the judge, but this is not a case of government abuse of power. It is a case of a a reporter doing investigative reporting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no there there in this ruling .
All the court said was that if a newspaper can find out who a blogger is , they can publish that information .
This was not the court saying that the blog host had to tell the police who it was .
There is some questionable logic used by the judge , but this is not a case of government abuse of power .
It is a case of a a reporter doing investigative reporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no there there in this ruling.
All the court said was that if a newspaper can find out who a blogger is, they can publish that information.
This was not the court saying that the blog host had to tell the police who it was.
There is some questionable logic used by the judge, but this is not a case of government abuse of power.
It is a case of a a reporter doing investigative reporting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364031</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whoosh my good sir</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whoosh my good sir</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoosh my good sir</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366593</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1245234600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for the record, the name of the journalist at fault is at the top of TFA: "Patrick Foster, Media Correspondent".</p><p>After reading it I was surprised to see only two comments at the bottom, though they're both on the right side of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for the record , the name of the journalist at fault is at the top of TFA : " Patrick Foster , Media Correspondent " .After reading it I was surprised to see only two comments at the bottom , though they 're both on the right side of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for the record, the name of the journalist at fault is at the top of TFA: "Patrick Foster, Media Correspondent".After reading it I was surprised to see only two comments at the bottom, though they're both on the right side of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363917</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly it wouldn't be listed under his real name, since he thought he could keep that a secret.</p><p>Try here - first one, "Jack Night": http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?type=blog</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly it would n't be listed under his real name , since he thought he could keep that a secret.Try here - first one , " Jack Night " : http : //www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx ? type = blog</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly it wouldn't be listed under his real name, since he thought he could keep that a secret.Try here - first one, "Jack Night": http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?type=blog</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363859</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No such thing as precedent in UK law I'm afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No such thing as precedent in UK law I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No such thing as precedent in UK law I'm afraid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399</id>
	<title>Appeal?</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245262800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So can this be appealed to a higher court, and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed?</p><p>I don't see this as an issue until it sets national precedent, otherwise its much like the other short-sighted and technically incompetent rulings in podunk areas of the US later overturned by more discriminating higher courts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So can this be appealed to a higher court , and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed ? I do n't see this as an issue until it sets national precedent , otherwise its much like the other short-sighted and technically incompetent rulings in podunk areas of the US later overturned by more discriminating higher courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can this be appealed to a higher court, and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed?I don't see this as an issue until it sets national precedent, otherwise its much like the other short-sighted and technically incompetent rulings in podunk areas of the US later overturned by more discriminating higher courts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363693</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree here. Although I think it was unethical for them to expose him, so long as all information was obtained legitimately it is not and should not be illegal. If it was obtained illegally in any way then lock up the journalist who committed the crime and fine the newspaper.</p><p>Journalistic ethics should be enforced through money, laws are a different issue.</p><p>The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree here .
Although I think it was unethical for them to expose him , so long as all information was obtained legitimately it is not and should not be illegal .
If it was obtained illegally in any way then lock up the journalist who committed the crime and fine the newspaper.Journalistic ethics should be enforced through money , laws are a different issue.The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however , the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now , or do n't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree here.
Although I think it was unethical for them to expose him, so long as all information was obtained legitimately it is not and should not be illegal.
If it was obtained illegally in any way then lock up the journalist who committed the crime and fine the newspaper.Journalistic ethics should be enforced through money, laws are a different issue.The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368635</id>
	<title>It appears that the Brits have made the tradeoff</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1245249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ben Franklin warned about when he said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".
<br> <br>The biggest problem is that historically, people who give up civil liberties for security don't get <i>either</i> liberty or security, though you may not hear a lot of complaints about this problem once it happens because they no longer feel safe in speaking of it.
<br> <br>That said, I wouldn't take for granted that the IP addresses in blog server logs are accurate. Mine said a few seconds ago that I was accessing the Net from a German IP. I've never been to Germany. (tor / privoxy are your friends)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Franklin warned about when he said : " They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security , deserve neither liberty or security " .
The biggest problem is that historically , people who give up civil liberties for security do n't get either liberty or security , though you may not hear a lot of complaints about this problem once it happens because they no longer feel safe in speaking of it .
That said , I would n't take for granted that the IP addresses in blog server logs are accurate .
Mine said a few seconds ago that I was accessing the Net from a German IP .
I 've never been to Germany .
( tor / privoxy are your friends )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Franklin warned about when he said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".
The biggest problem is that historically, people who give up civil liberties for security don't get either liberty or security, though you may not hear a lot of complaints about this problem once it happens because they no longer feel safe in speaking of it.
That said, I wouldn't take for granted that the IP addresses in blog server logs are accurate.
Mine said a few seconds ago that I was accessing the Net from a German IP.
I've never been to Germany.
(tor / privoxy are your friends)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365519</id>
	<title>Re:Foul play</title>
	<author>Mydnight</author>
	<datestamp>1245229380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different. Or should be, at least.</p></div><p>hmmm... I read this as "got the identity by centrifuge", which could be an interesting process...

Modded -1, posterneedsmoresleep</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge , but if the identity is gained through illagel means , that 's different .
Or should be , at least.hmmm... I read this as " got the identity by centrifuge " , which could be an interesting process.. . Modded -1 , posterneedsmoresleep</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different.
Or should be, at least.hmmm... I read this as "got the identity by centrifuge", which could be an interesting process...

Modded -1, posterneedsmoresleep
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364815</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>Hypothetical: You have a high ranking government position. You notice someone else, higher ranking than yourself, breaking a series of laws.</p><p>You could try to out him, but the backlash from the powers-that-be would likely cost you your job as well.</p><p>Is it your statement that only people willing to lose their job (even if they have done nothing wrong) should be able to point out the people that are doing things illegally?</p><p>This is a scary statement you seem to be supporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? Hypothetical : You have a high ranking government position .
You notice someone else , higher ranking than yourself , breaking a series of laws.You could try to out him , but the backlash from the powers-that-be would likely cost you your job as well.Is it your statement that only people willing to lose their job ( even if they have done nothing wrong ) should be able to point out the people that are doing things illegally ? This is a scary statement you seem to be supporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?Hypothetical: You have a high ranking government position.
You notice someone else, higher ranking than yourself, breaking a series of laws.You could try to out him, but the backlash from the powers-that-be would likely cost you your job as well.Is it your statement that only people willing to lose their job (even if they have done nothing wrong) should be able to point out the people that are doing things illegally?This is a scary statement you seem to be supporting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363747</id>
	<title>Re:I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not more stupid, just more effective means of control (press, TV, education system) coupled with an acceptable standard of living that prevents people from revolting. The option is not presented because it is not in the interest of the presenters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be ; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore .
Not more stupid , just more effective means of control ( press , TV , education system ) coupled with an acceptable standard of living that prevents people from revolting .
The option is not presented because it is not in the interest of the presenters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore.
Not more stupid, just more effective means of control (press, TV, education system) coupled with an acceptable standard of living that prevents people from revolting.
The option is not presented because it is not in the interest of the presenters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073</id>
	<title>Rights means responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why he should expect a right to privacy. If you are going to make public accusations and attacks, then the other parties have a right to defend. If he was merely debating a matter of principle (purely philosophical) then his person would be irrelevant to the argument and yes it would be at a minimum very bad form to name him. But he was pointing figures about specific organisations. </p><p>The right of free speech does not confer any kind of right to anonymity. That is a specific right only granted where it is in the public interest. Indeed it is the reverse: with rights comes responsibility; if you want to say things then be prepared to defend it. There is no question over free speech here, the newspaper is not restricting what he is saying on his blog, they are merely calling it to account (whether you agree with their argument or not).</p><p>That does not at all mean newspapers etc should have an automatic right to discover his information. But if they are able to discover the name via legitimate means, that's his fault for not covering himself. </p><p>Note he is the one actively publishing, publicising and promoting his allegations. This is important. It is only those whom publish allegations that should be held responsible for them. One issue with UK Law* is that it considers any comment posted online without restricted access to be publishing, failing to distinguish between what is really publishing and what is merely chit chat.</p><p>* (by UK law I mean the various laws in the UK member states, there is no such thing as "UK Law").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why he should expect a right to privacy .
If you are going to make public accusations and attacks , then the other parties have a right to defend .
If he was merely debating a matter of principle ( purely philosophical ) then his person would be irrelevant to the argument and yes it would be at a minimum very bad form to name him .
But he was pointing figures about specific organisations .
The right of free speech does not confer any kind of right to anonymity .
That is a specific right only granted where it is in the public interest .
Indeed it is the reverse : with rights comes responsibility ; if you want to say things then be prepared to defend it .
There is no question over free speech here , the newspaper is not restricting what he is saying on his blog , they are merely calling it to account ( whether you agree with their argument or not ) .That does not at all mean newspapers etc should have an automatic right to discover his information .
But if they are able to discover the name via legitimate means , that 's his fault for not covering himself .
Note he is the one actively publishing , publicising and promoting his allegations .
This is important .
It is only those whom publish allegations that should be held responsible for them .
One issue with UK Law * is that it considers any comment posted online without restricted access to be publishing , failing to distinguish between what is really publishing and what is merely chit chat .
* ( by UK law I mean the various laws in the UK member states , there is no such thing as " UK Law " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why he should expect a right to privacy.
If you are going to make public accusations and attacks, then the other parties have a right to defend.
If he was merely debating a matter of principle (purely philosophical) then his person would be irrelevant to the argument and yes it would be at a minimum very bad form to name him.
But he was pointing figures about specific organisations.
The right of free speech does not confer any kind of right to anonymity.
That is a specific right only granted where it is in the public interest.
Indeed it is the reverse: with rights comes responsibility; if you want to say things then be prepared to defend it.
There is no question over free speech here, the newspaper is not restricting what he is saying on his blog, they are merely calling it to account (whether you agree with their argument or not).That does not at all mean newspapers etc should have an automatic right to discover his information.
But if they are able to discover the name via legitimate means, that's his fault for not covering himself.
Note he is the one actively publishing, publicising and promoting his allegations.
This is important.
It is only those whom publish allegations that should be held responsible for them.
One issue with UK Law* is that it considers any comment posted online without restricted access to be publishing, failing to distinguish between what is really publishing and what is merely chit chat.
* (by UK law I mean the various laws in the UK member states, there is no such thing as "UK Law").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364539</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?type=blog" title="theorwellprize.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Orwell Prize website</a> [theorwellprize.co.uk] lists him among the 2009 winners in the "Blog" category.</p><p>He most certainly did win one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Orwell Prize website [ theorwellprize.co.uk ] lists him among the 2009 winners in the " Blog " category.He most certainly did win one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Orwell Prize website [theorwellprize.co.uk] lists him among the 2009 winners in the "Blog" category.He most certainly did win one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363447</id>
	<title>Free speech != anonymous speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related, but not the same thing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related , but not the same thing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related, but not the same thing at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364417</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1245267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good catch. But I still think it stinks to expose someone's identity when they wish to remain anonymous. There might be circumstances when public interest would be served by such exposure, but this was not one of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good catch .
But I still think it stinks to expose someone 's identity when they wish to remain anonymous .
There might be circumstances when public interest would be served by such exposure , but this was not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good catch.
But I still think it stinks to expose someone's identity when they wish to remain anonymous.
There might be circumstances when public interest would be served by such exposure, but this was not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365577</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245229740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>British cops are amongst the worst Bullies in the world. It's not a coincidence that the whole of Britain is unarmed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>British cops are amongst the worst Bullies in the world .
It 's not a coincidence that the whole of Britain is unarmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British cops are amongst the worst Bullies in the world.
It's not a coincidence that the whole of Britain is unarmed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</id>
	<title>Orwell Prize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked Wikipedia page for the article summary has no one named Horton as an Orwell Prize recipient (or even anyone who has made the shortlist) in any year, let alone 2008 or 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked Wikipedia page for the article summary has no one named Horton as an Orwell Prize recipient ( or even anyone who has made the shortlist ) in any year , let alone 2008 or 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked Wikipedia page for the article summary has no one named Horton as an Orwell Prize recipient (or even anyone who has made the shortlist) in any year, let alone 2008 or 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365611</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245229860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a stolen citation, aka plagiarism.  They also converted the right of the detective to his work, esp. with the ruling that public works are all open books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a stolen citation , aka plagiarism .
They also converted the right of the detective to his work , esp .
with the ruling that public works are all open books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a stolen citation, aka plagiarism.
They also converted the right of the detective to his work, esp.
with the ruling that public works are all open books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363853</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not a British citizen, you're a British SUBJECT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not a British citizen , you 're a British SUBJECT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not a British citizen, you're a British SUBJECT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368433</id>
	<title>If ever there was a time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...to start following some journalists and editors around and publishing information about the sleazier aspects of their personal lives, this is it.  There are any number of excuses you could come up with to establish why such information is vital to the public interest. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to start following some journalists and editors around and publishing information about the sleazier aspects of their personal lives , this is it .
There are any number of excuses you could come up with to establish why such information is vital to the public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...to start following some journalists and editors around and publishing information about the sleazier aspects of their personal lives, this is it.
There are any number of excuses you could come up with to establish why such information is vital to the public interest. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>look forward to once more rising up against these tyrants and liberating ourselves from their oppression.</p><p>It has worked in the past... Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>look forward to once more rising up against these tyrants and liberating ourselves from their oppression.It has worked in the past... Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be ; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look forward to once more rising up against these tyrants and liberating ourselves from their oppression.It has worked in the past... Which makes me think people are a LOT stupider than they used to be; because the option is never presented as a viable solution anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353</id>
	<title>Shameful excuse for a democracy...</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1245267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real story here, is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees.  This is totally unacceptable.  The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants, including being critical of his superiors, as long as he does it when he is off-duty.  This really makes me angry.  Everyone seem to be ignoring just how bad this type of censorship is, instead focusing on the fact that they "outed" him.  The real issue is the fact that he needed to be anonymous in the first place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real story here , is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees .
This is totally unacceptable .
The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants , including being critical of his superiors , as long as he does it when he is off-duty .
This really makes me angry .
Everyone seem to be ignoring just how bad this type of censorship is , instead focusing on the fact that they " outed " him .
The real issue is the fact that he needed to be anonymous in the first place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real story here, is that the UK government is trying to censor the opinions of its employees.
This is totally unacceptable.
The officer should be free to express whatever political opinions he wants, including being critical of his superiors, as long as he does it when he is off-duty.
This really makes me angry.
Everyone seem to be ignoring just how bad this type of censorship is, instead focusing on the fact that they "outed" him.
The real issue is the fact that he needed to be anonymous in the first place...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364099</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal?</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No such thing as precedent in UK law I'm afraid.</p></div><p>
Yes there is. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal\_precedent" title="wikipedia.org">Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom </a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No such thing as precedent in UK law I 'm afraid .
Yes there is .
Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No such thing as precedent in UK law I'm afraid.
Yes there is.
Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom  [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365223</id>
	<title>Re:Rights means responsibility</title>
	<author>malkavian</author>
	<datestamp>1245271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also quite a few whistleblower laws, and methods of keeping sources anonymous.<br>There's a notable case of a local newspaper (the Bristol Evening Post) that used to have a column where the author was known only as "Barry Beelzebub", where he published a lot of hard talking, and definitely not politically correct topics.  His name was very much kept away from public knowledge, yet his column was spectacularly popular.<br>There are many cases where journalists use pseudonyms, and keep their true identity well away from general knowledge.<br>One of these days, I hope journalists become celebreties, so we can all poke and probe into their personal lives, and haul them over the coals too..  I've been on the business end of them a few times in various roles I've had.  After the first time, I learned just how nasty they can be (a journalist I had an interview managed to collapse a fair portion of a charity event by misquoting, and sensationalising various small parts of the whole event).<br>The journalist's credo is to publish sensational in headlines, and later apologise in the small print.  These days, I think most of them actually get in the way of discovering the real news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also quite a few whistleblower laws , and methods of keeping sources anonymous.There 's a notable case of a local newspaper ( the Bristol Evening Post ) that used to have a column where the author was known only as " Barry Beelzebub " , where he published a lot of hard talking , and definitely not politically correct topics .
His name was very much kept away from public knowledge , yet his column was spectacularly popular.There are many cases where journalists use pseudonyms , and keep their true identity well away from general knowledge.One of these days , I hope journalists become celebreties , so we can all poke and probe into their personal lives , and haul them over the coals too.. I 've been on the business end of them a few times in various roles I 've had .
After the first time , I learned just how nasty they can be ( a journalist I had an interview managed to collapse a fair portion of a charity event by misquoting , and sensationalising various small parts of the whole event ) .The journalist 's credo is to publish sensational in headlines , and later apologise in the small print .
These days , I think most of them actually get in the way of discovering the real news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also quite a few whistleblower laws, and methods of keeping sources anonymous.There's a notable case of a local newspaper (the Bristol Evening Post) that used to have a column where the author was known only as "Barry Beelzebub", where he published a lot of hard talking, and definitely not politically correct topics.
His name was very much kept away from public knowledge, yet his column was spectacularly popular.There are many cases where journalists use pseudonyms, and keep their true identity well away from general knowledge.One of these days, I hope journalists become celebreties, so we can all poke and probe into their personal lives, and haul them over the coals too..  I've been on the business end of them a few times in various roles I've had.
After the first time, I learned just how nasty they can be (a journalist I had an interview managed to collapse a fair portion of a charity event by misquoting, and sensationalising various small parts of the whole event).The journalist's credo is to publish sensational in headlines, and later apologise in the small print.
These days, I think most of them actually get in the way of discovering the real news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367379</id>
	<title>Totallynymous</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1245239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm against government, law and ISP collusion against Internet privacy. If the ISP sold his identity the blogger should sue his ISP, if the newspaper hacked the ISP the ISP should sue the newspaper. If a Judge orders the ISP to betray the user, law must change.</p><p>If the newspaper found out his identity merely by reading his blog I'd say he never was so anonymous to begin with. The newspaper simply completed a job anyone could do on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm against government , law and ISP collusion against Internet privacy .
If the ISP sold his identity the blogger should sue his ISP , if the newspaper hacked the ISP the ISP should sue the newspaper .
If a Judge orders the ISP to betray the user , law must change.If the newspaper found out his identity merely by reading his blog I 'd say he never was so anonymous to begin with .
The newspaper simply completed a job anyone could do on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm against government, law and ISP collusion against Internet privacy.
If the ISP sold his identity the blogger should sue his ISP, if the newspaper hacked the ISP the ISP should sue the newspaper.
If a Judge orders the ISP to betray the user, law must change.If the newspaper found out his identity merely by reading his blog I'd say he never was so anonymous to begin with.
The newspaper simply completed a job anyone could do on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364179</id>
	<title>This is a ruling in favour of free speech!</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The court has not ruled that anonymity is illegal.  The court has simply ruled that should a newspaper have some information that it considers newsworthy, it is entitled to publish. <br> <br>
Personally, I think it was rather reprehensible of a newspaper not to respect confidentiality as a matter of policy but it's their legal right and it's up to the blogger to protect his own anonymity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The court has not ruled that anonymity is illegal .
The court has simply ruled that should a newspaper have some information that it considers newsworthy , it is entitled to publish .
Personally , I think it was rather reprehensible of a newspaper not to respect confidentiality as a matter of policy but it 's their legal right and it 's up to the blogger to protect his own anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court has not ruled that anonymity is illegal.
The court has simply ruled that should a newspaper have some information that it considers newsworthy, it is entitled to publish.
Personally, I think it was rather reprehensible of a newspaper not to respect confidentiality as a matter of policy but it's their legal right and it's up to the blogger to protect his own anonymity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366219</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245232920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you completely daft?! No you should not reveal your identity if it could the party you are reporting on could do you harm. Criticising the police is risky even if you don't work for them. If you don't work for them then they could attempt to pin something on you. In a place like England (and the other countries it's occupying) where the police are worried about PR they might not try to pin a crime on him (unless it takes very little effort) but you can be damned sure they would do everything to discredit him. And if you also happen to work for the police you'll certainly never get a job again.</p><p>Anonymity is a HUMAN RIGHT. It is the only way to safely expose injustices. It is necessary in totalitarian regimes like China where you can get dragged away and tortured for publicly criticising the government and it is STILL absolutely necessary in Europe and North America because criticising the wrong party can still be dangerous. Do something that's unpopular in society or expose someone powerful (not just the government, anyone wealthy can destroy you if they are determined enough) and your life may be turned upside down.</p><p>People that criticise people for "hiding behind anonymity" make me absolutely sick. If you can't be guaranteed anonymity and can have absolutely every thing you say held against you then nobody will every be able to say what they really think. Everyone is going to be afraid of offending the wrong person. Nobody can change or improve society because if they point out flaws (such as the general population's zealous obsession with punishing "criminals" at the expense of protecting the innocent) they will be ostracised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you completely daft ? !
No you should not reveal your identity if it could the party you are reporting on could do you harm .
Criticising the police is risky even if you do n't work for them .
If you do n't work for them then they could attempt to pin something on you .
In a place like England ( and the other countries it 's occupying ) where the police are worried about PR they might not try to pin a crime on him ( unless it takes very little effort ) but you can be damned sure they would do everything to discredit him .
And if you also happen to work for the police you 'll certainly never get a job again.Anonymity is a HUMAN RIGHT .
It is the only way to safely expose injustices .
It is necessary in totalitarian regimes like China where you can get dragged away and tortured for publicly criticising the government and it is STILL absolutely necessary in Europe and North America because criticising the wrong party can still be dangerous .
Do something that 's unpopular in society or expose someone powerful ( not just the government , anyone wealthy can destroy you if they are determined enough ) and your life may be turned upside down.People that criticise people for " hiding behind anonymity " make me absolutely sick .
If you ca n't be guaranteed anonymity and can have absolutely every thing you say held against you then nobody will every be able to say what they really think .
Everyone is going to be afraid of offending the wrong person .
Nobody can change or improve society because if they point out flaws ( such as the general population 's zealous obsession with punishing " criminals " at the expense of protecting the innocent ) they will be ostracised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you completely daft?!
No you should not reveal your identity if it could the party you are reporting on could do you harm.
Criticising the police is risky even if you don't work for them.
If you don't work for them then they could attempt to pin something on you.
In a place like England (and the other countries it's occupying) where the police are worried about PR they might not try to pin a crime on him (unless it takes very little effort) but you can be damned sure they would do everything to discredit him.
And if you also happen to work for the police you'll certainly never get a job again.Anonymity is a HUMAN RIGHT.
It is the only way to safely expose injustices.
It is necessary in totalitarian regimes like China where you can get dragged away and tortured for publicly criticising the government and it is STILL absolutely necessary in Europe and North America because criticising the wrong party can still be dangerous.
Do something that's unpopular in society or expose someone powerful (not just the government, anyone wealthy can destroy you if they are determined enough) and your life may be turned upside down.People that criticise people for "hiding behind anonymity" make me absolutely sick.
If you can't be guaranteed anonymity and can have absolutely every thing you say held against you then nobody will every be able to say what they really think.
Everyone is going to be afraid of offending the wrong person.
Nobody can change or improve society because if they point out flaws (such as the general population's zealous obsession with punishing "criminals" at the expense of protecting the innocent) they will be ostracised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</id>
	<title>Police state</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1245262500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you live in the EU but also want to live in a police state, look no further. Great(?) Britain is the place to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you live in the EU but also want to live in a police state , look no further .
Great ( ? ) Britain is the place to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you live in the EU but also want to live in a police state, look no further.
Great(?) Britain is the place to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365307</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245271500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So can this be appealed to a higher court, and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed?</p></div><p>This <em>was</em> a case heard in the High Court.</p><p>Unless there was some failure in the application of the legal process, it's hard to see the Appeal Court getting involved.</p><p>You don't get to appeal to a higher court and expect a different decision just because you didn't like the decision you got the first time!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So can this be appealed to a higher court , and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed ? This was a case heard in the High Court.Unless there was some failure in the application of the legal process , it 's hard to see the Appeal Court getting involved.You do n't get to appeal to a higher court and expect a different decision just because you did n't like the decision you got the first time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can this be appealed to a higher court, and will the order be stayed until such time as it can be reviewed?This was a case heard in the High Court.Unless there was some failure in the application of the legal process, it's hard to see the Appeal Court getting involved.You don't get to appeal to a higher court and expect a different decision just because you didn't like the decision you got the first time!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367331</id>
	<title>Re:No wayback archive copy available.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=" title="google.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=</a> [google.co.uk]</p><p>google cache to the rescue</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.co.uk/search ? hl = en&amp;q = site \ % 3Ahttp \ % 3A \ % 2F \ % 2Fnightjack.wordpress.com&amp;btnG = Search&amp;meta = [ google.co.uk ] google cache to the rescue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Ahttp\%3A\%2F\%2Fnightjack.wordpress.com&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta= [google.co.uk]google cache to the rescue</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366099</id>
	<title>If This Is The Way Newspapers Act...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245232380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is the way newspapers act, then the death of them cannot come too soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is the way newspapers act , then the death of them can not come too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is the way newspapers act, then the death of them cannot come too soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363419</id>
	<title>Shocked</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245262920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain?  Monitoring?  Censorship?</p><p>Surely you jest!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain ?
Monitoring ? Censorship ? Surely you jest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain?
Monitoring?  Censorship?Surely you jest!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363619</id>
	<title>Common sense ruling.</title>
	<author>pigpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1245263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK journalists have never had a right to remain anonymous.</p><p>In fact there are only a handful of people with a right to remain anonymous when their identiy may be easily found out and these are typically rape victims or minors.</p><p>As to the  blogger who is certainly breaching his own employment contract and may in fact be breaking the law by disclosing confidential information it is the height of arrogance for them to assume they are somehow above everyone else.</p><p>There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a "public interest" that overrides it, but a person's identity is not protected.</p><p>In this case there is a clear 'public interest' in the identity of a police officer  who thinks confidentiality doesn't apply to them as otherwise how could you ever trust the police not to blogg about whatever you tell them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK journalists have never had a right to remain anonymous.In fact there are only a handful of people with a right to remain anonymous when their identiy may be easily found out and these are typically rape victims or minors.As to the blogger who is certainly breaching his own employment contract and may in fact be breaking the law by disclosing confidential information it is the height of arrogance for them to assume they are somehow above everyone else.There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a " public interest " that overrides it , but a person 's identity is not protected.In this case there is a clear 'public interest ' in the identity of a police officer who thinks confidentiality does n't apply to them as otherwise how could you ever trust the police not to blogg about whatever you tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK journalists have never had a right to remain anonymous.In fact there are only a handful of people with a right to remain anonymous when their identiy may be easily found out and these are typically rape victims or minors.As to the  blogger who is certainly breaching his own employment contract and may in fact be breaking the law by disclosing confidential information it is the height of arrogance for them to assume they are somehow above everyone else.There is an assumption that a persons private life can remain private unless there is a "public interest" that overrides it, but a person's identity is not protected.In this case there is a clear 'public interest' in the identity of a police officer  who thinks confidentiality doesn't apply to them as otherwise how could you ever trust the police not to blogg about whatever you tell them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28371025</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245317940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means."</p><p>So newspapers are allowed to hack peoples computers as long as they are going to publish their names? The internet is designed for freedom and ever more we are seeing governments trying to control and tax it. The justice system is a joke and should be abolished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means .
" So newspapers are allowed to hack peoples computers as long as they are going to publish their names ?
The internet is designed for freedom and ever more we are seeing governments trying to control and tax it .
The justice system is a joke and should be abolished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.
"So newspapers are allowed to hack peoples computers as long as they are going to publish their names?
The internet is designed for freedom and ever more we are seeing governments trying to control and tax it.
The justice system is a joke and should be abolished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364047</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, we feel the same way in Germany, not just since the Great Wall of Germany (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , we feel the same way in Germany , not just since the Great Wall of Germany ( http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, we feel the same way in Germany, not just since the Great Wall of Germany (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364293</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But at least you can feel... secure? This looks like satire, but scarily enough, it is real:</p><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/toasty/2171185463/sizes/l/" title="flickr.com">http://www.flickr.com/photos/toasty/2171185463/sizes/l/</a> [flickr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least you can feel... secure ? This looks like satire , but scarily enough , it is real : http : //www.flickr.com/photos/toasty/2171185463/sizes/l/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least you can feel... secure? This looks like satire, but scarily enough, it is real:http://www.flickr.com/photos/toasty/2171185463/sizes/l/ [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're barking up the wrong tree: the question is, why would a trustworthy investigative journalist be going after this guy's identity in the first place!  If anything, they should be teaming up to uncover police corruption all the way to the top!<p>My credit card records and gym memberships might limit the group of people to which I could belong - but come on, investgated by a crusading heroic journalist, like some sort of child molester?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're barking up the wrong tree : the question is , why would a trustworthy investigative journalist be going after this guy 's identity in the first place !
If anything , they should be teaming up to uncover police corruption all the way to the top ! My credit card records and gym memberships might limit the group of people to which I could belong - but come on , investgated by a crusading heroic journalist , like some sort of child molester ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're barking up the wrong tree: the question is, why would a trustworthy investigative journalist be going after this guy's identity in the first place!
If anything, they should be teaming up to uncover police corruption all the way to the top!My credit card records and gym memberships might limit the group of people to which I could belong - but come on, investgated by a crusading heroic journalist, like some sort of child molester?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28525581</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said the investigative journalist was trustworthy?  You're naive if you think they all are.</p><p>The story is about the court ruling, so you are really just going off on a tangent by bringing the journalist into it.  On that matter, since the guy didn't take sufficient steps to protect his own anonymity, I don't see why the courts should do that for him.  Although it is unfortunate that this caused him to stop and delete all his old postings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said the investigative journalist was trustworthy ?
You 're naive if you think they all are.The story is about the court ruling , so you are really just going off on a tangent by bringing the journalist into it .
On that matter , since the guy did n't take sufficient steps to protect his own anonymity , I do n't see why the courts should do that for him .
Although it is unfortunate that this caused him to stop and delete all his old postings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said the investigative journalist was trustworthy?
You're naive if you think they all are.The story is about the court ruling, so you are really just going off on a tangent by bringing the journalist into it.
On that matter, since the guy didn't take sufficient steps to protect his own anonymity, I don't see why the courts should do that for him.
Although it is unfortunate that this caused him to stop and delete all his old postings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363783</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent is right indeed. Either wikipedia is wrong, or he never got an Orwell Prize. In either case, having the link in the summary is stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is right indeed .
Either wikipedia is wrong , or he never got an Orwell Prize .
In either case , having the link in the summary is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is right indeed.
Either wikipedia is wrong, or he never got an Orwell Prize.
In either case, having the link in the summary is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369073</id>
	<title>Re:Headline Spin</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245253920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Obviously the newspaper had to study the information closely and come to a conclusion as to the blogger's identity. An interesting conflict will arise the first time a mistake is made in exposing such a person. What if they have concluded his identity incorrectly? And how about a person's legal rights to prove that they are not the blogger if that involves exposing the real blogger?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Maybe these issues get twisted enough that the law should in no way get involved either in exposing or correcting the identity of an accused blogger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the newspaper had to study the information closely and come to a conclusion as to the blogger 's identity .
An interesting conflict will arise the first time a mistake is made in exposing such a person .
What if they have concluded his identity incorrectly ?
And how about a person 's legal rights to prove that they are not the blogger if that involves exposing the real blogger ?
                  Maybe these issues get twisted enough that the law should in no way get involved either in exposing or correcting the identity of an accused blogger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Obviously the newspaper had to study the information closely and come to a conclusion as to the blogger's identity.
An interesting conflict will arise the first time a mistake is made in exposing such a person.
What if they have concluded his identity incorrectly?
And how about a person's legal rights to prove that they are not the blogger if that involves exposing the real blogger?
                  Maybe these issues get twisted enough that the law should in no way get involved either in exposing or correcting the identity of an accused blogger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364267</id>
	<title>They're missing the distinction</title>
	<author>PostPhil</author>
	<datestamp>1245266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I thought that *one* essential reason laws waive the expectation of privacy in "public places" is because by the *nature* of that place, it is essentially not private. For example, there is too much of a practical burden of enforcing privacy when I go walk outside, because that's actually *me* walking outside. There's only so much identity-hiding I can do.</p><p>But for a blog, by its very *nature* it works the other way around. Anonymity happens by the fact that the blog posting doesn't see who is actually sitting at the keyboard, so identity has to be proactively required by settling for something that substitutes, such as using a valid email for login registration. Here, regarding the enforcement burden, it's the other way around: there is more effort required to identify someone than not identify someone (e.g. you could allow anonymous posts, etc.).</p><p>The point:<br>Although I am sharing *data* that becomes public, *I* am not personally in a public place, so I should reasonably assume I can have anonymity.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I thought that * one * essential reason laws waive the expectation of privacy in " public places " is because by the * nature * of that place , it is essentially not private .
For example , there is too much of a practical burden of enforcing privacy when I go walk outside , because that 's actually * me * walking outside .
There 's only so much identity-hiding I can do.But for a blog , by its very * nature * it works the other way around .
Anonymity happens by the fact that the blog posting does n't see who is actually sitting at the keyboard , so identity has to be proactively required by settling for something that substitutes , such as using a valid email for login registration .
Here , regarding the enforcement burden , it 's the other way around : there is more effort required to identify someone than not identify someone ( e.g .
you could allow anonymous posts , etc .
) .The point : Although I am sharing * data * that becomes public , * I * am not personally in a public place , so I should reasonably assume I can have anonymity .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I thought that *one* essential reason laws waive the expectation of privacy in "public places" is because by the *nature* of that place, it is essentially not private.
For example, there is too much of a practical burden of enforcing privacy when I go walk outside, because that's actually *me* walking outside.
There's only so much identity-hiding I can do.But for a blog, by its very *nature* it works the other way around.
Anonymity happens by the fact that the blog posting doesn't see who is actually sitting at the keyboard, so identity has to be proactively required by settling for something that substitutes, such as using a valid email for login registration.
Here, regarding the enforcement burden, it's the other way around: there is more effort required to identify someone than not identify someone (e.g.
you could allow anonymous posts, etc.
).The point:Although I am sharing *data* that becomes public, *I* am not personally in a public place, so I should reasonably assume I can have anonymity.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363773</id>
	<title>Re:No wayback archive copy available.</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1245264300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It claims it was blocked because of a robotst.txt file but, ironically, if you say "okay then, show me the robots.txt file" it says:</p><blockquote><div><p>No archived versions of the page you requested are available. If the page is still available on the Internet, we will begin archiving it during our next crawl.</p></div></blockquote><p>Has it even been up long enough for web.archive.org to catch it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It claims it was blocked because of a robotst.txt file but , ironically , if you say " okay then , show me the robots.txt file " it says : No archived versions of the page you requested are available .
If the page is still available on the Internet , we will begin archiving it during our next crawl.Has it even been up long enough for web.archive.org to catch it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It claims it was blocked because of a robotst.txt file but, ironically, if you say "okay then, show me the robots.txt file" it says:No archived versions of the page you requested are available.
If the page is still available on the Internet, we will begin archiving it during our next crawl.Has it even been up long enough for web.archive.org to catch it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367489</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>mpeskett</author>
	<datestamp>1245239700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're thinking of "The British Isles"

</p><p>You can see the semantics explained in the form of a Venn diagram here - <a href="http://qntm.org/?uk" title="qntm.org">http://qntm.org/?uk</a> [qntm.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of " The British Isles " You can see the semantics explained in the form of a Venn diagram here - http : //qntm.org/ ? uk [ qntm.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of "The British Isles"

You can see the semantics explained in the form of a Venn diagram here - http://qntm.org/?uk [qntm.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367019</id>
	<title>Grammar police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anonymized!"  Surely you meant "concealed"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anonymized !
" Surely you meant " concealed " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anonymized!
"  Surely you meant "concealed"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366129</id>
	<title>Re:Shameful excuse for a democracy...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245232560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK government is expected to be politically neutral apart from that small segment that is directly elected.  <br> <br>
I want an officer of the law to enforce the law as it is written and not the law as he thinks it should be written.  The restriction only prevents him from making political comments in his capacity as a police officer.  Since I can't make political comments in my capacity as a police officer (on account of not being one), I don't see how this is at all unfair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK government is expected to be politically neutral apart from that small segment that is directly elected .
I want an officer of the law to enforce the law as it is written and not the law as he thinks it should be written .
The restriction only prevents him from making political comments in his capacity as a police officer .
Since I ca n't make political comments in my capacity as a police officer ( on account of not being one ) , I do n't see how this is at all unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK government is expected to be politically neutral apart from that small segment that is directly elected.
I want an officer of the law to enforce the law as it is written and not the law as he thinks it should be written.
The restriction only prevents him from making political comments in his capacity as a police officer.
Since I can't make political comments in my capacity as a police officer (on account of not being one), I don't see how this is at all unfair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366305</id>
	<title>Yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245233220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree. Like, just because voting is a public process doesn't mean you have a right to privacy about who you voted for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Like , just because voting is a public process does n't mean you have a right to privacy about who you voted for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Like, just because voting is a public process doesn't mean you have a right to privacy about who you voted for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363565</id>
	<title>Re:As a British citizen, I'm torn</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245263580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.</i></p><p>He could have identified himself without creating an account. Like this:</p><blockquote><div><p>You should have the right to privacy if you want it, but I can't really take anyone seriously that doesn't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be, corruption or the like. If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.</p><p>Quite frankly, if you don't have guts, don't bother. AC because I don't have an account and this post, quite frankly, worth the time of making one.</p><p>- George Orwell<br>Editor, <i>Well-Funded Newspaper With Powerful Connections Times Online</i></p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not worth putting yourself on the line , it 's not worth reading.He could have identified himself without creating an account .
Like this : You should have the right to privacy if you want it , but I ca n't really take anyone seriously that does n't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be , corruption or the like .
If it 's not worth putting yourself on the line , it 's not worth reading.Quite frankly , if you do n't have guts , do n't bother .
AC because I do n't have an account and this post , quite frankly , worth the time of making one.- George OrwellEditor , Well-Funded Newspaper With Powerful Connections Times Online</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.He could have identified himself without creating an account.
Like this:You should have the right to privacy if you want it, but I can't really take anyone seriously that doesn't have the balls to put a face behind a post when it comes to criticizing the powers-that-be, corruption or the like.
If it's not worth putting yourself on the line, it's not worth reading.Quite frankly, if you don't have guts, don't bother.
AC because I don't have an account and this post, quite frankly, worth the time of making one.- George OrwellEditor, Well-Funded Newspaper With Powerful Connections Times Online
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363489</id>
	<title>He expected to remain anonymous?</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1245263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Continuously publish on the Internet, become popular, and expect to remain anonymous? Yeah, good luck with that. Even sources that abstract themselves in the process by providing the information to reporters risk exposure in doing so. Eliminating the middle man just means that there are less people to go through when trying to get to the source. I salute the dude for trying to get the word out about immoral police practices but reality doesn't much care about intent.</p><p>On a side note, that summary is a mess, even discounting the repeated attempts to slant the crap out of the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Continuously publish on the Internet , become popular , and expect to remain anonymous ?
Yeah , good luck with that .
Even sources that abstract themselves in the process by providing the information to reporters risk exposure in doing so .
Eliminating the middle man just means that there are less people to go through when trying to get to the source .
I salute the dude for trying to get the word out about immoral police practices but reality does n't much care about intent.On a side note , that summary is a mess , even discounting the repeated attempts to slant the crap out of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continuously publish on the Internet, become popular, and expect to remain anonymous?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Even sources that abstract themselves in the process by providing the information to reporters risk exposure in doing so.
Eliminating the middle man just means that there are less people to go through when trying to get to the source.
I salute the dude for trying to get the word out about immoral police practices but reality doesn't much care about intent.On a side note, that summary is a mess, even discounting the repeated attempts to slant the crap out of the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367449</id>
	<title>Police state? Perhaps, but it's combined laws that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call Britain a police state over this particular law. But it is the combination of this law and for example Britain's outrageous libel laws (search for e.g. Simon Singh) that make me worried. The problem is that instead of a just balance between goverment and citizen where citizen's rights are guaranteed while enabling the government to erm... govern, Britain's laws all work in the same direction, strenghtening the goverment and more and more putting the citizens at its mercy. And this is especially problematic in a country like Britain where the goverment appears to be on the wrong side more often than not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call Britain a police state over this particular law .
But it is the combination of this law and for example Britain 's outrageous libel laws ( search for e.g .
Simon Singh ) that make me worried .
The problem is that instead of a just balance between goverment and citizen where citizen 's rights are guaranteed while enabling the government to erm... govern , Britain 's laws all work in the same direction , strenghtening the goverment and more and more putting the citizens at its mercy .
And this is especially problematic in a country like Britain where the goverment appears to be on the wrong side more often than not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call Britain a police state over this particular law.
But it is the combination of this law and for example Britain's outrageous libel laws (search for e.g.
Simon Singh) that make me worried.
The problem is that instead of a just balance between goverment and citizen where citizen's rights are guaranteed while enabling the government to erm... govern, Britain's laws all work in the same direction, strenghtening the goverment and more and more putting the citizens at its mercy.
And this is especially problematic in a country like Britain where the goverment appears to be on the wrong side more often than not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363985</id>
	<title>Re:I for one...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1245265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll miss out on TV and shopping if protest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll miss out on TV and shopping if protest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll miss out on TV and shopping if protest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366457</id>
	<title>Heil Hitler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One more step towards the UK becoming Nazi Germany.  I can't believe I considered taking a job in London last year. Heil Hitler UK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One more step towards the UK becoming Nazi Germany .
I ca n't believe I considered taking a job in London last year .
Heil Hitler UK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more step towards the UK becoming Nazi Germany.
I can't believe I considered taking a job in London last year.
Heil Hitler UK!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364203</id>
	<title>Why not use ordinary whistleblower methods?</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1245266460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whistleblowers are usually protected by the law, and get support from the press and friendly politicians into the bargain.</p><p>This guys breached his employment contract and doesn't want to take the consequences. Incidentally, all he got was a reprimand. AND he wrote an article (therefore got paid) for the very same publication that outed him!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whistleblowers are usually protected by the law , and get support from the press and friendly politicians into the bargain.This guys breached his employment contract and does n't want to take the consequences .
Incidentally , all he got was a reprimand .
AND he wrote an article ( therefore got paid ) for the very same publication that outed him !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whistleblowers are usually protected by the law, and get support from the press and friendly politicians into the bargain.This guys breached his employment contract and doesn't want to take the consequences.
Incidentally, all he got was a reprimand.
AND he wrote an article (therefore got paid) for the very same publication that outed him!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368559</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're kidding right, for a population of several thousand highly controlled people they have multiple murder attempts PER DAY at many prisons. Just about any Prison is the proof that "prison" concept is really nothing more safe than throwing thugs in Thunderdome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're kidding right , for a population of several thousand highly controlled people they have multiple murder attempts PER DAY at many prisons .
Just about any Prison is the proof that " prison " concept is really nothing more safe than throwing thugs in Thunderdome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're kidding right, for a population of several thousand highly controlled people they have multiple murder attempts PER DAY at many prisons.
Just about any Prison is the proof that "prison" concept is really nothing more safe than throwing thugs in Thunderdome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363907</id>
	<title>Re:I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are not more "stupider" than they used to be, they are distracted by reality television, new iPods and gadgets, sports shows etc. Once, long ago, individual freedom was a much more important part of life, and less easily breeched by those who claim stewardship of the public at large. People are comfortable now and worry not about a "chicken in every pot" but about who gets kicked off the reality show this week. They are not worried about robber barons and highwaymen, they are worried about the cup games and how much they need to spend for a home theater(re) room.</p><p>Not until the common man (unwashed masses) begins to see the connection between freedom of speech issues and their next double meat cheeseburger will the public rise up against tyranny. Tyranny must look like a threat to them and their personal world view before anything will be done. Add a 30\% tax on fast food and there will be riots. Add too much tax on booze and cigarettes and there will be riots. Note the US government phased in the recent taxes on both so as not to give any sticker shock.</p><p>Freedom of speech will go first, and this is but one example. Any action on the part of MSM should be taken as suspect, and critically analyzed in blogs and chat rooms across the globe. In the US (fortunately) there is the R3VOLution from those who supported Ron Paul and I believe it's starting to make a difference. There are many blogs that have done more to disseminate real and factual information than any newspaper or television news organization. I might mention Groklaw and NYCL as examples. Independent news sources that tell the story as it happens, not how they want you to perceive it. I no longer trust any MSM source, choosing instead to read news from blogs and Internet news sources from around the globe. I only wish that more than 85\% of the US citizenry also did. Unfortunately you can't sit down in an easy chair and unwind with a beer while a pretty face tells you how to think about the world if you want to get news from the Internet. Sadly, most of the western world looks to the boobtube for insight (face palm).</p><p>Time for a few anonymous  protests in England?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are not more " stupider " than they used to be , they are distracted by reality television , new iPods and gadgets , sports shows etc .
Once , long ago , individual freedom was a much more important part of life , and less easily breeched by those who claim stewardship of the public at large .
People are comfortable now and worry not about a " chicken in every pot " but about who gets kicked off the reality show this week .
They are not worried about robber barons and highwaymen , they are worried about the cup games and how much they need to spend for a home theater ( re ) room.Not until the common man ( unwashed masses ) begins to see the connection between freedom of speech issues and their next double meat cheeseburger will the public rise up against tyranny .
Tyranny must look like a threat to them and their personal world view before anything will be done .
Add a 30 \ % tax on fast food and there will be riots .
Add too much tax on booze and cigarettes and there will be riots .
Note the US government phased in the recent taxes on both so as not to give any sticker shock.Freedom of speech will go first , and this is but one example .
Any action on the part of MSM should be taken as suspect , and critically analyzed in blogs and chat rooms across the globe .
In the US ( fortunately ) there is the R3VOLution from those who supported Ron Paul and I believe it 's starting to make a difference .
There are many blogs that have done more to disseminate real and factual information than any newspaper or television news organization .
I might mention Groklaw and NYCL as examples .
Independent news sources that tell the story as it happens , not how they want you to perceive it .
I no longer trust any MSM source , choosing instead to read news from blogs and Internet news sources from around the globe .
I only wish that more than 85 \ % of the US citizenry also did .
Unfortunately you ca n't sit down in an easy chair and unwind with a beer while a pretty face tells you how to think about the world if you want to get news from the Internet .
Sadly , most of the western world looks to the boobtube for insight ( face palm ) .Time for a few anonymous protests in England ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are not more "stupider" than they used to be, they are distracted by reality television, new iPods and gadgets, sports shows etc.
Once, long ago, individual freedom was a much more important part of life, and less easily breeched by those who claim stewardship of the public at large.
People are comfortable now and worry not about a "chicken in every pot" but about who gets kicked off the reality show this week.
They are not worried about robber barons and highwaymen, they are worried about the cup games and how much they need to spend for a home theater(re) room.Not until the common man (unwashed masses) begins to see the connection between freedom of speech issues and their next double meat cheeseburger will the public rise up against tyranny.
Tyranny must look like a threat to them and their personal world view before anything will be done.
Add a 30\% tax on fast food and there will be riots.
Add too much tax on booze and cigarettes and there will be riots.
Note the US government phased in the recent taxes on both so as not to give any sticker shock.Freedom of speech will go first, and this is but one example.
Any action on the part of MSM should be taken as suspect, and critically analyzed in blogs and chat rooms across the globe.
In the US (fortunately) there is the R3VOLution from those who supported Ron Paul and I believe it's starting to make a difference.
There are many blogs that have done more to disseminate real and factual information than any newspaper or television news organization.
I might mention Groklaw and NYCL as examples.
Independent news sources that tell the story as it happens, not how they want you to perceive it.
I no longer trust any MSM source, choosing instead to read news from blogs and Internet news sources from around the globe.
I only wish that more than 85\% of the US citizenry also did.
Unfortunately you can't sit down in an easy chair and unwind with a beer while a pretty face tells you how to think about the world if you want to get news from the Internet.
Sadly, most of the western world looks to the boobtube for insight (face palm).Time for a few anonymous  protests in England?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547</id>
	<title>Headline Spin</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me rewrite that headline and put the opposite spin on it.

</p><p>"In an encouraging move affirming freedom of the press in Britain, a British judge has ruled against newspaper censorship, saying that a newspaper has the right to publish the name of a blogger if they are able to find it.  In a landmark decision, Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an injunction to stop The Times from printing the name of  Richard Horton, a blogger who anonymously revealed confidential details of police cases on his blog. "
</p><p>Does that sound better?  Same facts, just reversing the spin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me rewrite that headline and put the opposite spin on it .
" In an encouraging move affirming freedom of the press in Britain , a British judge has ruled against newspaper censorship , saying that a newspaper has the right to publish the name of a blogger if they are able to find it .
In a landmark decision , Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an injunction to stop The Times from printing the name of Richard Horton , a blogger who anonymously revealed confidential details of police cases on his blog .
" Does that sound better ?
Same facts , just reversing the spin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me rewrite that headline and put the opposite spin on it.
"In an encouraging move affirming freedom of the press in Britain, a British judge has ruled against newspaper censorship, saying that a newspaper has the right to publish the name of a blogger if they are able to find it.
In a landmark decision, Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an injunction to stop The Times from printing the name of  Richard Horton, a blogger who anonymously revealed confidential details of police cases on his blog.
"
Does that sound better?
Same facts, just reversing the spin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363453</id>
	<title>Foul play</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.</i></p><p>So foul is fair and illegal is legal? Welcome to the 21st century, kids.</p><p>I can see why they should be able to out someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different. Or should be, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.So foul is fair and illegal is legal ?
Welcome to the 21st century , kids.I can see why they should be able to out someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge , but if the identity is gained through illagel means , that 's different .
Or should be , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>newspapers are allowed to publish their identities if they can find them by fair or foul means.So foul is fair and illegal is legal?
Welcome to the 21st century, kids.I can see why they should be able to out someone if they got the identity by subtrefuge, but if the identity is gained through illagel means, that's different.
Or should be, at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364007</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Great Britain' refers to all the hundreds of islands around the British mainland. It doesnt mean Brits think theyre or their country is 'great'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Great Britain ' refers to all the hundreds of islands around the British mainland .
It doesnt mean Brits think theyre or their country is 'great'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Great Britain' refers to all the hundreds of islands around the British mainland.
It doesnt mean Brits think theyre or their country is 'great'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365327</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Plunky</author>
	<datestamp>1245271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.</p></div></blockquote><p>Although <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Guardian" title="wikipedia.org">The Guardian</a> [wikipedia.org] gets bad rep for being a socialist rag, its not a bad read and is the last truly independent newspaper in the UK. Back in the 30's a former editor set up a trust fund that subsidises the paper to ensure editorial integrity and it has never made a proper profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however , the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now , or do n't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.Although The Guardian [ wikipedia.org ] gets bad rep for being a socialist rag , its not a bad read and is the last truly independent newspaper in the UK .
Back in the 30 's a former editor set up a trust fund that subsidises the paper to ensure editorial integrity and it has never made a proper profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.Although The Guardian [wikipedia.org] gets bad rep for being a socialist rag, its not a bad read and is the last truly independent newspaper in the UK.
Back in the 30's a former editor set up a trust fund that subsidises the paper to ensure editorial integrity and it has never made a proper profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364143</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>spacefiddle</author>
	<datestamp>1245265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh don't fool yourself.  The papers know they're obsolete, and need to keep "real journalism" in their own ad-laden, corporate owned pages.  You just <b>try</b> to make a major-outlet reporter reveal sources and name names; no really, go ahead.  I want to watch.</p><p>Blogging isn't safe!  Trust the paper! Argh bleah puke.  Gimme a break.  Yeah, you're right, they should be ashamed.  So what?  Do you see "for shame!" holding a lot of weight in politics or business..?  I don't think "and they should be ashamed of themselves, Your Honor" is how i want to safeguard my freedoms.  We're going to need to work a little harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh do n't fool yourself .
The papers know they 're obsolete , and need to keep " real journalism " in their own ad-laden , corporate owned pages .
You just try to make a major-outlet reporter reveal sources and name names ; no really , go ahead .
I want to watch.Blogging is n't safe !
Trust the paper !
Argh bleah puke .
Gim me a break .
Yeah , you 're right , they should be ashamed .
So what ?
Do you see " for shame !
" holding a lot of weight in politics or business.. ?
I do n't think " and they should be ashamed of themselves , Your Honor " is how i want to safeguard my freedoms .
We 're going to need to work a little harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh don't fool yourself.
The papers know they're obsolete, and need to keep "real journalism" in their own ad-laden, corporate owned pages.
You just try to make a major-outlet reporter reveal sources and name names; no really, go ahead.
I want to watch.Blogging isn't safe!
Trust the paper!
Argh bleah puke.
Gimme a break.
Yeah, you're right, they should be ashamed.
So what?
Do you see "for shame!
" holding a lot of weight in politics or business..?
I don't think "and they should be ashamed of themselves, Your Honor" is how i want to safeguard my freedoms.
We're going to need to work a little harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364987</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unethical according to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unethical according to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unethical according to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363797</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no, the government didn't "stay out of it". That's the problem in this case, you see. He upset lots of very senior politicians with his acerbic writing. Two of them in particular - including one extremely wealthy guy who serves in a senior role in the government - were so pissed off about it, they wanted to know who the author was and silence him. They pulled strings with their great friend(s) at the very well-funded British newspaper empire who were persuaded it was so important, urgent and "in the public interest anyway" that immediately approval was given to throw a large part of that financial year's remaining contingency account funds at an investigative journalism team with orders to "get answers 'yesterday'". This case is all about people in positions of power abusing their positions by asking friends in other positions of power to do a little backscratching for them. Call it the old boys' network. It's an absolute disgrace that this sort of thing is still going on and it is an affront to democracy. The timing is very suspicious, as the blogger was just about to blog about a corruption case, not yet exposed, involving some very senior politicians. What a coincidence his blog stopped just then. Maybe time for somebody else should take up the cudgel... Anon for a damn good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no , the government did n't " stay out of it " .
That 's the problem in this case , you see .
He upset lots of very senior politicians with his acerbic writing .
Two of them in particular - including one extremely wealthy guy who serves in a senior role in the government - were so pissed off about it , they wanted to know who the author was and silence him .
They pulled strings with their great friend ( s ) at the very well-funded British newspaper empire who were persuaded it was so important , urgent and " in the public interest anyway " that immediately approval was given to throw a large part of that financial year 's remaining contingency account funds at an investigative journalism team with orders to " get answers 'yesterday ' " .
This case is all about people in positions of power abusing their positions by asking friends in other positions of power to do a little backscratching for them .
Call it the old boys ' network .
It 's an absolute disgrace that this sort of thing is still going on and it is an affront to democracy .
The timing is very suspicious , as the blogger was just about to blog about a corruption case , not yet exposed , involving some very senior politicians .
What a coincidence his blog stopped just then .
Maybe time for somebody else should take up the cudgel... Anon for a damn good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no, the government didn't "stay out of it".
That's the problem in this case, you see.
He upset lots of very senior politicians with his acerbic writing.
Two of them in particular - including one extremely wealthy guy who serves in a senior role in the government - were so pissed off about it, they wanted to know who the author was and silence him.
They pulled strings with their great friend(s) at the very well-funded British newspaper empire who were persuaded it was so important, urgent and "in the public interest anyway" that immediately approval was given to throw a large part of that financial year's remaining contingency account funds at an investigative journalism team with orders to "get answers 'yesterday'".
This case is all about people in positions of power abusing their positions by asking friends in other positions of power to do a little backscratching for them.
Call it the old boys' network.
It's an absolute disgrace that this sort of thing is still going on and it is an affront to democracy.
The timing is very suspicious, as the blogger was just about to blog about a corruption case, not yet exposed, involving some very senior politicians.
What a coincidence his blog stopped just then.
Maybe time for somebody else should take up the cudgel... Anon for a damn good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364553</id>
	<title>Re:So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has nothing to do with investigative journalism and everything to do with how this particular newspaper's proprietor views anonymous bloggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with investigative journalism and everything to do with how this particular newspaper 's proprietor views anonymous bloggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with investigative journalism and everything to do with how this particular newspaper's proprietor views anonymous bloggers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366017</id>
	<title>Reversing the spin</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1245232020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reversed spin is still spin.</p><p>Does that sound better? no.</p><p>Now is the Blogger "anonymously revealing confidential details" or reporting unethical or illegal deed by a corrupt police department (or other powerful entity)?</p><p>By the way, Does Britain even have "free speech"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reversed spin is still spin.Does that sound better ?
no.Now is the Blogger " anonymously revealing confidential details " or reporting unethical or illegal deed by a corrupt police department ( or other powerful entity ) ? By the way , Does Britain even have " free speech " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reversed spin is still spin.Does that sound better?
no.Now is the Blogger "anonymously revealing confidential details" or reporting unethical or illegal deed by a corrupt police department (or other powerful entity)?By the way, Does Britain even have "free speech"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405</id>
	<title>So the government stayed out of it... good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
First things first: it is hugely unethical to "expose" a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous.  The newspaper should be ashamed of itself, and I recommend unsubscribing if you subscribe to it currently.  Also, send them a letter telling them why you are unsubscribing.
<br> <br>
That said.... what was the court supposed to do?  Penalize the newspaper for doing investigative journalism?  Throw the editor in jail for finding out the name of a blogger?  "Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity" is a bit overdone, don't you think?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First things first : it is hugely unethical to " expose " a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous .
The newspaper should be ashamed of itself , and I recommend unsubscribing if you subscribe to it currently .
Also , send them a letter telling them why you are unsubscribing .
That said.... what was the court supposed to do ?
Penalize the newspaper for doing investigative journalism ?
Throw the editor in jail for finding out the name of a blogger ?
" Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity " is a bit overdone , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First things first: it is hugely unethical to "expose" a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous.
The newspaper should be ashamed of itself, and I recommend unsubscribing if you subscribe to it currently.
Also, send them a letter telling them why you are unsubscribing.
That said.... what was the court supposed to do?
Penalize the newspaper for doing investigative journalism?
Throw the editor in jail for finding out the name of a blogger?
"Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity" is a bit overdone, don't you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367123</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what it seems</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1245237240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...trustworthy investigative journalist...</p></div><p>BWAHAHAHA!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...trustworthy investigative journalist...BWAHAHAHA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...trustworthy investigative journalist...BWAHAHAHA!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365639</id>
	<title>Re:Police state</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1245229980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be so smug if you're from the U.S.A., though.  There is legislation under consideration that would outlaw anonymous presence on the internet AT ALL in this country<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... EVERY web address and identity would have to be registered with the government.  Hasn't passed yet, but it's being considered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so smug if you 're from the U.S.A. , though .
There is legislation under consideration that would outlaw anonymous presence on the internet AT ALL in this country ... EVERY web address and identity would have to be registered with the government .
Has n't passed yet , but it 's being considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so smug if you're from the U.S.A., though.
There is legislation under consideration that would outlaw anonymous presence on the internet AT ALL in this country ... EVERY web address and identity would have to be registered with the government.
Hasn't passed yet, but it's being considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363805</id>
	<title>Re:I for one...</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1245264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An Anonymous Poster talking about rising up. I am going to do some investigative reporting, expose your true identity and put your plot in jeparody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Anonymous Poster talking about rising up .
I am going to do some investigative reporting , expose your true identity and put your plot in jeparody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Anonymous Poster talking about rising up.
I am going to do some investigative reporting, expose your true identity and put your plot in jeparody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28525581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28370019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1625215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28525581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366017
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28369033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28368433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28370019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28366021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28367149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1625215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28365691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28364031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1625215.28363917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
