<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_2017217</id>
	<title>Judge Tentatively Dismisses Case Against Lori Drew</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246522980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"According to Wired, 'A federal judge on Thursday <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/drew\_court/">overturned guilty verdicts against Lori Drew</a>, and issued a directed acquittal on the three misdemeanor charges.'"</i> A similar story in the L.A. Times notes that "The decision by US District Judge George H. Wu  <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/myspace-sentencing.html">will not become final until his written ruling is filed</a>, probably next week." <b>Update: 07/02 21:15 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://www.monkey.org/~timothy/">T</a> </b>: For those not following, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori\_Drew">Lori Drew</a>'s <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/26/2036231&amp;tid=123">three convictions</a> sprang from charges of online harassment of Megan Meier, a Missouri teenager whose suicide was linked to Drew's actions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " According to Wired , 'A federal judge on Thursday overturned guilty verdicts against Lori Drew , and issued a directed acquittal on the three misdemeanor charges .
' " A similar story in the L.A. Times notes that " The decision by US District Judge George H. Wu will not become final until his written ruling is filed , probably next week .
" Update : 07/02 21 : 15 GMT by T : For those not following , Lori Drew 's three convictions sprang from charges of online harassment of Megan Meier , a Missouri teenager whose suicide was linked to Drew 's actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired, 'A federal judge on Thursday overturned guilty verdicts against Lori Drew, and issued a directed acquittal on the three misdemeanor charges.
'" A similar story in the L.A. Times notes that "The decision by US District Judge George H. Wu  will not become final until his written ruling is filed, probably next week.
" Update: 07/02 21:15 GMT by  T : For those not following, Lori Drew's three convictions sprang from charges of online harassment of Megan Meier, a Missouri teenager whose suicide was linked to Drew's actions.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570003</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think.</p><p>If someone is about to jump off a building and you walk up to them and tell them they're worthless, should do it and laugh at them and they do it then you certainly can be against a charge of manslaughter.</p><p>The assumption you make (falsely) is that assault is only physical, you can however assault people verbally (and hence mentally) and if a verbal assault leads to suicide then again this will lead to a manslaughter charge.</p><p>It is important to realise the possibility of this because it is often brought up in cases of domestic violence, statutory rape and the likes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure it 's as straightforward as you think.If someone is about to jump off a building and you walk up to them and tell them they 're worthless , should do it and laugh at them and they do it then you certainly can be against a charge of manslaughter.The assumption you make ( falsely ) is that assault is only physical , you can however assault people verbally ( and hence mentally ) and if a verbal assault leads to suicide then again this will lead to a manslaughter charge.It is important to realise the possibility of this because it is often brought up in cases of domestic violence , statutory rape and the likes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think.If someone is about to jump off a building and you walk up to them and tell them they're worthless, should do it and laugh at them and they do it then you certainly can be against a charge of manslaughter.The assumption you make (falsely) is that assault is only physical, you can however assault people verbally (and hence mentally) and if a verbal assault leads to suicide then again this will lead to a manslaughter charge.It is important to realise the possibility of this because it is often brought up in cases of domestic violence, statutory rape and the likes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</id>
	<title>Rule of Law</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1246527420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.</p><p>That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a raw that Lori Drew wo n't be held responsible for her actions , but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need .
New situations arise , people suffer , but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said , Lori Drew is an evil cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need.
New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567897</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246551720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.</p></div><p>Then why exactly would she be sent a message telling her "you should just kill yourself."?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there was never * any * intent to drive Meagan to suicide.Then why exactly would she be sent a message telling her " you should just kill yourself .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.Then why exactly would she be sent a message telling her "you should just kill yourself.
"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564689</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1246530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good Point +1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Point + 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Point +1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563767</id>
	<title>Ah, yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lori, we go way back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lori , we go way back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lori, we go way back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564043</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>CWRUisTakingMyMoney</author>
	<datestamp>1246527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're so inclined (i.e. if the public reaction is great enough), couldn't they re-try on more appropriate charges?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're so inclined ( i.e .
if the public reaction is great enough ) , could n't they re-try on more appropriate charges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're so inclined (i.e.
if the public reaction is great enough), couldn't they re-try on more appropriate charges?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563993</id>
	<title>I think that I say for the whole slashdot troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>community, that this is a great day for gay niggers everywhere on this and other planets.</p><p>This kind of happiness can only be found be inserting a greased up yoda doll into your oven<br>and owning a hot, burning pink Apple iPhone.</p><p>PS: And don't forget your 599 $ SCO license fee !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>community , that this is a great day for gay niggers everywhere on this and other planets.This kind of happiness can only be found be inserting a greased up yoda doll into your ovenand owning a hot , burning pink Apple iPhone.PS : And do n't forget your 599 $ SCO license fee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>community, that this is a great day for gay niggers everywhere on this and other planets.This kind of happiness can only be found be inserting a greased up yoda doll into your ovenand owning a hot, burning pink Apple iPhone.PS: And don't forget your 599 $ SCO license fee !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564111</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.</p><p>That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.</p></div><p>she should have a strong case against her though in civil court for at least negligence and perhaps wrongful death</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a raw that Lori Drew wo n't be held responsible for her actions , but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need .
New situations arise , people suffer , but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said , Lori Drew is an evil cunt.she should have a strong case against her though in civil court for at least negligence and perhaps wrongful death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need.
New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.she should have a strong case against her though in civil court for at least negligence and perhaps wrongful death
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28577383</id>
	<title>Idiot, Moron, Calif. Judges Nulify A Law - AGAIN!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246638300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot, Moron, Calif. Judges Nulify A Law - AGAIN!</p><p>The woman WAS OBVIOUSLY GUILTY, yet the idiot, moron, democrat judges break the law by saying the woman did not break the law when she actually did break the law!!!!</p><p>These are the kind of judges that need to be removed from the bench - Sotomyer - the ones that obviously do not believe in the letter of the law and legislate from the bench!</p><p>Impeach obama and all democrats!</p><p>Deport the illegal aliens!</p><p>Remove the czars!</p><p>Stop the idiotic, cap and trade, energy bill!</p><p>No government run health care!</p><p>No government or public funded health care!</p><p>Smaller government and lower taxes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot , Moron , Calif. Judges Nulify A Law - AGAIN ! The woman WAS OBVIOUSLY GUILTY , yet the idiot , moron , democrat judges break the law by saying the woman did not break the law when she actually did break the law ! ! !
! These are the kind of judges that need to be removed from the bench - Sotomyer - the ones that obviously do not believe in the letter of the law and legislate from the bench ! Impeach obama and all democrats ! Deport the illegal aliens ! Remove the czars ! Stop the idiotic , cap and trade , energy bill ! No government run health care ! No government or public funded health care ! Smaller government and lower taxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot, Moron, Calif. Judges Nulify A Law - AGAIN!The woman WAS OBVIOUSLY GUILTY, yet the idiot, moron, democrat judges break the law by saying the woman did not break the law when she actually did break the law!!!
!These are the kind of judges that need to be removed from the bench - Sotomyer - the ones that obviously do not believe in the letter of the law and legislate from the bench!Impeach obama and all democrats!Deport the illegal aliens!Remove the czars!Stop the idiotic, cap and trade, energy bill!No government run health care!No government or public funded health care!Smaller government and lower taxes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28571959</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1246637580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Scots law, at least, it would be.  There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack, which resulted in manslaughter charges (although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances).  Scots law on manslaughter is, I think, common law, and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Scots law , at least , it would be .
There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack , which resulted in manslaughter charges ( although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances ) .
Scots law on manslaughter is , I think , common law , and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Scots law, at least, it would be.
There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack, which resulted in manslaughter charges (although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances).
Scots law on manslaughter is, I think, common law, and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567903</id>
	<title>Simon Phoenix</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1246551720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Simon:  "You can't take away people's right to be assholes!"</i></p><p><i>Raymond C.:  *grins innocently as if to say, 'Oh no?'*</i></p><p><i>Simon:  THAT'S who you remind me of:  an evil Mr. Rodgers!</i></p><p>Why does it always take a criminal to point out the obvious WRONG in our "best intentions"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simon : " You ca n't take away people 's right to be assholes !
" Raymond C. : * grins innocently as if to say , 'Oh no ?
' * Simon : THAT 'S who you remind me of : an evil Mr. Rodgers ! Why does it always take a criminal to point out the obvious WRONG in our " best intentions " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simon:  "You can't take away people's right to be assholes!
"Raymond C.:  *grins innocently as if to say, 'Oh no?
'*Simon:  THAT'S who you remind me of:  an evil Mr. Rodgers!Why does it always take a criminal to point out the obvious WRONG in our "best intentions"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564477</id>
	<title>Cyber-bullying isn't even a real word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lori Drew is terrible, I think we all agree on that.  I'd like to take issue with the word "cyber-bullying."<br> <br>

What she did could be called harassment, stalking, maybe even grounds for a wrongful death suit.  Had she done this by phone, or snail mail, or paper airplane she probably would have wound up under one of those anvils.  Instead, just because her evil-doing happened to be done through a computer the media feels the need to refer to it by a stupid made-up word, and the prosecutor feels the need to dig into some wacky interpretation of computer hacking law.<br> <br>

What's the result?  This poor judge is forced to make a ruling that will make a lot of people angry, probably to the detriment of his own career, and let an evil woman go free.  Guess what, he had to do this because of the shenanigans of the media and prosecution, fortunately he has the foresight to avoid setting a terrible precedent that violating ToS is "hacking."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lori Drew is terrible , I think we all agree on that .
I 'd like to take issue with the word " cyber-bullying .
" What she did could be called harassment , stalking , maybe even grounds for a wrongful death suit .
Had she done this by phone , or snail mail , or paper airplane she probably would have wound up under one of those anvils .
Instead , just because her evil-doing happened to be done through a computer the media feels the need to refer to it by a stupid made-up word , and the prosecutor feels the need to dig into some wacky interpretation of computer hacking law .
What 's the result ?
This poor judge is forced to make a ruling that will make a lot of people angry , probably to the detriment of his own career , and let an evil woman go free .
Guess what , he had to do this because of the shenanigans of the media and prosecution , fortunately he has the foresight to avoid setting a terrible precedent that violating ToS is " hacking .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lori Drew is terrible, I think we all agree on that.
I'd like to take issue with the word "cyber-bullying.
" 

What she did could be called harassment, stalking, maybe even grounds for a wrongful death suit.
Had she done this by phone, or snail mail, or paper airplane she probably would have wound up under one of those anvils.
Instead, just because her evil-doing happened to be done through a computer the media feels the need to refer to it by a stupid made-up word, and the prosecutor feels the need to dig into some wacky interpretation of computer hacking law.
What's the result?
This poor judge is forced to make a ruling that will make a lot of people angry, probably to the detriment of his own career, and let an evil woman go free.
Guess what, he had to do this because of the shenanigans of the media and prosecution, fortunately he has the foresight to avoid setting a terrible precedent that violating ToS is "hacking.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564453</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is amazing how quickly people forget what middle school and high school were like.</p><p>Real boys tell crap like that to girls all the time and they don't hang themselves.  The only person at fault here is the 13 year old who hung herself and the parents of the 13 year old who didn't teach their daughter to be confident in herself.</p><p>The group of people who made the fake boy up are ass holes, but no more than any of the people I went to school with.  It was mean, but being mean doesn't make it a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing how quickly people forget what middle school and high school were like.Real boys tell crap like that to girls all the time and they do n't hang themselves .
The only person at fault here is the 13 year old who hung herself and the parents of the 13 year old who did n't teach their daughter to be confident in herself.The group of people who made the fake boy up are ass holes , but no more than any of the people I went to school with .
It was mean , but being mean does n't make it a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing how quickly people forget what middle school and high school were like.Real boys tell crap like that to girls all the time and they don't hang themselves.
The only person at fault here is the 13 year old who hung herself and the parents of the 13 year old who didn't teach their daughter to be confident in herself.The group of people who made the fake boy up are ass holes, but no more than any of the people I went to school with.
It was mean, but being mean doesn't make it a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564331</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Tim, and All The Other /. Editors</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1246529040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL "editors".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL " editors " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL "editors".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564817</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1246531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're totally right. It should be a free for all and people should be able to do whatever they want to do to someone who is a child and a quarter of their age and excuse it by say "but your honor, she was already a fucked up mess before I came along".</p><p>Brilliant.</p><p>I'm not arguing that her family should have been aware of something or perhaps been more attentive and concerned with their daughter's well-being, but their possible lacking in that department doesn't  exonerate the actions someone else also committed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're totally right .
It should be a free for all and people should be able to do whatever they want to do to someone who is a child and a quarter of their age and excuse it by say " but your honor , she was already a fucked up mess before I came along " .Brilliant.I 'm not arguing that her family should have been aware of something or perhaps been more attentive and concerned with their daughter 's well-being , but their possible lacking in that department does n't exonerate the actions someone else also committed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're totally right.
It should be a free for all and people should be able to do whatever they want to do to someone who is a child and a quarter of their age and excuse it by say "but your honor, she was already a fucked up mess before I came along".Brilliant.I'm not arguing that her family should have been aware of something or perhaps been more attentive and concerned with their daughter's well-being, but their possible lacking in that department doesn't  exonerate the actions someone else also committed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563739</id>
	<title>first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>first post</htmltext>
<tokenext>first post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564075</id>
	<title>"tentatively"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He dismissed it. They don't write the rulings in the courtroom so it has to be on paper before any new motions can be based on the dismissal, but he dismissed it. That's all 'will not become final' means. It's not an exploratory step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He dismissed it .
They do n't write the rulings in the courtroom so it has to be on paper before any new motions can be based on the dismissal , but he dismissed it .
That 's all 'will not become final ' means .
It 's not an exploratory step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He dismissed it.
They don't write the rulings in the courtroom so it has to be on paper before any new motions can be based on the dismissal, but he dismissed it.
That's all 'will not become final' means.
It's not an exploratory step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564087</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246528080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be political suicide to accuse the parents of a teenager that got killed. Else we wouldn't have the computer-games-cause-school-shootings discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be political suicide to accuse the parents of a teenager that got killed .
Else we would n't have the computer-games-cause-school-shootings discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be political suicide to accuse the parents of a teenager that got killed.
Else we wouldn't have the computer-games-cause-school-shootings discussions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771</id>
	<title>They should have found a more appropriate charge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.</p><p>It's the correct decision, but the emotional "she must pay" reactions are going to be pervasive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.It 's the correct decision , but the emotional " she must pay " reactions are going to be pervasive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.It's the correct decision, but the emotional "she must pay" reactions are going to be pervasive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563939</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever you do, don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm with most of the commenters.  She <b>is</b> fat and ugly and I think she deserves some cyber-bullying.</p><p>I'm not sure what race has do with this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm with most of the commenters .
She is fat and ugly and I think she deserves some cyber-bullying.I 'm not sure what race has do with this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm with most of the commenters.
She is fat and ugly and I think she deserves some cyber-bullying.I'm not sure what race has do with this story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563897</id>
	<title>who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who is lori drew and why should I care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who is lori drew and why should I care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who is lori drew and why should I care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570263</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246626120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.</p></div><p>Hey, google the phrase "eggshell skull" some time. You may be surprised. (And I'll note that in this particular case, the defendant actually KNEW about the eggshell skull...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal ; it was her parents ' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.Hey , google the phrase " eggshell skull " some time .
You may be surprised .
( And I 'll note that in this particular case , the defendant actually KNEW about the eggshell skull... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.Hey, google the phrase "eggshell skull" some time.
You may be surprised.
(And I'll note that in this particular case, the defendant actually KNEW about the eggshell skull...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28569605</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246616280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting defence - write a message that strongly suggests she should kill herself, then deny any <b>intent</b> for her to actually follow it through.</p><p>Plausible I suppose, but fucking impossible to prove and not likely to be believed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting defence - write a message that strongly suggests she should kill herself , then deny any intent for her to actually follow it through.Plausible I suppose , but fucking impossible to prove and not likely to be believed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting defence - write a message that strongly suggests she should kill herself, then deny any intent for her to actually follow it through.Plausible I suppose, but fucking impossible to prove and not likely to be believed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564381</id>
	<title>fagoRz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are havi8ng trouble</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are havi8ng trouble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are havi8ng trouble</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565745</id>
	<title>Re:It all worked out out in the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except if she moves and changes her name in 6 months or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except if she moves and changes her name in 6 months or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except if she moves and changes her name in 6 months or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563873</id>
	<title>Well that's great and all</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1246527300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but who the fuck is Lori Drew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>but who the fuck is Lori Drew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but who the fuck is Lori Drew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563905</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't he charge her now that his first choice of offenses failed? She was not acquitted of any kind of civil rights violations, so double jeopardy shouldn't apply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't he charge her now that his first choice of offenses failed ?
She was not acquitted of any kind of civil rights violations , so double jeopardy should n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't he charge her now that his first choice of offenses failed?
She was not acquitted of any kind of civil rights violations, so double jeopardy shouldn't apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Antidamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246528080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself. The bitch needs to face the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself .
The bitch needs to face the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself.
The bitch needs to face the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.</p><p>That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.</p></div><p>Instead of wallowing in how evil such people are (and I do not doubt that), why don't we instead teach young people that this is why you cannot base your life's meaning and your self-esteem on the writings of pseudononymous trolls?  And then, instead of merely paying lip service to the concept, give them good examples of what it means to find those things from within by both celebrating and striving to be those strong individuals who understand this?
<br> <br>
That would accomplish so much more than another two minutes hate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a raw that Lori Drew wo n't be held responsible for her actions , but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need .
New situations arise , people suffer , but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said , Lori Drew is an evil cunt.Instead of wallowing in how evil such people are ( and I do not doubt that ) , why do n't we instead teach young people that this is why you can not base your life 's meaning and your self-esteem on the writings of pseudononymous trolls ?
And then , instead of merely paying lip service to the concept , give them good examples of what it means to find those things from within by both celebrating and striving to be those strong individuals who understand this ?
That would accomplish so much more than another two minutes hate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need.
New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.Instead of wallowing in how evil such people are (and I do not doubt that), why don't we instead teach young people that this is why you cannot base your life's meaning and your self-esteem on the writings of pseudononymous trolls?
And then, instead of merely paying lip service to the concept, give them good examples of what it means to find those things from within by both celebrating and striving to be those strong individuals who understand this?
That would accomplish so much more than another two minutes hate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566671</id>
	<title>Reminds me of a Scifi story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago I read a story, forget the name, where a government assassin would deliberately set up situations where the victim would end up killing himself.  Basically he would closely study your personality profile and find a way to trick you into doing something dangerous or goad you into attacking him (so he could kill you in self defense).  The author made him a bit more sympathetic in the story by having him kill off criminal bosses they couldn't pin anything on.</p><p>Basically challenged the idea of just when you and are not responsible for results of your actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago I read a story , forget the name , where a government assassin would deliberately set up situations where the victim would end up killing himself .
Basically he would closely study your personality profile and find a way to trick you into doing something dangerous or goad you into attacking him ( so he could kill you in self defense ) .
The author made him a bit more sympathetic in the story by having him kill off criminal bosses they could n't pin anything on.Basically challenged the idea of just when you and are not responsible for results of your actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago I read a story, forget the name, where a government assassin would deliberately set up situations where the victim would end up killing himself.
Basically he would closely study your personality profile and find a way to trick you into doing something dangerous or goad you into attacking him (so he could kill you in self defense).
The author made him a bit more sympathetic in the story by having him kill off criminal bosses they couldn't pin anything on.Basically challenged the idea of just when you and are not responsible for results of your actions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564017</id>
	<title>HMMM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet."</p><p>'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet .
" 'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.
"'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566885</id>
	<title>Re:Lies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246542900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to call BS on this.<br>At a minimum Drew should be charged with child abuse. She knew this girl was mentally unstable (ie:depressed) and intentionally manipulated her emotions to the girl's detriment.</p><p>If she didn't intend to manipulate this girl in some way regardless of whether or not she intended suicide...then WHY WAS SHE TALKING TO THIS GIRL PRETENDING TO BE A BOY IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to call BS on this.At a minimum Drew should be charged with child abuse .
She knew this girl was mentally unstable ( ie : depressed ) and intentionally manipulated her emotions to the girl 's detriment.If she did n't intend to manipulate this girl in some way regardless of whether or not she intended suicide...then WHY WAS SHE TALKING TO THIS GIRL PRETENDING TO BE A BOY IN THE FIRST PLACE ? ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to call BS on this.At a minimum Drew should be charged with child abuse.
She knew this girl was mentally unstable (ie:depressed) and intentionally manipulated her emotions to the girl's detriment.If she didn't intend to manipulate this girl in some way regardless of whether or not she intended suicide...then WHY WAS SHE TALKING TO THIS GIRL PRETENDING TO BE A BOY IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578453</id>
	<title>Re:It all worked out out in the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246739520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The neighbors should all post signs in their yards warning about the adult who loves to psychologically torment children. Its just words and if she kills herself, well... it was her own choice. Don't blame the neighbors<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The neighbors should all post signs in their yards warning about the adult who loves to psychologically torment children .
Its just words and if she kills herself , well... it was her own choice .
Do n't blame the neighbors ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The neighbors should all post signs in their yards warning about the adult who loves to psychologically torment children.
Its just words and if she kills herself, well... it was her own choice.
Don't blame the neighbors ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564679</id>
	<title>My faith in the justice system is restored</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1246530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well partially restored.</p><p>The only thing that could have been better was some sort on censure motion on the prosecution for abusing the legal system and generally being idiots. Probably not allowed to do that though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well partially restored.The only thing that could have been better was some sort on censure motion on the prosecution for abusing the legal system and generally being idiots .
Probably not allowed to do that though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well partially restored.The only thing that could have been better was some sort on censure motion on the prosecution for abusing the legal system and generally being idiots.
Probably not allowed to do that though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565973</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1246537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should come up with a new term for this.  How about "ManUrgicide".  Homicide without intent or direct involvement.</p><p>Seriously.  Give me a fucking break.  This isn't manslaughter and it was impossible for "perp" to know "victim" would do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should come up with a new term for this .
How about " ManUrgicide " .
Homicide without intent or direct involvement.Seriously .
Give me a fucking break .
This is n't manslaughter and it was impossible for " perp " to know " victim " would do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should come up with a new term for this.
How about "ManUrgicide".
Homicide without intent or direct involvement.Seriously.
Give me a fucking break.
This isn't manslaughter and it was impossible for "perp" to know "victim" would do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.</p></div><p>God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28590839</id>
	<title>sheesh</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1246814580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should of gotten her for at least emotional abuse of a minor child.  She is at least guilty of that</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should of gotten her for at least emotional abuse of a minor child .
She is at least guilty of that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should of gotten her for at least emotional abuse of a minor child.
She is at least guilty of that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315</id>
	<title>It all worked out out in the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all worked out out in the end. Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished. For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all worked out out in the end .
Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished .
For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all worked out out in the end.
Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished.
For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28662969</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)</i> </p><p>Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.</p><p>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.</p></div><p>Lori Drew was more than "rude and offensive" - she used her insight as an adult to intentionally manipulate this child's state of mind, repeatedly, over a long course of time.  It's ridiculous to say that an adult like Ms Drew is not responsible for her actions because the child's parents should have somehow thwarted her.</p><p>All children are psychologically vulnerable to any reasonably intelligent adult, just like any child is also physically vulnerable compared to any reasonably sized adult.  What you said is that because this child was extra-vulnerable, it was okay for an adult to target her (and Lori Drew knew exactly who she was going after, the child lived 4 doors away) as it was her parents responsibility to protect her from all psychological assaults.  That is akin to saying that the physical well-being of a child, who would naturally be vulnerable to physical assaults from an adult, is also solely the responsibility of its parents.  Does that mean that a drunk homeless man on the street who punches a 5 year old girl in the face is not responsible for his actions since the girl's parents should have been protecting her when she walked home from school?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter .
( Homicide without intent .
) Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal ; it was her parents ' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.Lori Drew was more than " rude and offensive " - she used her insight as an adult to intentionally manipulate this child 's state of mind , repeatedly , over a long course of time .
It 's ridiculous to say that an adult like Ms Drew is not responsible for her actions because the child 's parents should have somehow thwarted her.All children are psychologically vulnerable to any reasonably intelligent adult , just like any child is also physically vulnerable compared to any reasonably sized adult .
What you said is that because this child was extra-vulnerable , it was okay for an adult to target her ( and Lori Drew knew exactly who she was going after , the child lived 4 doors away ) as it was her parents responsibility to protect her from all psychological assaults .
That is akin to saying that the physical well-being of a child , who would naturally be vulnerable to physical assaults from an adult , is also solely the responsibility of its parents .
Does that mean that a drunk homeless man on the street who punches a 5 year old girl in the face is not responsible for his actions since the girl 's parents should have been protecting her when she walked home from school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter.
(Homicide without intent.
) Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.Lori Drew was more than "rude and offensive" - she used her insight as an adult to intentionally manipulate this child's state of mind, repeatedly, over a long course of time.
It's ridiculous to say that an adult like Ms Drew is not responsible for her actions because the child's parents should have somehow thwarted her.All children are psychologically vulnerable to any reasonably intelligent adult, just like any child is also physically vulnerable compared to any reasonably sized adult.
What you said is that because this child was extra-vulnerable, it was okay for an adult to target her (and Lori Drew knew exactly who she was going after, the child lived 4 doors away) as it was her parents responsibility to protect her from all psychological assaults.
That is akin to saying that the physical well-being of a child, who would naturally be vulnerable to physical assaults from an adult, is also solely the responsibility of its parents.
Does that mean that a drunk homeless man on the street who punches a 5 year old girl in the face is not responsible for his actions since the girl's parents should have been protecting her when she walked home from school?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564473</id>
	<title>Thank Goodness</title>
	<author>anom</author>
	<datestamp>1246529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank goodness that judges have the ability to overrule the jury (only in the favor of the defendant) when there is a serious miscarriage of justice being performed...</p><p>Haven't had much occasion to do it recently, but chalk up a win for the American justice system.</p><p>Of course I don't like her, but someone should never be found guilty of completely BS charges, even if they're guilty of something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness that judges have the ability to overrule the jury ( only in the favor of the defendant ) when there is a serious miscarriage of justice being performed...Have n't had much occasion to do it recently , but chalk up a win for the American justice system.Of course I do n't like her , but someone should never be found guilty of completely BS charges , even if they 're guilty of something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness that judges have the ability to overrule the jury (only in the favor of the defendant) when there is a serious miscarriage of justice being performed...Haven't had much occasion to do it recently, but chalk up a win for the American justice system.Of course I don't like her, but someone should never be found guilty of completely BS charges, even if they're guilty of something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1246545540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't it manslaughter.  There is an obvious disparity of knowledge.</p><p>For example lets assume you think I'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for "Coumatetralyl" (a rat poison).  I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose.   You take it and die.  I'm not a doctor and I told you what I was giving you.</p><p>The combination of misrepresentation + intent to harm makes manslaughter.</p><p>Drew intended harm that resulted in death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't it manslaughter .
There is an obvious disparity of knowledge.For example lets assume you think I 'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for " Coumatetralyl " ( a rat poison ) .
I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose .
You take it and die .
I 'm not a doctor and I told you what I was giving you.The combination of misrepresentation + intent to harm makes manslaughter.Drew intended harm that resulted in death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't it manslaughter.
There is an obvious disparity of knowledge.For example lets assume you think I'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for "Coumatetralyl" (a rat poison).
I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose.
You take it and die.
I'm not a doctor and I told you what I was giving you.The combination of misrepresentation + intent to harm makes manslaughter.Drew intended harm that resulted in death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565355</id>
	<title>Re:Cyber-bullying isn't even a real word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246533660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's to her detriment as well.  The point of a justice system is to prevent vendetta.  With a high profile case like this, It's hard to imagine that getting off scott free will be very healthy for her.</p><p>If I were her, I'd be pleading for something that gets me a few long years in a nice, safe, concrete and steel box.  (Ok, I would have <em>not</em> manipulated a depressed child over a period of months with a goal of making her <em>more</em> depressed, but that's not really an option on the table any more.)</p><p>Hopefully, there will be a wrongful death suit, and the outcome will be satisfying to people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's to her detriment as well .
The point of a justice system is to prevent vendetta .
With a high profile case like this , It 's hard to imagine that getting off scott free will be very healthy for her.If I were her , I 'd be pleading for something that gets me a few long years in a nice , safe , concrete and steel box .
( Ok , I would have not manipulated a depressed child over a period of months with a goal of making her more depressed , but that 's not really an option on the table any more .
) Hopefully , there will be a wrongful death suit , and the outcome will be satisfying to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's to her detriment as well.
The point of a justice system is to prevent vendetta.
With a high profile case like this, It's hard to imagine that getting off scott free will be very healthy for her.If I were her, I'd be pleading for something that gets me a few long years in a nice, safe, concrete and steel box.
(Ok, I would have not manipulated a depressed child over a period of months with a goal of making her more depressed, but that's not really an option on the table any more.
)Hopefully, there will be a wrongful death suit, and the outcome will be satisfying to people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</id>
	<title>As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...she was convicted of the wrong charges.
</p><p>
She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.   Not for violating a website's terms of service.
</p><p>That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...she was convicted of the wrong charges .
She should have been charged with cyberstalking , stalking , harassment , something .
Not for violating a website 's terms of service .
That being said , this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...she was convicted of the wrong charges.
She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.
Not for violating a website's terms of service.
That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564137</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever you do, don't</title>
	<author>pnuema</author>
	<datestamp>1246528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever modded this flamebait obviously doesn't live in St. Louis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever modded this flamebait obviously does n't live in St. Louis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever modded this flamebait obviously doesn't live in St. Louis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564827</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246531140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Lori Drew is an evil cunt.</p><p>+1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Lori Drew is an evil cunt. + 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Lori Drew is an evil cunt.+1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28576993</id>
	<title>The Court of Public Opinion</title>
	<author>Vastad</author>
	<datestamp>1246633560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, I am glad this case did not set a clumsy precedent dstined to become absurd the first time it is applied.</p><p>The best case scenario is some thought is put into making a more appropriate law for cyberbullying - which is essentially what it is.</p><p>No one here filled with rage or feeling like justice was not served should worry in the least, that Lori Drew is "getting away with it". She's not. We don't know much about her current personal situation but I am certain that members of her own family have essentially disowned her. I am sure former best friends have turned their back on her because they cannot overlook this one act of malice. If she is a churchgoer, is she still welcomed at her church or has she stopped attending? <br> People know her name, her face has been in the papers and she walks shoulders huddled against the whispers in the aisles as she does her grocery shopping. Her children and her husband face collateral social damage. Her daughter - on whose behalf she apparently acted - will forever have her life tied to the death of another.</p><p>The judge made the correct decision, but from what I can see here in Slashdot, the court of public opinion has other plans for Lori Drew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , I am glad this case did not set a clumsy precedent dstined to become absurd the first time it is applied.The best case scenario is some thought is put into making a more appropriate law for cyberbullying - which is essentially what it is.No one here filled with rage or feeling like justice was not served should worry in the least , that Lori Drew is " getting away with it " .
She 's not .
We do n't know much about her current personal situation but I am certain that members of her own family have essentially disowned her .
I am sure former best friends have turned their back on her because they can not overlook this one act of malice .
If she is a churchgoer , is she still welcomed at her church or has she stopped attending ?
People know her name , her face has been in the papers and she walks shoulders huddled against the whispers in the aisles as she does her grocery shopping .
Her children and her husband face collateral social damage .
Her daughter - on whose behalf she apparently acted - will forever have her life tied to the death of another.The judge made the correct decision , but from what I can see here in Slashdot , the court of public opinion has other plans for Lori Drew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, I am glad this case did not set a clumsy precedent dstined to become absurd the first time it is applied.The best case scenario is some thought is put into making a more appropriate law for cyberbullying - which is essentially what it is.No one here filled with rage or feeling like justice was not served should worry in the least, that Lori Drew is "getting away with it".
She's not.
We don't know much about her current personal situation but I am certain that members of her own family have essentially disowned her.
I am sure former best friends have turned their back on her because they cannot overlook this one act of malice.
If she is a churchgoer, is she still welcomed at her church or has she stopped attending?
People know her name, her face has been in the papers and she walks shoulders huddled against the whispers in the aisles as she does her grocery shopping.
Her children and her husband face collateral social damage.
Her daughter - on whose behalf she apparently acted - will forever have her life tied to the death of another.The judge made the correct decision, but from what I can see here in Slashdot, the court of public opinion has other plans for Lori Drew.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574855</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1246613760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal;</i> <br> <br>Yes, and an adult, wishing to cause harm, took advantage of that.  The adult wished harm, acted to cause harm, and that resulted in actual harm, and in the commission of that harm, someone died.  That's manslaughter or murder, depending on where you live.<br> <br> <i>Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.</i> <br> <br>But causing harm that results in a death is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal ; Yes , and an adult , wishing to cause harm , took advantage of that .
The adult wished harm , acted to cause harm , and that resulted in actual harm , and in the commission of that harm , someone died .
That 's manslaughter or murder , depending on where you live .
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter .
But causing harm that results in a death is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal;  Yes, and an adult, wishing to cause harm, took advantage of that.
The adult wished harm, acted to cause harm, and that resulted in actual harm, and in the commission of that harm, someone died.
That's manslaughter or murder, depending on where you live.
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.
But causing harm that results in a death is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565101</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1246532220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't. The family of the victim are the ones that enabled it by being so disconnected from their child that they had no clue what was going on. That's "neglect" in my book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't .
The family of the victim are the ones that enabled it by being so disconnected from their child that they had no clue what was going on .
That 's " neglect " in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't.
The family of the victim are the ones that enabled it by being so disconnected from their child that they had no clue what was going on.
That's "neglect" in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564865</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>Kneo24</author>
	<datestamp>1246531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying that parents should parent their children? That if they see that they're having more emotional stress than usual that they should step in and found out what's going on? That's insane! Why should the parents be responsible in any of this? Children should learn themselves! My god, just think of what the world would be like if parents were more proactive in their childs life! &lt;/sarcasm&gt;<br> <br>

What I mean to say is that I completely agree. While what Lori Drew did was clearly bad, where were Megan's parents? Some twat is harassing your child on the PC and you know your child is emotionally unstable and won't stay away from the PC, you take that away from them. If they can't help themselves, you as a parent should help them. Megan's parents share some of the blame for this. They could have done more. They chose not to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that parents should parent their children ?
That if they see that they 're having more emotional stress than usual that they should step in and found out what 's going on ?
That 's insane !
Why should the parents be responsible in any of this ?
Children should learn themselves !
My god , just think of what the world would be like if parents were more proactive in their childs life !
What I mean to say is that I completely agree .
While what Lori Drew did was clearly bad , where were Megan 's parents ?
Some twat is harassing your child on the PC and you know your child is emotionally unstable and wo n't stay away from the PC , you take that away from them .
If they ca n't help themselves , you as a parent should help them .
Megan 's parents share some of the blame for this .
They could have done more .
They chose not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that parents should parent their children?
That if they see that they're having more emotional stress than usual that they should step in and found out what's going on?
That's insane!
Why should the parents be responsible in any of this?
Children should learn themselves!
My god, just think of what the world would be like if parents were more proactive in their childs life!
What I mean to say is that I completely agree.
While what Lori Drew did was clearly bad, where were Megan's parents?
Some twat is harassing your child on the PC and you know your child is emotionally unstable and won't stay away from the PC, you take that away from them.
If they can't help themselves, you as a parent should help them.
Megan's parents share some of the blame for this.
They could have done more.
They chose not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574885</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1246613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world. most of which don't kill themselves.</i> <br> <br>Most people shot don't die.  So that means that if you go out and shoot 100 people and 25 of them die, you shouldn't be prosecuted for murder because most of them lived.  I'm sorry, I don't get the "most lived" defense when you purposefully harm someone and in the commission of that harm they die.  That's murder or manslaughter, depending on where you live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world .
most of which do n't kill themselves .
Most people shot do n't die .
So that means that if you go out and shoot 100 people and 25 of them die , you should n't be prosecuted for murder because most of them lived .
I 'm sorry , I do n't get the " most lived " defense when you purposefully harm someone and in the commission of that harm they die .
That 's murder or manslaughter , depending on where you live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world.
most of which don't kill themselves.
Most people shot don't die.
So that means that if you go out and shoot 100 people and 25 of them die, you shouldn't be prosecuted for murder because most of them lived.
I'm sorry, I don't get the "most lived" defense when you purposefully harm someone and in the commission of that harm they die.
That's murder or manslaughter, depending on where you live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568811</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Jaeph</author>
	<datestamp>1246561980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages."</p><p>While I am happy with the verdict in this case, your statement is off.  Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.</p><p>-Jeff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Beyond that , Lori Drew was n't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off .
Another teenager testified at Lori Drew 's trial that she ( the other teenager ) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages .
" While I am happy with the verdict in this case , your statement is off .
Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.-Jeff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off.
Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.
"While I am happy with the verdict in this case, your statement is off.
Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.-Jeff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564281</id>
	<title>wrong charges and wrong person</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1246528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dunno...according to the article, it was that girl who testified under immunity that it was her idea and that she sent the message to the victim that the world would be better without her (the victim).<br>so in essence, the prosecution done f*cked up and went after the wrong one.<br>Also according to the article, Grills, the girl who got immunity was 18, an adult and capable of standing the charges if they were ever brought to her.</p><p>Lori Drew should have been charged with accessory and the Grills been the center of this.</p><p>sad day for the victim's family nonetheless; the killer got immunity and Lori Drew got double jeopardy (and no...no Alex Trebek involved)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dunno...according to the article , it was that girl who testified under immunity that it was her idea and that she sent the message to the victim that the world would be better without her ( the victim ) .so in essence , the prosecution done f * cked up and went after the wrong one.Also according to the article , Grills , the girl who got immunity was 18 , an adult and capable of standing the charges if they were ever brought to her.Lori Drew should have been charged with accessory and the Grills been the center of this.sad day for the victim 's family nonetheless ; the killer got immunity and Lori Drew got double jeopardy ( and no...no Alex Trebek involved )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dunno...according to the article, it was that girl who testified under immunity that it was her idea and that she sent the message to the victim that the world would be better without her (the victim).so in essence, the prosecution done f*cked up and went after the wrong one.Also according to the article, Grills, the girl who got immunity was 18, an adult and capable of standing the charges if they were ever brought to her.Lori Drew should have been charged with accessory and the Grills been the center of this.sad day for the victim's family nonetheless; the killer got immunity and Lori Drew got double jeopardy (and no...no Alex Trebek involved)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564119</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1246528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you.  Why she wasn't charged with harassment (though I'm not quite sure what Missouri's interpretation is and if it would apply here) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing.  Why they decided to charge her with "computer hacking" is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990's technology.  As much as I'd like to see her put away for awhile, this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
Why she was n't charged with harassment ( though I 'm not quite sure what Missouri 's interpretation is and if it would apply here ) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing .
Why they decided to charge her with " computer hacking " is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990 's technology .
As much as I 'd like to see her put away for awhile , this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
Why she wasn't charged with harassment (though I'm not quite sure what Missouri's interpretation is and if it would apply here) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing.
Why they decided to charge her with "computer hacking" is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990's technology.
As much as I'd like to see her put away for awhile, this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567285</id>
	<title>Charges can be filed.</title>
	<author>TechwoIf</author>
	<datestamp>1246545600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Appropriate charges should have been filed. Its no different then snail mail or saying those words in the face. Whatever charges that cab apply to anyone that talks someone into killing themselves knowing it was going to work should have charges files. Manslaughter or similar I think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Appropriate charges should have been filed .
Its no different then snail mail or saying those words in the face .
Whatever charges that cab apply to anyone that talks someone into killing themselves knowing it was going to work should have charges files .
Manslaughter or similar I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appropriate charges should have been filed.
Its no different then snail mail or saying those words in the face.
Whatever charges that cab apply to anyone that talks someone into killing themselves knowing it was going to work should have charges files.
Manslaughter or similar I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565175</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.  Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.  We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.</p><p>The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.  I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.  Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.</p><blockquote><div><p>She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.  This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.  If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.  In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.</p><p>This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle.  Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.</p></div><p>I see the "Troll" mod on this post and I must say something about this.
<br> <br>
This person gave an opinion in a calm and non-inflammatory manner.  He also gave some reasons to explain why he holds that particular opinion.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is anything other than a reasonable expression of what he sincerely believes.  That's why this moderation is abusive.  I'm not saying something because of this particular moderation, but rather, because it has also happened to me personally and because too much of this shit goes on in general.
<br> <br>
I've said it before, recently, and I'll say it again.  This reminds me of a sig I see from time to time.  Mods, read it well and know that it is completely correct:  "Slashdot does not have a -1 DisagreeAndWishToCensor moderation, and no, Flamebait, Offtopic, and Troll are not substitutes."
<br> <br>
There are few things more petty and childish than trying to shut someone up merely because you disagree with him or don't like what he said.  Seriously, grow up and get over yourself and quit trying to punish people for thinking and believing differently than you do.  It's really quite shameful.
<br> <br>
I read in Section 6.3 of the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/moderation.shtml" title="slashdot.org">moderator guidelines</a> [slashdot.org] that there's some (probably small) chance that moderator access will be revoked for such abusive moderations.  You know what?  I'm going to submit this to Rob Malda and ask that this be done.  No, I don't enjoy doing that and I don't expect anything but flak for saying that I will do that.  Yes, I really am that sick and tired of seeing this shit.  It does real harm to the overall quality of a Web site I very much enjoy and it goes on because no one does very much about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , she should n't be charged with anything .
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law , or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes .
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is , do n't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you do n't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet , and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you ca n't take being insulted online then you 're going to have major problems somewhere down the road .
I 've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said , and I 'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority ( which I 'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did ) at around the same age that girl was .
Retribution is n't going to bring anyone back from the dead , and you ca n't base " justice " around how someone reacts to what you do ( particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable ) , only what you actually DO do , because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking , stalking , harassment , something.The fact that you had to end this with " something " shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman , because you 're not sure what crime she actually committed .
This is a common method of how the police work , especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail , but I am personally disgusted with it .
If you 're not sure what crime she actually committed then it 's probably safe to say that whatever she did , even if it was horrible , probably should n't be " a crime " and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger .
In my opinion , if the action is not obviously a crime ( murder , stealing , etc ) and you 're not sure what crime they may have committed ( especially if you 're grabbing at straws like " cyberstalking !
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire " justice " system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the " FOR THE CHILDREN !
" mindset , except it 's more subtle .
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it , too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.I see the " Troll " mod on this post and I must say something about this .
This person gave an opinion in a calm and non-inflammatory manner .
He also gave some reasons to explain why he holds that particular opinion .
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is anything other than a reasonable expression of what he sincerely believes .
That 's why this moderation is abusive .
I 'm not saying something because of this particular moderation , but rather , because it has also happened to me personally and because too much of this shit goes on in general .
I 've said it before , recently , and I 'll say it again .
This reminds me of a sig I see from time to time .
Mods , read it well and know that it is completely correct : " Slashdot does not have a -1 DisagreeAndWishToCensor moderation , and no , Flamebait , Offtopic , and Troll are not substitutes .
" There are few things more petty and childish than trying to shut someone up merely because you disagree with him or do n't like what he said .
Seriously , grow up and get over yourself and quit trying to punish people for thinking and believing differently than you do .
It 's really quite shameful .
I read in Section 6.3 of the moderator guidelines [ slashdot.org ] that there 's some ( probably small ) chance that moderator access will be revoked for such abusive moderations .
You know what ?
I 'm going to submit this to Rob Malda and ask that this be done .
No , I do n't enjoy doing that and I do n't expect anything but flak for saying that I will do that .
Yes , I really am that sick and tired of seeing this shit .
It does real harm to the overall quality of a Web site I very much enjoy and it goes on because no one does very much about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.
I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.
Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.
This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.
If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.
In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!
" mindset, except it's more subtle.
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.I see the "Troll" mod on this post and I must say something about this.
This person gave an opinion in a calm and non-inflammatory manner.
He also gave some reasons to explain why he holds that particular opinion.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is anything other than a reasonable expression of what he sincerely believes.
That's why this moderation is abusive.
I'm not saying something because of this particular moderation, but rather, because it has also happened to me personally and because too much of this shit goes on in general.
I've said it before, recently, and I'll say it again.
This reminds me of a sig I see from time to time.
Mods, read it well and know that it is completely correct:  "Slashdot does not have a -1 DisagreeAndWishToCensor moderation, and no, Flamebait, Offtopic, and Troll are not substitutes.
"
 
There are few things more petty and childish than trying to shut someone up merely because you disagree with him or don't like what he said.
Seriously, grow up and get over yourself and quit trying to punish people for thinking and believing differently than you do.
It's really quite shameful.
I read in Section 6.3 of the moderator guidelines [slashdot.org] that there's some (probably small) chance that moderator access will be revoked for such abusive moderations.
You know what?
I'm going to submit this to Rob Malda and ask that this be done.
No, I don't enjoy doing that and I don't expect anything but flak for saying that I will do that.
Yes, I really am that sick and tired of seeing this shit.
It does real harm to the overall quality of a Web site I very much enjoy and it goes on because no one does very much about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566957</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.</p></div><p>Another teenager testified under a grant of immunity.<br>How convienent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another teenager testified at Lori Drew 's trial that she ( the other teenager ) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.Another teenager testified under a grant of immunity.How convienent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.Another teenager testified under a grant of immunity.How convienent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893</id>
	<title>Whatever you do, don't</title>
	<author>pnuema</author>
	<datestamp>1246527360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>go to the St. Louis Post Dispatch website and read the comments. Whenever I begin to have faith in humanity, I go there and am reminded that I am surrounded by idiot racist filth.</p><p>But I love St. Louis. Really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>go to the St. Louis Post Dispatch website and read the comments .
Whenever I begin to have faith in humanity , I go there and am reminded that I am surrounded by idiot racist filth.But I love St. Louis. Really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go to the St. Louis Post Dispatch website and read the comments.
Whenever I begin to have faith in humanity, I go there and am reminded that I am surrounded by idiot racist filth.But I love St. Louis. Really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568543</id>
	<title>Incompetant Judge.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1246558620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: "Wu also doubted that MySpace provided sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible. If a user didn't read the terms of service, the judge asked prosecutor Krause, could they still be charged with violating them?"</p><p>-Yes. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Someone should have asked the judge if was familiar with that saying. Someone should rub his face in his own ignorance. MySpace *DOES* give sufficient notice, and you have to make the conscious effort to click a small box stating affirming that you agree. Wheather or not someone actually reads the whole thing is the responsibility of the user, NOT the provider.</p><p>FTFA: "To convict Drew of the felonies, prosecutors would have needed to prove two things: that Drew accessed MySpace "without authorization," and did it for the purpose of committing a tortious act -- in this case, to intentionally cause harm to Megan Meier."</p><p>-How on Earth could these two things be so hard to prove?</p><p>1.  Drew violated the terms of her useage agreement by using it with malicious intent. You do not have authorization to access sites with a ToS if you violate the ToS. MySpace granted permission for Drew yto use the site in accordance with the ToS. Since she did not abide by the ToS, she did not have the legal right or authority to access MySpace. Technically, she did "hack", but not in the sense that SlashDot readers are used to, she just used it without authorization. Technically hacking. PROVEN.</p><p>2. She created a fake account, created a false identity, and used that false identity to harass another person. PROVEN.</p><p>Someone hang this bitch out to dry with the dipshit judge, who thinks he can rewrite the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " Wu also doubted that MySpace provided sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible .
If a user did n't read the terms of service , the judge asked prosecutor Krause , could they still be charged with violating them ? " -Yes .
" Ignorance of the law is no excuse " .
Someone should have asked the judge if was familiar with that saying .
Someone should rub his face in his own ignorance .
MySpace * DOES * give sufficient notice , and you have to make the conscious effort to click a small box stating affirming that you agree .
Wheather or not someone actually reads the whole thing is the responsibility of the user , NOT the provider.FTFA : " To convict Drew of the felonies , prosecutors would have needed to prove two things : that Drew accessed MySpace " without authorization , " and did it for the purpose of committing a tortious act -- in this case , to intentionally cause harm to Megan Meier .
" -How on Earth could these two things be so hard to prove ? 1 .
Drew violated the terms of her useage agreement by using it with malicious intent .
You do not have authorization to access sites with a ToS if you violate the ToS .
MySpace granted permission for Drew yto use the site in accordance with the ToS .
Since she did not abide by the ToS , she did not have the legal right or authority to access MySpace .
Technically , she did " hack " , but not in the sense that SlashDot readers are used to , she just used it without authorization .
Technically hacking .
PROVEN.2. She created a fake account , created a false identity , and used that false identity to harass another person .
PROVEN.Someone hang this bitch out to dry with the dipshit judge , who thinks he can rewrite the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "Wu also doubted that MySpace provided sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible.
If a user didn't read the terms of service, the judge asked prosecutor Krause, could they still be charged with violating them?"-Yes.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Someone should have asked the judge if was familiar with that saying.
Someone should rub his face in his own ignorance.
MySpace *DOES* give sufficient notice, and you have to make the conscious effort to click a small box stating affirming that you agree.
Wheather or not someone actually reads the whole thing is the responsibility of the user, NOT the provider.FTFA: "To convict Drew of the felonies, prosecutors would have needed to prove two things: that Drew accessed MySpace "without authorization," and did it for the purpose of committing a tortious act -- in this case, to intentionally cause harm to Megan Meier.
"-How on Earth could these two things be so hard to prove?1.
Drew violated the terms of her useage agreement by using it with malicious intent.
You do not have authorization to access sites with a ToS if you violate the ToS.
MySpace granted permission for Drew yto use the site in accordance with the ToS.
Since she did not abide by the ToS, she did not have the legal right or authority to access MySpace.
Technically, she did "hack", but not in the sense that SlashDot readers are used to, she just used it without authorization.
Technically hacking.
PROVEN.2. She created a fake account, created a false identity, and used that false identity to harass another person.
PROVEN.Someone hang this bitch out to dry with the dipshit judge, who thinks he can rewrite the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568931</id>
	<title>Re:It all worked out out in the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It all worked out out in the end. Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished. For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.</p></div><p>Nope.  The overwhelming majority of people who read about Lori Drew probably forgot her name within minutes of having read about her.  She simply became "that woman who made that girl kill herself," and even that memory probably quickly faded.  There will be no tarnished reputation.</p><p>People who've done far, <i>FAR</i> worse things than Lori have already been forgotten.  For instance, a few months ago, I read a report about a guy who broke into a family's home, killed all the adults with a claw hammer, then took the two kids out into the woods and spent the next several weeks raping them.  Near the end of the ordeal, he shot the boy in the abdomen and let him die that way.  His sister "got to" watch the whole thing.</p><p>Anyone still remember the name of that guy?  Didn't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It all worked out out in the end .
Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished .
For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.Nope .
The overwhelming majority of people who read about Lori Drew probably forgot her name within minutes of having read about her .
She simply became " that woman who made that girl kill herself , " and even that memory probably quickly faded .
There will be no tarnished reputation.People who 've done far , FAR worse things than Lori have already been forgotten .
For instance , a few months ago , I read a report about a guy who broke into a family 's home , killed all the adults with a claw hammer , then took the two kids out into the woods and spent the next several weeks raping them .
Near the end of the ordeal , he shot the boy in the abdomen and let him die that way .
His sister " got to " watch the whole thing.Anyone still remember the name of that guy ?
Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all worked out out in the end.
Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished.
For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.Nope.
The overwhelming majority of people who read about Lori Drew probably forgot her name within minutes of having read about her.
She simply became "that woman who made that girl kill herself," and even that memory probably quickly faded.
There will be no tarnished reputation.People who've done far, FAR worse things than Lori have already been forgotten.
For instance, a few months ago, I read a report about a guy who broke into a family's home, killed all the adults with a claw hammer, then took the two kids out into the woods and spent the next several weeks raping them.
Near the end of the ordeal, he shot the boy in the abdomen and let him die that way.
His sister "got to" watch the whole thing.Anyone still remember the name of that guy?
Didn't think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1246528080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)<br> <br>

The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter .
( Homicide without intent .
) The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter.
(Homicide without intent.
) 

The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565853</id>
	<title>Take a chance...</title>
	<author>Nux'd</author>
	<datestamp>1246536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:<br>.<br>U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said afterward that he had no regrets.<br>.<br>"I'm proud of this case...and this team (of prosecutors)," he said, even though using the CFAA to prosecute Drew "was a risk." He added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children."<br>.<br>Taking risks on the behalf of someone is very noble... so long as it isn't them you're putting at risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : .U.S .
Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said afterward that he had no regrets.. " I 'm proud of this case...and this team ( of prosecutors ) , " he said , even though using the CFAA to prosecute Drew " was a risk .
" He added that his office " will always take risks on behalf of children .
" .Taking risks on the behalf of someone is very noble... so long as it is n't them you 're putting at risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:.U.S.
Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said afterward that he had no regrets.."I'm proud of this case...and this team (of prosecutors)," he said, even though using the CFAA to prosecute Drew "was a risk.
" He added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children.
".Taking risks on the behalf of someone is very noble... so long as it isn't them you're putting at risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28569027</id>
	<title>This Result Makes No Sense to Me</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1246651680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see a parallel of this case and that of Charles Manson, he killed no one, but he's in prison.  I see here a case of an adult twisting her vocabulary in such a way that a child self terminates.  The adult did this intentionally.  The adult has publicly stated this action, there is no doubt as to the time, motive, and means.  A human is dead because of the direct actions of another.  It's obvious that I have greatly missed a simple truth.  But I ask, "Would you let this person talk to your child?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a parallel of this case and that of Charles Manson , he killed no one , but he 's in prison .
I see here a case of an adult twisting her vocabulary in such a way that a child self terminates .
The adult did this intentionally .
The adult has publicly stated this action , there is no doubt as to the time , motive , and means .
A human is dead because of the direct actions of another .
It 's obvious that I have greatly missed a simple truth .
But I ask , " Would you let this person talk to your child ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a parallel of this case and that of Charles Manson, he killed no one, but he's in prison.
I see here a case of an adult twisting her vocabulary in such a way that a child self terminates.
The adult did this intentionally.
The adult has publicly stated this action, there is no doubt as to the time, motive, and means.
A human is dead because of the direct actions of another.
It's obvious that I have greatly missed a simple truth.
But I ask, "Would you let this person talk to your child?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564027</id>
	<title>What she did may not be illegal-</title>
	<author>Clixx</author>
	<datestamp>1246527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But she's still a horrible parent and a horrible person, and even though I stopped believing in Karma as a universal cosmic force years ago, I hope she gets what she deserves for her part in abusing that poor 13 year old girl.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But she 's still a horrible parent and a horrible person , and even though I stopped believing in Karma as a universal cosmic force years ago , I hope she gets what she deserves for her part in abusing that poor 13 year old girl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But she's still a horrible parent and a horrible person, and even though I stopped believing in Karma as a universal cosmic force years ago, I hope she gets what she deserves for her part in abusing that poor 13 year old girl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565197</id>
	<title>Only on Slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246532760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Will you find hundreds of basement-dwelling libertarian morons hailing a woman who caused a child to commit suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Will you find hundreds of basement-dwelling libertarian morons hailing a woman who caused a child to commit suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Will you find hundreds of basement-dwelling libertarian morons hailing a woman who caused a child to commit suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1246528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.  Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.  We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.</p><p>The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.  I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.  Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.</p><blockquote><div><p>She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.  This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.  If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.  In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.</p><p>This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle.  Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , she should n't be charged with anything .
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law , or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes .
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is , do n't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you do n't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet , and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you ca n't take being insulted online then you 're going to have major problems somewhere down the road .
I 've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said , and I 'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority ( which I 'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did ) at around the same age that girl was .
Retribution is n't going to bring anyone back from the dead , and you ca n't base " justice " around how someone reacts to what you do ( particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable ) , only what you actually DO do , because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking , stalking , harassment , something.The fact that you had to end this with " something " shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman , because you 're not sure what crime she actually committed .
This is a common method of how the police work , especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail , but I am personally disgusted with it .
If you 're not sure what crime she actually committed then it 's probably safe to say that whatever she did , even if it was horrible , probably should n't be " a crime " and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger .
In my opinion , if the action is not obviously a crime ( murder , stealing , etc ) and you 're not sure what crime they may have committed ( especially if you 're grabbing at straws like " cyberstalking !
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire " justice " system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the " FOR THE CHILDREN !
" mindset , except it 's more subtle .
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it , too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.
I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.
Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.
This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.
If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.
In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!
" mindset, except it's more subtle.
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563989</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...she was convicted of the wrong charges.</p><p>She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.   Not for violating a website's terms of service.</p></div><p>Harassment would probably be appropriate.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.</p></div><p>Despite the outcome, what she did really wasn't that horrible.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that this girl committed suicide because a boy that she liked (who was actually not real, but she never knew that) told her that the world would be better off without her.</p><p>Yes, it's strange for a grown woman to make a MySpace (or was it FaceBook?) account just to harass a kid...  But let's be realistic here - all she did is call that girl names.  That kind of stuff happens on a daily basis, all over the United States.  I don't see how anyone would make it through school without at least one person telling them that they should just drop dead.</p><p>So this Lori person made a fake account and said hurtful things...  Would it somehow have been better if it was a real boy who was saying the hurtful things?  Would it have been less fatal if it had happened in real life, instead of on-line?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...she was convicted of the wrong charges.She should have been charged with cyberstalking , stalking , harassment , something .
Not for violating a website 's terms of service.Harassment would probably be appropriate.That being said , this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.Despite the outcome , what she did really was n't that horrible.The fact of the matter is that this girl committed suicide because a boy that she liked ( who was actually not real , but she never knew that ) told her that the world would be better off without her.Yes , it 's strange for a grown woman to make a MySpace ( or was it FaceBook ?
) account just to harass a kid... But let 's be realistic here - all she did is call that girl names .
That kind of stuff happens on a daily basis , all over the United States .
I do n't see how anyone would make it through school without at least one person telling them that they should just drop dead.So this Lori person made a fake account and said hurtful things... Would it somehow have been better if it was a real boy who was saying the hurtful things ?
Would it have been less fatal if it had happened in real life , instead of on-line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...she was convicted of the wrong charges.She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.
Not for violating a website's terms of service.Harassment would probably be appropriate.That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.Despite the outcome, what she did really wasn't that horrible.The fact of the matter is that this girl committed suicide because a boy that she liked (who was actually not real, but she never knew that) told her that the world would be better off without her.Yes, it's strange for a grown woman to make a MySpace (or was it FaceBook?
) account just to harass a kid...  But let's be realistic here - all she did is call that girl names.
That kind of stuff happens on a daily basis, all over the United States.
I don't see how anyone would make it through school without at least one person telling them that they should just drop dead.So this Lori person made a fake account and said hurtful things...  Would it somehow have been better if it was a real boy who was saying the hurtful things?
Would it have been less fatal if it had happened in real life, instead of on-line?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564133</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1246528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.</p></div><p>Obviously you've never been a 13 year old girl.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.Obviously you 've never been a 13 year old girl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.Obviously you've never been a 13 year old girl.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568611</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246559700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad example: Impersonating a doctor and dispensing medical advice would in most situations lead to criminal charges, even if no harm comes of it. Impersonating a young person is a very different situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad example : Impersonating a doctor and dispensing medical advice would in most situations lead to criminal charges , even if no harm comes of it .
Impersonating a young person is a very different situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad example: Impersonating a doctor and dispensing medical advice would in most situations lead to criminal charges, even if no harm comes of it.
Impersonating a young person is a very different situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)</i></p><p>Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.</p><p>The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter .
( Homicide without intent .
) Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal ; it was her parents ' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter.
(Homicide without intent.
)Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564059</id>
	<title>Dear Tim, and All The Other /. Editors</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1246527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't just have a one line write up.  Who the hell is Lori Drew?  Is it really that hard to ad the line: "Lori Drew is the woman who was convicted of using MySpace to tease a 13 year old girl until the girl committed suicide."</p><p>Apparently it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just have a one line write up .
Who the hell is Lori Drew ?
Is it really that hard to ad the line : " Lori Drew is the woman who was convicted of using MySpace to tease a 13 year old girl until the girl committed suicide .
" Apparently it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just have a one line write up.
Who the hell is Lori Drew?
Is it really that hard to ad the line: "Lori Drew is the woman who was convicted of using MySpace to tease a 13 year old girl until the girl committed suicide.
"Apparently it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567075</id>
	<title>blame shifting</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>[The prosecutor] added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children."</i></p><p>Well, maybe he can prosecute the parents, then, instead of constructing wild legal theories that turn contract law into criminal law.</p><p>
&nbsp; While Lori Drew's messages were both forged and rude, they were within the bounds of what a teenager needs to be able to cope with in real life.  I think the parents are trying to shift blame here.  They are ultimately responsible for their daughter's online activities and for not supervising her enough.  Her suicide didn't come out of the blue, she was depressed, had ADD, was on medication, and her parents picked a fight with her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ The prosecutor ] added that his office " will always take risks on behalf of children .
" Well , maybe he can prosecute the parents , then , instead of constructing wild legal theories that turn contract law into criminal law .
  While Lori Drew 's messages were both forged and rude , they were within the bounds of what a teenager needs to be able to cope with in real life .
I think the parents are trying to shift blame here .
They are ultimately responsible for their daughter 's online activities and for not supervising her enough .
Her suicide did n't come out of the blue , she was depressed , had ADD , was on medication , and her parents picked a fight with her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[The prosecutor] added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children.
"Well, maybe he can prosecute the parents, then, instead of constructing wild legal theories that turn contract law into criminal law.
  While Lori Drew's messages were both forged and rude, they were within the bounds of what a teenager needs to be able to cope with in real life.
I think the parents are trying to shift blame here.
They are ultimately responsible for their daughter's online activities and for not supervising her enough.
Her suicide didn't come out of the blue, she was depressed, had ADD, was on medication, and her parents picked a fight with her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564035</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1246527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...who the hell is Lori Drew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...who the hell is Lori Drew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who the hell is Lori Drew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570661</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>evilphish\_mi</author>
	<datestamp>1246629660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That example is horribly irrelevant to this case.  Drew didn't give her a rope and help her string herself up.  She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world.  most of which don't kill themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That example is horribly irrelevant to this case .
Drew did n't give her a rope and help her string herself up .
She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world .
most of which do n't kill themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That example is horribly irrelevant to this case.
Drew didn't give her a rope and help her string herself up.
She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world.
most of which don't kill themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564049</id>
	<title>Will she pay?</title>
	<author>lazlow</author>
	<datestamp>1246527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578425</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Law</title>
	<author>PsyHawk</author>
	<datestamp>1246739100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

That all sounds wonderful until<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
you hit a psychological disorder or a chemical imbalance in people which would affect their thinking.

You can teach all you want and those people can nod like bobble heads and walk right out and do what you just warned about.

Hence the phrase PSYCHOLOGICAL TROUBLED/IMPAIRED/ETC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That all sounds wonderful until ... . you hit a psychological disorder or a chemical imbalance in people which would affect their thinking .
You can teach all you want and those people can nod like bobble heads and walk right out and do what you just warned about .
Hence the phrase PSYCHOLOGICAL TROUBLED/IMPAIRED/ETC .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

That all sounds wonderful until ....
you hit a psychological disorder or a chemical imbalance in people which would affect their thinking.
You can teach all you want and those people can nod like bobble heads and walk right out and do what you just warned about.
Hence the phrase PSYCHOLOGICAL TROUBLED/IMPAIRED/ETC ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564939</id>
	<title>At least this judge understands the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The prosecution of this woman for bogus charges was ridiculous.</p><p>Yes, she was cruel, but:</p><p>1. Violating a website's TOS is not illegal;<br>2. She was not responsible for the girl's suicide, that is why it was a suicide and not a murder;<br>3. Abusing the legal system to punish someone who has done something extremely unpopular with the masses by either trumping up charges or using ridiculous interpretations which are byond novel should be a criminal offense if anything should be;<br>4. The authoritarian leaning people in government and industry in this country hoped to be able to use this case and the bogus charges to set precedents that would have left pretty much all of us who use the net regularly at risk for all kinds of shit.</p><p>I just read a post where someone referred to one of the scumbags who was teasing this girl as "the killer." If that doesn't illustrate that people have a poor and overly emotional "TV cop show" understanding of the law and ethics, then I don't know what will.</p><p>I hope we don't see this judge bow to the inevitable pressure that will be heaped upon him by the scores of people thirsting for vengeance after they hear about this ruling - there are TONS of injustices that are far worse than what that bitch and her nutty kid did to this poor girl, some of which may make life harder or more miserable for already suffering people - who may then commit suicide...Where is the outrage for them?</p><p>These outraged people would better spend their time donating money to suicide prevention programs or volunteering for suicide helplines; but hey, there's no voyeuristic sick venegeance pleasure to be gained by doing so....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The prosecution of this woman for bogus charges was ridiculous.Yes , she was cruel , but : 1 .
Violating a website 's TOS is not illegal ; 2 .
She was not responsible for the girl 's suicide , that is why it was a suicide and not a murder ; 3 .
Abusing the legal system to punish someone who has done something extremely unpopular with the masses by either trumping up charges or using ridiculous interpretations which are byond novel should be a criminal offense if anything should be ; 4 .
The authoritarian leaning people in government and industry in this country hoped to be able to use this case and the bogus charges to set precedents that would have left pretty much all of us who use the net regularly at risk for all kinds of shit.I just read a post where someone referred to one of the scumbags who was teasing this girl as " the killer .
" If that does n't illustrate that people have a poor and overly emotional " TV cop show " understanding of the law and ethics , then I do n't know what will.I hope we do n't see this judge bow to the inevitable pressure that will be heaped upon him by the scores of people thirsting for vengeance after they hear about this ruling - there are TONS of injustices that are far worse than what that bitch and her nutty kid did to this poor girl , some of which may make life harder or more miserable for already suffering people - who may then commit suicide...Where is the outrage for them ? These outraged people would better spend their time donating money to suicide prevention programs or volunteering for suicide helplines ; but hey , there 's no voyeuristic sick venegeance pleasure to be gained by doing so... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prosecution of this woman for bogus charges was ridiculous.Yes, she was cruel, but:1.
Violating a website's TOS is not illegal;2.
She was not responsible for the girl's suicide, that is why it was a suicide and not a murder;3.
Abusing the legal system to punish someone who has done something extremely unpopular with the masses by either trumping up charges or using ridiculous interpretations which are byond novel should be a criminal offense if anything should be;4.
The authoritarian leaning people in government and industry in this country hoped to be able to use this case and the bogus charges to set precedents that would have left pretty much all of us who use the net regularly at risk for all kinds of shit.I just read a post where someone referred to one of the scumbags who was teasing this girl as "the killer.
" If that doesn't illustrate that people have a poor and overly emotional "TV cop show" understanding of the law and ethics, then I don't know what will.I hope we don't see this judge bow to the inevitable pressure that will be heaped upon him by the scores of people thirsting for vengeance after they hear about this ruling - there are TONS of injustices that are far worse than what that bitch and her nutty kid did to this poor girl, some of which may make life harder or more miserable for already suffering people - who may then commit suicide...Where is the outrage for them?These outraged people would better spend their time donating money to suicide prevention programs or volunteering for suicide helplines; but hey, there's no voyeuristic sick venegeance pleasure to be gained by doing so....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563965</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pleasantly surprised. I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pleasantly surprised .
I was fully expecting this to fall into the " hard cases make really awful law " pile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pleasantly surprised.
I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564269</id>
	<title>Freedom of speech means</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the freedom to say mean things, as well as good things. Lori Drew is an asshole, but last time I checked, being an asshole was not illegal. What she did was harassment, not murder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the freedom to say mean things , as well as good things .
Lori Drew is an asshole , but last time I checked , being an asshole was not illegal .
What she did was harassment , not murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the freedom to say mean things, as well as good things.
Lori Drew is an asshole, but last time I checked, being an asshole was not illegal.
What she did was harassment, not murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201</id>
	<title>Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1246528560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no she didn't, there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.</p><p>Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off.  Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no she did n't , there was never * any * intent to drive Meagan to suicide.Beyond that , Lori Drew was n't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off .
Another teenager testified at Lori Drew 's trial that she ( the other teenager ) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no she didn't, there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off.
Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564783</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1246531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Double jeopardy doesn't apply only to civil rights.  Where did you get that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Double jeopardy does n't apply only to civil rights .
Where did you get that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double jeopardy doesn't apply only to civil rights.
Where did you get that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28663231</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247307180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.  Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.  We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.</p><p>The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.  I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.  Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.</p><blockquote><div><p>She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.  This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.  If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.  In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.</p><p>This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle.  Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.</p></div><p>Who cares what happened to you in school?  I know someone who got stabbed in school, does that "make it okay" for people to start stabbing each other then?</p><p>It's a situation not clearly covered by law because the internet allows adults to easily pose as children, not a problem our society has faced previously.  If Lori Drew had dressed up like a 13 y/o boy, she wouldn't have fooled anyone.  But on the internet she was able to use her adult insight &amp; intellect to deceive and manipulate this kid.  From what many of the folks on here are saying, badly intentioned adults should be allowed to get on the internet, join myspace, buddy up with a few teenagers and manipulate them to do whatever they like.  The possibilities are endless - you could convince them life sucks and they should kill themselves, or maybe go stab their parents, or commit other violent acts.</p><p>It's like no one here actually knows what it's like to be a teen.  Teens are DUMB, they are easily influenced.  Do you know that 15\% of teens have seriously considered suicide?  (www.cdc.gov/YRBS).  The rate of suicide consideration in high school girls is 21-31\%.  Yes, there is a "for the children" mindset, with *good reason*.  As a society we restrict the rights of people  21 y/o, and in return we promise to protect them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , she should n't be charged with anything .
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law , or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes .
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is , do n't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you do n't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet , and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you ca n't take being insulted online then you 're going to have major problems somewhere down the road .
I 've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said , and I 'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority ( which I 'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did ) at around the same age that girl was .
Retribution is n't going to bring anyone back from the dead , and you ca n't base " justice " around how someone reacts to what you do ( particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable ) , only what you actually DO do , because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking , stalking , harassment , something.The fact that you had to end this with " something " shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman , because you 're not sure what crime she actually committed .
This is a common method of how the police work , especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail , but I am personally disgusted with it .
If you 're not sure what crime she actually committed then it 's probably safe to say that whatever she did , even if it was horrible , probably should n't be " a crime " and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger .
In my opinion , if the action is not obviously a crime ( murder , stealing , etc ) and you 're not sure what crime they may have committed ( especially if you 're grabbing at straws like " cyberstalking !
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire " justice " system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the " FOR THE CHILDREN !
" mindset , except it 's more subtle .
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it , too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.Who cares what happened to you in school ?
I know someone who got stabbed in school , does that " make it okay " for people to start stabbing each other then ? It 's a situation not clearly covered by law because the internet allows adults to easily pose as children , not a problem our society has faced previously .
If Lori Drew had dressed up like a 13 y/o boy , she would n't have fooled anyone .
But on the internet she was able to use her adult insight &amp; intellect to deceive and manipulate this kid .
From what many of the folks on here are saying , badly intentioned adults should be allowed to get on the internet , join myspace , buddy up with a few teenagers and manipulate them to do whatever they like .
The possibilities are endless - you could convince them life sucks and they should kill themselves , or maybe go stab their parents , or commit other violent acts.It 's like no one here actually knows what it 's like to be a teen .
Teens are DUMB , they are easily influenced .
Do you know that 15 \ % of teens have seriously considered suicide ?
( www.cdc.gov/YRBS ) . The rate of suicide consideration in high school girls is 21-31 \ % .
Yes , there is a " for the children " mindset , with * good reason * .
As a society we restrict the rights of people 21 y/o , and in return we promise to protect them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, she shouldn't be charged with anything.
Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes.
We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road.
I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was.
Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed.
This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it.
If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger.
In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!
) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!
" mindset, except it's more subtle.
Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too...  The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.Who cares what happened to you in school?
I know someone who got stabbed in school, does that "make it okay" for people to start stabbing each other then?It's a situation not clearly covered by law because the internet allows adults to easily pose as children, not a problem our society has faced previously.
If Lori Drew had dressed up like a 13 y/o boy, she wouldn't have fooled anyone.
But on the internet she was able to use her adult insight &amp; intellect to deceive and manipulate this kid.
From what many of the folks on here are saying, badly intentioned adults should be allowed to get on the internet, join myspace, buddy up with a few teenagers and manipulate them to do whatever they like.
The possibilities are endless - you could convince them life sucks and they should kill themselves, or maybe go stab their parents, or commit other violent acts.It's like no one here actually knows what it's like to be a teen.
Teens are DUMB, they are easily influenced.
Do you know that 15\% of teens have seriously considered suicide?
(www.cdc.gov/YRBS).  The rate of suicide consideration in high school girls is 21-31\%.
Yes, there is a "for the children" mindset, with *good reason*.
As a society we restrict the rights of people  21 y/o, and in return we promise to protect them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565495</id>
	<title>Re:It all worked out out in the end</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1246534440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless she's sociopathic and doesn't care. I haven't followed the case all that closely. Has the scumhag shown any believable remorse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless she 's sociopathic and does n't care .
I have n't followed the case all that closely .
Has the scumhag shown any believable remorse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless she's sociopathic and doesn't care.
I haven't followed the case all that closely.
Has the scumhag shown any believable remorse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28663231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28571959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28569605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28662969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2017217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28663231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567897
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566885
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568811
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28569605
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28566957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565973
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567263
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568611
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570661
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28567099
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28574855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28662969
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28571959
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28570003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28578453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28568543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28563939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2017217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28564477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2017217.28565355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
