<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_1321227</id>
	<title>WikiLeaks' Daniel Schmitt Speaks</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1246888800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:lars.sobiraj@gmx.net" rel="nofollow">Lars Sobiraj</a> submitted an <a href="http://www.gulli.com/news/wikileaks-daniel-schmitt-2009-07-05/">interview with Daniel Schmitt of WikiLeaks</a>.  <i>"He encourages all readers and warns his opponents &mdash; WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better, to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse &mdash; locally and nationally as well as globally. Modern, fast, world-wide technology makes it possible. In the interview, Daniel explains in detail how this will be done, with the help of WikiLeaks and all its supporters."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lars Sobiraj submitted an interview with Daniel Schmitt of WikiLeaks .
" He encourages all readers and warns his opponents    WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better , to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse    locally and nationally as well as globally .
Modern , fast , world-wide technology makes it possible .
In the interview , Daniel explains in detail how this will be done , with the help of WikiLeaks and all its supporters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lars Sobiraj submitted an interview with Daniel Schmitt of WikiLeaks.
"He encourages all readers and warns his opponents — WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better, to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse — locally and nationally as well as globally.
Modern, fast, world-wide technology makes it possible.
In the interview, Daniel explains in detail how this will be done, with the help of WikiLeaks and all its supporters.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28606709</id>
	<title>Re:All readers?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1246975500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeez mods, I was commenting on the bizarre grammar used in the summary (he 'encourages all readers', what the hell is that supposed to mean?) by way of a little Bill Hicks reference. Is that really so hard to understand?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez mods , I was commenting on the bizarre grammar used in the summary ( he 'encourages all readers ' , what the hell is that supposed to mean ?
) by way of a little Bill Hicks reference .
Is that really so hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez mods, I was commenting on the bizarre grammar used in the summary (he 'encourages all readers', what the hell is that supposed to mean?
) by way of a little Bill Hicks reference.
Is that really so hard to understand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596111</id>
	<title>Going To Iraq?  Afghanistan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers, now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds.</p><p>The problem with that is that I've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site, so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too.</p><p>Going to Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places?  Thanks to Wikileaks, you or they might just come back in a box, rather than walking down the concourse of your favorite local airport, because the enemy may now know some places our counter-IED equipment does not operate within the RF spectrum.   Just lovely.</p><p>For publishing so irresponsibly, I would personally like to see these Wikileak perpetrators tried, convicted, and sentenced for murder.  I'd take great pleasure in firing the shot / pulling the trapdoor / throwing the switch / pushing the plunger on whatever method of execution they might have available to them and choose.</p><p>There's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers , now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds.The problem with that is that I 've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site , so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too.Going to Afghanistan ?
Iraq ? Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places ?
Thanks to Wikileaks , you or they might just come back in a box , rather than walking down the concourse of your favorite local airport , because the enemy may now know some places our counter-IED equipment does not operate within the RF spectrum .
Just lovely.For publishing so irresponsibly , I would personally like to see these Wikileak perpetrators tried , convicted , and sentenced for murder .
I 'd take great pleasure in firing the shot / pulling the trapdoor / throwing the switch / pushing the plunger on whatever method of execution they might have available to them and choose.There 's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers, now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds.The problem with that is that I've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site, so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too.Going to Afghanistan?
Iraq?  Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places?
Thanks to Wikileaks, you or they might just come back in a box, rather than walking down the concourse of your favorite local airport, because the enemy may now know some places our counter-IED equipment does not operate within the RF spectrum.
Just lovely.For publishing so irresponsibly, I would personally like to see these Wikileak perpetrators tried, convicted, and sentenced for murder.
I'd take great pleasure in firing the shot / pulling the trapdoor / throwing the switch / pushing the plunger on whatever method of execution they might have available to them and choose.There's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594787</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246896960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Redaction. The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them. Sometimes large sections. What you're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable.</p></div><p>Washington Irving</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Redaction .
The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them .
Sometimes large sections .
What you 're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable.Washington Irving</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Redaction.
The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them.
Sometimes large sections.
What you're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable.Washington Irving
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594845</id>
	<title>Re:Put your money where your mouth is!</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1246897320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta take the bad with the good. As Mr. Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta take the bad with the good .
As Mr. Goldwater said , " Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta take the bad with the good.
As Mr. Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595863</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1246901760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submit to you the "torture" controversy.</p><p>Two groups of documents, the memos describing and authorizing, and the pictures. Both of which a great majority of wikileak supporters would consider more than appropriate for publication.</p><p>Obama has released the memos, to much controversy, but not the pictures, to even more controversy. But then, he is the President, with access to the necessary resources to decide what he believes is in the best interest of the nation. He was elected to make these decisions.</p><p>Wikileaks, on the other hand, is not elected by anyone and is not accountable to anyone. Not even in an economic sense because they don't have "consumers" as such that they rely on to remain open.</p><p>I ask you, should Wikileaks substitute its judgment for the the judgment of a very popular President, with access to all the necessary information to decide what is best for the country and who is arguably very sympathetic to the same constituency that support wikileaks?</p><p>The difference is accountability. If Obama's judgment is incorrect and results in harm, he will most certainly be held accountable at the next election. If Wikileak's judgment is wrong, how will they be accountable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submit to you the " torture " controversy.Two groups of documents , the memos describing and authorizing , and the pictures .
Both of which a great majority of wikileak supporters would consider more than appropriate for publication.Obama has released the memos , to much controversy , but not the pictures , to even more controversy .
But then , he is the President , with access to the necessary resources to decide what he believes is in the best interest of the nation .
He was elected to make these decisions.Wikileaks , on the other hand , is not elected by anyone and is not accountable to anyone .
Not even in an economic sense because they do n't have " consumers " as such that they rely on to remain open.I ask you , should Wikileaks substitute its judgment for the the judgment of a very popular President , with access to all the necessary information to decide what is best for the country and who is arguably very sympathetic to the same constituency that support wikileaks ? The difference is accountability .
If Obama 's judgment is incorrect and results in harm , he will most certainly be held accountable at the next election .
If Wikileak 's judgment is wrong , how will they be accountable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submit to you the "torture" controversy.Two groups of documents, the memos describing and authorizing, and the pictures.
Both of which a great majority of wikileak supporters would consider more than appropriate for publication.Obama has released the memos, to much controversy, but not the pictures, to even more controversy.
But then, he is the President, with access to the necessary resources to decide what he believes is in the best interest of the nation.
He was elected to make these decisions.Wikileaks, on the other hand, is not elected by anyone and is not accountable to anyone.
Not even in an economic sense because they don't have "consumers" as such that they rely on to remain open.I ask you, should Wikileaks substitute its judgment for the the judgment of a very popular President, with access to all the necessary information to decide what is best for the country and who is arguably very sympathetic to the same constituency that support wikileaks?The difference is accountability.
If Obama's judgment is incorrect and results in harm, he will most certainly be held accountable at the next election.
If Wikileak's judgment is wrong, how will they be accountable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594281</id>
	<title>Novas Scarman report</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1246894140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder where the <a href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/UK\_charity\_Novas\_Scarman\_go\_after\_WikiLeaks\_to\_suppress\_corruption\_report\%2C\_6\_Jul\_2009" title="wikileaks.org">Novas Scarman report</a> [wikileaks.org] has gone. If it's run like most of these charity rackets, it'll be one huge gravy train.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder where the Novas Scarman report [ wikileaks.org ] has gone .
If it 's run like most of these charity rackets , it 'll be one huge gravy train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder where the Novas Scarman report [wikileaks.org] has gone.
If it's run like most of these charity rackets, it'll be one huge gravy train.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597089</id>
	<title>"Society better"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does publishing fraternity manuals make society better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does publishing fraternity manuals make society better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does publishing fraternity manuals make society better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597431</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1246908180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government say they did X but the truth is that they instead did Y, if possible it should be exposed that they did Y. Substitute X and Y for anything. Same thing for corporations. Lies are bad, okay? If exposing the lie cause harm then they probably shouldn't had done Y in the first place. If exposing it might teach them to think twice the next time they are about to act against the will of the people, something good has happened. Basically, if they really really NEED to do something unpopular they should go ahead, BUT, they should not lie about it. If they needed it so badly at least they should have strong arguments for it, no? Governments are supposed to serve the people, not themselves or the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government say they did X but the truth is that they instead did Y , if possible it should be exposed that they did Y. Substitute X and Y for anything .
Same thing for corporations .
Lies are bad , okay ?
If exposing the lie cause harm then they probably should n't had done Y in the first place .
If exposing it might teach them to think twice the next time they are about to act against the will of the people , something good has happened .
Basically , if they really really NEED to do something unpopular they should go ahead , BUT , they should not lie about it .
If they needed it so badly at least they should have strong arguments for it , no ?
Governments are supposed to serve the people , not themselves or the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government say they did X but the truth is that they instead did Y, if possible it should be exposed that they did Y. Substitute X and Y for anything.
Same thing for corporations.
Lies are bad, okay?
If exposing the lie cause harm then they probably shouldn't had done Y in the first place.
If exposing it might teach them to think twice the next time they are about to act against the will of the people, something good has happened.
Basically, if they really really NEED to do something unpopular they should go ahead, BUT, they should not lie about it.
If they needed it so badly at least they should have strong arguments for it, no?
Governments are supposed to serve the people, not themselves or the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594127</id>
	<title>Put your money where your mouth is!</title>
	<author>pzs</author>
	<datestamp>1246893180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the Slashdot crowd should need convincing that Wikileaks is a force for good. However, passive support won't be enough for such a contentious organisation, so do what I did and <a href="https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Donate" title="wikileaks.org">show them some love</a> [wikileaks.org].</p><p>(Hmm, I just noticed that PayPal donation is currently down, which is rather awkward...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the Slashdot crowd should need convincing that Wikileaks is a force for good .
However , passive support wo n't be enough for such a contentious organisation , so do what I did and show them some love [ wikileaks.org ] .
( Hmm , I just noticed that PayPal donation is currently down , which is rather awkward... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the Slashdot crowd should need convincing that Wikileaks is a force for good.
However, passive support won't be enough for such a contentious organisation, so do what I did and show them some love [wikileaks.org].
(Hmm, I just noticed that PayPal donation is currently down, which is rather awkward...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594419</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>RebootKid</author>
	<datestamp>1246895040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must disagree.
Your statement that FOIA requests are a good method of getting information out of the US Government falls down in multiple ways.<br>
<br>
1) Duration. I've seen FOIA requests take years to fulfill.<br>
2) Redaction. The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them. Sometimes large sections. What you're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable.<br>
3) Scope. FOIA only works where we're interfacing with the US Government agencies. It does not work with private corporations nor does it work with other nations.
<br> <br>
Much like free speech, Wikileaks should be covered under "freedom of press."
There needs to be some place where this information can be distributed and the person doing the leak is not put at risk. There are too many groups/agencies around the world who solve problems by burning the bodies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must disagree .
Your statement that FOIA requests are a good method of getting information out of the US Government falls down in multiple ways .
1 ) Duration .
I 've seen FOIA requests take years to fulfill .
2 ) Redaction .
The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them .
Sometimes large sections .
What you 're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable .
3 ) Scope .
FOIA only works where we 're interfacing with the US Government agencies .
It does not work with private corporations nor does it work with other nations .
Much like free speech , Wikileaks should be covered under " freedom of press .
" There needs to be some place where this information can be distributed and the person doing the leak is not put at risk .
There are too many groups/agencies around the world who solve problems by burning the bodies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must disagree.
Your statement that FOIA requests are a good method of getting information out of the US Government falls down in multiple ways.
1) Duration.
I've seen FOIA requests take years to fulfill.
2) Redaction.
The FOIA answers often have sections blacked out in them.
Sometimes large sections.
What you're left with is a document that is essentially unreadable.
3) Scope.
FOIA only works where we're interfacing with the US Government agencies.
It does not work with private corporations nor does it work with other nations.
Much like free speech, Wikileaks should be covered under "freedom of press.
"
There needs to be some place where this information can be distributed and the person doing the leak is not put at risk.
There are too many groups/agencies around the world who solve problems by burning the bodies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595635</id>
	<title>potential diplomatic damage</title>
	<author>Teferison</author>
	<datestamp>1246900980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or <em>potential diplomatic damage</em></p> </div><p>Would you prefer that none learns of human rights abuses, executions or torture and therefore everyone believes your country is "good", or that the world knows and your country is forces to become "better" in order to improve its public image?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage Would you prefer that none learns of human rights abuses , executions or torture and therefore everyone believes your country is " good " , or that the world knows and your country is forces to become " better " in order to improve its public image ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage Would you prefer that none learns of human rights abuses, executions or torture and therefore everyone believes your country is "good", or that the world knows and your country is forces to become "better" in order to improve its public image?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594491</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1246895400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner?"<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX\_gas#Synthesis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX\_gas#Synthesis</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>

Seriously, why are people so paranoid about the formula for these things?  Most nerve gases are very similar to industrial pesticides (in fact, VX gas was originally intended to be a pesticide), and if we kept the knowledge of how to synthesize nerve agents top secret then we could not educate chemists or chemical engineers.<br> <br>

The fact of the matter is that in a free society, information should flow freely.  Wikileaks is not posting the personal information of the average citizen, they are posting information about the misconduct of governments, government officials, and corporations -- information which the average citizen has a right to know.  There is a huge difference between a defense contractor conspiring with a national government to start a war and some guy who is having an affair with his neighbor's wife.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner ?
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX \ _gas # Synthesis [ wikipedia.org ] Seriously , why are people so paranoid about the formula for these things ?
Most nerve gases are very similar to industrial pesticides ( in fact , VX gas was originally intended to be a pesticide ) , and if we kept the knowledge of how to synthesize nerve agents top secret then we could not educate chemists or chemical engineers .
The fact of the matter is that in a free society , information should flow freely .
Wikileaks is not posting the personal information of the average citizen , they are posting information about the misconduct of governments , government officials , and corporations -- information which the average citizen has a right to know .
There is a huge difference between a defense contractor conspiring with a national government to start a war and some guy who is having an affair with his neighbor 's wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner?
" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX\_gas#Synthesis [wikipedia.org]  

Seriously, why are people so paranoid about the formula for these things?
Most nerve gases are very similar to industrial pesticides (in fact, VX gas was originally intended to be a pesticide), and if we kept the knowledge of how to synthesize nerve agents top secret then we could not educate chemists or chemical engineers.
The fact of the matter is that in a free society, information should flow freely.
Wikileaks is not posting the personal information of the average citizen, they are posting information about the misconduct of governments, government officials, and corporations -- information which the average citizen has a right to know.
There is a huge difference between a defense contractor conspiring with a national government to start a war and some guy who is having an affair with his neighbor's wife.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598713</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246913760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I simply don't understand your thinking.  I've not yet heard of Wikileaks installing malware on computers, or harvesting personal data for whatever nefarious reasons.  But, you compare them to such people.</p><p>Wikileaks is just about the ultimate whistleblower.  Perhaps you believe that fraud is a protected activity of elected officials?  As well as people appointed by those elected officials?  How about large corporations?  Government itself, whether elected or not?</p><p>The fine people at Wikileaks may be chasing wild geese from time to time, and putting out info that really doesn't do a lot of good, but overall, they seem to be pretty accurate.</p><p>Please, point to information that they have leaked which does real harm to society.  Please, explain how the Wikileak people are preying on me, or on you.  Have you spent any time exploring the material they deal with?  Does NONE of it qualify as "good info", in your eyes?</p><p>As for Jimmy Wale's personal data - I guess if you can find it, you can publish it.  If a man in his position is dumb enough to have published his SSN, driver's license, and other information then he can suffer the consequences.  Have fun with that, though.</p><p>IMHO, Wales and company are doing the world a service.  It is good to get information out, in most cases.  Those who are most embarrassed by leaked information are usually doing something wrong.  Not always, but usually.</p><p>Show us some real harm done by Wikileaks, and my opinion my change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply do n't understand your thinking .
I 've not yet heard of Wikileaks installing malware on computers , or harvesting personal data for whatever nefarious reasons .
But , you compare them to such people.Wikileaks is just about the ultimate whistleblower .
Perhaps you believe that fraud is a protected activity of elected officials ?
As well as people appointed by those elected officials ?
How about large corporations ?
Government itself , whether elected or not ? The fine people at Wikileaks may be chasing wild geese from time to time , and putting out info that really does n't do a lot of good , but overall , they seem to be pretty accurate.Please , point to information that they have leaked which does real harm to society .
Please , explain how the Wikileak people are preying on me , or on you .
Have you spent any time exploring the material they deal with ?
Does NONE of it qualify as " good info " , in your eyes ? As for Jimmy Wale 's personal data - I guess if you can find it , you can publish it .
If a man in his position is dumb enough to have published his SSN , driver 's license , and other information then he can suffer the consequences .
Have fun with that , though.IMHO , Wales and company are doing the world a service .
It is good to get information out , in most cases .
Those who are most embarrassed by leaked information are usually doing something wrong .
Not always , but usually.Show us some real harm done by Wikileaks , and my opinion my change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply don't understand your thinking.
I've not yet heard of Wikileaks installing malware on computers, or harvesting personal data for whatever nefarious reasons.
But, you compare them to such people.Wikileaks is just about the ultimate whistleblower.
Perhaps you believe that fraud is a protected activity of elected officials?
As well as people appointed by those elected officials?
How about large corporations?
Government itself, whether elected or not?The fine people at Wikileaks may be chasing wild geese from time to time, and putting out info that really doesn't do a lot of good, but overall, they seem to be pretty accurate.Please, point to information that they have leaked which does real harm to society.
Please, explain how the Wikileak people are preying on me, or on you.
Have you spent any time exploring the material they deal with?
Does NONE of it qualify as "good info", in your eyes?As for Jimmy Wale's personal data - I guess if you can find it, you can publish it.
If a man in his position is dumb enough to have published his SSN, driver's license, and other information then he can suffer the consequences.
Have fun with that, though.IMHO, Wales and company are doing the world a service.
It is good to get information out, in most cases.
Those who are most embarrassed by leaked information are usually doing something wrong.
Not always, but usually.Show us some real harm done by Wikileaks, and my opinion my change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603345</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246896240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather people unfortunately died because of leaked information rather than people die because information didn't leak.

I think the latter case is much more likely to produce a tragedy than the former.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather people unfortunately died because of leaked information rather than people die because information did n't leak .
I think the latter case is much more likely to produce a tragedy than the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather people unfortunately died because of leaked information rather than people die because information didn't leak.
I think the latter case is much more likely to produce a tragedy than the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594357</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246894620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you have trouble with some particular action on wikileaks' part, or do you borrow your attitude toward secrecy from la cosa nostra?<br> <br>

When people and organizations are in positions of power and public trust, secrecy is, as often as not, a means of breaking trust. Wikileaks has had a valuable role in exposing some of these instances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have trouble with some particular action on wikileaks ' part , or do you borrow your attitude toward secrecy from la cosa nostra ?
When people and organizations are in positions of power and public trust , secrecy is , as often as not , a means of breaking trust .
Wikileaks has had a valuable role in exposing some of these instances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have trouble with some particular action on wikileaks' part, or do you borrow your attitude toward secrecy from la cosa nostra?
When people and organizations are in positions of power and public trust, secrecy is, as often as not, a means of breaking trust.
Wikileaks has had a valuable role in exposing some of these instances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598575</id>
	<title>The problem with glittering generalities is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These phrases "national security" and "national interest," they do not mean what you think they mean (with apologies to Senor Montoya).</p><p> With a little (or better yet a lot) of research (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon\_Papers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Pentagon Papers</a> [wikipedia.org], or more recently cell phone reception studies and the new counterfeiting treaty), you'll find national security|interests are typically actions the government takes to help  (frequently redacted) large corporation(s) at the expense of some country's public (including the U.S.; see also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback\_(intelligence)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">blowback</a> [wikipedia.org]). Rarely, if the records are any indication, is it used to protect the innocent.</p><p>Wikileaks is but one place for individuals to research what their governments <i>are</i> doing, rather than what the governments <i>say</i> they are doing. Form your own opinion though, don't just trust what I'm saying. Do some original research, but likewise don't just regurgitate corporate media phrases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These phrases " national security " and " national interest , " they do not mean what you think they mean ( with apologies to Senor Montoya ) .
With a little ( or better yet a lot ) of research ( e.g .
Pentagon Papers [ wikipedia.org ] , or more recently cell phone reception studies and the new counterfeiting treaty ) , you 'll find national security | interests are typically actions the government takes to help ( frequently redacted ) large corporation ( s ) at the expense of some country 's public ( including the U.S. ; see also blowback [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Rarely , if the records are any indication , is it used to protect the innocent.Wikileaks is but one place for individuals to research what their governments are doing , rather than what the governments say they are doing .
Form your own opinion though , do n't just trust what I 'm saying .
Do some original research , but likewise do n't just regurgitate corporate media phrases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These phrases "national security" and "national interest," they do not mean what you think they mean (with apologies to Senor Montoya).
With a little (or better yet a lot) of research (e.g.
Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org], or more recently cell phone reception studies and the new counterfeiting treaty), you'll find national security|interests are typically actions the government takes to help  (frequently redacted) large corporation(s) at the expense of some country's public (including the U.S.; see also blowback [wikipedia.org]).
Rarely, if the records are any indication, is it used to protect the innocent.Wikileaks is but one place for individuals to research what their governments are doing, rather than what the governments say they are doing.
Form your own opinion though, don't just trust what I'm saying.
Do some original research, but likewise don't just regurgitate corporate media phrases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594453</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>pzs</author>
	<datestamp>1246895220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is one of trust. These days, I don't trust my government (UK) enough to let them make decisions about what I don't get to see. If they wanted to keep this trust, all they had to do was not oppose the release of their expenses quite so vigorously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is one of trust .
These days , I do n't trust my government ( UK ) enough to let them make decisions about what I do n't get to see .
If they wanted to keep this trust , all they had to do was not oppose the release of their expenses quite so vigorously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is one of trust.
These days, I don't trust my government (UK) enough to let them make decisions about what I don't get to see.
If they wanted to keep this trust, all they had to do was not oppose the release of their expenses quite so vigorously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595319</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>Elrac</author>
	<datestamp>1246899300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>onyxruby, I get the impression you don't understand what Wikileaks is about, and are setting up an army of straw men to wage war on.</p><p>wikileaks are no more parasites of the technology world than any other site on the Internet. Rather, they serve a useful function: It is not the purpose of wikileaks to expose the personal information of "normal" individuals, nor stuff like credit card data. They release information, where it becomes known, of wrongdoings of corporate and/or government institutions and/or employees/agents, the disclosure of which is in the public interest because these wrongdoings would otherwise remain secret and cause damage to individuals or society. wikileaks is essentially a safe outlet for whistleblowers.</p><p>Reading the rest of your post, it looks to me like "I fail to see" is the overall theme. I feel you should have at least tried to inform yourself before starting to rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>onyxruby , I get the impression you do n't understand what Wikileaks is about , and are setting up an army of straw men to wage war on.wikileaks are no more parasites of the technology world than any other site on the Internet .
Rather , they serve a useful function : It is not the purpose of wikileaks to expose the personal information of " normal " individuals , nor stuff like credit card data .
They release information , where it becomes known , of wrongdoings of corporate and/or government institutions and/or employees/agents , the disclosure of which is in the public interest because these wrongdoings would otherwise remain secret and cause damage to individuals or society .
wikileaks is essentially a safe outlet for whistleblowers.Reading the rest of your post , it looks to me like " I fail to see " is the overall theme .
I feel you should have at least tried to inform yourself before starting to rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>onyxruby, I get the impression you don't understand what Wikileaks is about, and are setting up an army of straw men to wage war on.wikileaks are no more parasites of the technology world than any other site on the Internet.
Rather, they serve a useful function: It is not the purpose of wikileaks to expose the personal information of "normal" individuals, nor stuff like credit card data.
They release information, where it becomes known, of wrongdoings of corporate and/or government institutions and/or employees/agents, the disclosure of which is in the public interest because these wrongdoings would otherwise remain secret and cause damage to individuals or society.
wikileaks is essentially a safe outlet for whistleblowers.Reading the rest of your post, it looks to me like "I fail to see" is the overall theme.
I feel you should have at least tried to inform yourself before starting to rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595859</id>
	<title>Re:Fear the power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>feminist groups don't give a fuck about the oppression of muslim women. It's just a "Muslim women are oppressed therefore we are also oppressed by association therefore the government should give us more money" tactic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>feminist groups do n't give a fuck about the oppression of muslim women .
It 's just a " Muslim women are oppressed therefore we are also oppressed by association therefore the government should give us more money " tactic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>feminist groups don't give a fuck about the oppression of muslim women.
It's just a "Muslim women are oppressed therefore we are also oppressed by association therefore the government should give us more money" tactic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594569</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246895760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is we're not funding him with our tax money. We fund wikileaks with money, so I expect transparency. As another poster has mentioned, wikileaks financials have been leaked - and they weren't removed. When people are paying for a public organization, they have a right to know where their money is going and what the actions of that organization are. Further, knowledge that information will be brought to light will hopefully end a lot of clandestine things that go on outside of public view. Things like the Contra scandal and General Oliver North's secret wars. US imperialism in Panama and the Philippines. The US's habit of gaining funding from "unsubsidized government revenue streams." When governments are allowed to use dirty business and treat the rest of the world like shit with no accountability, that tends to backfire. Then who gets blown up when a terrorist bomb goes off in retaliation from whoever we've pissed off? 99\% of the time, its not government officials - its civilians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is we 're not funding him with our tax money .
We fund wikileaks with money , so I expect transparency .
As another poster has mentioned , wikileaks financials have been leaked - and they were n't removed .
When people are paying for a public organization , they have a right to know where their money is going and what the actions of that organization are .
Further , knowledge that information will be brought to light will hopefully end a lot of clandestine things that go on outside of public view .
Things like the Contra scandal and General Oliver North 's secret wars .
US imperialism in Panama and the Philippines .
The US 's habit of gaining funding from " unsubsidized government revenue streams .
" When governments are allowed to use dirty business and treat the rest of the world like shit with no accountability , that tends to backfire .
Then who gets blown up when a terrorist bomb goes off in retaliation from whoever we 've pissed off ?
99 \ % of the time , its not government officials - its civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is we're not funding him with our tax money.
We fund wikileaks with money, so I expect transparency.
As another poster has mentioned, wikileaks financials have been leaked - and they weren't removed.
When people are paying for a public organization, they have a right to know where their money is going and what the actions of that organization are.
Further, knowledge that information will be brought to light will hopefully end a lot of clandestine things that go on outside of public view.
Things like the Contra scandal and General Oliver North's secret wars.
US imperialism in Panama and the Philippines.
The US's habit of gaining funding from "unsubsidized government revenue streams.
" When governments are allowed to use dirty business and treat the rest of the world like shit with no accountability, that tends to backfire.
Then who gets blown up when a terrorist bomb goes off in retaliation from whoever we've pissed off?
99\% of the time, its not government officials - its civilians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597867</id>
	<title>Re:Fear the power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246909740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is!  He is the Messiah!</p><p>No I'm not!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is !
He is the Messiah ! No I 'm not !
...Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is!
He is the Messiah!No I'm not!
...Only the Messiah would deny his true divinity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</id>
	<title>The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public. By and large, this works, despite some well publicized  failures. Legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act, etc. has proved to be a means to uncover unsavory facts that would see the light of day despite the wishes of unsavory politicians. All of this takes place in the well defined arena of law and politics.</p><p>Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets. They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes. They <i>can't</i> know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.</p><p>So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system, made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals, with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind. The cranks <i>may</i> be right sometimes, but I think more often that not they will be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public .
By and large , this works , despite some well publicized failures .
Legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act , etc .
has proved to be a means to uncover unsavory facts that would see the light of day despite the wishes of unsavory politicians .
All of this takes place in the well defined arena of law and politics.Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves ( the collective leakers ) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets .
They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that , while the leaker may think is justified and deserved , is more damaging to the U.S. ( or other country subject to a wikileak ) than the leaker realizes .
They ca n't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system , made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals , with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind .
The cranks may be right sometimes , but I think more often that not they will be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public.
By and large, this works, despite some well publicized  failures.
Legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act, etc.
has proved to be a means to uncover unsavory facts that would see the light of day despite the wishes of unsavory politicians.
All of this takes place in the well defined arena of law and politics.Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets.
They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes.
They can't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system, made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals, with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind.
The cranks may be right sometimes, but I think more often that not they will be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594157</id>
	<title>Re:Got to love the fact....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gulli.com is a known hacking/warez site.  Back in the day they were one of the places you could reliably get programs like Serialz 2000. They also have rootkits and other malware available for download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gulli.com is a known hacking/warez site .
Back in the day they were one of the places you could reliably get programs like Serialz 2000 .
They also have rootkits and other malware available for download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gulli.com is a known hacking/warez site.
Back in the day they were one of the places you could reliably get programs like Serialz 2000.
They also have rootkits and other malware available for download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594903</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1246897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right to be skeptical. That's healthy. However, there is a greater good than one's career or chosen job field. That is where sites like Wikileaks are great -- as long as they are functioning effectively.<br> <br>

It seems very unfair however, to mention Jimmy Wales and Schmitt in the same breath. As these are two very different types of people. Jimmy Wales' interesting and dubious background (and present for that matter), and many failings, have been well covered here, and on many other sites. Schmitt isn't that bad in comparison.<br> <br>

Whenever someone stick their head over the parapet they can expect exposure. This is a good thing. We should know who is providing us with information, and why. And still be skeptical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right to be skeptical .
That 's healthy .
However , there is a greater good than one 's career or chosen job field .
That is where sites like Wikileaks are great -- as long as they are functioning effectively .
It seems very unfair however , to mention Jimmy Wales and Schmitt in the same breath .
As these are two very different types of people .
Jimmy Wales ' interesting and dubious background ( and present for that matter ) , and many failings , have been well covered here , and on many other sites .
Schmitt is n't that bad in comparison .
Whenever someone stick their head over the parapet they can expect exposure .
This is a good thing .
We should know who is providing us with information , and why .
And still be skeptical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right to be skeptical.
That's healthy.
However, there is a greater good than one's career or chosen job field.
That is where sites like Wikileaks are great -- as long as they are functioning effectively.
It seems very unfair however, to mention Jimmy Wales and Schmitt in the same breath.
As these are two very different types of people.
Jimmy Wales' interesting and dubious background (and present for that matter), and many failings, have been well covered here, and on many other sites.
Schmitt isn't that bad in comparison.
Whenever someone stick their head over the parapet they can expect exposure.
This is a good thing.
We should know who is providing us with information, and why.
And still be skeptical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595337</id>
	<title>Re:Twatter again</title>
	<author>FrostDust</author>
	<datestamp>1246899480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly, when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information?</p></div><p>You should realize that Twitter is both- more specifically, you can see it as an index of RSS feeds.</p><p>That's kinda like being puzzled that Myspace became more popular than Geocities. The latter has more freedom in what you can display, and how you can display it, but Myspace makes it easier for the average person to find their friends and all that other Web 2.0 goodness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information ? You should realize that Twitter is both- more specifically , you can see it as an index of RSS feeds.That 's kinda like being puzzled that Myspace became more popular than Geocities .
The latter has more freedom in what you can display , and how you can display it , but Myspace makes it easier for the average person to find their friends and all that other Web 2.0 goodness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information?You should realize that Twitter is both- more specifically, you can see it as an index of RSS feeds.That's kinda like being puzzled that Myspace became more popular than Geocities.
The latter has more freedom in what you can display, and how you can display it, but Myspace makes it easier for the average person to find their friends and all that other Web 2.0 goodness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594475</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1246895340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really think that's what wikileaks is about.  It's to provide a safe avenue for the release of sensitive information.  Information you might get in trouble for posing.  It's an avenue for free speech.  A way to show government and corporate corruption, bring light to things that people would often be too afraid to speak of.  I don't disagree that it certainly can be misused, but I think you're missing the idea of free information, and just preaching the idea of security by obscurity (if they don't know how to build a bomb...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think that 's what wikileaks is about .
It 's to provide a safe avenue for the release of sensitive information .
Information you might get in trouble for posing .
It 's an avenue for free speech .
A way to show government and corporate corruption , bring light to things that people would often be too afraid to speak of .
I do n't disagree that it certainly can be misused , but I think you 're missing the idea of free information , and just preaching the idea of security by obscurity ( if they do n't know how to build a bomb... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think that's what wikileaks is about.
It's to provide a safe avenue for the release of sensitive information.
Information you might get in trouble for posing.
It's an avenue for free speech.
A way to show government and corporate corruption, bring light to things that people would often be too afraid to speak of.
I don't disagree that it certainly can be misused, but I think you're missing the idea of free information, and just preaching the idea of security by obscurity (if they don't know how to build a bomb...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603841</id>
	<title>Re:Going To Iraq? Afghanistan?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1246900080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe the parent deserves modding up but the Troll mod is unfair. The post is a little too jingoistic but he unintentionally reminds us that "war is not nice" (Quote Barbara Bush) and that people die in war.<blockquote><div><p>Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers, now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is due entirely to the US government (amongst others, I wont argue about who is the worst, almost all western governments have earned our suspicions) actually lying and being caught out. People have no reason to trust that secrets are being made for their beinift. This is a hole the US govt dug for itself, if they want trust back then they have to earn it.</p><blockquote><div><p>The problem with that is that I've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site, so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Military secrets act in the UK and Australia specifies that military secrets can be revealed after 50 years. The problem here is that the plans were leaked out of a secure facility, the fact wikileaks is publishing them is not an issue. Censoring wikileaks or the entire US population will not stop the fact that the plans were leaked/reverse engineered/fabricated in the first place.</p><blockquote><div><p>Going to Afghanistan? Iraq? Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places? Thanks to Wikileaks, you or they might just come back in a box,</p></div></blockquote><p>

When people die in war it is traditional and still prudent to blame the leader. For ultimately the responsibility is there. The US has been appointing political leaders to run the military so the blame lies there. Once again, if the information is available to Wikileaks it will be available to someone else. Wikileaks is the transmission medium not the source.</p><blockquote><div><p>There's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Ask that of the ones who sent them to war in the first place, and more importantly of those who were to scared/gutless to speak out against the war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe the parent deserves modding up but the Troll mod is unfair .
The post is a little too jingoistic but he unintentionally reminds us that " war is not nice " ( Quote Barbara Bush ) and that people die in war.Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers , now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds .
This is due entirely to the US government ( amongst others , I wont argue about who is the worst , almost all western governments have earned our suspicions ) actually lying and being caught out .
People have no reason to trust that secrets are being made for their beinift .
This is a hole the US govt dug for itself , if they want trust back then they have to earn it.The problem with that is that I 've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site , so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too .
Military secrets act in the UK and Australia specifies that military secrets can be revealed after 50 years .
The problem here is that the plans were leaked out of a secure facility , the fact wikileaks is publishing them is not an issue .
Censoring wikileaks or the entire US population will not stop the fact that the plans were leaked/reverse engineered/fabricated in the first place.Going to Afghanistan ?
Iraq ? Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places ?
Thanks to Wikileaks , you or they might just come back in a box , When people die in war it is traditional and still prudent to blame the leader .
For ultimately the responsibility is there .
The US has been appointing political leaders to run the military so the blame lies there .
Once again , if the information is available to Wikileaks it will be available to someone else .
Wikileaks is the transmission medium not the source.There 's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none . Ask that of the ones who sent them to war in the first place , and more importantly of those who were to scared/gutless to speak out against the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe the parent deserves modding up but the Troll mod is unfair.
The post is a little too jingoistic but he unintentionally reminds us that "war is not nice" (Quote Barbara Bush) and that people die in war.Since Danial Ellsburg did the country a favor and released the Pentagon Papers, now everybody thinks that EVERY secret is just the government trying to cover its misdeeds.
This is due entirely to the US government (amongst others, I wont argue about who is the worst, almost all western governments have earned our suspicions) actually lying and being caught out.
People have no reason to trust that secrets are being made for their beinift.
This is a hole the US govt dug for itself, if they want trust back then they have to earn it.The problem with that is that I've seen secret tech docs on hardware in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan show up on this Wikileaks site, so therefore the enemy undoubtedly has too.
Military secrets act in the UK and Australia specifies that military secrets can be revealed after 50 years.
The problem here is that the plans were leaked out of a secure facility, the fact wikileaks is publishing them is not an issue.
Censoring wikileaks or the entire US population will not stop the fact that the plans were leaked/reverse engineered/fabricated in the first place.Going to Afghanistan?
Iraq? Have a Father / Mother / Son / Daughter / Sister / Brother / Friend in one of those places?
Thanks to Wikileaks, you or they might just come back in a box,

When people die in war it is traditional and still prudent to blame the leader.
For ultimately the responsibility is there.
The US has been appointing political leaders to run the military so the blame lies there.
Once again, if the information is available to Wikileaks it will be available to someone else.
Wikileaks is the transmission medium not the source.There's just no excuse for endangering the troops... none.

Ask that of the ones who sent them to war in the first place, and more importantly of those who were to scared/gutless to speak out against the war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</id>
	<title>Fear the power</title>
	<author>Beetle B.</author>
	<datestamp>1246895820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I'm sure this posting will be flooded with a lot of love for Wikileaks, I feel I have to try to post possible negatives.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We must never forget this. We have the means to make our society better, to form a world in which there is a strong and united opposition against abuse. Locally, nationally, globally.</p></div><p>One problem I've often seen in the past with regards to <i>certain</i> activist groups is their unintentional imposition of values on the people they claim to support. A very common example in places like Europe and occasionally Canada is feminist groups speaking on behalf of oppressed Muslim women who have to wear certain kinds of clothing. Some of these women <i>are</i> oppressed, but usually the solution those groups present is as undesirable to them as is the original problem. Additionally, most of the Muslim women seriously dispute the notion that they are oppressed, only to be dismissively told that they don't see it because they're not yet free. In other words, the activist groups have this attitude of "We know what's right and the rest of the world is wrong." If any of you have spent a lot of times with activists, I think you'll find this is a trap often fallen into.</p><p>I've seen similar issues with some human rights organizations, labor oriented organizations, etc. They often fail to realize that while a problem may exist, the solution in their own society may be a poor solution in other societies.</p><p>The real question is: Can Wikileaks avoid such a path? Or will they ultimately take on certain philosophies with the belief that they hold for all humanity, while possibly having little experience with most of the world's major cultures. So far they seem to have done well, but I suspect that this is something they'll need to actively guard against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 'm sure this posting will be flooded with a lot of love for Wikileaks , I feel I have to try to post possible negatives.We must never forget this .
We have the means to make our society better , to form a world in which there is a strong and united opposition against abuse .
Locally , nationally , globally.One problem I 've often seen in the past with regards to certain activist groups is their unintentional imposition of values on the people they claim to support .
A very common example in places like Europe and occasionally Canada is feminist groups speaking on behalf of oppressed Muslim women who have to wear certain kinds of clothing .
Some of these women are oppressed , but usually the solution those groups present is as undesirable to them as is the original problem .
Additionally , most of the Muslim women seriously dispute the notion that they are oppressed , only to be dismissively told that they do n't see it because they 're not yet free .
In other words , the activist groups have this attitude of " We know what 's right and the rest of the world is wrong .
" If any of you have spent a lot of times with activists , I think you 'll find this is a trap often fallen into.I 've seen similar issues with some human rights organizations , labor oriented organizations , etc .
They often fail to realize that while a problem may exist , the solution in their own society may be a poor solution in other societies.The real question is : Can Wikileaks avoid such a path ?
Or will they ultimately take on certain philosophies with the belief that they hold for all humanity , while possibly having little experience with most of the world 's major cultures .
So far they seem to have done well , but I suspect that this is something they 'll need to actively guard against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I'm sure this posting will be flooded with a lot of love for Wikileaks, I feel I have to try to post possible negatives.We must never forget this.
We have the means to make our society better, to form a world in which there is a strong and united opposition against abuse.
Locally, nationally, globally.One problem I've often seen in the past with regards to certain activist groups is their unintentional imposition of values on the people they claim to support.
A very common example in places like Europe and occasionally Canada is feminist groups speaking on behalf of oppressed Muslim women who have to wear certain kinds of clothing.
Some of these women are oppressed, but usually the solution those groups present is as undesirable to them as is the original problem.
Additionally, most of the Muslim women seriously dispute the notion that they are oppressed, only to be dismissively told that they don't see it because they're not yet free.
In other words, the activist groups have this attitude of "We know what's right and the rest of the world is wrong.
" If any of you have spent a lot of times with activists, I think you'll find this is a trap often fallen into.I've seen similar issues with some human rights organizations, labor oriented organizations, etc.
They often fail to realize that while a problem may exist, the solution in their own society may be a poor solution in other societies.The real question is: Can Wikileaks avoid such a path?
Or will they ultimately take on certain philosophies with the belief that they hold for all humanity, while possibly having little experience with most of the world's major cultures.
So far they seem to have done well, but I suspect that this is something they'll need to actively guard against.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595005</id>
	<title>Re:Fear the power</title>
	<author>malignant\_minded</author>
	<datestamp>1246898040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about this really being troll.  This seemed like it was a well constructed argument.  It even has a touch of constructive critisism for wikileaks.  It may not be an opinion you like or one that is even right but I don't think everyone should have to go with the status quo or be tagged a troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about this really being troll .
This seemed like it was a well constructed argument .
It even has a touch of constructive critisism for wikileaks .
It may not be an opinion you like or one that is even right but I do n't think everyone should have to go with the status quo or be tagged a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about this really being troll.
This seemed like it was a well constructed argument.
It even has a touch of constructive critisism for wikileaks.
It may not be an opinion you like or one that is even right but I don't think everyone should have to go with the status quo or be tagged a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594731</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1246896660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, "national interest" is also defined that way: a bunch of powerful guys at the top of the hierarchy who disseminate information at their own discretion. Sometimes, they don't deserve to be trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , " national interest " is also defined that way : a bunch of powerful guys at the top of the hierarchy who disseminate information at their own discretion .
Sometimes , they do n't deserve to be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, "national interest" is also defined that way: a bunch of powerful guys at the top of the hierarchy who disseminate information at their own discretion.
Sometimes, they don't deserve to be trusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595271</id>
	<title>Re:Truth is ALWAYS better</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1246899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But lets be honest. How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?</p></div><p>That depends entirely on which "eyes" you want to look through, does it not?</p><p>Frankly, I'm not interested in a world popularity contest.  I don't really care if Iran thinks the U.S. is a great nation.  Frankly, it won't think the U.S. is a great nation as long as it thinks the entire world should be under Islamic rule.  Just an example.</p><p>My question is this: how many nations in the world do you think actually want the U.S. to be successful, as opposed to wanting <i>their own</i> country to assume the prominence that the U.S. has enjoyed for a while now?  Do you think Britain thought highly of the U.S. in the late 1700s/early 1800s?  Do you think most of the world thought highly of the U.S. during World War I/World War II?</p><p>If the point of politics is to "look good" to other countries, then politics is severely messed up.  If the point, on the other hand, is to do what our country/people think is <i>right</i> to do, then we have a point for discussion.  Otherwise, we're just a puppet in a grand popularity contest.  And when push comes to shove, when North Korea or some other country decides it wants to rule the world. the Popularity Contest is going to seem pretty silly in comparison to the "Uh, guys, we need to deal with this country forcefully before they decide to blow us all up in because we don't match their ideology."  That's kinda what happened in the World Wars.  Germany had an ideological difference.  They wanted to rule the world with it (it's happened a few times in history...).  If we only had "popular" countries (say... countries that decided to disarm...), I'm pretty sure we'd all be speaking German right now.  Except for non-Aryan races, who wouldn't exist.</p><p>And I'm not going to ask pardon for saying that the human race is capable of doing such awful things in the 21st century.  We're quite capable of making some pretty stupid decisions and believing some insanely stupid things.  And, IMO, it's insanely stupid to think that if the U.S. were just more popular with the worlds' countries, those countries would like the U.S. better.  <i>Nobody</i>, especially those greedy for power, like a powerful country that is able to "threaten" a country.  Unfortunately for humanity, it looks like that power is always going to exist; the question is, who has it and what beliefs do they hold to.  Some countries are a lot less freedom-loving than others.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.</p></div><p>Let's start with talking about the truth about human nature.  Human nature is greedy, power-hungry, and wants to rule.  Let's not forget that there are countries and people groups out there that pretty much would rather everyone believed (externally) the way they do or die.  I'm not using words like "terrorist" or "muslim," because I'm not talking about any specific group.  I'm saying that this is human nature, and has been for all of recorded human history.  There's a reason you had really powerful nations in history like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, etc... Germany, Russia, U.S., Korea, Iran... they all have different ideologies, but most countries like to be in control.</p><p>So, here is what I think the question really is... now that we have technology that can allow a very small country to threaten the world ("do this or we blow all of you up"), it becomes very important to be able to do more than talk to them or issue warnings/resolutions at them.  It's the same as a playground bully.  You don't "defeat" the bully by talking to him, making him see the error in his ways and hoping he joins you for a piece of cake and some tea.  Bullies won't back down as long as they think they can bully their way out of it.  Something has to make them realize this.  The question is: who is the one that gets to have the power to stop the bullies, or should we just talk to the bullies and hope they acquiesce?  I'll put it this way.  Hitler wasn't interested in talking.  He was interested in ruling.  To stop him, talking wasn't cutting it.</p><p>The next time a Hitler (or insert your favorite ruthless dictator with extreme ideologies) comes up and gets his hands on power, whatever that power comes through, who or what is going to stop him.</p><p>Popularity won't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But lets be honest .
How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world ? That depends entirely on which " eyes " you want to look through , does it not ? Frankly , I 'm not interested in a world popularity contest .
I do n't really care if Iran thinks the U.S. is a great nation .
Frankly , it wo n't think the U.S. is a great nation as long as it thinks the entire world should be under Islamic rule .
Just an example.My question is this : how many nations in the world do you think actually want the U.S. to be successful , as opposed to wanting their own country to assume the prominence that the U.S. has enjoyed for a while now ?
Do you think Britain thought highly of the U.S. in the late 1700s/early 1800s ?
Do you think most of the world thought highly of the U.S. during World War I/World War II ? If the point of politics is to " look good " to other countries , then politics is severely messed up .
If the point , on the other hand , is to do what our country/people think is right to do , then we have a point for discussion .
Otherwise , we 're just a puppet in a grand popularity contest .
And when push comes to shove , when North Korea or some other country decides it wants to rule the world .
the Popularity Contest is going to seem pretty silly in comparison to the " Uh , guys , we need to deal with this country forcefully before they decide to blow us all up in because we do n't match their ideology .
" That 's kinda what happened in the World Wars .
Germany had an ideological difference .
They wanted to rule the world with it ( it 's happened a few times in history... ) .
If we only had " popular " countries ( say... countries that decided to disarm... ) , I 'm pretty sure we 'd all be speaking German right now .
Except for non-Aryan races , who would n't exist.And I 'm not going to ask pardon for saying that the human race is capable of doing such awful things in the 21st century .
We 're quite capable of making some pretty stupid decisions and believing some insanely stupid things .
And , IMO , it 's insanely stupid to think that if the U.S. were just more popular with the worlds ' countries , those countries would like the U.S. better. Nobody , especially those greedy for power , like a powerful country that is able to " threaten " a country .
Unfortunately for humanity , it looks like that power is always going to exist ; the question is , who has it and what beliefs do they hold to .
Some countries are a lot less freedom-loving than others.But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.Let 's start with talking about the truth about human nature .
Human nature is greedy , power-hungry , and wants to rule .
Let 's not forget that there are countries and people groups out there that pretty much would rather everyone believed ( externally ) the way they do or die .
I 'm not using words like " terrorist " or " muslim , " because I 'm not talking about any specific group .
I 'm saying that this is human nature , and has been for all of recorded human history .
There 's a reason you had really powerful nations in history like Egypt , Greece , Rome , Assyria , etc... Germany , Russia , U.S. , Korea , Iran... they all have different ideologies , but most countries like to be in control.So , here is what I think the question really is... now that we have technology that can allow a very small country to threaten the world ( " do this or we blow all of you up " ) , it becomes very important to be able to do more than talk to them or issue warnings/resolutions at them .
It 's the same as a playground bully .
You do n't " defeat " the bully by talking to him , making him see the error in his ways and hoping he joins you for a piece of cake and some tea .
Bullies wo n't back down as long as they think they can bully their way out of it .
Something has to make them realize this .
The question is : who is the one that gets to have the power to stop the bullies , or should we just talk to the bullies and hope they acquiesce ?
I 'll put it this way .
Hitler was n't interested in talking .
He was interested in ruling .
To stop him , talking was n't cutting it.The next time a Hitler ( or insert your favorite ruthless dictator with extreme ideologies ) comes up and gets his hands on power , whatever that power comes through , who or what is going to stop him.Popularity wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But lets be honest.
How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?That depends entirely on which "eyes" you want to look through, does it not?Frankly, I'm not interested in a world popularity contest.
I don't really care if Iran thinks the U.S. is a great nation.
Frankly, it won't think the U.S. is a great nation as long as it thinks the entire world should be under Islamic rule.
Just an example.My question is this: how many nations in the world do you think actually want the U.S. to be successful, as opposed to wanting their own country to assume the prominence that the U.S. has enjoyed for a while now?
Do you think Britain thought highly of the U.S. in the late 1700s/early 1800s?
Do you think most of the world thought highly of the U.S. during World War I/World War II?If the point of politics is to "look good" to other countries, then politics is severely messed up.
If the point, on the other hand, is to do what our country/people think is right to do, then we have a point for discussion.
Otherwise, we're just a puppet in a grand popularity contest.
And when push comes to shove, when North Korea or some other country decides it wants to rule the world.
the Popularity Contest is going to seem pretty silly in comparison to the "Uh, guys, we need to deal with this country forcefully before they decide to blow us all up in because we don't match their ideology.
"  That's kinda what happened in the World Wars.
Germany had an ideological difference.
They wanted to rule the world with it (it's happened a few times in history...).
If we only had "popular" countries (say... countries that decided to disarm...), I'm pretty sure we'd all be speaking German right now.
Except for non-Aryan races, who wouldn't exist.And I'm not going to ask pardon for saying that the human race is capable of doing such awful things in the 21st century.
We're quite capable of making some pretty stupid decisions and believing some insanely stupid things.
And, IMO, it's insanely stupid to think that if the U.S. were just more popular with the worlds' countries, those countries would like the U.S. better.  Nobody, especially those greedy for power, like a powerful country that is able to "threaten" a country.
Unfortunately for humanity, it looks like that power is always going to exist; the question is, who has it and what beliefs do they hold to.
Some countries are a lot less freedom-loving than others.But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.Let's start with talking about the truth about human nature.
Human nature is greedy, power-hungry, and wants to rule.
Let's not forget that there are countries and people groups out there that pretty much would rather everyone believed (externally) the way they do or die.
I'm not using words like "terrorist" or "muslim," because I'm not talking about any specific group.
I'm saying that this is human nature, and has been for all of recorded human history.
There's a reason you had really powerful nations in history like Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, etc... Germany, Russia, U.S., Korea, Iran... they all have different ideologies, but most countries like to be in control.So, here is what I think the question really is... now that we have technology that can allow a very small country to threaten the world ("do this or we blow all of you up"), it becomes very important to be able to do more than talk to them or issue warnings/resolutions at them.
It's the same as a playground bully.
You don't "defeat" the bully by talking to him, making him see the error in his ways and hoping he joins you for a piece of cake and some tea.
Bullies won't back down as long as they think they can bully their way out of it.
Something has to make them realize this.
The question is: who is the one that gets to have the power to stop the bullies, or should we just talk to the bullies and hope they acquiesce?
I'll put it this way.
Hitler wasn't interested in talking.
He was interested in ruling.
To stop him, talking wasn't cutting it.The next time a Hitler (or insert your favorite ruthless dictator with extreme ideologies) comes up and gets his hands on power, whatever that power comes through, who or what is going to stop him.Popularity won't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595103</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1246898340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent post was a none-too-insensitive discussions on the potential darker sides of Wikileaks, and certainly didn't deserve to be modded troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent post was a none-too-insensitive discussions on the potential darker sides of Wikileaks , and certainly did n't deserve to be modded troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent post was a none-too-insensitive discussions on the potential darker sides of Wikileaks, and certainly didn't deserve to be modded troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28600683</id>
	<title>Re:Fear the power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok the real question in a geek site like this is !!!!!</p><p>Does wikileaks have a ring signature scheme?<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_signature</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok the real question in a geek site like this is ! ! ! !
! Does wikileaks have a ring signature scheme ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring \ _signature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok the real question in a geek site like this is !!!!
!Does wikileaks have a ring signature scheme?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_signature</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598513</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>shaka</author>
	<datestamp>1246912740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes. They <i>can't</i> know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.</p></div><p>Correction: They don't have access to the entire picture <em>yet</em>. A problem, which WikiLeaks is there to solve.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that , while the leaker may think is justified and deserved , is more damaging to the U.S. ( or other country subject to a wikileak ) than the leaker realizes .
They ca n't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.Correction : They do n't have access to the entire picture yet .
A problem , which WikiLeaks is there to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes.
They can't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.Correction: They don't have access to the entire picture yet.
A problem, which WikiLeaks is there to solve.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594033</id>
	<title>There is no technical solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246892580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reforge the Fourth International, world party of socialist revolution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reforge the Fourth International , world party of socialist revolution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reforge the Fourth International, world party of socialist revolution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594547</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246895700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets. They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes.<br>
&nbsp; They <i>can't</i> know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.</p></div><p>So the answer to some secrecy is more secrecy.  I'd rather just let *all* the info out and then everyone can collectively decide what should be kept secret.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves ( the collective leakers ) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets .
They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that , while the leaker may think is justified and deserved , is more damaging to the U.S. ( or other country subject to a wikileak ) than the leaker realizes .
  They ca n't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.So the answer to some secrecy is more secrecy .
I 'd rather just let * all * the info out and then everyone can collectively decide what should be kept secret .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets.
They do this without realizing the potential impact to national security or potential diplomatic damage that, while the leaker may think is justified and deserved, is more damaging to the U.S. (or other country subject to a wikileak) than the leaker realizes.
  They can't know the potential impact because they do not have access to the entire picture.So the answer to some secrecy is more secrecy.
I'd rather just let *all* the info out and then everyone can collectively decide what should be kept secret.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598217</id>
	<title>Re:Wikileaks can also be quite RETARDED</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1246911420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they answered that the reason they posted the tests were to level the playing field as a number of people already had copies of the tests and thus an unfair advantage. When Redhat came after them, they argued that the onus was on Redhat to change the test since the cat had already been out of the bag.</p><p>Which, you will note, Redhat did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they answered that the reason they posted the tests were to level the playing field as a number of people already had copies of the tests and thus an unfair advantage .
When Redhat came after them , they argued that the onus was on Redhat to change the test since the cat had already been out of the bag.Which , you will note , Redhat did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they answered that the reason they posted the tests were to level the playing field as a number of people already had copies of the tests and thus an unfair advantage.
When Redhat came after them, they argued that the onus was on Redhat to change the test since the cat had already been out of the bag.Which, you will note, Redhat did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594585</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1246895880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "National Security" argument is valid, but it is all too easy for it to be abused. Especially considering that we cannot properly judge the usage. We just have to accept when told "this is secret and I can't explain why it needs to be secret."<p><div class="quote"><p>Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets.</p></div><p>Wikileaks is not the "sole arbiter" and they do not paint themselves as such. Publicizing leaked information has been a staple of investigative journalism for a long, long time. And it is generally acknowledged that this is one of the most beneficial things that journalism does for a democratic society: publicize the failures and corruptions of "the system"... particularly in those cases where "the system" is gaming itself to keep that information hidden.<br> <br>

Wikileaks is thus an extension of tried-and-true techniques of leaking scandal, applied to a digital age. It fits in nicely with journalistic infrastructure, providing a way to get information out to the public in cases where entrenched powers would like to hide it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system, made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals, with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind. The cranks may be right sometimes, but I think more often that not they will be wrong.</p></div><p>I disagree. The "leaked information journalism" network (of which Wikileaks is a part) is another system made up of untold individuals, using their judgment to decide what to leak and publicize, and what not to. You say the system doesn't work on average. Can you point to a large number of things that were leaked and were damaging to National Security, without having a significant benefit with respect to democracy and stamping-out corruption? How does the number of such 'mistakes' compare to the number of 'legitimate leaks,' where the information really had no right to be suppressed?<br> <br>

Another point to consider is that we don't know how many bits of leaked information were not publicized. The people who get hold of the secret data have choices to make. They can publicize it or not (this goes for someone considering uploading to Wikileaks, a journalist, etc.). Actually the fact that very few National-Security-compromising secrets have seen the light of day (troop movements, launch codes, etc.) suggests people are using appropriate discretion in leaking. Most of the things leaked are damaging to some individuals and organizations... but not a matter of security (military or economic or other). In short, they mostly deserve to be leaked.<br> <br>

Again, I think you're going to have to defend your "more often [than] not they will be wrong" claim with specifics. As far as I can tell, information leaking has always been, and will continue to be, a vital portion of maintaining a democracy. Things like FOIA are also good, mind you. But to maintain a democracy we, the individual people making up the nation, must do our part in terms of oversight... which will occasionally mean breaking one set of rules in order to uphold a much more important set of ideals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " National Security " argument is valid , but it is all too easy for it to be abused .
Especially considering that we can not properly judge the usage .
We just have to accept when told " this is secret and I ca n't explain why it needs to be secret .
" Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves ( the collective leakers ) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets.Wikileaks is not the " sole arbiter " and they do not paint themselves as such .
Publicizing leaked information has been a staple of investigative journalism for a long , long time .
And it is generally acknowledged that this is one of the most beneficial things that journalism does for a democratic society : publicize the failures and corruptions of " the system " ... particularly in those cases where " the system " is gaming itself to keep that information hidden .
Wikileaks is thus an extension of tried-and-true techniques of leaking scandal , applied to a digital age .
It fits in nicely with journalistic infrastructure , providing a way to get information out to the public in cases where entrenched powers would like to hide it.So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system , made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals , with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind .
The cranks may be right sometimes , but I think more often that not they will be wrong.I disagree .
The " leaked information journalism " network ( of which Wikileaks is a part ) is another system made up of untold individuals , using their judgment to decide what to leak and publicize , and what not to .
You say the system does n't work on average .
Can you point to a large number of things that were leaked and were damaging to National Security , without having a significant benefit with respect to democracy and stamping-out corruption ?
How does the number of such 'mistakes ' compare to the number of 'legitimate leaks, ' where the information really had no right to be suppressed ?
Another point to consider is that we do n't know how many bits of leaked information were not publicized .
The people who get hold of the secret data have choices to make .
They can publicize it or not ( this goes for someone considering uploading to Wikileaks , a journalist , etc. ) .
Actually the fact that very few National-Security-compromising secrets have seen the light of day ( troop movements , launch codes , etc .
) suggests people are using appropriate discretion in leaking .
Most of the things leaked are damaging to some individuals and organizations... but not a matter of security ( military or economic or other ) .
In short , they mostly deserve to be leaked .
Again , I think you 're going to have to defend your " more often [ than ] not they will be wrong " claim with specifics .
As far as I can tell , information leaking has always been , and will continue to be , a vital portion of maintaining a democracy .
Things like FOIA are also good , mind you .
But to maintain a democracy we , the individual people making up the nation , must do our part in terms of oversight... which will occasionally mean breaking one set of rules in order to uphold a much more important set of ideals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "National Security" argument is valid, but it is all too easy for it to be abused.
Especially considering that we cannot properly judge the usage.
We just have to accept when told "this is secret and I can't explain why it needs to be secret.
"Wikileaks would throw all of this out and make themselves (the collective leakers) the sole arbiter of what is in the national interest and what is not with respect to keeping secrets.Wikileaks is not the "sole arbiter" and they do not paint themselves as such.
Publicizing leaked information has been a staple of investigative journalism for a long, long time.
And it is generally acknowledged that this is one of the most beneficial things that journalism does for a democratic society: publicize the failures and corruptions of "the system"... particularly in those cases where "the system" is gaming itself to keep that information hidden.
Wikileaks is thus an extension of tried-and-true techniques of leaking scandal, applied to a digital age.
It fits in nicely with journalistic infrastructure, providing a way to get information out to the public in cases where entrenched powers would like to hide it.So what wikileaks does is to substitute the judgment of a system, made of up of untold knowledgeable individuals, with the judgment of one or two cranks with an ax to grind.
The cranks may be right sometimes, but I think more often that not they will be wrong.I disagree.
The "leaked information journalism" network (of which Wikileaks is a part) is another system made up of untold individuals, using their judgment to decide what to leak and publicize, and what not to.
You say the system doesn't work on average.
Can you point to a large number of things that were leaked and were damaging to National Security, without having a significant benefit with respect to democracy and stamping-out corruption?
How does the number of such 'mistakes' compare to the number of 'legitimate leaks,' where the information really had no right to be suppressed?
Another point to consider is that we don't know how many bits of leaked information were not publicized.
The people who get hold of the secret data have choices to make.
They can publicize it or not (this goes for someone considering uploading to Wikileaks, a journalist, etc.).
Actually the fact that very few National-Security-compromising secrets have seen the light of day (troop movements, launch codes, etc.
) suggests people are using appropriate discretion in leaking.
Most of the things leaked are damaging to some individuals and organizations... but not a matter of security (military or economic or other).
In short, they mostly deserve to be leaked.
Again, I think you're going to have to defend your "more often [than] not they will be wrong" claim with specifics.
As far as I can tell, information leaking has always been, and will continue to be, a vital portion of maintaining a democracy.
Things like FOIA are also good, mind you.
But to maintain a democracy we, the individual people making up the nation, must do our part in terms of oversight... which will occasionally mean breaking one set of rules in order to uphold a much more important set of ideals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605797</id>
	<title>Re:Fear the power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246967940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now on Wikileaks: the face of the woman next door!</p><p>Seriously, it's not Wikileaks' intention to be a political campaigner. They spread information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now on Wikileaks : the face of the woman next door ! Seriously , it 's not Wikileaks ' intention to be a political campaigner .
They spread information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now on Wikileaks: the face of the woman next door!Seriously, it's not Wikileaks' intention to be a political campaigner.
They spread information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594029</id>
	<title>Got to love the fact....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246892580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that SonicWall blocks the article site from the current hotspot where I'm enjoying a cup of coffee and a bagel before work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that SonicWall blocks the article site from the current hotspot where I 'm enjoying a cup of coffee and a bagel before work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that SonicWall blocks the article site from the current hotspot where I'm enjoying a cup of coffee and a bagel before work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594693</id>
	<title>Truth is ALWAYS better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246896480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who argue how damaging things can be if they were made public completely forget that if certain things were known earlier... things like this wouldn't NEED to be kept hidden.</p><p>This huge cloud of people who just don't want to know and go on with their happy day lives is exactly what allows events to build up where releasing the information COULD be damaging.</p><p>But lets be honest. How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?</p><p>You will always have followers who don't want to know things and want the *smart* people to deal with it. The problem is, often enough those smart people aren't smart... or are greedy, power hungry... or otherwise influenced. Public eye on what they do is the ONLY thing stopping them. Watchdogs so to speak. Most of them in jobs just like you and me who happen to be there when something happens.</p><p>The fear is that people will overreact to the sheer amount of hidden crap and revolt, or some religious nutjob will start calling the end of days and 50,000 idiots will believe him. But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.</p><p>The reason this will never happen is those in power will suddenly lose the ability to do things that might have been the "easy" way. It also will prevent us from doing things for "the good" that would be seen as "the bad". But that's a tradeoff I want to see simply because... the person making that decision does not have to answer to anyone if they were wrong. That should always be part of leadership.</p><p>You make the call... you take the fall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who argue how damaging things can be if they were made public completely forget that if certain things were known earlier... things like this would n't NEED to be kept hidden.This huge cloud of people who just do n't want to know and go on with their happy day lives is exactly what allows events to build up where releasing the information COULD be damaging.But lets be honest .
How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world ? You will always have followers who do n't want to know things and want the * smart * people to deal with it .
The problem is , often enough those smart people are n't smart... or are greedy , power hungry... or otherwise influenced .
Public eye on what they do is the ONLY thing stopping them .
Watchdogs so to speak .
Most of them in jobs just like you and me who happen to be there when something happens.The fear is that people will overreact to the sheer amount of hidden crap and revolt , or some religious nutjob will start calling the end of days and 50,000 idiots will believe him .
But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.The reason this will never happen is those in power will suddenly lose the ability to do things that might have been the " easy " way .
It also will prevent us from doing things for " the good " that would be seen as " the bad " .
But that 's a tradeoff I want to see simply because... the person making that decision does not have to answer to anyone if they were wrong .
That should always be part of leadership.You make the call... you take the fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who argue how damaging things can be if they were made public completely forget that if certain things were known earlier... things like this wouldn't NEED to be kept hidden.This huge cloud of people who just don't want to know and go on with their happy day lives is exactly what allows events to build up where releasing the information COULD be damaging.But lets be honest.
How worse off do you think the United States could be right now in the eyes of the world?You will always have followers who don't want to know things and want the *smart* people to deal with it.
The problem is, often enough those smart people aren't smart... or are greedy, power hungry... or otherwise influenced.
Public eye on what they do is the ONLY thing stopping them.
Watchdogs so to speak.
Most of them in jobs just like you and me who happen to be there when something happens.The fear is that people will overreact to the sheer amount of hidden crap and revolt, or some religious nutjob will start calling the end of days and 50,000 idiots will believe him.
But if you start slowly... revealing the truth bit by bit people will gradually become adjusted to it.The reason this will never happen is those in power will suddenly lose the ability to do things that might have been the "easy" way.
It also will prevent us from doing things for "the good" that would be seen as "the bad".
But that's a tradeoff I want to see simply because... the person making that decision does not have to answer to anyone if they were wrong.
That should always be part of leadership.You make the call... you take the fall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594261</id>
	<title>Wikileaks can also be quite RETARDED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246894020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed they had the question and answer keys to the Red Hat Certified Engineer's exam, so I asked what the justification for this was.  The answer was that Red Hat was being "unfair" by keeping the test closed.  For political matters, Wikileaks can be useful, but for being a place where cheaters gather, it's pretty damned lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed they had the question and answer keys to the Red Hat Certified Engineer 's exam , so I asked what the justification for this was .
The answer was that Red Hat was being " unfair " by keeping the test closed .
For political matters , Wikileaks can be useful , but for being a place where cheaters gather , it 's pretty damned lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed they had the question and answer keys to the Red Hat Certified Engineer's exam, so I asked what the justification for this was.
The answer was that Red Hat was being "unfair" by keeping the test closed.
For political matters, Wikileaks can be useful, but for being a place where cheaters gather, it's pretty damned lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594629</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246896120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all lies are evil.  If someone is looking for someone to harm them, and you know where they are, telling them makes you culpable in that harm.  Leaking 'some' secret information can bring people to harm.  It is not a black and white issue.  Thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all lies are evil .
If someone is looking for someone to harm them , and you know where they are , telling them makes you culpable in that harm .
Leaking 'some ' secret information can bring people to harm .
It is not a black and white issue .
Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all lies are evil.
If someone is looking for someone to harm them, and you know where they are, telling them makes you culpable in that harm.
Leaking 'some' secret information can bring people to harm.
It is not a black and white issue.
Thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594275</id>
	<title>All readers?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1246894140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He encourages all readers and warns his opponents</p></div><p>Huh... looks like we got ourselves a <i>reader</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He encourages all readers and warns his opponentsHuh... looks like we got ourselves a reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He encourages all readers and warns his opponentsHuh... looks like we got ourselves a reader.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594469</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>gellern</author>
	<datestamp>1246895340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Couple of things

[1] Your argument assumes that there is good in keeping secrets? As in the lesser evil perspective, or perhaps a utility question of greater good? If that is so then wikileaks provides an excellent place for fairness - ardent defenders armed with 'Good Intentions' are bypassed and allow for universal questioning of the facts rather than relying on a few keen fellows to decide the good for all.

[2] Truth is universal, this is not a axiom preaching nor a statement of an idealist, 2 + 2 is the same for everyone. You see it in the number of bricks, coins and et cetera. Exposure of the truth cannot be harmful to the world - it can only expose a lie and a lie even at the stake of 'The Children' cannot be good for us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of things [ 1 ] Your argument assumes that there is good in keeping secrets ?
As in the lesser evil perspective , or perhaps a utility question of greater good ?
If that is so then wikileaks provides an excellent place for fairness - ardent defenders armed with 'Good Intentions ' are bypassed and allow for universal questioning of the facts rather than relying on a few keen fellows to decide the good for all .
[ 2 ] Truth is universal , this is not a axiom preaching nor a statement of an idealist , 2 + 2 is the same for everyone .
You see it in the number of bricks , coins and et cetera .
Exposure of the truth can not be harmful to the world - it can only expose a lie and a lie even at the stake of 'The Children ' can not be good for us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Couple of things

[1] Your argument assumes that there is good in keeping secrets?
As in the lesser evil perspective, or perhaps a utility question of greater good?
If that is so then wikileaks provides an excellent place for fairness - ardent defenders armed with 'Good Intentions' are bypassed and allow for universal questioning of the facts rather than relying on a few keen fellows to decide the good for all.
[2] Truth is universal, this is not a axiom preaching nor a statement of an idealist, 2 + 2 is the same for everyone.
You see it in the number of bricks, coins and et cetera.
Exposure of the truth cannot be harmful to the world - it can only expose a lie and a lie even at the stake of 'The Children' cannot be good for us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209</id>
	<title>Twatter again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote Schmitt:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the context of the latest developments in a complex context and the necessary political support for a certain cause, we are considering marking certain Tweets with a hashtag for emergencies which signifies that it has to do with something very important which needs the world's attention. #EMERGENCY or something like that. We have to try and make sure that dramatic developments in the world get the necessary attention.</p> </div><p>Honestly, when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information?</p><p>More importantly - why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote Schmitt : In the context of the latest developments in a complex context and the necessary political support for a certain cause , we are considering marking certain Tweets with a hashtag for emergencies which signifies that it has to do with something very important which needs the world 's attention .
# EMERGENCY or something like that .
We have to try and make sure that dramatic developments in the world get the necessary attention .
Honestly , when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information ? More importantly - why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote Schmitt:In the context of the latest developments in a complex context and the necessary political support for a certain cause, we are considering marking certain Tweets with a hashtag for emergencies which signifies that it has to do with something very important which needs the world's attention.
#EMERGENCY or something like that.
We have to try and make sure that dramatic developments in the world get the necessary attention.
Honestly, when did the humble RSS feed or - heaven forfend - an actual webpage become an unacceptable way of disseminating information?More importantly - why?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595185</id>
	<title>Elitist Twaddle</title>
	<author>Changa\_MC</author>
	<datestamp>1246898760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know that twitter provides both a website and an RSS feeed, right?</p><p>In order to run an RSS feed, you either need bandwidth and a server, pay for a hosted server, or a twitter account.  The bonus with twitter is that it automatically receives updates view twitterfox or SMS.</p><p>I like twitter is a handy way to disseminate information so that people can add and remove it from their newsreader themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know that twitter provides both a website and an RSS feeed , right ? In order to run an RSS feed , you either need bandwidth and a server , pay for a hosted server , or a twitter account .
The bonus with twitter is that it automatically receives updates view twitterfox or SMS.I like twitter is a handy way to disseminate information so that people can add and remove it from their newsreader themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know that twitter provides both a website and an RSS feeed, right?In order to run an RSS feed, you either need bandwidth and a server, pay for a hosted server, or a twitter account.
The bonus with twitter is that it automatically receives updates view twitterfox or SMS.I like twitter is a handy way to disseminate information so that people can add and remove it from their newsreader themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594481</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Wikileaks is...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246895400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, I definitely can't think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_Throat" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>anything</i> </a> [wikipedia.org] in recent American history where a leak was the only thing that brought unsavory conduct to light...<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu\_Ghraib\_torture\_and\_prisoner\_abuse" title="wikipedia.org">Oh wait</a> [wikipedia.org]. Maybe one or two cases. Y'know, nothing important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I definitely ca n't think of anything [ wikipedia.org ] in recent American history where a leak was the only thing that brought unsavory conduct to light.. . Oh wait [ wikipedia.org ] .
Maybe one or two cases .
Y'know , nothing important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I definitely can't think of  anything  [wikipedia.org] in recent American history where a leak was the only thing that brought unsavory conduct to light... 

Oh wait [wikipedia.org].
Maybe one or two cases.
Y'know, nothing important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597025</id>
	<title>Link to gulli.com?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gulli is a known malware host. They exploit people's interest in cracking and filesharing to spread their shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gulli is a known malware host .
They exploit people 's interest in cracking and filesharing to spread their shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gulli is a known malware host.
They exploit people's interest in cracking and filesharing to spread their shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596113</id>
	<title>Re:Put your money where your mouth is!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some Wikileaks donaters' info was posted to Wikileaks.</p></div><p>I'd like to see WikiLeaks post a leak of everyone who contributed leaks to their site.<br> <br>

Or is some information better left secret? There are good things that have come out of WikiLeaks, but the potential for harm that comes along with it sometimes outweighs the advantages. If a site advocating openness of information is keeping secrets, we are straying into hypocrisy, even if it's not out-right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some Wikileaks donaters ' info was posted to Wikileaks.I 'd like to see WikiLeaks post a leak of everyone who contributed leaks to their site .
Or is some information better left secret ?
There are good things that have come out of WikiLeaks , but the potential for harm that comes along with it sometimes outweighs the advantages .
If a site advocating openness of information is keeping secrets , we are straying into hypocrisy , even if it 's not out-right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some Wikileaks donaters' info was posted to Wikileaks.I'd like to see WikiLeaks post a leak of everyone who contributed leaks to their site.
Or is some information better left secret?
There are good things that have come out of WikiLeaks, but the potential for harm that comes along with it sometimes outweighs the advantages.
If a site advocating openness of information is keeping secrets, we are straying into hypocrisy, even if it's not out-right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605455</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>Fotherington</author>
	<datestamp>1246963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making weaponised biotoxins/nerve agents is very very difficult in practice: Aum Shinrikyo <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin\_gas\_attack\_on\_the\_Tokyo\_subway" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">used sarin gas</a> [wikipedia.org], but "Sarin's low vapor pressure (2.9mmHg) and high boiling point makes it difficult to vaporize at ambient temperature, so very little evaporated to become an inhalant hazard. Sarin evaporates nearly 10 times more slowly than water" so it's actually rather difficult to weaponise *in practice*. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/04/chemical\_bioterror\_analysis/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">This article</a> [theregister.co.uk] by John Lettice in The Register is also very informative on the kind of obstacles that present themselves when you're trying to create and weaponise highly toxic substances on a budget and covertly. The answer is not to try and stuff the genie back in the bottle (samizdat, anyone?) but to have effective law enforcement and emergency services which will counter any threat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making weaponised biotoxins/nerve agents is very very difficult in practice : Aum Shinrikyo used sarin gas [ wikipedia.org ] , but " Sarin 's low vapor pressure ( 2.9mmHg ) and high boiling point makes it difficult to vaporize at ambient temperature , so very little evaporated to become an inhalant hazard .
Sarin evaporates nearly 10 times more slowly than water " so it 's actually rather difficult to weaponise * in practice * .
This article [ theregister.co.uk ] by John Lettice in The Register is also very informative on the kind of obstacles that present themselves when you 're trying to create and weaponise highly toxic substances on a budget and covertly .
The answer is not to try and stuff the genie back in the bottle ( samizdat , anyone ?
) but to have effective law enforcement and emergency services which will counter any threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making weaponised biotoxins/nerve agents is very very difficult in practice: Aum Shinrikyo used sarin gas [wikipedia.org], but "Sarin's low vapor pressure (2.9mmHg) and high boiling point makes it difficult to vaporize at ambient temperature, so very little evaporated to become an inhalant hazard.
Sarin evaporates nearly 10 times more slowly than water" so it's actually rather difficult to weaponise *in practice*.
This article [theregister.co.uk] by John Lettice in The Register is also very informative on the kind of obstacles that present themselves when you're trying to create and weaponise highly toxic substances on a budget and covertly.
The answer is not to try and stuff the genie back in the bottle (samizdat, anyone?
) but to have effective law enforcement and emergency services which will counter any threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</id>
	<title>Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely he wont mind if we leak his personal information to the site. Since he is a person of note (after all wikileaks is worldwide) he's fair game, right? While were at it we can leak personal detail of Jimmy Wales, after all the world has the right to know anybodies personal and secret details. Who are you to dare attempt to have privacy, to not want your life exposed and open to the world for it's amusement?</p><p>Site like wikileaks are the parasites of the technology world, their entire existence is based solely based on publishing private information and breaking trust. These values are otherwise held in contempt by most people in the IT and geek communities, so why on earth does wikileaks get the time of day on a site like slashdot? Just remember that because you may not like whatever evil corp / country has something published today, it could well be an organization or individual you like tomorrow.</p><p>I fail to see how the site is any better than any number of carders sites where credit cards are sold wholesale. I really have to ask, where do they draw the line? What is to heinous for wikileaks to publish? How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner? After all that's been government domain information since at least world war one. What would they do if Iran or North Korea in a spate of indignation decided to post their detail nuclear weapon secrets on wikileaks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely he wont mind if we leak his personal information to the site .
Since he is a person of note ( after all wikileaks is worldwide ) he 's fair game , right ?
While were at it we can leak personal detail of Jimmy Wales , after all the world has the right to know anybodies personal and secret details .
Who are you to dare attempt to have privacy , to not want your life exposed and open to the world for it 's amusement ? Site like wikileaks are the parasites of the technology world , their entire existence is based solely based on publishing private information and breaking trust .
These values are otherwise held in contempt by most people in the IT and geek communities , so why on earth does wikileaks get the time of day on a site like slashdot ?
Just remember that because you may not like whatever evil corp / country has something published today , it could well be an organization or individual you like tomorrow.I fail to see how the site is any better than any number of carders sites where credit cards are sold wholesale .
I really have to ask , where do they draw the line ?
What is to heinous for wikileaks to publish ?
How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner ?
After all that 's been government domain information since at least world war one .
What would they do if Iran or North Korea in a spate of indignation decided to post their detail nuclear weapon secrets on wikileaks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely he wont mind if we leak his personal information to the site.
Since he is a person of note (after all wikileaks is worldwide) he's fair game, right?
While were at it we can leak personal detail of Jimmy Wales, after all the world has the right to know anybodies personal and secret details.
Who are you to dare attempt to have privacy, to not want your life exposed and open to the world for it's amusement?Site like wikileaks are the parasites of the technology world, their entire existence is based solely based on publishing private information and breaking trust.
These values are otherwise held in contempt by most people in the IT and geek communities, so why on earth does wikileaks get the time of day on a site like slashdot?
Just remember that because you may not like whatever evil corp / country has something published today, it could well be an organization or individual you like tomorrow.I fail to see how the site is any better than any number of carders sites where credit cards are sold wholesale.
I really have to ask, where do they draw the line?
What is to heinous for wikileaks to publish?
How about detailed descriptions of the making and distribution of nerve gas in a military manner?
After all that's been government domain information since at least world war one.
What would they do if Iran or North Korea in a spate of indignation decided to post their detail nuclear weapon secrets on wikileaks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594003</id>
	<title>First Fuckin Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246892460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Niggers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Niggers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niggers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595035</id>
	<title>Re:Surely he isn't biased...</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1246898100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you're right about the general respect for IP among slashdot patrons, there is also a very vocal slashdot community that does not view intellectual property as property.  That component is a natural friend of wikileaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're right about the general respect for IP among slashdot patrons , there is also a very vocal slashdot community that does not view intellectual property as property .
That component is a natural friend of wikileaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're right about the general respect for IP among slashdot patrons, there is also a very vocal slashdot community that does not view intellectual property as property.
That component is a natural friend of wikileaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594363</id>
	<title>the problem with secrets in a democracy ...</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1246894680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public. By and large, this works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Wikileaks would throw all of this out</i>"<br> <br>

The people have a right to know what its government is doing on their behalf. Generally, if it can't stand the cold light of day, then they shouldn't be doing it. The <a href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed\_US\_ACTA\_multi-lateral\_intellectual\_property\_trade\_agreement\_(2007)" title="wikileaks.org">ACTA</a> [wikileaks.org] secret agreement being a case in point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public .
By and large , this works .. Wikileaks would throw all of this out " The people have a right to know what its government is doing on their behalf .
Generally , if it ca n't stand the cold light of day , then they should n't be doing it .
The ACTA [ wikileaks.org ] secret agreement being a case in point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public.
By and large, this works .. Wikileaks would throw all of this out" 

The people have a right to know what its government is doing on their behalf.
Generally, if it can't stand the cold light of day, then they shouldn't be doing it.
The ACTA [wikileaks.org] secret agreement being a case in point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595147</id>
	<title>Sayeth Sid Meier:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246898580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Beware he who would deny you access to information , for in his heart he dreams himself your master .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595061</id>
	<title>Most leaders of all countries act like criminals.</title>
	<author>Zombie Ryushu</author>
	<datestamp>1246898220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost all of the leaders of the planet Earth act like mobsters and criminals that are above the law because they are wealthy and above the law. The US is no exception. It is very very rare in the history of any country in any part of the world to find a leader that was not a monster. No matter who it was in any given time in any given place.</p><p>This is why Wikileaks is necessary. Try and imagine a world where every secret of every government in every part of the world was known by every citizen. Governments should be accountable by the citizens that allow them to be there and thats not the case today. The world is full of unaccountable Tyrants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all of the leaders of the planet Earth act like mobsters and criminals that are above the law because they are wealthy and above the law .
The US is no exception .
It is very very rare in the history of any country in any part of the world to find a leader that was not a monster .
No matter who it was in any given time in any given place.This is why Wikileaks is necessary .
Try and imagine a world where every secret of every government in every part of the world was known by every citizen .
Governments should be accountable by the citizens that allow them to be there and thats not the case today .
The world is full of unaccountable Tyrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all of the leaders of the planet Earth act like mobsters and criminals that are above the law because they are wealthy and above the law.
The US is no exception.
It is very very rare in the history of any country in any part of the world to find a leader that was not a monster.
No matter who it was in any given time in any given place.This is why Wikileaks is necessary.
Try and imagine a world where every secret of every government in every part of the world was known by every citizen.
Governments should be accountable by the citizens that allow them to be there and thats not the case today.
The world is full of unaccountable Tyrants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457</id>
	<title>Re:Put your money where your mouth is!</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1246895220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better, to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse &#226;" locally and nationally as well as globally.</em>

It could just as easily be a place for saboteurs and rumor mongers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better , to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse   " locally and nationally as well as globally .
It could just as easily be a place for saboteurs and rumor mongers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WikiLeaks has the means to make our society better, to create a world which stands united and strong against abuse â" locally and nationally as well as globally.
It could just as easily be a place for saboteurs and rumor mongers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594127</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28600683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1321227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28606709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28600683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28605797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28597089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28595337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28606709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28598217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28594845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1321227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28596111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1321227.28603841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
