<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_15_2336237</id>
	<title>Lawyer Offers $1M For Proof His Client Could Have Done It; Oops</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247678160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, made the mistake of <a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/2009/06/attorneys-million-dollar-dare-comes-back-to-haunt-him.html">offering a million dollars on a TV show</a> to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Having a lot of free time, South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare. Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took, completed the trip under the time allowed, and videotaped the whole process. He is now suing Mason in the federal district court &mdash; because the attorney doesn't want to pay, saying that his statement was just a joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Florida attorney , Cheney Mason , made the mistake of offering a million dollars on a TV show to anyone who could prove that his client , Nelson Ivan Serrano , was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged .
Having a lot of free time , South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare .
Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took , completed the trip under the time allowed , and videotaped the whole process .
He is now suing Mason in the federal district court    because the attorney does n't want to pay , saying that his statement was just a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, made the mistake of offering a million dollars on a TV show to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.
Having a lot of free time, South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare.
Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took, completed the trip under the time allowed, and videotaped the whole process.
He is now suing Mason in the federal district court — because the attorney doesn't want to pay, saying that his statement was just a joke.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714533</id>
	<title>He intended the audience to believe him</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why else would he say what he said. He was making a point in support of his client. The lawyer intended the audience to believe that it was so unlikely that a person could make the trip in such a short space of time that there would be little risk even if he offered a million pound reward for doing so. Why else would he have said such a thing?</p><p>Sure, he says it was a joke now, but where is the joke? It's not funny. He was trying to sway the opinion of the public without having to prove his case. He bluffed, thinking that nobody would take him up on his challenge and that therefore his bold claim would be reinforced in the public mind (and those of the jurors and judge). His bluff was called and he deserves to pay up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why else would he say what he said .
He was making a point in support of his client .
The lawyer intended the audience to believe that it was so unlikely that a person could make the trip in such a short space of time that there would be little risk even if he offered a million pound reward for doing so .
Why else would he have said such a thing ? Sure , he says it was a joke now , but where is the joke ?
It 's not funny .
He was trying to sway the opinion of the public without having to prove his case .
He bluffed , thinking that nobody would take him up on his challenge and that therefore his bold claim would be reinforced in the public mind ( and those of the jurors and judge ) .
His bluff was called and he deserves to pay up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why else would he say what he said.
He was making a point in support of his client.
The lawyer intended the audience to believe that it was so unlikely that a person could make the trip in such a short space of time that there would be little risk even if he offered a million pound reward for doing so.
Why else would he have said such a thing?Sure, he says it was a joke now, but where is the joke?
It's not funny.
He was trying to sway the opinion of the public without having to prove his case.
He bluffed, thinking that nobody would take him up on his challenge and that therefore his bold claim would be reinforced in the public mind (and those of the jurors and judge).
His bluff was called and he deserves to pay up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715167</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1247751540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but be careful: There's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down. Of course it's hard to sign things over the internet but...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but be careful : There 's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down .
Of course it 's hard to sign things over the internet but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but be careful: There's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down.
Of course it's hard to sign things over the internet but...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713487</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offer existed, you need a specific offeree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offer existed , you need a specific offeree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offer existed, you need a specific offeree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713509</id>
	<title>Re:Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247775300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Grandstanding does not an enforceable contract make.  No reasonable person would have thought he would actually pay someone a million dollars, and the reasonable person standard is what will be used in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grandstanding does not an enforceable contract make .
No reasonable person would have thought he would actually pay someone a million dollars , and the reasonable person standard is what will be used in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grandstanding does not an enforceable contract make.
No reasonable person would have thought he would actually pay someone a million dollars, and the reasonable person standard is what will be used in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713677</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247776980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>even so, what do you think would happen if i went on tv and offered 1 trillion dollars to anyone who can spit in a jar? if he proves that it was unreasonable to assume that he wasn't joking, i think he's off the hook (sorry for the double negative).</htmltext>
<tokenext>even so , what do you think would happen if i went on tv and offered 1 trillion dollars to anyone who can spit in a jar ?
if he proves that it was unreasonable to assume that he was n't joking , i think he 's off the hook ( sorry for the double negative ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even so, what do you think would happen if i went on tv and offered 1 trillion dollars to anyone who can spit in a jar?
if he proves that it was unreasonable to assume that he wasn't joking, i think he's off the hook (sorry for the double negative).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712969</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1247683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Harvard Law School is thinking on teaching a class in shutting the hell up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Harvard Law School is thinking on teaching a class in shutting the hell up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harvard Law School is thinking on teaching a class in shutting the hell up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715339</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'challenge anybody' - if law student wins, all he has to do is repeat. That would be even funnier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'challenge anybody ' - if law student wins , all he has to do is repeat .
That would be even funnier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'challenge anybody' - if law student wins, all he has to do is repeat.
That would be even funnier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715129</id>
	<title>Re:He intended the audience to believe him</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1247751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why else would he have said such a thing?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; That depends, did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question? In that case it's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members, and should be sanctioned/disbarred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why else would he have said such a thing ?
      That depends , did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question ?
In that case it 's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members , and should be sanctioned/disbarred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why else would he have said such a thing?
      That depends, did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question?
In that case it's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members, and should be sanctioned/disbarred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>crrkrieger</author>
	<datestamp>1247745840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.</p><p>Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?</p><p>Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.</p></div><p>This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year.  In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety.  It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered.  Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.</p><p>The traditional example is a reward.  Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer.  Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward.  In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis.  Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.</p><p>Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mason : I challenge anybody to show me , I 'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.Murphy : If they can do it in the time alloted ? Mason : 28 minutes .
Ca n't happen .
Did n't happen.This is a classic unilateral contract offer , and I 'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year .
In a unilateral contract , you offer something to someone ( someone specific or anyone in general ) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety .
It is not enough to say " I accept your offer " and it is not enough to try and fail ; you must complete the terms offered .
Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying " I accept " or words to that effect.The traditional example is a reward .
Rewards are almost never paid , at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually can not show that they did the required conduct because of the offer .
Heck , they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward , or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves , not because of the reward .
In this case , however , the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis .
Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip , he would be entitled to NOTHING , not even expenses.Yes , IAAL , but I am not your L .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?Mason: 28 minutes.
Can't happen.
Didn't happen.This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year.
In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety.
It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered.
Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.The traditional example is a reward.
Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer.
Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward.
In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis.
Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715947</id>
	<title>Re:In related news...</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1247755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually there is a series of Google videos that say exactly that.  Search on "Don't talk to cops" and you'll get an extremely interesting video (well, at least the one from James Duane).  It tells how even the simplest statement can work against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there is a series of Google videos that say exactly that .
Search on " Do n't talk to cops " and you 'll get an extremely interesting video ( well , at least the one from James Duane ) .
It tells how even the simplest statement can work against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there is a series of Google videos that say exactly that.
Search on "Don't talk to cops" and you'll get an extremely interesting video (well, at least the one from James Duane).
It tells how even the simplest statement can work against you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713749</id>
	<title>Good ol' South Texas College of Law</title>
	<author>NaijaGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How fun to see South Texas College of Law in the news!  I used to check my email in the library there when I recently worked in downtown Houston, because the multinational financial firm that laid me off had locked down access to Gmail and Facebook and Evite and all other sugar and spice in the online world.  Nothing like those mid-afternoon breaks of walking a block to the school and getting a cappuccino out of their coffee machine and staring out the nice big windows of their library!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fun to see South Texas College of Law in the news !
I used to check my email in the library there when I recently worked in downtown Houston , because the multinational financial firm that laid me off had locked down access to Gmail and Facebook and Evite and all other sugar and spice in the online world .
Nothing like those mid-afternoon breaks of walking a block to the school and getting a cappuccino out of their coffee machine and staring out the nice big windows of their library !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fun to see South Texas College of Law in the news!
I used to check my email in the library there when I recently worked in downtown Houston, because the multinational financial firm that laid me off had locked down access to Gmail and Facebook and Evite and all other sugar and spice in the online world.
Nothing like those mid-afternoon breaks of walking a block to the school and getting a cappuccino out of their coffee machine and staring out the nice big windows of their library!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717749</id>
	<title>Re:Really, now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The defendant does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The defendant does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The defendant does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712837</id>
	<title>You can sue a liar for lying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247682180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should make politics more interesting. Who is in with me for a few class-action suits? $1 a share, excellent ROI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should make politics more interesting .
Who is in with me for a few class-action suits ?
$ 1 a share , excellent ROI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should make politics more interesting.
Who is in with me for a few class-action suits?
$1 a share, excellent ROI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713045</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proof of performance?  From my intimate knowledge of this case based on the headline, the necessary performance was to prove guilt - Not to accomplish a road race.  Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.</p><p>Of course, I could be putting too much faith into the headline...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof of performance ?
From my intimate knowledge of this case based on the headline , the necessary performance was to prove guilt - Not to accomplish a road race .
Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.Of course , I could be putting too much faith into the headline.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof of performance?
From my intimate knowledge of this case based on the headline, the necessary performance was to prove guilt - Not to accomplish a road race.
Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.Of course, I could be putting too much faith into the headline...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813</id>
	<title>Technically..</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1247681940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically, all that was proven was that this Kolodziej kid was able to traverse a distance in a given period of time, not that anyone else, least of all the defendant, was able to do the same.  Plus, as far as we know, Kolodzeij did not need to take time out in order to kill anyone.<br><br>I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that this guy doesn't really have a case.  Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs.  TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , all that was proven was that this Kolodziej kid was able to traverse a distance in a given period of time , not that anyone else , least of all the defendant , was able to do the same .
Plus , as far as we know , Kolodzeij did not need to take time out in order to kill anyone.I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything , but it seems to me that this guy does n't really have a case .
Plus , everyone knows you 're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs .
TV just is n't a reliable source of information anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, all that was proven was that this Kolodziej kid was able to traverse a distance in a given period of time, not that anyone else, least of all the defendant, was able to do the same.
Plus, as far as we know, Kolodzeij did not need to take time out in order to kill anyone.I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that this guy doesn't really have a case.
Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs.
TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713495</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the guy suing the lawyer for the $1m wins, he can sue you for another $1m?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the guy suing the lawyer for the $ 1m wins , he can sue you for another $ 1m ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the guy suing the lawyer for the $1m wins, he can sue you for another $1m?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714643</id>
	<title>I really don't get it!</title>
	<author>dogganos</author>
	<datestamp>1247746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me? Which law is that? The "You Said It Now" Act ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go out on a public place and shout : " Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks ! ! !
" , does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster ( and dumper ) who runs to me ?
Which law is that ?
The " You Said It Now " Act ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!
", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me?
Which law is that?
The "You Said It Now" Act ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28724759</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>nevergleam</author>
	<datestamp>1247749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the sake of argument, suppose that the method employed by the student to cover the distance in a short amount of time was itself illegal (surpassing posted speed limits). The student has himself on tape breaking said speed limits.  Are contracts that implicitly prescribe illegal actions such as the contract in question enforceable?  Even if not implicitly prescribed, could the student's fulfillment of the contract be voided since he broke the speed limit to do so?</p><p>What this may look like is me trying to get free legal advice. It is actually my curiosity lazily attempting to sate itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the sake of argument , suppose that the method employed by the student to cover the distance in a short amount of time was itself illegal ( surpassing posted speed limits ) .
The student has himself on tape breaking said speed limits .
Are contracts that implicitly prescribe illegal actions such as the contract in question enforceable ?
Even if not implicitly prescribed , could the student 's fulfillment of the contract be voided since he broke the speed limit to do so ? What this may look like is me trying to get free legal advice .
It is actually my curiosity lazily attempting to sate itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the sake of argument, suppose that the method employed by the student to cover the distance in a short amount of time was itself illegal (surpassing posted speed limits).
The student has himself on tape breaking said speed limits.
Are contracts that implicitly prescribe illegal actions such as the contract in question enforceable?
Even if not implicitly prescribed, could the student's fulfillment of the contract be voided since he broke the speed limit to do so?What this may look like is me trying to get free legal advice.
It is actually my curiosity lazily attempting to sate itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716337</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1247757480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article OR the <a href="http://www.snopes.com/business/deals/pepsijet.asp" title="snopes.com">Snopes</a> [snopes.com] article was a rule in the system that you had to have at least HALF of the points for anything you were trying to obtain, THEN you could make up the other half of the points with so many cents per point.<br> <br>In rick of seeming like a dork, I know this because I got everything in their actual catalog twice over. My buddy ran a bar and I got all of the points off of their 24 packs they went through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is n't mentioned in the wikipedia article OR the Snopes [ snopes.com ] article was a rule in the system that you had to have at least HALF of the points for anything you were trying to obtain , THEN you could make up the other half of the points with so many cents per point .
In rick of seeming like a dork , I know this because I got everything in their actual catalog twice over .
My buddy ran a bar and I got all of the points off of their 24 packs they went through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article OR the Snopes [snopes.com] article was a rule in the system that you had to have at least HALF of the points for anything you were trying to obtain, THEN you could make up the other half of the points with so many cents per point.
In rick of seeming like a dork, I know this because I got everything in their actual catalog twice over.
My buddy ran a bar and I got all of the points off of their 24 packs they went through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712943</id>
	<title>Cheney Mason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...combining the worst points of Dick Cheney and Perry Mason...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...combining the worst points of Dick Cheney and Perry Mason.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...combining the worst points of Dick Cheney and Perry Mason...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713665</id>
	<title>I welcome our new contracat overlords</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247776980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might have been a "contra-cat" but it wasn't a <i>contract</i> except under the terms of Slashdot law.<br> <br>Take it from me- I've been making money this way for years, and I always have my attorney review televised dares before I go bolting across state lines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might have been a " contra-cat " but it was n't a contract except under the terms of Slashdot law .
Take it from me- I 've been making money this way for years , and I always have my attorney review televised dares before I go bolting across state lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might have been a "contra-cat" but it wasn't a contract except under the terms of Slashdot law.
Take it from me- I've been making money this way for years, and I always have my attorney review televised dares before I go bolting across state lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>fredmosby</author>
	<datestamp>1247687880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/one\_million\_dollar\_lawsuit\_of\_the\_day.php#more" title="abovethelaw.com"> this article</a> [abovethelaw.com] the actual statement made by the lawyer was:<br> <br>
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.<br>
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?<br>
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.<br> <br>
He wasn't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty.  He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes.  Which this law student apparently did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this article [ abovethelaw.com ] the actual statement made by the lawyer was : Mason : I challenge anybody to show me , I 'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it .
Murphy : If they can do it in the time alloted ?
Mason : 28 minutes .
Ca n't happen .
Did n't happen .
He was n't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty .
He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes .
Which this law student apparently did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to  this article [abovethelaw.com] the actual statement made by the lawyer was: 
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes.
Can't happen.
Didn't happen.
He wasn't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty.
He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes.
Which this law student apparently did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421</id>
	<title>Seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody ever pays out these prove "impossible" thing and I give you $1 million dollars offers, and no one ever will.</p><p>I will give $1 million dollars to anyone that can prove otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody ever pays out these prove " impossible " thing and I give you $ 1 million dollars offers , and no one ever will.I will give $ 1 million dollars to anyone that can prove otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody ever pays out these prove "impossible" thing and I give you $1 million dollars offers, and no one ever will.I will give $1 million dollars to anyone that can prove otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717287</id>
	<title>This can't be in America!</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1247761140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when can you sue a lawyer for lying?</p><p>Trust me, if you could, I'd be a billionaire overnight!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when can you sue a lawyer for lying ? Trust me , if you could , I 'd be a billionaire overnight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when can you sue a lawyer for lying?Trust me, if you could, I'd be a billionaire overnight!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714103</id>
	<title>Re:Florida Lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you live in America's wang, you probably can't escape being a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you live in America 's wang , you probably ca n't escape being a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you live in America's wang, you probably can't escape being a dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28718819</id>
	<title>Re:But WHICH sort of dollars?</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1247766600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or he could just do what my 12 year old son does whenever he bets me on something and loses -

"Oh, I said I'd give you a million "doll hairs".  Let me go get those for you"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or he could just do what my 12 year old son does whenever he bets me on something and loses - " Oh , I said I 'd give you a million " doll hairs " .
Let me go get those for you "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or he could just do what my 12 year old son does whenever he bets me on something and loses -

"Oh, I said I'd give you a million "doll hairs".
Let me go get those for you"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714125</id>
	<title>Re:He didn't prove it though</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyer: "So it's undenyable that you had been there the night she was murdered!"<br>Witness (irate): "Are you fuckin' serious?"<br>Judge (muttered): "Nah, knowing him I'd say he's just kidding."<br>Jury: *laughter*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyer : " So it 's undenyable that you had been there the night she was murdered !
" Witness ( irate ) : " Are you fuckin ' serious ?
" Judge ( muttered ) : " Nah , knowing him I 'd say he 's just kidding .
" Jury : * laughter *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyer: "So it's undenyable that you had been there the night she was murdered!
"Witness (irate): "Are you fuckin' serious?
"Judge (muttered): "Nah, knowing him I'd say he's just kidding.
"Jury: *laughter*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715369</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the main point of the case was that you cannot legally buy or sell a harrier jet in the United States, never mind give it away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the main point of the case was that you can not legally buy or sell a harrier jet in the United States , never mind give it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the main point of the case was that you cannot legally buy or sell a harrier jet in the United States, never mind give it away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714283</id>
	<title>Kolodziej failed his murderous mission so no money</title>
	<author>SoulEye</author>
	<datestamp>1247741580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I vote that Kolodziej get no money due to the simple fact that he forgot to kill 4 people during his trip.

If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right, eh?

Ok, so maybe that wasn't in the criteria, but it should have been, gosh darnit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote that Kolodziej get no money due to the simple fact that he forgot to kill 4 people during his trip .
If something 's worth doing , it 's worth doing right , eh ?
Ok , so maybe that was n't in the criteria , but it should have been , gosh darnit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote that Kolodziej get no money due to the simple fact that he forgot to kill 4 people during his trip.
If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right, eh?
Ok, so maybe that wasn't in the criteria, but it should have been, gosh darnit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714229</id>
	<title>choicefreedom2000</title>
	<author>choicefreedom2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247740920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>really interested posting. thanks for information.
<a href="http://www.blueunplugged.com/News.aspx?article=126" title="blueunplugged.com" rel="nofollow"> ipod accessories </a> [blueunplugged.com]
<a href="http://www.blueunplugged.com/c.aspx?c=47019" title="blueunplugged.com" rel="nofollow"> ipod accessories </a> [blueunplugged.com]
<a href="http://www.technology-guide.co.uk/" title="technology-guide.co.uk" rel="nofollow"> Technology Guide </a> [technology-guide.co.uk]
<a href="http://www.blueunplugged.com/c.aspx?c=53853" title="blueunplugged.com" rel="nofollow"> wii accessories </a> [blueunplugged.com]
<a href="http://www.blueunplugged.com/p.aspx?p=119229" title="blueunplugged.com" rel="nofollow"> wii remote </a> [blueunplugged.com]
<a href="http://www.varologic.com/blog/post/2009/01/20/Ten-most-luxurious-iPhone-cases-ever-seen.aspx" title="varologic.com" rel="nofollow"> iphone cases </a> [varologic.com]
<a href="http://www.varologic.com/blog/" title="varologic.com" rel="nofollow"> gift ideas</a> [varologic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>really interested posting .
thanks for information .
ipod accessories [ blueunplugged.com ] ipod accessories [ blueunplugged.com ] Technology Guide [ technology-guide.co.uk ] wii accessories [ blueunplugged.com ] wii remote [ blueunplugged.com ] iphone cases [ varologic.com ] gift ideas [ varologic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really interested posting.
thanks for information.
ipod accessories  [blueunplugged.com]
 ipod accessories  [blueunplugged.com]
 Technology Guide  [technology-guide.co.uk]
 wii accessories  [blueunplugged.com]
 wii remote  [blueunplugged.com]
 iphone cases  [varologic.com]
 gift ideas [varologic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713473</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that's not how it works.  He was obviously not being serious in his offer, and this case will get tossed out of court.  Just because someone says something like that doesn't mean it's an enforceable contract.  It's obvious that he was stating his opinion as to the ability of one to make the trip in the allotted time, not offering anyone a million dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's not how it works .
He was obviously not being serious in his offer , and this case will get tossed out of court .
Just because someone says something like that does n't mean it 's an enforceable contract .
It 's obvious that he was stating his opinion as to the ability of one to make the trip in the allotted time , not offering anyone a million dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's not how it works.
He was obviously not being serious in his offer, and this case will get tossed out of court.
Just because someone says something like that doesn't mean it's an enforceable contract.
It's obvious that he was stating his opinion as to the ability of one to make the trip in the allotted time, not offering anyone a million dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714079</id>
	<title>Re:Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the reasonable person's response would be to ignore that comment altogether and call the lawyer bluff and his speech baloney? Because that's basically the other possible option: Either take it serious, in which case he's have to put his money where his mouth is. Or call him a whisk and refuse to take him serious.</p><p>In other words: Saying that was really, really stupid, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the reasonable person 's response would be to ignore that comment altogether and call the lawyer bluff and his speech baloney ?
Because that 's basically the other possible option : Either take it serious , in which case he 's have to put his money where his mouth is .
Or call him a whisk and refuse to take him serious.In other words : Saying that was really , really stupid , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the reasonable person's response would be to ignore that comment altogether and call the lawyer bluff and his speech baloney?
Because that's basically the other possible option: Either take it serious, in which case he's have to put his money where his mouth is.
Or call him a whisk and refuse to take him serious.In other words: Saying that was really, really stupid, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713173</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1247685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything,"</p><p>The lawyer wasn't a big New York Country Lawyer either.</p><p>There's a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything , " The lawyer was n't a big New York Country Lawyer either.There 's a /reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything,"The lawyer wasn't a big New York Country Lawyer either.There's a /reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715659</id>
	<title>Re:Really, now</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1247754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719389</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprised at all the lawyers chiming in who are forgetting the "Pepsi Stuff" case.  It shows that "it's just a joke" can be a good defense.</p><p>In that case, Pepsi had been advertising its Pepsi Stuff promotion on TV.  Drink some pepsi, get points from under the cap, and redeem a bunch of them for logo'd junk.  Their commercial showed various items (hat, jacket, etc) and the amount of points it took to get them.  At the very end, it showed a Harrier jet, and said something like 1,000,000 points.</p><p>Unfortunately, Pepsi forgot that people could also send in cash to get points (designed so that if you were a few points short, you could just make up the difference by sending in a check), at a ratio that meant they were essentially advertising the Harrier for 1/50th of its cost.  Someone decided to take them up on the offer and mailed them a check.  He then sued when they refused to deliver the Harrier.</p><p>Now, some of you legal eagles might object that the commercial was a mere invitation to deal, rather than an offer for a unilateral contract, but that's not the ground the case was decided upon.  Rather, the court accepted the defense that the Harrier was an obvious joke, and so could not have been taken as an offer by a reasonable person.</p><p>I'm sure the same is true here.  Would any reasonable person think that the lawyer intended to pay $1 million to anyone who made that journey?  Of course not.  Sorry law student, you lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprised at all the lawyers chiming in who are forgetting the " Pepsi Stuff " case .
It shows that " it 's just a joke " can be a good defense.In that case , Pepsi had been advertising its Pepsi Stuff promotion on TV .
Drink some pepsi , get points from under the cap , and redeem a bunch of them for logo 'd junk .
Their commercial showed various items ( hat , jacket , etc ) and the amount of points it took to get them .
At the very end , it showed a Harrier jet , and said something like 1,000,000 points.Unfortunately , Pepsi forgot that people could also send in cash to get points ( designed so that if you were a few points short , you could just make up the difference by sending in a check ) , at a ratio that meant they were essentially advertising the Harrier for 1/50th of its cost .
Someone decided to take them up on the offer and mailed them a check .
He then sued when they refused to deliver the Harrier.Now , some of you legal eagles might object that the commercial was a mere invitation to deal , rather than an offer for a unilateral contract , but that 's not the ground the case was decided upon .
Rather , the court accepted the defense that the Harrier was an obvious joke , and so could not have been taken as an offer by a reasonable person.I 'm sure the same is true here .
Would any reasonable person think that the lawyer intended to pay $ 1 million to anyone who made that journey ?
Of course not .
Sorry law student , you lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprised at all the lawyers chiming in who are forgetting the "Pepsi Stuff" case.
It shows that "it's just a joke" can be a good defense.In that case, Pepsi had been advertising its Pepsi Stuff promotion on TV.
Drink some pepsi, get points from under the cap, and redeem a bunch of them for logo'd junk.
Their commercial showed various items (hat, jacket, etc) and the amount of points it took to get them.
At the very end, it showed a Harrier jet, and said something like 1,000,000 points.Unfortunately, Pepsi forgot that people could also send in cash to get points (designed so that if you were a few points short, you could just make up the difference by sending in a check), at a ratio that meant they were essentially advertising the Harrier for 1/50th of its cost.
Someone decided to take them up on the offer and mailed them a check.
He then sued when they refused to deliver the Harrier.Now, some of you legal eagles might object that the commercial was a mere invitation to deal, rather than an offer for a unilateral contract, but that's not the ground the case was decided upon.
Rather, the court accepted the defense that the Harrier was an obvious joke, and so could not have been taken as an offer by a reasonable person.I'm sure the same is true here.
Would any reasonable person think that the lawyer intended to pay $1 million to anyone who made that journey?
Of course not.
Sorry law student, you lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719037</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this context, saying "I'll give you a million dollars blah blah blah" is similar to saying "when hell freezes over" or "when pigs fly". It doesn't read like a legit offer. It was meant to stress how impossible something is. If you disagree then I'll give you a million dollars*...whoops.</p><p>*Disclaimer: I'm not paying you anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this context , saying " I 'll give you a million dollars blah blah blah " is similar to saying " when hell freezes over " or " when pigs fly " .
It does n't read like a legit offer .
It was meant to stress how impossible something is .
If you disagree then I 'll give you a million dollars * ...whoops .
* Disclaimer : I 'm not paying you anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this context, saying "I'll give you a million dollars blah blah blah" is similar to saying "when hell freezes over" or "when pigs fly".
It doesn't read like a legit offer.
It was meant to stress how impossible something is.
If you disagree then I'll give you a million dollars*...whoops.
*Disclaimer: I'm not paying you anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714581</id>
	<title>a petty smart lawyer</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1247745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see he's already laying grounds for an appeal due to inadequate representation.</p><p>first rule in law school is never ask a question you don't already know the answer too. asking people to prove that something is possible if you don't know for sure is part of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see he 's already laying grounds for an appeal due to inadequate representation.first rule in law school is never ask a question you do n't already know the answer too .
asking people to prove that something is possible if you do n't know for sure is part of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see he's already laying grounds for an appeal due to inadequate representation.first rule in law school is never ask a question you don't already know the answer too.
asking people to prove that something is possible if you don't know for sure is part of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867</id>
	<title>Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>longbot</author>
	<datestamp>1247682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a lawyer, shouldn't this douchebag know better than to grandstand and make promises like that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a lawyer , should n't this douchebag know better than to grandstand and make promises like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a lawyer, shouldn't this douchebag know better than to grandstand and make promises like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713663</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of standing</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247776920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.</i></p><p>Bullshit.  See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case.  This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He can sue for false advertising .
If the guy had made this offer in court , or as part of a contractual obligation , it would be a different story.Bullshit .
See 'unilateral contract ' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case , which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case .
This is n't advertising , it 's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can sue for false advertising.
If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.Bullshit.
See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case.
This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811</id>
	<title>But WHICH sort of dollars?</title>
	<author>M-RES</author>
	<datestamp>1247755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He only says he'll pay a million dollars. Does he specify US Dollars? He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars (which is pegged at 7.5 to 1 USD!!!). Differing exchange rates could mean he only has to pay a small amount in USD. If he was talking about PSD (Psuedodollars) which I believe have the current exchange rate of 1,000,000 PSD to 1 USD, then the maths is easy! This kid needs to prove he meant USD or get out of court...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He only says he 'll pay a million dollars .
Does he specify US Dollars ?
He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars , New Zealand dollars , Hong Kong dollars ( which is pegged at 7.5 to 1 USD ! ! ! ) .
Differing exchange rates could mean he only has to pay a small amount in USD .
If he was talking about PSD ( Psuedodollars ) which I believe have the current exchange rate of 1,000,000 PSD to 1 USD , then the maths is easy !
This kid needs to prove he meant USD or get out of court.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He only says he'll pay a million dollars.
Does he specify US Dollars?
He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars (which is pegged at 7.5 to 1 USD!!!).
Differing exchange rates could mean he only has to pay a small amount in USD.
If he was talking about PSD (Psuedodollars) which I believe have the current exchange rate of 1,000,000 PSD to 1 USD, then the maths is easy!
This kid needs to prove he meant USD or get out of court...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28722587</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first time either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17/" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17/</a> [penny-arcade.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17/ [ penny-arcade.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17/ [penny-arcade.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713357</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247687400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs.  TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.</p></div><p>Internets killed the video star, I see.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , everyone knows you 're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs .
TV just is n't a reliable source of information anymore.Internets killed the video star , I see .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs.
TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.Internets killed the video star, I see.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713711</id>
	<title>Do you think</title>
	<author>Cur8or</author>
	<datestamp>1247777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>he can get his client to fit that bill too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>he can get his client to fit that bill too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he can get his client to fit that bill too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716323</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of Jack Thompson... someone go tell Penny Arcade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of Jack Thompson... someone go tell Penny Arcade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of Jack Thompson... someone go tell Penny Arcade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713691</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bullet + brains = segfault. can't get much faster than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>bullet + brains = segfault .
ca n't get much faster than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bullet + brains = segfault.
can't get much faster than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713471</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat\%27s\_Last\_Theorem</p><p>This one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat \ % 27s \ _Last \ _TheoremThis one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat\%27s\_Last\_TheoremThis one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715531</id>
	<title>-1 : Clueless</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1247753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's posts like yours that inspired my sig.</p><p>The challenge was not to prove the guy committed the murders within that time, it was to prove he could make it from airport terminal to hotel security camera within that time.</p><p>Heck, many times I've made it from the same terminal to 10x the distance in just 2x the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's posts like yours that inspired my sig.The challenge was not to prove the guy committed the murders within that time , it was to prove he could make it from airport terminal to hotel security camera within that time.Heck , many times I 've made it from the same terminal to 10x the distance in just 2x the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's posts like yours that inspired my sig.The challenge was not to prove the guy committed the murders within that time, it was to prove he could make it from airport terminal to hotel security camera within that time.Heck, many times I've made it from the same terminal to 10x the distance in just 2x the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713171</id>
	<title>Re:Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1247685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free speech can work for you and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller\_v.\_Dover\_Area\_School\_District" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">against</a> [wikipedia.org] you. Lawyers and judges are only men and women who are able to rationalize their biases through verbosity because they slogged it out through law school and then lived in a place where everybody agreed with their decisions until they gained consierable power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech can work for you and against [ wikipedia.org ] you .
Lawyers and judges are only men and women who are able to rationalize their biases through verbosity because they slogged it out through law school and then lived in a place where everybody agreed with their decisions until they gained consierable power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech can work for you and against [wikipedia.org] you.
Lawyers and judges are only men and women who are able to rationalize their biases through verbosity because they slogged it out through law school and then lived in a place where everybody agreed with their decisions until they gained consierable power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716519</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points. The airplane was worth tens of millions. Also, the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract. (Pretend a store advertises a sale on computers, but runs out of stock. Can you enforce? No.)</p><p>The current cases is substantively different. The million dollars was a reward to justify his client's freedom, which is valuable enough to be reasonable. It wasn't an advertisement. Will the lawsuit succeed? Don't know. But the plaintiff has a good shot of getting his reliance damages such as his airfare and the like. I'm not so sure he can get his breach of contract damages ($1 million).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points .
The airplane was worth tens of millions .
Also , the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract .
( Pretend a store advertises a sale on computers , but runs out of stock .
Can you enforce ?
No. ) The current cases is substantively different .
The million dollars was a reward to justify his client 's freedom , which is valuable enough to be reasonable .
It was n't an advertisement .
Will the lawsuit succeed ?
Do n't know .
But the plaintiff has a good shot of getting his reliance damages such as his airfare and the like .
I 'm not so sure he can get his breach of contract damages ( $ 1 million ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points.
The airplane was worth tens of millions.
Also, the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract.
(Pretend a store advertises a sale on computers, but runs out of stock.
Can you enforce?
No.)The current cases is substantively different.
The million dollars was a reward to justify his client's freedom, which is valuable enough to be reasonable.
It wasn't an advertisement.
Will the lawsuit succeed?
Don't know.
But the plaintiff has a good shot of getting his reliance damages such as his airfare and the like.
I'm not so sure he can get his breach of contract damages ($1 million).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715455</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>locofungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't think they need to. I think the defence went along the lines of:</p><p>"Crime was committed at time X in state A. He was seen at this hotel in state B at time Y."</p><p>Because it's impossible to get from the airport in state B to the hotel in 28 minutes, he cannot have caught a plane that left state A after time X and therefore could not have committed the crime.</p><p>I imagine alibis are established like this all the time. It's presumably not uncommon to be able to prove where you where at times around that which a crime was committed but be unable to prove your precise position at the instant of the crime. This is perhaps slightly unusual in that the precise time of the crime isn't important to the alibi.</p><p>Tim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think they need to .
I think the defence went along the lines of : " Crime was committed at time X in state A. He was seen at this hotel in state B at time Y .
" Because it 's impossible to get from the airport in state B to the hotel in 28 minutes , he can not have caught a plane that left state A after time X and therefore could not have committed the crime.I imagine alibis are established like this all the time .
It 's presumably not uncommon to be able to prove where you where at times around that which a crime was committed but be unable to prove your precise position at the instant of the crime .
This is perhaps slightly unusual in that the precise time of the crime is n't important to the alibi.Tim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think they need to.
I think the defence went along the lines of:"Crime was committed at time X in state A. He was seen at this hotel in state B at time Y.
"Because it's impossible to get from the airport in state B to the hotel in 28 minutes, he cannot have caught a plane that left state A after time X and therefore could not have committed the crime.I imagine alibis are established like this all the time.
It's presumably not uncommon to be able to prove where you where at times around that which a crime was committed but be unable to prove your precise position at the instant of the crime.
This is perhaps slightly unusual in that the precise time of the crime isn't important to the alibi.Tim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713391</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>bladesjester</author>
	<datestamp>1247687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.</i></p><p>Not really.  People are rather fragile.  It doesn't take a lot to kill someone in all honesty.</p><p>What takes time is hiding the evidence.  If you just want someone dead and don't care who finds the body, you can do it in a couple of minutes (and that's for opening an artery or two and letting them bleed out.  Certain other ways can be even faster).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.Not really .
People are rather fragile .
It does n't take a lot to kill someone in all honesty.What takes time is hiding the evidence .
If you just want someone dead and do n't care who finds the body , you can do it in a couple of minutes ( and that 's for opening an artery or two and letting them bleed out .
Certain other ways can be even faster ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.Not really.
People are rather fragile.
It doesn't take a lot to kill someone in all honesty.What takes time is hiding the evidence.
If you just want someone dead and don't care who finds the body, you can do it in a couple of minutes (and that's for opening an artery or two and letting them bleed out.
Certain other ways can be even faster).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713855</id>
	<title>The judge will protect their own</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1247736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kolodziej is unlikely to win - judges tend to protect their own and is likely to side with the lawyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kolodziej is unlikely to win - judges tend to protect their own and is likely to side with the lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kolodziej is unlikely to win - judges tend to protect their own and is likely to side with the lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713709</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1247777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So did the Kolodzeij kid actually kill four people?  If he didn't, he hasn't proven anything.  He needs to go back and do it again if he wants the million bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So did the Kolodzeij kid actually kill four people ?
If he did n't , he has n't proven anything .
He needs to go back and do it again if he wants the million bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So did the Kolodzeij kid actually kill four people?
If he didn't, he hasn't proven anything.
He needs to go back and do it again if he wants the million bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</id>
	<title>Pepsi points</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1247682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Reminds me of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard\_v.\_Pepsico,\_Inc." title="wikipedia.org">Pepsi Points Case</a> [wikipedia.org] where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest. Pepsi won that case.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case [ wikipedia.org ] where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest .
Pepsi won that case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case [wikipedia.org] where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest.
Pepsi won that case.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714503</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247744160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are several things wrong here</p><p>1. The lawyer is devoid of intelligence to offer a million dollars<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; a. for some proof that damns his client<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; b. and not think that someone will take the challenge</p><p>2. The college student<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; a. should of made a written agreement that him the lawyer and a witness would all receive a copy of and sign<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; b. should remember that next time an opportunity like this (if ever) comes along he should follow point a.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are several things wrong here1 .
The lawyer is devoid of intelligence to offer a million dollars     a. for some proof that damns his client     b. and not think that someone will take the challenge2 .
The college student     a. should of made a written agreement that him the lawyer and a witness would all receive a copy of and sign     b. should remember that next time an opportunity like this ( if ever ) comes along he should follow point a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are several things wrong here1.
The lawyer is devoid of intelligence to offer a million dollars
    a. for some proof that damns his client
    b. and not think that someone will take the challenge2.
The college student
    a. should of made a written agreement that him the lawyer and a witness would all receive a copy of and sign
    b. should remember that next time an opportunity like this (if ever) comes along he should follow point a.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714061</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247738700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously?</p><p>He's a judge. He wants to prove his client is innocent. I wouldn't call it "obviously a joke" when he offers a prize to anybody able to prove his point. Or, in this case, offers a prize to incite people to try and fail.</p><p>His problem is just that someone tried and didn't fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously ? He 's a judge .
He wants to prove his client is innocent .
I would n't call it " obviously a joke " when he offers a prize to anybody able to prove his point .
Or , in this case , offers a prize to incite people to try and fail.His problem is just that someone tried and did n't fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously?He's a judge.
He wants to prove his client is innocent.
I wouldn't call it "obviously a joke" when he offers a prize to anybody able to prove his point.
Or, in this case, offers a prize to incite people to try and fail.His problem is just that someone tried and didn't fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551</id>
	<title>Really, now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anybody really care which one of these lawyer scumbags prevails?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody really care which one of these lawyer scumbags prevails ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody really care which one of these lawyer scumbags prevails?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716897</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247759640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He only says he'll pay a million dollars. Does he specify US Dollars? He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars</i> <p>
Don't quit your day job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He only says he 'll pay a million dollars .
Does he specify US Dollars ?
He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars , New Zealand dollars , Hong Kong dollars Do n't quit your day job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He only says he'll pay a million dollars.
Does he specify US Dollars?
He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars 
Don't quit your day job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717985</id>
	<title>Re:Contracat ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cat preferred Super C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cat preferred Super C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cat preferred Super C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863</id>
	<title>Contracat ?</title>
	<author>Tiger4</author>
	<datestamp>1247682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Offer and clear terms, acceptance and proof of performance.  Seems like payment is next in order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Offer and clear terms , acceptance and proof of performance .
Seems like payment is next in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offer and clear terms, acceptance and proof of performance.
Seems like payment is next in order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713741</id>
	<title>Re:Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>comp.sci</author>
	<datestamp>1247777640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are getting the parties confused here. The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag.

Let me emphasize here that the law-student who's now suing is actively trying to bankrupt some guy who made a dumb statement... Did he seriously believe that the guy would put up $1 million? No, he knew he was exaggerating but is now trying to cash in.
Let's also keep in mind that this is a murder case in which the lawyer tried to prove his client's innocence. This student's trying to profit from a murder case is disgusting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are getting the parties confused here .
The guy making the statement was an idiot , but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag .
Let me emphasize here that the law-student who 's now suing is actively trying to bankrupt some guy who made a dumb statement... Did he seriously believe that the guy would put up $ 1 million ?
No , he knew he was exaggerating but is now trying to cash in .
Let 's also keep in mind that this is a murder case in which the lawyer tried to prove his client 's innocence .
This student 's trying to profit from a murder case is disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are getting the parties confused here.
The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag.
Let me emphasize here that the law-student who's now suing is actively trying to bankrupt some guy who made a dumb statement... Did he seriously believe that the guy would put up $1 million?
No, he knew he was exaggerating but is now trying to cash in.
Let's also keep in mind that this is a murder case in which the lawyer tried to prove his client's innocence.
This student's trying to profit from a murder case is disgusting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713003</id>
	<title>Florida Lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it with Florida attorneys publicly offering money on clear terms and then backing out?</p><p>The last one that did it was disbarred for life, you'd think others wouldn't be in a hurry to follow his lead...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with Florida attorneys publicly offering money on clear terms and then backing out ? The last one that did it was disbarred for life , you 'd think others would n't be in a hurry to follow his lead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with Florida attorneys publicly offering money on clear terms and then backing out?The last one that did it was disbarred for life, you'd think others wouldn't be in a hurry to follow his lead...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713403</id>
	<title>Re:He didn't prove it though</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1247687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone. For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-}</p></div><p>I think the lawyer is screwed either way. Either he</p><p>1) Admits that this guy made the trip in time and pay him $1 million (or perhaps do some out-of-court settlement with him), or</p><p>2) Admit that he just offered $1 million dollars for someone to drive between 2 states and kill 4 people.</p><p>I think that offering money for someone to kill 4 people is probably way up there in Felony land. Given that he's crossing state lines, you're talking Federal PMITA prison for a long, long time.</p><p>The only argument I imagine that the lawyer can make is that his comments were just a joke. But that basically means that anything else that he says in public is going to be perceived as a joke for quite some time. He's going to have to live with this shit for quite a while.</p><p>Judges often have a very wry sense of humor. I can see a judge finding some kind of interesting way to censure or otherwise reprimand the lawyer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All he proved was that the drove the distance , not that the client could have killed anyone .
For that he 'd have to have killed someone or sometwo .
; - } I think the lawyer is screwed either way .
Either he1 ) Admits that this guy made the trip in time and pay him $ 1 million ( or perhaps do some out-of-court settlement with him ) , or2 ) Admit that he just offered $ 1 million dollars for someone to drive between 2 states and kill 4 people.I think that offering money for someone to kill 4 people is probably way up there in Felony land .
Given that he 's crossing state lines , you 're talking Federal PMITA prison for a long , long time.The only argument I imagine that the lawyer can make is that his comments were just a joke .
But that basically means that anything else that he says in public is going to be perceived as a joke for quite some time .
He 's going to have to live with this shit for quite a while.Judges often have a very wry sense of humor .
I can see a judge finding some kind of interesting way to censure or otherwise reprimand the lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone.
For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo.
;-}I think the lawyer is screwed either way.
Either he1) Admits that this guy made the trip in time and pay him $1 million (or perhaps do some out-of-court settlement with him), or2) Admit that he just offered $1 million dollars for someone to drive between 2 states and kill 4 people.I think that offering money for someone to kill 4 people is probably way up there in Felony land.
Given that he's crossing state lines, you're talking Federal PMITA prison for a long, long time.The only argument I imagine that the lawyer can make is that his comments were just a joke.
But that basically means that anything else that he says in public is going to be perceived as a joke for quite some time.
He's going to have to live with this shit for quite a while.Judges often have a very wry sense of humor.
I can see a judge finding some kind of interesting way to censure or otherwise reprimand the lawyer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713061</id>
	<title>He didn't prove it though</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1247684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone. For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All he proved was that the drove the distance , not that the client could have killed anyone .
For that he 'd have to have killed someone or sometwo .
; - }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone.
For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo.
;-}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715529</id>
	<title>Re:I really don't get it!</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1247753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me? Which law is that? The "You Said It Now" Act ???</p></div><p>I think that one falls under The I Don't Want This Crowd of Angry People to Break My Legs Act of 1879, which was upheld in <i>Sambrowski v. Oh, God, Here, Please Just Take the Money and Stop</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go out on a public place and shout : " Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks ! ! !
" , does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster ( and dumper ) who runs to me ?
Which law is that ?
The " You Said It Now " Act ? ?
? I think that one falls under The I Do n't Want This Crowd of Angry People to Break My Legs Act of 1879 , which was upheld in Sambrowski v. Oh , God , Here , Please Just Take the Money and Stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!
", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me?
Which law is that?
The "You Said It Now" Act ??
?I think that one falls under The I Don't Want This Crowd of Angry People to Break My Legs Act of 1879, which was upheld in Sambrowski v. Oh, God, Here, Please Just Take the Money and Stop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ok, so they took a trip in 28 minutes, but did they also kill 4 people within the 28 minute time limit?
</p><p>
If not, how do they prove the attorney's client <b>was able</b> to both travel the distance <b>and kill</b> in the manner alleged by prosecutors?
</p><p>
I think they better have a little more than "We were able to travel across 2 states in 28 minutes.
</p><p>
They best also be able to prove the defendant is just as able to make such a trip as they are.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so they took a trip in 28 minutes , but did they also kill 4 people within the 28 minute time limit ?
If not , how do they prove the attorney 's client was able to both travel the distance and kill in the manner alleged by prosecutors ?
I think they better have a little more than " We were able to travel across 2 states in 28 minutes .
They best also be able to prove the defendant is just as able to make such a trip as they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ok, so they took a trip in 28 minutes, but did they also kill 4 people within the 28 minute time limit?
If not, how do they prove the attorney's client was able to both travel the distance and kill in the manner alleged by prosecutors?
I think they better have a little more than "We were able to travel across 2 states in 28 minutes.
They best also be able to prove the defendant is just as able to make such a trip as they are.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719735</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it reasonable to believe that an attorney would venture to reward someone for doing harm to his case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it reasonable to believe that an attorney would venture to reward someone for doing harm to his case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it reasonable to believe that an attorney would venture to reward someone for doing harm to his case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716913</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247759700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Leonard was screwed by the Judge.</p><p>The commercial makes an offer, it's pretty clear. This is what really gets my goat:<br>"The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for under a million dollars."</p><p>Companies give away prizes below their value ALL THE FUCKING TIME. A reasonable person would know that and have no reason to question Pepsi's offer as 'unreasonable'.</p><p>Pepsi screwed up, and then refused to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Leonard was screwed by the Judge.The commercial makes an offer , it 's pretty clear .
This is what really gets my goat : " The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer , no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $ 23 million for under a million dollars .
" Companies give away prizes below their value ALL THE FUCKING TIME .
A reasonable person would know that and have no reason to question Pepsi 's offer as 'unreasonable'.Pepsi screwed up , and then refused to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Leonard was screwed by the Judge.The commercial makes an offer, it's pretty clear.
This is what really gets my goat:"The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for under a million dollars.
"Companies give away prizes below their value ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
A reasonable person would know that and have no reason to question Pepsi's offer as 'unreasonable'.Pepsi screwed up, and then refused to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045</id>
	<title>Re:Pepsi points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main point in that case was that it cannot be assumed by any reasonable person that they would give away a jet worth multiple million dollars for an amount of redeemable points that would not generate them even a percent of that cost. You might assume it if it is some lottery or game system where you additionally either have to have a lot of luck or have to accomplish some other feat... And all that provided that civilians may own military hardware where you live.</p><p>It's not so unreasonable to assume a lawyer would offer a prize to someone who can prove something (or, in this case, would incite people to try and fail to prove the opposite). The ethics is questionable (he might have been required to go a wee bit over the speed limit or drive recklessly, thus endangering people while trying to prove the point), but I wouldn't rule it out to be believable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main point in that case was that it can not be assumed by any reasonable person that they would give away a jet worth multiple million dollars for an amount of redeemable points that would not generate them even a percent of that cost .
You might assume it if it is some lottery or game system where you additionally either have to have a lot of luck or have to accomplish some other feat... And all that provided that civilians may own military hardware where you live.It 's not so unreasonable to assume a lawyer would offer a prize to someone who can prove something ( or , in this case , would incite people to try and fail to prove the opposite ) .
The ethics is questionable ( he might have been required to go a wee bit over the speed limit or drive recklessly , thus endangering people while trying to prove the point ) , but I would n't rule it out to be believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main point in that case was that it cannot be assumed by any reasonable person that they would give away a jet worth multiple million dollars for an amount of redeemable points that would not generate them even a percent of that cost.
You might assume it if it is some lottery or game system where you additionally either have to have a lot of luck or have to accomplish some other feat... And all that provided that civilians may own military hardware where you live.It's not so unreasonable to assume a lawyer would offer a prize to someone who can prove something (or, in this case, would incite people to try and fail to prove the opposite).
The ethics is questionable (he might have been required to go a wee bit over the speed limit or drive recklessly, thus endangering people while trying to prove the point), but I wouldn't rule it out to be believable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714965</id>
	<title>Not the first time either</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should never believe a lawyer who says on television that he will give you (or someone else) money if you can perform some task to which he defines the terms. Some years ago, Jack Thompson challenged gamers to create a violent videogame where a grizzled game designer goes on a bloody rampage across the office of "Take One" studios, an obvious rip on the name of Take Two who designed Thompson's nemesis, <i>Grand Theft Auto.</i> He stated he would give 10,000$ to charity if someone did... and when the challenge was taken and completed, he quickly backpedaled that he did not mean it and did not have to pay. Penny Arcade eventually donated the money, in his name, to a children's charity... and Thompson went to the police, claiming that Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins were criminally harassing him as a result of this donation. <i>I swear I am not making this up.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should never believe a lawyer who says on television that he will give you ( or someone else ) money if you can perform some task to which he defines the terms .
Some years ago , Jack Thompson challenged gamers to create a violent videogame where a grizzled game designer goes on a bloody rampage across the office of " Take One " studios , an obvious rip on the name of Take Two who designed Thompson 's nemesis , Grand Theft Auto .
He stated he would give 10,000 $ to charity if someone did... and when the challenge was taken and completed , he quickly backpedaled that he did not mean it and did not have to pay .
Penny Arcade eventually donated the money , in his name , to a children 's charity... and Thompson went to the police , claiming that Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins were criminally harassing him as a result of this donation .
I swear I am not making this up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should never believe a lawyer who says on television that he will give you (or someone else) money if you can perform some task to which he defines the terms.
Some years ago, Jack Thompson challenged gamers to create a violent videogame where a grizzled game designer goes on a bloody rampage across the office of "Take One" studios, an obvious rip on the name of Take Two who designed Thompson's nemesis, Grand Theft Auto.
He stated he would give 10,000$ to charity if someone did... and when the challenge was taken and completed, he quickly backpedaled that he did not mean it and did not have to pay.
Penny Arcade eventually donated the money, in his name, to a children's charity... and Thompson went to the police, claiming that Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins were criminally harassing him as a result of this donation.
I swear I am not making this up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712983</id>
	<title>But did he kill four people?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1247683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was<br>&gt; able to travel across two states and kill four<br>&gt; people in the time that prosecutors had alleged</p><p>Simulations are not sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; prove that his client , Nelson Ivan Serrano , was &gt; able to travel across two states and kill four &gt; people in the time that prosecutors had allegedSimulations are not sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was&gt; able to travel across two states and kill four&gt; people in the time that prosecutors had allegedSimulations are not sufficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715867</id>
	<title>Re:Technically..</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1247755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.</p><p>Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?</p><p>Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.</p></div><p>This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year.  In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety.  It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered.  Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.</p><p>The traditional example is a reward.  Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer.  Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward.  In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis.  Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.</p><p>Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.</p></div><p>Was this sufficiently specific to constitute an offer? For example, there was no time limit: is Mason on the hook for anyone able to do it, anytime, anywhere? There appears to be none of the language which has shown up in other, valid unilateral contracts - "first come, first served", "while supplies last", "offer good to the first acceptance", etc.</p><p>
My guess is that he'd argue this is more like the Pepsi-Co Harrier Jet: no reasonable person would understand that this was an actual offer, instead it was posturing for his client.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mason : I challenge anybody to show me , I 'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.Murphy : If they can do it in the time alloted ? Mason : 28 minutes .
Ca n't happen .
Did n't happen.This is a classic unilateral contract offer , and I 'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year .
In a unilateral contract , you offer something to someone ( someone specific or anyone in general ) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety .
It is not enough to say " I accept your offer " and it is not enough to try and fail ; you must complete the terms offered .
Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying " I accept " or words to that effect.The traditional example is a reward .
Rewards are almost never paid , at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually can not show that they did the required conduct because of the offer .
Heck , they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward , or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves , not because of the reward .
In this case , however , the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis .
Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip , he would be entitled to NOTHING , not even expenses.Yes , IAAL , but I am not your L.Was this sufficiently specific to constitute an offer ?
For example , there was no time limit : is Mason on the hook for anyone able to do it , anytime , anywhere ?
There appears to be none of the language which has shown up in other , valid unilateral contracts - " first come , first served " , " while supplies last " , " offer good to the first acceptance " , etc .
My guess is that he 'd argue this is more like the Pepsi-Co Harrier Jet : no reasonable person would understand that this was an actual offer , instead it was posturing for his client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?Mason: 28 minutes.
Can't happen.
Didn't happen.This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year.
In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety.
It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered.
Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.The traditional example is a reward.
Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer.
Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward.
In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis.
Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.Was this sufficiently specific to constitute an offer?
For example, there was no time limit: is Mason on the hook for anyone able to do it, anytime, anywhere?
There appears to be none of the language which has shown up in other, valid unilateral contracts - "first come, first served", "while supplies last", "offer good to the first acceptance", etc.
My guess is that he'd argue this is more like the Pepsi-Co Harrier Jet: no reasonable person would understand that this was an actual offer, instead it was posturing for his client.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712861</id>
	<title>Lack of standing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He can sue for false advertising .
If the guy had made this offer in court , or as part of a contractual obligation , it would be a different story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can sue for false advertising.
If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714139</id>
	<title>Re:Laywers. Ugh!</title>
	<author>thej1nx</author>
	<datestamp>1247739660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag.</i>

Indeed.<p>


And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari\_X\_Prize" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari\_X\_Prize</a> [wikipedia.org]. The guys <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled\_Composites" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled\_Composites</a> [wikipedia.org] who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!</p><p>

And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals? Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?</p><p>

What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make. Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy making the statement was an idiot , but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag .
Indeed . And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari \ _X \ _Prize [ wikipedia.org ] .
The guys http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled \ _Composites [ wikipedia.org ] who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim , must be total douchebags !
And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals ?
Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too , is n't it ?
What is * most * disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises , and really honor any unilateral contracts they make .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag.
Indeed.


And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari\_X\_Prize [wikipedia.org].
The guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled\_Composites [wikipedia.org] who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!
And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals?
Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?
What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make.
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717209</id>
	<title>Re:You can sue a liar for lying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suing people for lying and applying it to Politics is an interesting suggestion.</p><p>Seriously, this kind of thing would easily change politics forever and probably in a good way. I would LOVE to have people sue both the (R) and (D) parties into oblivion so we can have REAL statesmen again, who aren't tied to stupid party lines.</p><p>However, the game is already rigged so that such a thing would never be able to take root, as some slimy lawyer will take campaign promises and say "there is no way he could have fulfilled that promise" and say it was a "joke"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Hey aren't most Politicians Lawyers?  That might explain things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suing people for lying and applying it to Politics is an interesting suggestion.Seriously , this kind of thing would easily change politics forever and probably in a good way .
I would LOVE to have people sue both the ( R ) and ( D ) parties into oblivion so we can have REAL statesmen again , who are n't tied to stupid party lines.However , the game is already rigged so that such a thing would never be able to take root , as some slimy lawyer will take campaign promises and say " there is no way he could have fulfilled that promise " and say it was a " joke " ....Hey are n't most Politicians Lawyers ?
That might explain things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suing people for lying and applying it to Politics is an interesting suggestion.Seriously, this kind of thing would easily change politics forever and probably in a good way.
I would LOVE to have people sue both the (R) and (D) parties into oblivion so we can have REAL statesmen again, who aren't tied to stupid party lines.However, the game is already rigged so that such a thing would never be able to take root, as some slimy lawyer will take campaign promises and say "there is no way he could have fulfilled that promise" and say it was a "joke" ....Hey aren't most Politicians Lawyers?
That might explain things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28725067</id>
	<title>Clearly the lawyer never saw Run Lola Run</title>
	<author>JoeBuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Franka Potente would have made it in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130827/" title="imdb.com">20 minutes flat</a> [imdb.com], and if she failed she'd rewind the world to give herself two more tries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Franka Potente would have made it in 20 minutes flat [ imdb.com ] , and if she failed she 'd rewind the world to give herself two more tries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Franka Potente would have made it in 20 minutes flat [imdb.com], and if she failed she'd rewind the world to give herself two more tries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28724759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28722587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28718819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2336237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28722587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714611
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714951
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715531
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715455
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28724759
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28719735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28717209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28714533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28716897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28718819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28713663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2336237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28712969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2336237.28715947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
