<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_1947237</id>
	<title>NASA's LRO Captures High-Res Pics of Apollo Landing Sites</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247830020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:thebadastronomer@\%5B\%5Dil.com\%5B'gma'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">The Bad Astronomer</a> is one of many readers who wrote to tell us about NASA's release of <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html">high-res photos showing the Apollo landing sites</a>. The photos were taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and show the traces of earlier visits to the Moon.  <i>"The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bad Astronomer is one of many readers who wrote to tell us about NASA 's release of high-res photos showing the Apollo landing sites .
The photos were taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and show the traces of earlier visits to the Moon .
" The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15 .
Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission , these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit .
Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bad Astronomer is one of many readers who wrote to tell us about NASA's release of high-res photos showing the Apollo landing sites.
The photos were taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and show the traces of earlier visits to the Moon.
"The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15.
Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit.
Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742989</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1247907660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20+ years ago, "Intelligent Design" HAD no place in the public schools.  It has mostly been these last 10-15 years that certain fundamentalist groups have managed to get it added to curriculum, often as favored over natural science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 + years ago , " Intelligent Design " HAD no place in the public schools .
It has mostly been these last 10-15 years that certain fundamentalist groups have managed to get it added to curriculum , often as favored over natural science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20+ years ago, "Intelligent Design" HAD no place in the public schools.
It has mostly been these last 10-15 years that certain fundamentalist groups have managed to get it added to curriculum, often as favored over natural science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745119</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude,  25\% of all 18-25 year-olds are fucking moron losers It's been that way for at least 300 years.</p><p>Yes kids, look at you and 3 of your friends. One of you is a loser moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , 25 \ % of all 18-25 year-olds are fucking moron losers It 's been that way for at least 300 years.Yes kids , look at you and 3 of your friends .
One of you is a loser moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude,  25\% of all 18-25 year-olds are fucking moron losers It's been that way for at least 300 years.Yes kids, look at you and 3 of your friends.
One of you is a loser moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740027</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Restil</author>
	<datestamp>1247925060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What schools did you go to??  20+ years ago when I was in school, Intelligent design had no place... in fact, the only religious references I can even remember were the secular Xmas parties and my senior year when we studied Dante for a few weeks.</p><p>Science was science.  Evolution as a concept was pretty much a fully agreed upon fact even back then.  So we want to have an argument whether the first amino acids came together as random chance, or if some higher power had something to do with it.  WHO CARES!</p><p>-Restil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What schools did you go to ? ?
20 + years ago when I was in school , Intelligent design had no place... in fact , the only religious references I can even remember were the secular Xmas parties and my senior year when we studied Dante for a few weeks.Science was science .
Evolution as a concept was pretty much a fully agreed upon fact even back then .
So we want to have an argument whether the first amino acids came together as random chance , or if some higher power had something to do with it .
WHO CARES ! -Restil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What schools did you go to??
20+ years ago when I was in school, Intelligent design had no place... in fact, the only religious references I can even remember were the secular Xmas parties and my senior year when we studied Dante for a few weeks.Science was science.
Evolution as a concept was pretty much a fully agreed upon fact even back then.
So we want to have an argument whether the first amino acids came together as random chance, or if some higher power had something to do with it.
WHO CARES!-Restil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736537</id>
	<title>Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, to show the landing sight, I think they'd actually have to land again.  To show the landing <em>site</em>, however, simply requires a sufficiently high-resolution camera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , to show the landing sight , I think they 'd actually have to land again .
To show the landing site , however , simply requires a sufficiently high-resolution camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, to show the landing sight, I think they'd actually have to land again.
To show the landing site, however, simply requires a sufficiently high-resolution camera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740821</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, this is a pretty good headline too: http://store.theonion.com/holy-shit-man-walks-on-fucking-moon-1969-p-332.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , this is a pretty good headline too : http : //store.theonion.com/holy-shit-man-walks-on-fucking-moon-1969-p-332.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, this is a pretty good headline too: http://store.theonion.com/holy-shit-man-walks-on-fucking-moon-1969-p-332.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740737</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>SpeZek</author>
	<datestamp>1247931720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow I doubt they would have questioned its existence if he'd brought back geological evidence, videos, and photographs,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I doubt they would have questioned its existence if he 'd brought back geological evidence , videos , and photographs,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I doubt they would have questioned its existence if he'd brought back geological evidence, videos, and photographs,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397</id>
	<title>The way I see it...</title>
	<author>cmowire</author>
	<datestamp>1247833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure at least once, somebody in the team asked "Now, you guys do know that this will show the landing sight.  We really didn't fake the landing, right?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure at least once , somebody in the team asked " Now , you guys do know that this will show the landing sight .
We really did n't fake the landing , right ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure at least once, somebody in the team asked "Now, you guys do know that this will show the landing sight.
We really didn't fake the landing, right?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739895</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>generic.individual</author>
	<datestamp>1247923020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can make that check out to me... I will see it makes it to the right hands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can make that check out to me... I will see it makes it to the right hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can make that check out to me... I will see it makes it to the right hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</id>
	<title>yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does always bug me that the people who are so mistrustful that they refuse to accept that US astronauts did in fact land on the moon.  One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.  CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.  That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.</p><p>Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.  They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.</p><p>Someday I hope that we as a species will go back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does always bug me that the people who are so mistrustful that they refuse to accept that US astronauts did in fact land on the moon .
One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz ( in his late 70s ) dropped the guy with one punch to the face .
CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25 \ % of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing .
That is utterly depressing , showing the current level of science education.Honestly , I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing .
They would have had the technology to disprove us , and do n't tell me that they would n't have called us out.Someday I hope that we as a species will go back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does always bug me that the people who are so mistrustful that they refuse to accept that US astronauts did in fact land on the moon.
One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.
CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.
That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.
They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.Someday I hope that we as a species will go back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.</p></div><p>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage. I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was. It was, in my opinion, the best headline I will ever read in my life. It read, in giant lettering across its homepage;</p><p><b>Yes, We Did.</b></p><p>Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated. I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25 \ % of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing .
That is utterly depressing , showing the current level of science education.They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line , because up here in Minnesota , I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage .
I still remember when Fox News aired their little " moon hoax " series what NASA 's response was .
It was , in my opinion , the best headline I will ever read in my life .
It read , in giant lettering across its homepage ; Yes , We Did.Do n't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated .
I assure you , idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.
That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.
I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was.
It was, in my opinion, the best headline I will ever read in my life.
It read, in giant lettering across its homepage;Yes, We Did.Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated.
I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736779</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.</p></div><p>25\% of any random sampling of people are either stupid and/or maliciously answer questions wrong.</p><p>How many 18-25 year-olds:<br>--can list more than 2 constitutional amendments?<br>--can point to Brazil on a map?<br>--believe in evolution?<br>--can list the last 5 presidents?<br>--can list all 50 states?<br>--know what state Obama was a senator for?<br>--know that Obama was a senator?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25 \ % of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.25 \ % of any random sampling of people are either stupid and/or maliciously answer questions wrong.How many 18-25 year-olds : --can list more than 2 constitutional amendments ? --can point to Brazil on a map ? --believe in evolution ? --can list the last 5 presidents ? --can list all 50 states ? --know what state Obama was a senator for ? --know that Obama was a senator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.25\% of any random sampling of people are either stupid and/or maliciously answer questions wrong.How many 18-25 year-olds:--can list more than 2 constitutional amendments?--can point to Brazil on a map?--believe in evolution?--can list the last 5 presidents?--can list all 50 states?--know what state Obama was a senator for?--know that Obama was a senator?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741339</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247936880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am under 30 and I see it happening in our lifetime, in fact, I see it happening within 10 years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am under 30 and I see it happening in our lifetime , in fact , I see it happening within 10 years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am under 30 and I see it happening in our lifetime, in fact, I see it happening within 10 years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738551</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1247856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Also, the rabble-rousing conspiracy nuts would all have been assassinated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would have had the technology to disprove us , and do n't tell me that they would n't have called us out.Also , the rabble-rousing conspiracy nuts would all have been assassinated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.Also, the rabble-rousing conspiracy nuts would all have been assassinated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1247837040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the lack of moon-based science we've done since the 70's, that number doesn't really surprise me. I grew up in the 80's, and when I found out as a kid that we'd not just sent one group of men to the moon, but several, I got excited wanting to know how I could go visit the moon myself. I was crushed, upon learning that less than 30 people had ever been to the moon, and nobody ever planned to go back again. It's been almost 20 years since I learned the awful truth, and nobody still yet has a firm launch date for sending a manned orbiter to the moon, let alone an idea of what it would look like. If you're under 30 - the idea of putting a man on the moon sounds damn cool - but it might as well be Arthurian Legend or a story out of an H.G. Wells book written long before you were born. I think people under 30 are highly supportive of putting a man on the moon, and a man on the mars (seriously, what government agency do I write a check to?) but they're skeptical of it ever happening in our lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the lack of moon-based science we 've done since the 70 's , that number does n't really surprise me .
I grew up in the 80 's , and when I found out as a kid that we 'd not just sent one group of men to the moon , but several , I got excited wanting to know how I could go visit the moon myself .
I was crushed , upon learning that less than 30 people had ever been to the moon , and nobody ever planned to go back again .
It 's been almost 20 years since I learned the awful truth , and nobody still yet has a firm launch date for sending a manned orbiter to the moon , let alone an idea of what it would look like .
If you 're under 30 - the idea of putting a man on the moon sounds damn cool - but it might as well be Arthurian Legend or a story out of an H.G .
Wells book written long before you were born .
I think people under 30 are highly supportive of putting a man on the moon , and a man on the mars ( seriously , what government agency do I write a check to ?
) but they 're skeptical of it ever happening in our lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the lack of moon-based science we've done since the 70's, that number doesn't really surprise me.
I grew up in the 80's, and when I found out as a kid that we'd not just sent one group of men to the moon, but several, I got excited wanting to know how I could go visit the moon myself.
I was crushed, upon learning that less than 30 people had ever been to the moon, and nobody ever planned to go back again.
It's been almost 20 years since I learned the awful truth, and nobody still yet has a firm launch date for sending a manned orbiter to the moon, let alone an idea of what it would look like.
If you're under 30 - the idea of putting a man on the moon sounds damn cool - but it might as well be Arthurian Legend or a story out of an H.G.
Wells book written long before you were born.
I think people under 30 are highly supportive of putting a man on the moon, and a man on the mars (seriously, what government agency do I write a check to?
) but they're skeptical of it ever happening in our lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737719</id>
	<title>Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To show the landing sight, would require an observer with very powerful optics imaging the site from forty light years away.<br>That sight of the site would then be able to show the landing.</p><p>The best we can hope for is a sight of the landing site as it is now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To show the landing sight , would require an observer with very powerful optics imaging the site from forty light years away.That sight of the site would then be able to show the landing.The best we can hope for is a sight of the landing site as it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To show the landing sight, would require an observer with very powerful optics imaging the site from forty light years away.That sight of the site would then be able to show the landing.The best we can hope for is a sight of the landing site as it is now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736381</id>
	<title>First fake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First fake</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First fake</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First fake</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739235</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line,</p></div><p>If I ever meet you in person I'm going to slap you in the mouth.  I'm seriously getting tired of people thinking that just because I have a southern accent I'm stupid/ignorant/retarted/racist/superstitious/(insert southern moniker here).  The funny thing is that I have yet to meet someone from Minnesota that is friendly, I suppose it's the cold even though I lived in Maine for a bit.  It seems a bit odd to me that you folks like to come down here and buy up property like there's no tomorrow and take over the local government to implement you're "it's for the children" laws and yet you can't stand us here dumb rednecks.  As an aside, there are several posters from other countries below saying:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean. It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.</p></div><p>Yet we tend to bail out the rest of you when you get into trouble.  See World War Two history for references.  Thank you and have a nice day.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean seriously, most Americans still fail to realise the difference between it's and its even though most of us nonnative speakers are quite fluent with it. We can even tell the difference between you're and your, often even their, there and they're!

It just bugs me that there are so few Americans out there today who can actually use their native tongue. Horrible isn't it?</p></div><p>It's non-native by the way.  Oh, and have fun while they take away your liberties.  Did I use your right?  By the way, literacy has little to do with speech.  Being able to say your, you're and their, there and they're have relatively little to do with being able to correctly spell out the same thing.

On second thought, I'll slap the Minnesotan and shoot the other two!  At least we're Americans.  Asshats!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line,If I ever meet you in person I 'm going to slap you in the mouth .
I 'm seriously getting tired of people thinking that just because I have a southern accent I 'm stupid/ignorant/retarted/racist/superstitious/ ( insert southern moniker here ) .
The funny thing is that I have yet to meet someone from Minnesota that is friendly , I suppose it 's the cold even though I lived in Maine for a bit .
It seems a bit odd to me that you folks like to come down here and buy up property like there 's no tomorrow and take over the local government to implement you 're " it 's for the children " laws and yet you ca n't stand us here dumb rednecks .
As an aside , there are several posters from other countries below saying : But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it 's ignorance , try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean .
It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.Yet we tend to bail out the rest of you when you get into trouble .
See World War Two history for references .
Thank you and have a nice day.I mean seriously , most Americans still fail to realise the difference between it 's and its even though most of us nonnative speakers are quite fluent with it .
We can even tell the difference between you 're and your , often even their , there and they 're !
It just bugs me that there are so few Americans out there today who can actually use their native tongue .
Horrible is n't it ? It 's non-native by the way .
Oh , and have fun while they take away your liberties .
Did I use your right ?
By the way , literacy has little to do with speech .
Being able to say your , you 're and their , there and they 're have relatively little to do with being able to correctly spell out the same thing .
On second thought , I 'll slap the Minnesotan and shoot the other two !
At least we 're Americans .
Asshats ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line,If I ever meet you in person I'm going to slap you in the mouth.
I'm seriously getting tired of people thinking that just because I have a southern accent I'm stupid/ignorant/retarted/racist/superstitious/(insert southern moniker here).
The funny thing is that I have yet to meet someone from Minnesota that is friendly, I suppose it's the cold even though I lived in Maine for a bit.
It seems a bit odd to me that you folks like to come down here and buy up property like there's no tomorrow and take over the local government to implement you're "it's for the children" laws and yet you can't stand us here dumb rednecks.
As an aside, there are several posters from other countries below saying:But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean.
It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.Yet we tend to bail out the rest of you when you get into trouble.
See World War Two history for references.
Thank you and have a nice day.I mean seriously, most Americans still fail to realise the difference between it's and its even though most of us nonnative speakers are quite fluent with it.
We can even tell the difference between you're and your, often even their, there and they're!
It just bugs me that there are so few Americans out there today who can actually use their native tongue.
Horrible isn't it?It's non-native by the way.
Oh, and have fun while they take away your liberties.
Did I use your right?
By the way, literacy has little to do with speech.
Being able to say your, you're and their, there and they're have relatively little to do with being able to correctly spell out the same thing.
On second thought, I'll slap the Minnesotan and shoot the other two!
At least we're Americans.
Asshats!!!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743735</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247914200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>short version of you post:<br><br>"USA!USA!USA! RUMSFELD!!!!"<br><br>This just in! America is becoming the laughing stock for the world to amuse themselves. *facepalm* WWII history rewriting by the history channel is only believed by Americans void of something to make them feel proud LIKE IN THE 2009, THE NAO.<br><br>Now that you have you con ass handed have a nice day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>short version of you post : " USA ! USA ! USA !
RUMSFELD ! ! ! ! " This just in !
America is becoming the laughing stock for the world to amuse themselves .
* facepalm * WWII history rewriting by the history channel is only believed by Americans void of something to make them feel proud LIKE IN THE 2009 , THE NAO.Now that you have you con ass handed have a nice day : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>short version of you post:"USA!USA!USA!
RUMSFELD!!!!"This just in!
America is becoming the laughing stock for the world to amuse themselves.
*facepalm* WWII history rewriting by the history channel is only believed by Americans void of something to make them feel proud LIKE IN THE 2009, THE NAO.Now that you have you con ass handed have a nice day :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738003</id>
	<title>Who stole the rovers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave a vehicle unattended anywhere in the solar system and it is stolen. We should be able to see the rovers if we can see the footprints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave a vehicle unattended anywhere in the solar system and it is stolen .
We should be able to see the rovers if we can see the footprints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave a vehicle unattended anywhere in the solar system and it is stolen.
We should be able to see the rovers if we can see the footprints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739411</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247913960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know 2 science majors who do not believe in the landing. One of them has a PhD in astronomy.<br>It's not all about lack of education...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know 2 science majors who do not believe in the landing .
One of them has a PhD in astronomy.It 's not all about lack of education.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know 2 science majors who do not believe in the landing.
One of them has a PhD in astronomy.It's not all about lack of education...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745841</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247942220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.</p></div><p>It gets worse:  those 25\% include 100\% of swing-voters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25 \ % of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.It gets worse : those 25 \ % include 100 \ % of swing-voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.It gets worse:  those 25\% include 100\% of swing-voters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740513</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1247930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not so much that we are incapable of doing it... it's that a straightforward and practical cost-benefit analysis doesn't really show up any reasons why we ought to continue doing it.... or for that matter, why we ought to have done it in the first place, beyond perhaps just being able to say that we did.  Since there's no point in continually throwing good money after bad, we stopped going to the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much that we are incapable of doing it... it 's that a straightforward and practical cost-benefit analysis does n't really show up any reasons why we ought to continue doing it.... or for that matter , why we ought to have done it in the first place , beyond perhaps just being able to say that we did .
Since there 's no point in continually throwing good money after bad , we stopped going to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much that we are incapable of doing it... it's that a straightforward and practical cost-benefit analysis doesn't really show up any reasons why we ought to continue doing it.... or for that matter, why we ought to have done it in the first place, beyond perhaps just being able to say that we did.
Since there's no point in continually throwing good money after bad, we stopped going to the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742985</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1247907660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europe != Russians.</p><p>Russians really are special, they can often be a rather ultranationalist bunch that feel victimized whenever they don't get to bully others like they would like to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe ! = Russians.Russians really are special , they can often be a rather ultranationalist bunch that feel victimized whenever they do n't get to bully others like they would like to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe != Russians.Russians really are special, they can often be a rather ultranationalist bunch that feel victimized whenever they don't get to bully others like they would like to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247846880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.</p></div></blockquote><p>I take it you've never had a conversation with someone who grew up behind the iron curtain, and didn't defect.  I once had one such guy physically attack me because I kept shooting down all his theories about how the moon landing was faked.  In his eyes, everything in recent history was either done by Russia, was stolen from the Russians, or is a big capitalist lie meant to malign the Russians.  You want to talk about ideological blindness, I think Europe has the Yanks beat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.I take it you 've never had a conversation with someone who grew up behind the iron curtain , and did n't defect .
I once had one such guy physically attack me because I kept shooting down all his theories about how the moon landing was faked .
In his eyes , everything in recent history was either done by Russia , was stolen from the Russians , or is a big capitalist lie meant to malign the Russians .
You want to talk about ideological blindness , I think Europe has the Yanks beat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.I take it you've never had a conversation with someone who grew up behind the iron curtain, and didn't defect.
I once had one such guy physically attack me because I kept shooting down all his theories about how the moon landing was faked.
In his eyes, everything in recent history was either done by Russia, was stolen from the Russians, or is a big capitalist lie meant to malign the Russians.
You want to talk about ideological blindness, I think Europe has the Yanks beat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736885</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1247837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. </i></p><p>The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax. It was excellent propaganda. It generated fear in their people, and fearful people are more easily herded.</p><p>Instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it was "America has moon rockets".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing .
The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax .
It was excellent propaganda .
It generated fear in their people , and fearful people are more easily herded.Instead of " Iraq has WMDs " it was " America has moon rockets " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.
The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax.
It was excellent propaganda.
It generated fear in their people, and fearful people are more easily herded.Instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it was "America has moon rockets".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738719</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1247859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the people who would have had to be convinced would be NASA--they would be the hard ones to fake out.  All the Soviet Union had was the voice signals to the moon, which could easily be faked.</p><p>As I've said before, the conspiracists I've read about say we didn't land <i>people</i> on the moon.  There's nothing mentioned about our ability to land hardware on the moon.  I've never heard anybody say the Surveyor probes were faked.  So it's not impossible that NASA landed a transmitter on the moon that would receive signals from Earth and broadcast them back to the Earth, making it look like the signals came from the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the people who would have had to be convinced would be NASA--they would be the hard ones to fake out .
All the Soviet Union had was the voice signals to the moon , which could easily be faked.As I 've said before , the conspiracists I 've read about say we did n't land people on the moon .
There 's nothing mentioned about our ability to land hardware on the moon .
I 've never heard anybody say the Surveyor probes were faked .
So it 's not impossible that NASA landed a transmitter on the moon that would receive signals from Earth and broadcast them back to the Earth , making it look like the signals came from the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the people who would have had to be convinced would be NASA--they would be the hard ones to fake out.
All the Soviet Union had was the voice signals to the moon, which could easily be faked.As I've said before, the conspiracists I've read about say we didn't land people on the moon.
There's nothing mentioned about our ability to land hardware on the moon.
I've never heard anybody say the Surveyor probes were faked.
So it's not impossible that NASA landed a transmitter on the moon that would receive signals from Earth and broadcast them back to the Earth, making it look like the signals came from the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28744467</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Phase Shifter</author>
	<datestamp>1247923920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.</p></div><p>About 1/3 of NASA's facilities are south of the Mason-Dixon line.  Some of us southerners periodically meet people who walked on the moon.<br>Try blaming it on the northwest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line , because up here in Minnesota , I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.About 1/3 of NASA 's facilities are south of the Mason-Dixon line .
Some of us southerners periodically meet people who walked on the moon.Try blaming it on the northwest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.About 1/3 of NASA's facilities are south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Some of us southerners periodically meet people who walked on the moon.Try blaming it on the northwest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736923</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1247837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not so bad, considering that upwards of 40\% are still being taught "Intelligent Design" as "real science" in their school systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not so bad , considering that upwards of 40 \ % are still being taught " Intelligent Design " as " real science " in their school systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not so bad, considering that upwards of 40\% are still being taught "Intelligent Design" as "real science" in their school systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737371</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1247841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Someday I hope that we as a species will go back."</p><p>Back to the ocean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Someday I hope that we as a species will go back .
" Back to the ocean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Someday I hope that we as a species will go back.
"Back to the ocean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742615</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247947200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.</p><p>They wouldn't have called us out, but used it as a pawn in behind the scenes political negotiations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; and do n't tell me that they would n't have called us out.They would n't have called us out , but used it as a pawn in behind the scenes political negotiations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.They wouldn't have called us out, but used it as a pawn in behind the scenes political negotiations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736389</id>
	<title>I hope they serve FAIL in hell!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The business side is even more open. Every film project involves lots of agreements, which have to be made on multiple levels with lawyers and agents reviewing them, often enclosing other agreements as exhibits; then other deals are worked out for the business aspects of any media production, including distribution. Keep in mind, these projects involve financing, so bankers, investors, and their lawyers see documents; insurance, so agents and insurers see documents; then they get shopped around to various studios and other business folks; Then these producers business people, and their lawyers, have neighbors and other social contacts. And like any business folks when people get together, they talk shop. Some of the stuff discussed by business people concerning the creative process can be scandalous gossip and nonsense. We see documents, we don't hang out with Brad and Angelina. But sometimes you keep hearing the same story from multiple people who are intimately involved in the process citing multiple sources. You tend to place more credence in that type of story because it usually turns out to be true.</p><p>And there are certain things that are relatively static. For example, most business agreements involving distribution are fairly routine and there is not much room that either party has to negotiate. People didn't reinvent the wheel when Tucker/Darko came around to shop their film for distribution, there are forms that are used over and over. There are only so many distribution outlets so it is pretty well known who is talking to whom and whether they are interested in a project. And these deals in turn attach other agreements as exhibits or get sent around to firms with attachments. Although you don't always understand the creative process from these agreements, i.e. you can't tell whether the product is very good, they do tell the business story and you do see who is part of the process. And the story is pretty standard until you are talking about a half dozen folks who can dictate what they want, and Tucker is not among them--and even then, there deals are pretty standard for them.</p><p>When people talk about how business is done and what type of deal someone got, and the usual form for such a deal, it usually has a very high degree or reliability--because the information is first hand and based upon written documents. For example, a theater exhibitor does not have a different contract for every film he shows; nor do distributors for every film they distribute. There are SMALL details that change, but not much does change on the distribution side. Believe me, if you want to find a Freestyle contract in circulation around town, it is not hard to find and --unless you see snow in LA, Tucker's isn't any different than anybody else's Freestyle deal. IOW, there was nothing new or groundbreaking about his deal.</p><p>Finally, most of the generic stuff you read on the internet about how Distribution deals work is very accurate; for the reasons discussed above. None of it is secret, the industry has few players, and the deals are fairly standard. They didn't invest hundreds of thousands in legal fees over the years to refine these documents simply to discard them when Tucker comes along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The business side is even more open .
Every film project involves lots of agreements , which have to be made on multiple levels with lawyers and agents reviewing them , often enclosing other agreements as exhibits ; then other deals are worked out for the business aspects of any media production , including distribution .
Keep in mind , these projects involve financing , so bankers , investors , and their lawyers see documents ; insurance , so agents and insurers see documents ; then they get shopped around to various studios and other business folks ; Then these producers business people , and their lawyers , have neighbors and other social contacts .
And like any business folks when people get together , they talk shop .
Some of the stuff discussed by business people concerning the creative process can be scandalous gossip and nonsense .
We see documents , we do n't hang out with Brad and Angelina .
But sometimes you keep hearing the same story from multiple people who are intimately involved in the process citing multiple sources .
You tend to place more credence in that type of story because it usually turns out to be true.And there are certain things that are relatively static .
For example , most business agreements involving distribution are fairly routine and there is not much room that either party has to negotiate .
People did n't reinvent the wheel when Tucker/Darko came around to shop their film for distribution , there are forms that are used over and over .
There are only so many distribution outlets so it is pretty well known who is talking to whom and whether they are interested in a project .
And these deals in turn attach other agreements as exhibits or get sent around to firms with attachments .
Although you do n't always understand the creative process from these agreements , i.e .
you ca n't tell whether the product is very good , they do tell the business story and you do see who is part of the process .
And the story is pretty standard until you are talking about a half dozen folks who can dictate what they want , and Tucker is not among them--and even then , there deals are pretty standard for them.When people talk about how business is done and what type of deal someone got , and the usual form for such a deal , it usually has a very high degree or reliability--because the information is first hand and based upon written documents .
For example , a theater exhibitor does not have a different contract for every film he shows ; nor do distributors for every film they distribute .
There are SMALL details that change , but not much does change on the distribution side .
Believe me , if you want to find a Freestyle contract in circulation around town , it is not hard to find and --unless you see snow in LA , Tucker 's is n't any different than anybody else 's Freestyle deal .
IOW , there was nothing new or groundbreaking about his deal.Finally , most of the generic stuff you read on the internet about how Distribution deals work is very accurate ; for the reasons discussed above .
None of it is secret , the industry has few players , and the deals are fairly standard .
They did n't invest hundreds of thousands in legal fees over the years to refine these documents simply to discard them when Tucker comes along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The business side is even more open.
Every film project involves lots of agreements, which have to be made on multiple levels with lawyers and agents reviewing them, often enclosing other agreements as exhibits; then other deals are worked out for the business aspects of any media production, including distribution.
Keep in mind, these projects involve financing, so bankers, investors, and their lawyers see documents; insurance, so agents and insurers see documents; then they get shopped around to various studios and other business folks; Then these producers business people, and their lawyers, have neighbors and other social contacts.
And like any business folks when people get together, they talk shop.
Some of the stuff discussed by business people concerning the creative process can be scandalous gossip and nonsense.
We see documents, we don't hang out with Brad and Angelina.
But sometimes you keep hearing the same story from multiple people who are intimately involved in the process citing multiple sources.
You tend to place more credence in that type of story because it usually turns out to be true.And there are certain things that are relatively static.
For example, most business agreements involving distribution are fairly routine and there is not much room that either party has to negotiate.
People didn't reinvent the wheel when Tucker/Darko came around to shop their film for distribution, there are forms that are used over and over.
There are only so many distribution outlets so it is pretty well known who is talking to whom and whether they are interested in a project.
And these deals in turn attach other agreements as exhibits or get sent around to firms with attachments.
Although you don't always understand the creative process from these agreements, i.e.
you can't tell whether the product is very good, they do tell the business story and you do see who is part of the process.
And the story is pretty standard until you are talking about a half dozen folks who can dictate what they want, and Tucker is not among them--and even then, there deals are pretty standard for them.When people talk about how business is done and what type of deal someone got, and the usual form for such a deal, it usually has a very high degree or reliability--because the information is first hand and based upon written documents.
For example, a theater exhibitor does not have a different contract for every film he shows; nor do distributors for every film they distribute.
There are SMALL details that change, but not much does change on the distribution side.
Believe me, if you want to find a Freestyle contract in circulation around town, it is not hard to find and --unless you see snow in LA, Tucker's isn't any different than anybody else's Freestyle deal.
IOW, there was nothing new or groundbreaking about his deal.Finally, most of the generic stuff you read on the internet about how Distribution deals work is very accurate; for the reasons discussed above.
None of it is secret, the industry has few players, and the deals are fairly standard.
They didn't invest hundreds of thousands in legal fees over the years to refine these documents simply to discard them when Tucker comes along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743641</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247913420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Russia=!Europe<br>Russi=!Europ<br>Russ=!Euro<br>Rus=!Eur<br>Ru=!Eu<br>R=!E<br><br>Got it? Jesus! I tough it was a joke but for Americans every other part of the world can be anything. I wonder if when You all see the earth globe you think "oh America! so blue so beautiful!" MENTAL FAP @ IT'S FINEST (note that being a thirdworld monkey-stole-my-job I know when to use '  maybe thats why they hired me XD)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Russia = ! EuropeRussi = ! EuropRuss = ! EuroRus = ! EurRu = ! EuR = ! EGot it ?
Jesus ! I tough it was a joke but for Americans every other part of the world can be anything .
I wonder if when You all see the earth globe you think " oh America !
so blue so beautiful !
" MENTAL FAP @ IT 'S FINEST ( note that being a thirdworld monkey-stole-my-job I know when to use ' maybe thats why they hired me XD )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Russia=!EuropeRussi=!EuropRuss=!EuroRus=!EurRu=!EuR=!EGot it?
Jesus! I tough it was a joke but for Americans every other part of the world can be anything.
I wonder if when You all see the earth globe you think "oh America!
so blue so beautiful!
" MENTAL FAP @ IT'S FINEST (note that being a thirdworld monkey-stole-my-job I know when to use '  maybe thats why they hired me XD)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739577</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1247917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.</p></div><p>I wouldn't read to much into that. It's really not that far fetched to have some doubt into the moon landing when you look at the facts (not the hard scientific ones, just the very basic stuff):</p><p>a) in 1969 we have the tech to land on the moon<br>b) in 2008 we don't even have the tech to make pictures of the landing sites, let alone land there with people<br>c) we have very nice pictures of the Mars landing sites</p><p>Yes, there are perfectly good explanation for everything there (budget cuts, focus shifted away from the moon, etc.), but not having the technology today to do something that was done 40 years ago just doesn't sound all that plausible from far away.</p><p>In addition to that it annoys me a lot that the moon hoax debunker like to point to the retro reflectors so much. Yes, having them there shows that something landed on the moon, but it doesn't demonstrate that we landed there with people, that stuff that could have been done with simple automatic probes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25 \ % of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing .
That is utterly depressing , showing the current level of science education.I would n't read to much into that .
It 's really not that far fetched to have some doubt into the moon landing when you look at the facts ( not the hard scientific ones , just the very basic stuff ) : a ) in 1969 we have the tech to land on the moonb ) in 2008 we do n't even have the tech to make pictures of the landing sites , let alone land there with peoplec ) we have very nice pictures of the Mars landing sitesYes , there are perfectly good explanation for everything there ( budget cuts , focus shifted away from the moon , etc .
) , but not having the technology today to do something that was done 40 years ago just does n't sound all that plausible from far away.In addition to that it annoys me a lot that the moon hoax debunker like to point to the retro reflectors so much .
Yes , having them there shows that something landed on the moon , but it does n't demonstrate that we landed there with people , that stuff that could have been done with simple automatic probes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25\% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.
That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.I wouldn't read to much into that.
It's really not that far fetched to have some doubt into the moon landing when you look at the facts (not the hard scientific ones, just the very basic stuff):a) in 1969 we have the tech to land on the moonb) in 2008 we don't even have the tech to make pictures of the landing sites, let alone land there with peoplec) we have very nice pictures of the Mars landing sitesYes, there are perfectly good explanation for everything there (budget cuts, focus shifted away from the moon, etc.
), but not having the technology today to do something that was done 40 years ago just doesn't sound all that plausible from far away.In addition to that it annoys me a lot that the moon hoax debunker like to point to the retro reflectors so much.
Yes, having them there shows that something landed on the moon, but it doesn't demonstrate that we landed there with people, that stuff that could have been done with simple automatic probes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736797</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only plausible way to fake a lunar landing would have been to land an unmanned lander on the surface of the Moon and use that as a relay for fake radio telemetry, video and audio. The signals to the lander relay would have to be sent sent in narrow beams from a number of antennas around the Earth, in order to fake all the transmissions while avoiding detection. Any other fake would probably have been discovered by professionals and amateurs all over the globe, not just in Russia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only plausible way to fake a lunar landing would have been to land an unmanned lander on the surface of the Moon and use that as a relay for fake radio telemetry , video and audio .
The signals to the lander relay would have to be sent sent in narrow beams from a number of antennas around the Earth , in order to fake all the transmissions while avoiding detection .
Any other fake would probably have been discovered by professionals and amateurs all over the globe , not just in Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only plausible way to fake a lunar landing would have been to land an unmanned lander on the surface of the Moon and use that as a relay for fake radio telemetry, video and audio.
The signals to the lander relay would have to be sent sent in narrow beams from a number of antennas around the Earth, in order to fake all the transmissions while avoiding detection.
Any other fake would probably have been discovered by professionals and amateurs all over the globe, not just in Russia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736855</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing.  So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected.  Logic, reason, and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points, so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings.  Indeed, this will just be added to the list of things, "faked."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with " disproving " the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing .
So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected .
Logic , reason , and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points , so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings .
Indeed , this will just be added to the list of things , " faked .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing.
So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected.
Logic, reason, and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points, so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings.
Indeed, this will just be added to the list of things, "faked.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739343</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1247912940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because clearly, all of Europe was behind the iron curtain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because clearly , all of Europe was behind the iron curtain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because clearly, all of Europe was behind the iron curtain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736891</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. But your problem is that you are trying to attack schizophrenia with logic. I recommend trying to argue about something with someone with schizophrenia for an hour. Then you see that logic does not help here. My brother worked with a guy, who insisted that he was able to control the whole world. He ran on the highway, stating that nothing would hit him, because he would control everything. He got hit by a car. He landed in a hospital. And the first discussion when he could talk again, was that this happened, because he *wanted* it to happen. Then he did make up a story about why he wanted that.</p><p>The good thing is, that if you know this, you can create scenes where he has to argue that he wanted things, that you want him to want. So usually (because you want to help him), you change him in a way that he wants do to what is really good to him. But this is long, hard, and will not even really cure his dis-association from reality. (For that you need a lot more than a simple therapy!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
But your problem is that you are trying to attack schizophrenia with logic .
I recommend trying to argue about something with someone with schizophrenia for an hour .
Then you see that logic does not help here .
My brother worked with a guy , who insisted that he was able to control the whole world .
He ran on the highway , stating that nothing would hit him , because he would control everything .
He got hit by a car .
He landed in a hospital .
And the first discussion when he could talk again , was that this happened , because he * wanted * it to happen .
Then he did make up a story about why he wanted that.The good thing is , that if you know this , you can create scenes where he has to argue that he wanted things , that you want him to want .
So usually ( because you want to help him ) , you change him in a way that he wants do to what is really good to him .
But this is long , hard , and will not even really cure his dis-association from reality .
( For that you need a lot more than a simple therapy !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
But your problem is that you are trying to attack schizophrenia with logic.
I recommend trying to argue about something with someone with schizophrenia for an hour.
Then you see that logic does not help here.
My brother worked with a guy, who insisted that he was able to control the whole world.
He ran on the highway, stating that nothing would hit him, because he would control everything.
He got hit by a car.
He landed in a hospital.
And the first discussion when he could talk again, was that this happened, because he *wanted* it to happen.
Then he did make up a story about why he wanted that.The good thing is, that if you know this, you can create scenes where he has to argue that he wanted things, that you want him to want.
So usually (because you want to help him), you change him in a way that he wants do to what is really good to him.
But this is long, hard, and will not even really cure his dis-association from reality.
(For that you need a lot more than a simple therapy!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736773</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1247836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was about 6\% of the whole American population, IIRC, in a Gallup poll. About the sort of percentage you'll get as a minimum for any claim, because people tend to agree to statements in surveys to get the surveyors to leave them alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was about 6 \ % of the whole American population , IIRC , in a Gallup poll .
About the sort of percentage you 'll get as a minimum for any claim , because people tend to agree to statements in surveys to get the surveyors to leave them alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was about 6\% of the whole American population, IIRC, in a Gallup poll.
About the sort of percentage you'll get as a minimum for any claim, because people tend to agree to statements in surveys to get the surveyors to leave them alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741517</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247938560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the day that Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I remember running home from the community swimming pool to watch Neil Armstrong take the first step onto the lunar surface. That was a very impressive event indeed.</p><p>I was fascinated with the technology of the time. Following all the missions intently, watching the big Saturn 5 launches. Very impressive considering how primitive the computers were then, by today's standards. The near disaster of Apollo 13 and how ingenious the crew were to improvise what they had on hand to survive the 2 week trip to the moon and back with crippled life support systems. Impressive!</p><p>It made me very sad years later to hear younger people in the 90's repeating the retarded bad science theories doubting the accomplishments of the day.</p><p>As another posted above:</p><blockquote><div><p>I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was<br> <b>Yes, We Did.</b> <br>Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated. I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.</p></div></blockquote><p>So very true</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the day that Apollo 11 landed on the moon .
I remember running home from the community swimming pool to watch Neil Armstrong take the first step onto the lunar surface .
That was a very impressive event indeed.I was fascinated with the technology of the time .
Following all the missions intently , watching the big Saturn 5 launches .
Very impressive considering how primitive the computers were then , by today 's standards .
The near disaster of Apollo 13 and how ingenious the crew were to improvise what they had on hand to survive the 2 week trip to the moon and back with crippled life support systems .
Impressive ! It made me very sad years later to hear younger people in the 90 's repeating the retarded bad science theories doubting the accomplishments of the day.As another posted above : I still remember when Fox News aired their little " moon hoax " series what NASA 's response was Yes , We Did .
Do n't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated .
I assure you , idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.So very true</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the day that Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
I remember running home from the community swimming pool to watch Neil Armstrong take the first step onto the lunar surface.
That was a very impressive event indeed.I was fascinated with the technology of the time.
Following all the missions intently, watching the big Saturn 5 launches.
Very impressive considering how primitive the computers were then, by today's standards.
The near disaster of Apollo 13 and how ingenious the crew were to improvise what they had on hand to survive the 2 week trip to the moon and back with crippled life support systems.
Impressive!It made me very sad years later to hear younger people in the 90's repeating the retarded bad science theories doubting the accomplishments of the day.As another posted above:I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was Yes, We Did.
Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated.
I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.So very true
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736857</id>
	<title>Religious Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't those percentages correlate to the same percent of stout Bush supporters? As in the far religious right?<br> <br>

Flat 6000 year old earth and all....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't those percentages correlate to the same percent of stout Bush supporters ?
As in the far religious right ?
Flat 6000 year old earth and all... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't those percentages correlate to the same percent of stout Bush supporters?
As in the far religious right?
Flat 6000 year old earth and all....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742925</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1247950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing. So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected.</p></div><p>As some NASA bigwig said: "In 1969, we didn't have the technology to fake it."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with " disproving " the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing .
So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected.As some NASA bigwig said : " In 1969 , we did n't have the technology to fake it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing.
So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected.As some NASA bigwig said: "In 1969, we didn't have the technology to fake it.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737305</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it...</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1247840580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey now, NASA engineers may not always know the difference between metric and imperial units but they aren't <i>that</i> stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey now , NASA engineers may not always know the difference between metric and imperial units but they are n't that stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey now, NASA engineers may not always know the difference between metric and imperial units but they aren't that stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738289</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.</p></div><p>Similarly, I don't know a single person who voted for Bush, yet my state ended up noticeably republican.</p><p>Weird how such things happen...</p><p>But that doesn't mean there was or was not a conspiracy.<br>To know that, you need to look for evidence of such a conspiracy.</p><p>Likewise, just because one can't prove man landed on the moon with their built in senses, there is significant proof it happened.<br>If someone wants to claim it did not, it is up to them to provide the proof it was a fake.  Or to somehow prove a negative.</p><p>On one hand they call it 'thinking what they want', but in the real world it is simply 'being wrong'<br>Just believing 2+2=5 does not make it so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line , because up here in Minnesota , I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.Similarly , I do n't know a single person who voted for Bush , yet my state ended up noticeably republican.Weird how such things happen...But that does n't mean there was or was not a conspiracy.To know that , you need to look for evidence of such a conspiracy.Likewise , just because one ca n't prove man landed on the moon with their built in senses , there is significant proof it happened.If someone wants to claim it did not , it is up to them to provide the proof it was a fake .
Or to somehow prove a negative.On one hand they call it 'thinking what they want ' , but in the real world it is simply 'being wrong'Just believing 2 + 2 = 5 does not make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage.Similarly, I don't know a single person who voted for Bush, yet my state ended up noticeably republican.Weird how such things happen...But that doesn't mean there was or was not a conspiracy.To know that, you need to look for evidence of such a conspiracy.Likewise, just because one can't prove man landed on the moon with their built in senses, there is significant proof it happened.If someone wants to claim it did not, it is up to them to provide the proof it was a fake.
Or to somehow prove a negative.On one hand they call it 'thinking what they want', but in the real world it is simply 'being wrong'Just believing 2+2=5 does not make it so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>deathguppie</author>
	<datestamp>1247840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple to understand why some people question it really.  If Spain had sent explorers to the new world, and then no one had repeated the journey for say 40 years, many people would have questioned it's existence.  The fact that we propose to have done something in the 60's that we are incapable of doing today leads to the questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple to understand why some people question it really .
If Spain had sent explorers to the new world , and then no one had repeated the journey for say 40 years , many people would have questioned it 's existence .
The fact that we propose to have done something in the 60 's that we are incapable of doing today leads to the questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple to understand why some people question it really.
If Spain had sent explorers to the new world, and then no one had repeated the journey for say 40 years, many people would have questioned it's existence.
The fact that we propose to have done something in the 60's that we are incapable of doing today leads to the questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28746657</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1248002580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know lots of people who grew up on the "wrong" side of the iron curtain and defected. All of them believe in the moon landing. Also I know a lot that came here (Vienna) after the wall came down and also believe in the moon landings.. Sounds like you just meet a crackpot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know lots of people who grew up on the " wrong " side of the iron curtain and defected .
All of them believe in the moon landing .
Also I know a lot that came here ( Vienna ) after the wall came down and also believe in the moon landings.. Sounds like you just meet a crackpot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know lots of people who grew up on the "wrong" side of the iron curtain and defected.
All of them believe in the moon landing.
Also I know a lot that came here (Vienna) after the wall came down and also believe in the moon landings.. Sounds like you just meet a crackpot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736795</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1247836560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't just the Soviet Union listening in. Ham radio folks listened in too. Check QST for reception reports for Apollo 10 onwards.

</p><p>I think it's interesting to compare how well we can fake it now (<i>Apollo 13</i>, <i>From the Earth to the Moon</i>, etc.) with real Apollo footage.
Even today, we can't get it quite right.

</p><p>...laura who has been comparing LRO pictures with the pictures taken by the astronauts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't just the Soviet Union listening in .
Ham radio folks listened in too .
Check QST for reception reports for Apollo 10 onwards .
I think it 's interesting to compare how well we can fake it now ( Apollo 13 , From the Earth to the Moon , etc .
) with real Apollo footage .
Even today , we ca n't get it quite right .
...laura who has been comparing LRO pictures with the pictures taken by the astronauts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't just the Soviet Union listening in.
Ham radio folks listened in too.
Check QST for reception reports for Apollo 10 onwards.
I think it's interesting to compare how well we can fake it now (Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, etc.
) with real Apollo footage.
Even today, we can't get it quite right.
...laura who has been comparing LRO pictures with the pictures taken by the astronauts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740591</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O they just asked normal people in the street who are fedup of clipboards.</p><p>Had they asked me I could have told them the real truth. The only person ever to go to the moon was Elvis, and that he is still living their happily to this day. But that may just be a tenet of my Jedi faith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O they just asked normal people in the street who are fedup of clipboards.Had they asked me I could have told them the real truth .
The only person ever to go to the moon was Elvis , and that he is still living their happily to this day .
But that may just be a tenet of my Jedi faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O they just asked normal people in the street who are fedup of clipboards.Had they asked me I could have told them the real truth.
The only person ever to go to the moon was Elvis, and that he is still living their happily to this day.
But that may just be a tenet of my Jedi faith.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737293</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1247840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.</p></div></blockquote><p>Since you brought it up, I thought I'd link to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU" title="youtube.com"> the video on YouTube.</a> [youtube.com] One of my all-time favorites!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz ( in his late 70s ) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.Since you brought it up , I thought I 'd link to the video on YouTube .
[ youtube.com ] One of my all-time favorites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.Since you brought it up, I thought I'd link to  the video on YouTube.
[youtube.com] One of my all-time favorites!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country."</p><p>But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean.  It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" assure you , idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country .
" But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it 's ignorance , try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean .
It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.
"But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean.
It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28750145</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Chewbacon</author>
	<datestamp>1247997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you expect from Fox?  You really think they'd present an unbiased piece of shit they call programming (aside the Simpsons, Family Guy and Futurama)?  I remember that show and they made some good arguments, but didn't offer any counter arguments against their "hard evidence" that was mostly speculation.  And thus FOX NEWS was born!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you expect from Fox ?
You really think they 'd present an unbiased piece of shit they call programming ( aside the Simpsons , Family Guy and Futurama ) ?
I remember that show and they made some good arguments , but did n't offer any counter arguments against their " hard evidence " that was mostly speculation .
And thus FOX NEWS was born !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you expect from Fox?
You really think they'd present an unbiased piece of shit they call programming (aside the Simpsons, Family Guy and Futurama)?
I remember that show and they made some good arguments, but didn't offer any counter arguments against their "hard evidence" that was mostly speculation.
And thus FOX NEWS was born!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740043</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>Scannerman</author>
	<datestamp>1247925300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perhaps even more than the soviets, there were a whole host of amateur radio enthusiasts monitoring the lunar transmissions, so at the very least the Americans were relaying the pictures from the New Mexico desert via a transponder on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps even more than the soviets , there were a whole host of amateur radio enthusiasts monitoring the lunar transmissions , so at the very least the Americans were relaying the pictures from the New Mexico desert via a transponder on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps even more than the soviets, there were a whole host of amateur radio enthusiasts monitoring the lunar transmissions, so at the very least the Americans were relaying the pictures from the New Mexico desert via a transponder on the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742975</id>
	<title>Re:yes, I know that you are joking</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1247907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They [the Soviets] would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.</p></div></blockquote><p>The only thing, that the Soviets could've done, was to send a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Lunokhod</a> [wikipedia.org] to the supposed landing site. But they had enough problems with the program, that aiming it at a particular spot (the range of the Lunokhod proved to be under 40 kilometers/25 miles) would've been a rather unwelcome complication...

</p><p>Seriously, why would the no more advanced Soviets have a better technology to <em>disprove</em> what we can't reliably <em>prove</em>? That NASA has lost the original recordings is astoundingly suspicious &mdash; had a prosecutor, for example, admitted losing the original evidence and offer the court (easily faked &mdash; indeed, embellished in a place well known for some amazing <em>computer-generated imagery</em>) <em>copies</em> instead, the accused would've walked free. Because in courts we apply the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable\_doubt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">reasonable doubt</a> [wikipedia.org] standard, yet, when the same is applied to government's statements, we are full of indignation...

</p><p>And I do believe NASA, but I must admit, it smells awful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They [ the Soviets ] would have had the technology to disprove us , and do n't tell me that they would n't have called us out.The only thing , that the Soviets could 've done , was to send a Lunokhod [ wikipedia.org ] to the supposed landing site .
But they had enough problems with the program , that aiming it at a particular spot ( the range of the Lunokhod proved to be under 40 kilometers/25 miles ) would 've been a rather unwelcome complication.. . Seriously , why would the no more advanced Soviets have a better technology to disprove what we ca n't reliably prove ?
That NASA has lost the original recordings is astoundingly suspicious    had a prosecutor , for example , admitted losing the original evidence and offer the court ( easily faked    indeed , embellished in a place well known for some amazing computer-generated imagery ) copies instead , the accused would 've walked free .
Because in courts we apply the reasonable doubt [ wikipedia.org ] standard , yet , when the same is applied to government 's statements , we are full of indignation.. . And I do believe NASA , but I must admit , it smells awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They [the Soviets] would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.The only thing, that the Soviets could've done, was to send a Lunokhod [wikipedia.org] to the supposed landing site.
But they had enough problems with the program, that aiming it at a particular spot (the range of the Lunokhod proved to be under 40 kilometers/25 miles) would've been a rather unwelcome complication...

Seriously, why would the no more advanced Soviets have a better technology to disprove what we can't reliably prove?
That NASA has lost the original recordings is astoundingly suspicious — had a prosecutor, for example, admitted losing the original evidence and offer the court (easily faked — indeed, embellished in a place well known for some amazing computer-generated imagery) copies instead, the accused would've walked free.
Because in courts we apply the reasonable doubt [wikipedia.org] standard, yet, when the same is applied to government's statements, we are full of indignation...

And I do believe NASA, but I must admit, it smells awful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28744467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28746657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28750145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1947237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1947237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736733
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28750145
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739235
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743735
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740591
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740821
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737013
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737905
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739343
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742985
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28746657
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28743641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28744467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28739895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28741339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737357
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740737
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28738551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736923
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28740027
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28742989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28745841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28737371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1947237.28736891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
