<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_18_0146226</id>
	<title>The NSA Wiretapping Story Nobody Wanted</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247908440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"They sometimes call national security the third rail of politics. Touch it and, politically, you're dead. The clich&#233; doesn't seem far off the mark after reading Mark Klein's new book, <em>Wiring up the Big Brother Machine ... and Fighting It</em>. It's an account of his experiences as the whistleblower who exposed a secret room at a Folsom Street facility in San Francisco that was apparently used to monitor the Internet communications of ordinary Americans. <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135645/The\_NSA\_wiretapping\_story\_nobody\_wanted">Amazingly, however, nobody wanted to hear his story</a>. In his book he talks about meetings with reporters and privacy groups that went nowhere until a fateful January 20, 2006 meeting with Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Bankston was preparing a lawsuit that he hoped would put a stop to the wiretap program, and Klein was just the kind of witness the EFF was looking for. He spoke with Robert McMillan for an interview."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " They sometimes call national security the third rail of politics .
Touch it and , politically , you 're dead .
The clich   does n't seem far off the mark after reading Mark Klein 's new book , Wiring up the Big Brother Machine ... and Fighting It .
It 's an account of his experiences as the whistleblower who exposed a secret room at a Folsom Street facility in San Francisco that was apparently used to monitor the Internet communications of ordinary Americans .
Amazingly , however , nobody wanted to hear his story .
In his book he talks about meetings with reporters and privacy groups that went nowhere until a fateful January 20 , 2006 meeting with Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
Bankston was preparing a lawsuit that he hoped would put a stop to the wiretap program , and Klein was just the kind of witness the EFF was looking for .
He spoke with Robert McMillan for an interview .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "They sometimes call national security the third rail of politics.
Touch it and, politically, you're dead.
The cliché doesn't seem far off the mark after reading Mark Klein's new book, Wiring up the Big Brother Machine ... and Fighting It.
It's an account of his experiences as the whistleblower who exposed a secret room at a Folsom Street facility in San Francisco that was apparently used to monitor the Internet communications of ordinary Americans.
Amazingly, however, nobody wanted to hear his story.
In his book he talks about meetings with reporters and privacy groups that went nowhere until a fateful January 20, 2006 meeting with Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Bankston was preparing a lawsuit that he hoped would put a stop to the wiretap program, and Klein was just the kind of witness the EFF was looking for.
He spoke with Robert McMillan for an interview.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743849</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, they were. I am from a small town in indiana. A muslim family with a chef as the head of household was whisked away to chicago from my home town of evansville. He "disappeared" for about 5 months while he was interrogated. His family was not aware of where he was and the govt did not respond to the family's lawyer. It is scary. After I guess they discovered he was not a threat, they let him go. Keep in mind this was right after 9/11, so I think anyone muslim was a suspect, just like we interned the japanese in WWII.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , they were .
I am from a small town in indiana .
A muslim family with a chef as the head of household was whisked away to chicago from my home town of evansville .
He " disappeared " for about 5 months while he was interrogated .
His family was not aware of where he was and the govt did not respond to the family 's lawyer .
It is scary .
After I guess they discovered he was not a threat , they let him go .
Keep in mind this was right after 9/11 , so I think anyone muslim was a suspect , just like we interned the japanese in WWII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, they were.
I am from a small town in indiana.
A muslim family with a chef as the head of household was whisked away to chicago from my home town of evansville.
He "disappeared" for about 5 months while he was interrogated.
His family was not aware of where he was and the govt did not respond to the family's lawyer.
It is scary.
After I guess they discovered he was not a threat, they let him go.
Keep in mind this was right after 9/11, so I think anyone muslim was a suspect, just like we interned the japanese in WWII.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740999</id>
	<title>New Rally Cause</title>
	<author>bendodge</author>
	<datestamp>1247934060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, Slashdotters, put your money where your mouth is and start lobbying Slashdot to use https globally. I'll remain highly skeptical of all the talk talk talk around here until we actually do something about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , Slashdotters , put your money where your mouth is and start lobbying Slashdot to use https globally .
I 'll remain highly skeptical of all the talk talk talk around here until we actually do something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, Slashdotters, put your money where your mouth is and start lobbying Slashdot to use https globally.
I'll remain highly skeptical of all the talk talk talk around here until we actually do something about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742961</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247950560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A gross misstatement? Really? Obama knew the amendment wasn't going to pass, but he put it out there anyway. That's the good but futile deed.</p></div><p>I disagree; you have to take <em>intent</em> into account. If he knew that there was no way it would pass, then it's not a good deed! It's neutral at best, and misdirection (i.e. a kind of <em>lie</em>) is a more likely description of what occurred.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Better enough for Obama to vote for it, anyway, and if you want to call that vote evil, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the earlier act of good, which you seem to be saying.</p></div><p>No, there <em>is</em> no act of good. My point is that there was no act of good. Obama even pledged to filibuster to support the amendment, and failed to do so. Voting for the amendment became an act of evil when he used it to excuse voting for the bill, because it made it clear that's why he voted that way: he could use voting for the <em>always-doomed</em> amendment as an excuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A gross misstatement ?
Really ? Obama knew the amendment was n't going to pass , but he put it out there anyway .
That 's the good but futile deed.I disagree ; you have to take intent into account .
If he knew that there was no way it would pass , then it 's not a good deed !
It 's neutral at best , and misdirection ( i.e .
a kind of lie ) is a more likely description of what occurred.Better enough for Obama to vote for it , anyway , and if you want to call that vote evil , that 's fine , but it does n't invalidate the earlier act of good , which you seem to be saying.No , there is no act of good .
My point is that there was no act of good .
Obama even pledged to filibuster to support the amendment , and failed to do so .
Voting for the amendment became an act of evil when he used it to excuse voting for the bill , because it made it clear that 's why he voted that way : he could use voting for the always-doomed amendment as an excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A gross misstatement?
Really? Obama knew the amendment wasn't going to pass, but he put it out there anyway.
That's the good but futile deed.I disagree; you have to take intent into account.
If he knew that there was no way it would pass, then it's not a good deed!
It's neutral at best, and misdirection (i.e.
a kind of lie) is a more likely description of what occurred.Better enough for Obama to vote for it, anyway, and if you want to call that vote evil, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the earlier act of good, which you seem to be saying.No, there is no act of good.
My point is that there was no act of good.
Obama even pledged to filibuster to support the amendment, and failed to do so.
Voting for the amendment became an act of evil when he used it to excuse voting for the bill, because it made it clear that's why he voted that way: he could use voting for the always-doomed amendment as an excuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</id>
	<title>of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>dnwq</author>
	<datestamp>1247916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about it this way. The news is public, now. Do you see any frothing outrage, outside of a few fringe activist groups? Outside of Slashdot? No?<br> <br>

There doesn't seem to be any real interest now, so there definitely wouldn't be any then, in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11. So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story? It'll just instantly lose all its government contacts, but not gain any new readership. Why <i>would</i> anyone publish it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it this way .
The news is public , now .
Do you see any frothing outrage , outside of a few fringe activist groups ?
Outside of Slashdot ?
No ? There does n't seem to be any real interest now , so there definitely would n't be any then , in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11 .
So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story ?
It 'll just instantly lose all its government contacts , but not gain any new readership .
Why would anyone publish it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it this way.
The news is public, now.
Do you see any frothing outrage, outside of a few fringe activist groups?
Outside of Slashdot?
No? 

There doesn't seem to be any real interest now, so there definitely wouldn't be any then, in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11.
So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story?
It'll just instantly lose all its government contacts, but not gain any new readership.
Why would anyone publish it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141</id>
	<title>Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247935260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually he voted against immunity for telecoms but the amendment failed (see the post below).<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html</a> [cnn.com] <br> <br>

What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.<br> <br>

Yes, he did vote for the larger bill with the amendments that basically put the warrant requirements back in for any American they may have eavesdropped on whether on US soil or abroad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually he voted against immunity for telecoms but the amendment failed ( see the post below ) .
http : //www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html [ cnn.com ] What 's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it 's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed .
Yes , he did vote for the larger bill with the amendments that basically put the warrant requirements back in for any American they may have eavesdropped on whether on US soil or abroad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually he voted against immunity for telecoms but the amendment failed (see the post below).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html [cnn.com]  

What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.
Yes, he did vote for the larger bill with the amendments that basically put the warrant requirements back in for any American they may have eavesdropped on whether on US soil or abroad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742095</id>
	<title>Re:of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1247943180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It'll just instantly lose all its government contacts, but not gain any new readership. </i></p><p>Well that's quite a bold prediction without any backup. There are several critical American reporters that disprove your prediction. Seymour Hersh, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, and more. There will always be political actors anxious to talk, just as there will always be journalistic suckups like David Gregory.</p><p>Suffice it to say that the government needs the press more than the press needs it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll just instantly lose all its government contacts , but not gain any new readership .
Well that 's quite a bold prediction without any backup .
There are several critical American reporters that disprove your prediction .
Seymour Hersh , James Risen and Eric Lichtblau , and more .
There will always be political actors anxious to talk , just as there will always be journalistic suckups like David Gregory.Suffice it to say that the government needs the press more than the press needs it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll just instantly lose all its government contacts, but not gain any new readership.
Well that's quite a bold prediction without any backup.
There are several critical American reporters that disprove your prediction.
Seymour Hersh, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, and more.
There will always be political actors anxious to talk, just as there will always be journalistic suckups like David Gregory.Suffice it to say that the government needs the press more than the press needs it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739649</id>
	<title>Its about time.</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1247918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy shit coverage.  I've been wondering what happened to this story.</p><p>It seems like every time we get into position to do something about government abuse of the people all coverage suddenly stops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit coverage .
I 've been wondering what happened to this story.It seems like every time we get into position to do something about government abuse of the people all coverage suddenly stops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit coverage.
I've been wondering what happened to this story.It seems like every time we get into position to do something about government abuse of the people all coverage suddenly stops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28749295</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1248034680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe he liked the warrant provision more than he hated the immunity provision.
<br> <br>
Sounds like a case of making lemonade out of lemons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he liked the warrant provision more than he hated the immunity provision .
Sounds like a case of making lemonade out of lemons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he liked the warrant provision more than he hated the immunity provision.
Sounds like a case of making lemonade out of lemons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743407</id>
	<title>The Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247911440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just further proof of the systemic opinion that most Americans have that "it doesn't matter what you believe, only what lies you are willing to subscribe to"?  From just casually spending the last 25 years of my life trying to impartially observe why it is that the vast majority of people in America are willing to tolerate a government that abuses it's authority and having heard over and over and over again replies to the effect of "eh - whatcanya' do?", the only conclusion I can draw is that people in America are willing to tolerate outrageous, often unlawful behavior on the part of their so-called "leaders" so long as they continue to enjoy the benefits and comforts those leaders <b> <i>seem</i> </b> to be providing them - even to the point of abdicating their so-called "constitutional rights".
<br> <br>
If you are a student of history, you might have at some time noticed a disquieting trend from the earliest civilizations to what we have today: technological advances don't create a more "civilized" society.  In fact, it empowers those who have the means to use it to cause people to become less civil towards each other.  Should you doubt this you could take a little tour through the sewer that is <a href="http://www.4chan.org/" title="4chan.org" rel="nofollow">4chan</a> [4chan.org].  Does anyone with even an iota of civil behavior in them believe for an instant that 4chan is a reflection of the proper use of one's first amendment right of freedom of speech?  If you do I would submit that you, in fact, are part of the problem and if that is what you are, your opinions and views are made moot by association and are therefore not part of any solution.  The unrealistic paradigm that simply because you CAN say (or do), a thing you SHOULD is the hallmark of uncivilized thinking.  ("Do As Thou Wilt" is not "the law", it is the anti-thesis of law - and civil behavior - sorry to disillusion those of you out there with a Crowley Hardon and <i>completely</i> misunderstand this).
<br> <br>
Fact of the matter is: so long as you are willing to tolerate a government that will listen, record, observe, make note of, and in far too many instances eliminate those who would oppose it, you're part of the problem and you have no right to bitch, no ground to stand on and object, no reason to do so in the first place and should go back to masturbating with your shiny little WIRETAPPED iPhone because THAT, My Fellow American, is the lie that you're willing to subscribe to.
<br> <br>
Kudos and Good Luck to Mr. Klein and the EFF for stepping up to the plate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but is n't this just further proof of the systemic opinion that most Americans have that " it does n't matter what you believe , only what lies you are willing to subscribe to " ?
From just casually spending the last 25 years of my life trying to impartially observe why it is that the vast majority of people in America are willing to tolerate a government that abuses it 's authority and having heard over and over and over again replies to the effect of " eh - whatcanya ' do ?
" , the only conclusion I can draw is that people in America are willing to tolerate outrageous , often unlawful behavior on the part of their so-called " leaders " so long as they continue to enjoy the benefits and comforts those leaders seem to be providing them - even to the point of abdicating their so-called " constitutional rights " .
If you are a student of history , you might have at some time noticed a disquieting trend from the earliest civilizations to what we have today : technological advances do n't create a more " civilized " society .
In fact , it empowers those who have the means to use it to cause people to become less civil towards each other .
Should you doubt this you could take a little tour through the sewer that is 4chan [ 4chan.org ] .
Does anyone with even an iota of civil behavior in them believe for an instant that 4chan is a reflection of the proper use of one 's first amendment right of freedom of speech ?
If you do I would submit that you , in fact , are part of the problem and if that is what you are , your opinions and views are made moot by association and are therefore not part of any solution .
The unrealistic paradigm that simply because you CAN say ( or do ) , a thing you SHOULD is the hallmark of uncivilized thinking .
( " Do As Thou Wilt " is not " the law " , it is the anti-thesis of law - and civil behavior - sorry to disillusion those of you out there with a Crowley Hardon and completely misunderstand this ) .
Fact of the matter is : so long as you are willing to tolerate a government that will listen , record , observe , make note of , and in far too many instances eliminate those who would oppose it , you 're part of the problem and you have no right to bitch , no ground to stand on and object , no reason to do so in the first place and should go back to masturbating with your shiny little WIRETAPPED iPhone because THAT , My Fellow American , is the lie that you 're willing to subscribe to .
Kudos and Good Luck to Mr. Klein and the EFF for stepping up to the plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just further proof of the systemic opinion that most Americans have that "it doesn't matter what you believe, only what lies you are willing to subscribe to"?
From just casually spending the last 25 years of my life trying to impartially observe why it is that the vast majority of people in America are willing to tolerate a government that abuses it's authority and having heard over and over and over again replies to the effect of "eh - whatcanya' do?
", the only conclusion I can draw is that people in America are willing to tolerate outrageous, often unlawful behavior on the part of their so-called "leaders" so long as they continue to enjoy the benefits and comforts those leaders  seem  to be providing them - even to the point of abdicating their so-called "constitutional rights".
If you are a student of history, you might have at some time noticed a disquieting trend from the earliest civilizations to what we have today: technological advances don't create a more "civilized" society.
In fact, it empowers those who have the means to use it to cause people to become less civil towards each other.
Should you doubt this you could take a little tour through the sewer that is 4chan [4chan.org].
Does anyone with even an iota of civil behavior in them believe for an instant that 4chan is a reflection of the proper use of one's first amendment right of freedom of speech?
If you do I would submit that you, in fact, are part of the problem and if that is what you are, your opinions and views are made moot by association and are therefore not part of any solution.
The unrealistic paradigm that simply because you CAN say (or do), a thing you SHOULD is the hallmark of uncivilized thinking.
("Do As Thou Wilt" is not "the law", it is the anti-thesis of law - and civil behavior - sorry to disillusion those of you out there with a Crowley Hardon and completely misunderstand this).
Fact of the matter is: so long as you are willing to tolerate a government that will listen, record, observe, make note of, and in far too many instances eliminate those who would oppose it, you're part of the problem and you have no right to bitch, no ground to stand on and object, no reason to do so in the first place and should go back to masturbating with your shiny little WIRETAPPED iPhone because THAT, My Fellow American, is the lie that you're willing to subscribe to.
Kudos and Good Luck to Mr. Klein and the EFF for stepping up to the plate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739333</id>
	<title>Futile</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1247912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Poor CWmike. He took an effort to write such a nice summary and now no one is going to read it. Hey, did I just see a see a new article? Must be my eyes playing tricks on me...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor CWmike .
He took an effort to write such a nice summary and now no one is going to read it .
Hey , did I just see a see a new article ?
Must be my eyes playing tricks on me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor CWmike.
He took an effort to write such a nice summary and now no one is going to read it.
Hey, did I just see a see a new article?
Must be my eyes playing tricks on me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742561</id>
	<title>Re:of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>dreamer.redeemer</author>
	<datestamp>1247946720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are still a few news outlets that publish real news regardless of what any government or corporation might think. I highly suggest Harper's magazine (harpers.org). Fairly often they publish something that has me frothing at the mouth and ready to riot. Even for more benign stories they have some astounding journalism going on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still a few news outlets that publish real news regardless of what any government or corporation might think .
I highly suggest Harper 's magazine ( harpers.org ) .
Fairly often they publish something that has me frothing at the mouth and ready to riot .
Even for more benign stories they have some astounding journalism going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still a few news outlets that publish real news regardless of what any government or corporation might think.
I highly suggest Harper's magazine (harpers.org).
Fairly often they publish something that has me frothing at the mouth and ready to riot.
Even for more benign stories they have some astounding journalism going on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741215</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247935920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you won't hear about it--because you're not supposed to.  If you want to find out, you have to start being paranoid.</p><p>Don't mod me humorous--I mean it.</p><p>Start writing scripts to spider the web--make yourself a word list, find interesting phrases--see how long it takes some of the sites to get taken down.  I haven't seen a *person* disappear in over a decade since the first bush--but there are blogs that disappear on a weekly basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you wo n't hear about it--because you 're not supposed to .
If you want to find out , you have to start being paranoid.Do n't mod me humorous--I mean it.Start writing scripts to spider the web--make yourself a word list , find interesting phrases--see how long it takes some of the sites to get taken down .
I have n't seen a * person * disappear in over a decade since the first bush--but there are blogs that disappear on a weekly basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you won't hear about it--because you're not supposed to.
If you want to find out, you have to start being paranoid.Don't mod me humorous--I mean it.Start writing scripts to spider the web--make yourself a word list, find interesting phrases--see how long it takes some of the sites to get taken down.
I haven't seen a *person* disappear in over a decade since the first bush--but there are blogs that disappear on a weekly basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740623</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>CajunArson</author>
	<datestamp>1247930820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... Double Hearsay that we're supposed to believe without any evidence because... uh... we assume that Bush personally ordered individual cops all over the country to arrest people!</p><p>A better explanation is that eihter: 1. you're just lying because you know it will get upmodded on Slashdot; 2. The cop was lying to you to make himself sound more badass; 3. Even if the cop wasn't lying, his police chief issued the order and was not operating under orders that came from Cheney's deathstar, despite what you would like to believe in conspiracy land.</p><p>How can I say this?  Well, if I haven't heard about all these muslims being arrested on Olberman's show, the daily show, the daily kos, huffington, moveon.org,  or I hate Bush so much I don't mind if innocent people die to make me feel self-righteous.com, then it likely never happened.  Considering all the stuff they make up, I'm sure they'd jump on anything that actually happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... Double Hearsay that we 're supposed to believe without any evidence because... uh... we assume that Bush personally ordered individual cops all over the country to arrest people ! A better explanation is that eihter : 1. you 're just lying because you know it will get upmodded on Slashdot ; 2 .
The cop was lying to you to make himself sound more badass ; 3 .
Even if the cop was n't lying , his police chief issued the order and was not operating under orders that came from Cheney 's deathstar , despite what you would like to believe in conspiracy land.How can I say this ?
Well , if I have n't heard about all these muslims being arrested on Olberman 's show , the daily show , the daily kos , huffington , moveon.org , or I hate Bush so much I do n't mind if innocent people die to make me feel self-righteous.com , then it likely never happened .
Considering all the stuff they make up , I 'm sure they 'd jump on anything that actually happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... Double Hearsay that we're supposed to believe without any evidence because... uh... we assume that Bush personally ordered individual cops all over the country to arrest people!A better explanation is that eihter: 1. you're just lying because you know it will get upmodded on Slashdot; 2.
The cop was lying to you to make himself sound more badass; 3.
Even if the cop wasn't lying, his police chief issued the order and was not operating under orders that came from Cheney's deathstar, despite what you would like to believe in conspiracy land.How can I say this?
Well, if I haven't heard about all these muslims being arrested on Olberman's show, the daily show, the daily kos, huffington, moveon.org,  or I hate Bush so much I don't mind if innocent people die to make me feel self-righteous.com, then it likely never happened.
Considering all the stuff they make up, I'm sure they'd jump on anything that actually happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739599</id>
	<title>They were not looking for terrorist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... there is no way to detect common phrases and other seemingly normal communications that only the sender and receiver know the true meaning of.</p><p>This common phrases and normal communications has long been used in such a manner of hiding the true meaning of communication. Even during slavery days there was teh underground rail road that used sing song in the cotton fields to pass messages along...</p><p>The wiretapping went further than email and phone conversations but into tracking credit card purchases and other financial transactions.</p><p>Given the ease of codifying communication so to be undetectable by the NSA (not to mention we don't have the computing power for analysis of the mass amount of such ongoing), there is one thing that could most certainly be done, instead.</p><p>To determine what the public attitude was regarding such things as the war on Iraq and other bullshit and public reaction to the real pounding terrorizing acts by the Bush administration against and on the American public and Media (anthrax threats to whip the media into submission and "Clear Channel" network used)..</p><p>If you know what the public is really thinking and you have control over the media to influence the public, you can pretty much control the public and even gain their support for the wrongs you intend to do and this is clearly evidenced with the Exposure of much of the crap the Bush Administration was up to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... there is no way to detect common phrases and other seemingly normal communications that only the sender and receiver know the true meaning of.This common phrases and normal communications has long been used in such a manner of hiding the true meaning of communication .
Even during slavery days there was teh underground rail road that used sing song in the cotton fields to pass messages along...The wiretapping went further than email and phone conversations but into tracking credit card purchases and other financial transactions.Given the ease of codifying communication so to be undetectable by the NSA ( not to mention we do n't have the computing power for analysis of the mass amount of such ongoing ) , there is one thing that could most certainly be done , instead.To determine what the public attitude was regarding such things as the war on Iraq and other bullshit and public reaction to the real pounding terrorizing acts by the Bush administration against and on the American public and Media ( anthrax threats to whip the media into submission and " Clear Channel " network used ) ..If you know what the public is really thinking and you have control over the media to influence the public , you can pretty much control the public and even gain their support for the wrongs you intend to do and this is clearly evidenced with the Exposure of much of the crap the Bush Administration was up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... there is no way to detect common phrases and other seemingly normal communications that only the sender and receiver know the true meaning of.This common phrases and normal communications has long been used in such a manner of hiding the true meaning of communication.
Even during slavery days there was teh underground rail road that used sing song in the cotton fields to pass messages along...The wiretapping went further than email and phone conversations but into tracking credit card purchases and other financial transactions.Given the ease of codifying communication so to be undetectable by the NSA (not to mention we don't have the computing power for analysis of the mass amount of such ongoing), there is one thing that could most certainly be done, instead.To determine what the public attitude was regarding such things as the war on Iraq and other bullshit and public reaction to the real pounding terrorizing acts by the Bush administration against and on the American public and Media (anthrax threats to whip the media into submission and "Clear Channel" network used)..If you know what the public is really thinking and you have control over the media to influence the public, you can pretty much control the public and even gain their support for the wrongs you intend to do and this is clearly evidenced with the Exposure of much of the crap the Bush Administration was up to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1247924160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president (where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them), the logical explanation is that when he became president the NSA showed him details of the wiretapping and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror. Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results, he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president ( where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them ) , the logical explanation is that when he became president the NSA showed him details of the wiretapping and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror .
Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results , he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president (where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them), the logical explanation is that when he became president the NSA showed him details of the wiretapping and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror.
Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results, he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742871</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247949660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you even read the fucking articles you post before you lie about what they say? Or even the damn title?<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Obama's surveillance vote spurs blogging backlash</b>:Sen. Barack Obama's vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates, who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.</p></div><p>Money Quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Senate voted Wednesday on the bill updating FISA -- <b>which had a provision to shield telecommunications companies that had cooperated in the surveillance. Obama joined the 68 other senators who voted to send the bill to the president's desk</b>.</p></div><p>I don't give two shits about what failed amendments he voted for. In the end he was asked to vote on a bill that offered immunity for telcos and he did. If he cared the least bit about keeping the telecoms accountable, he would have voted against the bill itself. End of discussion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.</p></div><p>What's frightening is that there are 4 people who modded you up without reading the article you posted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you even read the fucking articles you post before you lie about what they say ?
Or even the damn title ?
Obama 's surveillance vote spurs blogging backlash : Sen. Barack Obama 's vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates , who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.Money Quote : The Senate voted Wednesday on the bill updating FISA -- which had a provision to shield telecommunications companies that had cooperated in the surveillance .
Obama joined the 68 other senators who voted to send the bill to the president 's desk.I do n't give two shits about what failed amendments he voted for .
In the end he was asked to vote on a bill that offered immunity for telcos and he did .
If he cared the least bit about keeping the telecoms accountable , he would have voted against the bill itself .
End of discussion.What 's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it 's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.What 's frightening is that there are 4 people who modded you up without reading the article you posted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you even read the fucking articles you post before you lie about what they say?
Or even the damn title?
Obama's surveillance vote spurs blogging backlash:Sen. Barack Obama's vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates, who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.Money Quote:The Senate voted Wednesday on the bill updating FISA -- which had a provision to shield telecommunications companies that had cooperated in the surveillance.
Obama joined the 68 other senators who voted to send the bill to the president's desk.I don't give two shits about what failed amendments he voted for.
In the end he was asked to vote on a bill that offered immunity for telcos and he did.
If he cared the least bit about keeping the telecoms accountable, he would have voted against the bill itself.
End of discussion.What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.What's frightening is that there are 4 people who modded you up without reading the article you posted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28748713</id>
	<title>186 comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248029220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like it's the slashdot story nobody wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like it 's the slashdot story nobody wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like it's the slashdot story nobody wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739375</id>
	<title>Myth busters proved that it is safe</title>
	<author>Cur8or</author>
	<datestamp>1247913540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to urinate on the third rail or slash, if you will. Slashdot, knock yourself out...</htmltext>
<tokenext>to urinate on the third rail or slash , if you will .
Slashdot , knock yourself out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to urinate on the third rail or slash, if you will.
Slashdot, knock yourself out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247939880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.</p></div><p>What's sad is that you're such a dupe.</p><p>That amendment was NEVER going to pass, EVERYONE knew it. Except, apparently, you. Obama can safely be assumed to be <em>not that stupid</em>.</p><p>Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believed that shit about "but I'm so surprised the amendment didn't pass!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it 's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.What 's sad is that you 're such a dupe.That amendment was NEVER going to pass , EVERYONE knew it .
Except , apparently , you .
Obama can safely be assumed to be not that stupid.Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believed that shit about " but I 'm so surprised the amendment did n't pass !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's even more frightening is that they modded you informative when it's public record that he voted to strip the immunity provisions out although the amendment failed.What's sad is that you're such a dupe.That amendment was NEVER going to pass, EVERYONE knew it.
Except, apparently, you.
Obama can safely be assumed to be not that stupid.Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believed that shit about "but I'm so surprised the amendment didn't pass!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742421</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247945640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's statement was for a bill drafted 5 months before that vote. The final version looked very little like the original one. If you look at his statement it is very specific.</p><p>"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. <b>But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.</b>"</p><p>That was in Oct 2007. The bill wasn't voted on until Feb of 2008, half a year later. These bills don't stay static that whole time. They are constantly being massed to make them more palatable to the majority. He stated as much himself that with the new warrant protections, he felt he could support the final bill, even if the immunity provisions were left in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's statement was for a bill drafted 5 months before that vote .
The final version looked very little like the original one .
If you look at his statement it is very specific .
" Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill , especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies .
He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee .
But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form , he would support a filibuster of it .
" That was in Oct 2007 .
The bill was n't voted on until Feb of 2008 , half a year later .
These bills do n't stay static that whole time .
They are constantly being massed to make them more palatable to the majority .
He stated as much himself that with the new warrant protections , he felt he could support the final bill , even if the immunity provisions were left in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's statement was for a bill drafted 5 months before that vote.
The final version looked very little like the original one.
If you look at his statement it is very specific.
"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies.
He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.
"That was in Oct 2007.
The bill wasn't voted on until Feb of 2008, half a year later.
These bills don't stay static that whole time.
They are constantly being massed to make them more palatable to the majority.
He stated as much himself that with the new warrant protections, he felt he could support the final bill, even if the immunity provisions were left in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739491</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a lie <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U\_qYGbieoMM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">promulgated by the Bush administration</a> [youtube.com]. The <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT\_onepager.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">device copied \_all\_ communication that traveled through this facility,</a> [eff.org] domestic and foreign. There is good evidence also that this wasn't the only place were AT&amp;T, or other carriers, were imposing dragnet surveillance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a lie promulgated by the Bush administration [ youtube.com ] .
The device copied \ _all \ _ communication that traveled through this facility , [ eff.org ] domestic and foreign .
There is good evidence also that this was n't the only place were AT&amp;T , or other carriers , were imposing dragnet surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a lie promulgated by the Bush administration [youtube.com].
The device copied \_all\_ communication that traveled through this facility, [eff.org] domestic and foreign.
There is good evidence also that this wasn't the only place were AT&amp;T, or other carriers, were imposing dragnet surveillance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741867</id>
	<title>No big deal. Foreign spies operate with impunity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247941200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why spy agencies co-operate with each other.  If the CIA/FBI/NSA/??? want some information and they cannot get it legally, they can always get it from a foreign agency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why spy agencies co-operate with each other .
If the CIA/FBI/NSA/ ? ? ?
want some information and they can not get it legally , they can always get it from a foreign agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why spy agencies co-operate with each other.
If the CIA/FBI/NSA/???
want some information and they cannot get it legally, they can always get it from a foreign agency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1247919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who didn't have proper ID in the months following 9/11.  So yes, this was happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who did n't have proper ID in the months following 9/11 .
So yes , this was happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who didn't have proper ID in the months following 9/11.
So yes, this was happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742515</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247946420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity. Now your saying he's evil for voting to strip the immunity. You seem to be a little hard to please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity .
Now your saying he 's evil for voting to strip the immunity .
You seem to be a little hard to please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity.
Now your saying he's evil for voting to strip the immunity.
You seem to be a little hard to please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739501</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Kreigaffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right on both parts, essentially.  I think they also were monitoring calls originating in the US that were made to foreign numbers they believed to have ties with terrorism, too, but honestly it's hard to really figure out what the truth is and was with so much fear-mongering and hyperbole going on.</p><p>Oh, and the program itself wasn't really new, it's been around forever.  Bush &amp; Co. just tweaked the rules around a little bit -- a move that I think was less about invading the privacy of Americans (which they've been able to do for several decades now) and more a matter of removing a bottleneck.  The whole secret wiretap deal has to be approved by a secret court, I think there's a 24 or 48 hour window in which they can start a wiretap and then seek approval by this secret court.  Well, in the wake of 9/11, they were using this quite a bit, and I'm of the belief that they circumvented the court not because they wanted to be Big Brother but because they knew that most these wiretaps would NOT result in any information but felt that at the time it was best to cast as wide a net as possible, immediately, and later worry about narrowing things down from "possible" to "likely".</p><p>The secret court, of course, only would be able to review so many requests for secret wiretaps at once, and if you're looking at a list of 1,000 possibles and you think 100 of them are pretty likely, let's say it would take a week for a court (and you) to go through and decide which of those 1,000 were the ones you wanted..  well, I believe the idea was simply to not worry about the time limit due to the huge volume and keep all the wiretaps in place until some sort of review could be done, rather than potentially miss out on valuable information because of a paperwork bottleneck.</p><p>Not that I really care for the idea of secret courts or meetings or wiretaps or anything, but overblown fearmongering and fingerpointing pisses me off even more.  Especially when it's hypocritical fingerpointing.  It's not like the democrats in power were oblivious to what was going on (see also, criticism of the information on WMDs before the Iraq War from the democrats when in fact they had access and agreed with the intelligence reports at the time..  fucking i'll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too bullshit).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right on both parts , essentially .
I think they also were monitoring calls originating in the US that were made to foreign numbers they believed to have ties with terrorism , too , but honestly it 's hard to really figure out what the truth is and was with so much fear-mongering and hyperbole going on.Oh , and the program itself was n't really new , it 's been around forever .
Bush &amp; Co. just tweaked the rules around a little bit -- a move that I think was less about invading the privacy of Americans ( which they 've been able to do for several decades now ) and more a matter of removing a bottleneck .
The whole secret wiretap deal has to be approved by a secret court , I think there 's a 24 or 48 hour window in which they can start a wiretap and then seek approval by this secret court .
Well , in the wake of 9/11 , they were using this quite a bit , and I 'm of the belief that they circumvented the court not because they wanted to be Big Brother but because they knew that most these wiretaps would NOT result in any information but felt that at the time it was best to cast as wide a net as possible , immediately , and later worry about narrowing things down from " possible " to " likely " .The secret court , of course , only would be able to review so many requests for secret wiretaps at once , and if you 're looking at a list of 1,000 possibles and you think 100 of them are pretty likely , let 's say it would take a week for a court ( and you ) to go through and decide which of those 1,000 were the ones you wanted.. well , I believe the idea was simply to not worry about the time limit due to the huge volume and keep all the wiretaps in place until some sort of review could be done , rather than potentially miss out on valuable information because of a paperwork bottleneck.Not that I really care for the idea of secret courts or meetings or wiretaps or anything , but overblown fearmongering and fingerpointing pisses me off even more .
Especially when it 's hypocritical fingerpointing .
It 's not like the democrats in power were oblivious to what was going on ( see also , criticism of the information on WMDs before the Iraq War from the democrats when in fact they had access and agreed with the intelligence reports at the time.. fucking i 'll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too bullshit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right on both parts, essentially.
I think they also were monitoring calls originating in the US that were made to foreign numbers they believed to have ties with terrorism, too, but honestly it's hard to really figure out what the truth is and was with so much fear-mongering and hyperbole going on.Oh, and the program itself wasn't really new, it's been around forever.
Bush &amp; Co. just tweaked the rules around a little bit -- a move that I think was less about invading the privacy of Americans (which they've been able to do for several decades now) and more a matter of removing a bottleneck.
The whole secret wiretap deal has to be approved by a secret court, I think there's a 24 or 48 hour window in which they can start a wiretap and then seek approval by this secret court.
Well, in the wake of 9/11, they were using this quite a bit, and I'm of the belief that they circumvented the court not because they wanted to be Big Brother but because they knew that most these wiretaps would NOT result in any information but felt that at the time it was best to cast as wide a net as possible, immediately, and later worry about narrowing things down from "possible" to "likely".The secret court, of course, only would be able to review so many requests for secret wiretaps at once, and if you're looking at a list of 1,000 possibles and you think 100 of them are pretty likely, let's say it would take a week for a court (and you) to go through and decide which of those 1,000 were the ones you wanted..  well, I believe the idea was simply to not worry about the time limit due to the huge volume and keep all the wiretaps in place until some sort of review could be done, rather than potentially miss out on valuable information because of a paperwork bottleneck.Not that I really care for the idea of secret courts or meetings or wiretaps or anything, but overblown fearmongering and fingerpointing pisses me off even more.
Especially when it's hypocritical fingerpointing.
It's not like the democrats in power were oblivious to what was going on (see also, criticism of the information on WMDs before the Iraq War from the democrats when in fact they had access and agreed with the intelligence reports at the time..  fucking i'll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too bullshit).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28745933</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1247943720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations, you spotted the bullshit excuse drinkypoo was referring to. He voted against a measure that wouldn't pass anyway, then when it came back around in a form that *would* pass, he voted *for* it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you spotted the bullshit excuse drinkypoo was referring to .
He voted against a measure that would n't pass anyway , then when it came back around in a form that * would * pass , he voted * for * it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you spotted the bullshit excuse drinkypoo was referring to.
He voted against a measure that wouldn't pass anyway, then when it came back around in a form that *would* pass, he voted *for* it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741773</id>
	<title>Re:of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247940600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is the reason. It may be important, but people don't care. There have been similar stories in the past, and even a quite extensive and well documented report that basically showed that pretty much everyone is doing it, but it never reached the papers and if you tell people about it* they go blank. Not because they don't believe you, but because they really don't care. They so much don't care that they don't even start to evaluate it, in other words they so much don't care that they don't even care whether or not it's true.<br>*Ironic how people are always very enthusiastic to enter political conversations and to talk about nasty things politicians do, but then don't want to go any deeper than "America is evil (which I don't believe is true in general) and bread is more expensive (which it isn't, the price has gone down by ~30\%, you'd think people would notice that)."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is the reason .
It may be important , but people do n't care .
There have been similar stories in the past , and even a quite extensive and well documented report that basically showed that pretty much everyone is doing it , but it never reached the papers and if you tell people about it * they go blank .
Not because they do n't believe you , but because they really do n't care .
They so much do n't care that they do n't even start to evaluate it , in other words they so much do n't care that they do n't even care whether or not it 's true .
* Ironic how people are always very enthusiastic to enter political conversations and to talk about nasty things politicians do , but then do n't want to go any deeper than " America is evil ( which I do n't believe is true in general ) and bread is more expensive ( which it is n't , the price has gone down by ~ 30 \ % , you 'd think people would notice that ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is the reason.
It may be important, but people don't care.
There have been similar stories in the past, and even a quite extensive and well documented report that basically showed that pretty much everyone is doing it, but it never reached the papers and if you tell people about it* they go blank.
Not because they don't believe you, but because they really don't care.
They so much don't care that they don't even start to evaluate it, in other words they so much don't care that they don't even care whether or not it's true.
*Ironic how people are always very enthusiastic to enter political conversations and to talk about nasty things politicians do, but then don't want to go any deeper than "America is evil (which I don't believe is true in general) and bread is more expensive (which it isn't, the price has gone down by ~30\%, you'd think people would notice that).
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741965</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247942040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War on terror? Stop using that phrase.</p><p>You can't wage war against terror. You CAN try to wage war on terrorists or rather people who use terrifying techniques to "get what they want", but you can't defeat an abstraction.</p><p>I really would hope that no one uses that phrase ever again. The common use of it as an appropriate phrase boggles my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War on terror ?
Stop using that phrase.You ca n't wage war against terror .
You CAN try to wage war on terrorists or rather people who use terrifying techniques to " get what they want " , but you ca n't defeat an abstraction.I really would hope that no one uses that phrase ever again .
The common use of it as an appropriate phrase boggles my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War on terror?
Stop using that phrase.You can't wage war against terror.
You CAN try to wage war on terrorists or rather people who use terrifying techniques to "get what they want", but you can't defeat an abstraction.I really would hope that no one uses that phrase ever again.
The common use of it as an appropriate phrase boggles my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That amendment was NEVER going to pass, EVERYONE knew it. Except, apparently, you. Obama can safely be assumed to be not that stupid.</i></p><p>So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?<br>Not a big fan of "dreaming the impossible dream?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That amendment was NEVER going to pass , EVERYONE knew it .
Except , apparently , you .
Obama can safely be assumed to be not that stupid.So , what , your position is that a good ( but futile ) deed does not count in a person 's favor ? Not a big fan of " dreaming the impossible dream ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That amendment was NEVER going to pass, EVERYONE knew it.
Except, apparently, you.
Obama can safely be assumed to be not that stupid.So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?Not a big fan of "dreaming the impossible dream?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743525</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247912400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed...</p></div><p>What are you talking about?  The very next day after his arrest, <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/10/bn.06.html" title="cnn.com">Ashcroft held a nationally-televised press conference.</a> [cnn.com] <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3498" title="defenselink.mil">Wolofwitz did one too</a> [defenselink.mil] on the same day.</p><p>Anyone with any critical thinking ability could see right through the BS in those press conferences and indeed when they finally figured out something to charge Padilla with it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims they made at the time of his arrest, ultimately he was convicted of nothing more than bearing ill-will towards the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know all about this guy * now * , but we did n't when he was first grabbed...What are you talking about ?
The very next day after his arrest , Ashcroft held a nationally-televised press conference .
[ cnn.com ] Wolofwitz did one too [ defenselink.mil ] on the same day.Anyone with any critical thinking ability could see right through the BS in those press conferences and indeed when they finally figured out something to charge Padilla with it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims they made at the time of his arrest , ultimately he was convicted of nothing more than bearing ill-will towards the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed...What are you talking about?
The very next day after his arrest, Ashcroft held a nationally-televised press conference.
[cnn.com] Wolofwitz did one too [defenselink.mil] on the same day.Anyone with any critical thinking ability could see right through the BS in those press conferences and indeed when they finally figured out something to charge Padilla with it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims they made at the time of his arrest, ultimately he was convicted of nothing more than bearing ill-will towards the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742739</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I Quote: "There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps. How do I know? He voted for telecoms immunity."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I Quote : " There was no such flip .
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps .
How do I know ?
He voted for telecoms immunity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I Quote: "There was no such flip.
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps.
How do I know?
He voted for telecoms immunity.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743269</id>
	<title>Get over it</title>
	<author>fadethepolice</author>
	<datestamp>1247910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have freinds and family in the nsa.  your phones have always been tapped and they always will be tapped.  All of your bank records have always been available.  Get over it.  nothing new has occurred int the past 20 years.  spend your time pressuring your congressman for responsible use of the information by legislation specifying allowable use of procured data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have freinds and family in the nsa .
your phones have always been tapped and they always will be tapped .
All of your bank records have always been available .
Get over it .
nothing new has occurred int the past 20 years .
spend your time pressuring your congressman for responsible use of the information by legislation specifying allowable use of procured data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have freinds and family in the nsa.
your phones have always been tapped and they always will be tapped.
All of your bank records have always been available.
Get over it.
nothing new has occurred int the past 20 years.
spend your time pressuring your congressman for responsible use of the information by legislation specifying allowable use of procured data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741389</id>
	<title>We could have prevented 9/11 if we had it earlier!</title>
	<author>bigtrike</author>
	<datestamp>1247937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that or the FBI could have bothered to check the phone book for the names and addresses of wanted terrorists that they knew to be living in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that or the FBI could have bothered to check the phone book for the names and addresses of wanted terrorists that they knew to be living in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that or the FBI could have bothered to check the phone book for the names and addresses of wanted terrorists that they knew to be living in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740045</id>
	<title>it's just me...</title>
	<author>Mr\_Nitro</author>
	<datestamp>1247925360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or the amount of comments about this story it scarily low?? this is seriously disturbing ppl...
you are being wiretrapped all the way warrantless like sheeps.. and you dont move a finger?
that's really twisted imho.
Remeber what good old Ben Franklin said about security and freedom....
We must be one of the most stupid type of 'thinking' alien specie tho... the one that lives
in the same mudball and can't communicate because we don't even speak the same language (think of the embarrassment at the galaxy council)...
and we fight our own specie's immaginary enemies....and even more we witch-hunt within the same faction...
This is just plain dumb.
Human beings should start to behave....</htmltext>
<tokenext>or the amount of comments about this story it scarily low ? ?
this is seriously disturbing ppl.. . you are being wiretrapped all the way warrantless like sheeps.. and you dont move a finger ?
that 's really twisted imho .
Remeber what good old Ben Franklin said about security and freedom... . We must be one of the most stupid type of 'thinking ' alien specie tho... the one that lives in the same mudball and ca n't communicate because we do n't even speak the same language ( think of the embarrassment at the galaxy council ) .. . and we fight our own specie 's immaginary enemies....and even more we witch-hunt within the same faction.. . This is just plain dumb .
Human beings should start to behave... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or the amount of comments about this story it scarily low??
this is seriously disturbing ppl...
you are being wiretrapped all the way warrantless like sheeps.. and you dont move a finger?
that's really twisted imho.
Remeber what good old Ben Franklin said about security and freedom....
We must be one of the most stupid type of 'thinking' alien specie tho... the one that lives
in the same mudball and can't communicate because we don't even speak the same language (think of the embarrassment at the galaxy council)...
and we fight our own specie's immaginary enemies....and even more we witch-hunt within the same faction...
This is just plain dumb.
Human beings should start to behave....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1247922120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then you need to expand your knowledge. "The Dark Side", by Jane Mayer would be a good start, though I doubt highly that you will expend the effort, because it would threaten your narrow and comfortable view of the world.<br> <br>
Your assumption that the Bush administration did not wipe it's ass with The Constitution of the United States deserves all the derision it is likely to get here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., for it is utterly without supporting facts. Indeed, more than one U.S. citizen was detained and denied their rights as citizens with nothing more than the disingenuous process of a handful of lawyers drafting documents telling the President he could do pretty much anything he wanted when it came to "terrorists". Add to these few, (most of which, BTW, are probably quite guilty of the crimes they were suspected of), the thousands of other so-called "enemy combatants" who have also been denied their rights under U.S. and international law and you have an episode in U.S. history that is cause for national shame.<br> <br>
Ours is a nation of laws. Those laws, and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings, recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws. No, not one. And before you dream up some Jack Bauer hypothetical, ticking-clock scenario, read the first sentence in the paragraph again and note the word "systematically". I rather doubt that history nor the courts would judge anyone to harshly for taking whatever action was necessary in such a far-fetched scenario, but that facts are that such was not the scenario. There was only the realization that, despite abundant intelligence that would have pointed the way, the intelligence and law enforcement arms of our government failed badly in the days leading up to 9/11. With this realization came the almost paranoid conviction that "they will hit us again" and the panic-driven actions of a powerful few to prevent that at any cost. The subsequent list of failures to defend, and insults to, The Constitution are well documented and far too many to list here, but the do most certainly, include the illegal interception of the private communications of U.S. citizens. Seriously, put down the neo-con fanboy kool-aid, stop watching Fox News, and see for yourself.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you need to expand your knowledge .
" The Dark Side " , by Jane Mayer would be a good start , though I doubt highly that you will expend the effort , because it would threaten your narrow and comfortable view of the world .
Your assumption that the Bush administration did not wipe it 's ass with The Constitution of the United States deserves all the derision it is likely to get here on /. , for it is utterly without supporting facts .
Indeed , more than one U.S. citizen was detained and denied their rights as citizens with nothing more than the disingenuous process of a handful of lawyers drafting documents telling the President he could do pretty much anything he wanted when it came to " terrorists " .
Add to these few , ( most of which , BTW , are probably quite guilty of the crimes they were suspected of ) , the thousands of other so-called " enemy combatants " who have also been denied their rights under U.S. and international law and you have an episode in U.S. history that is cause for national shame .
Ours is a nation of laws .
Those laws , and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings , recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws .
No , not one .
And before you dream up some Jack Bauer hypothetical , ticking-clock scenario , read the first sentence in the paragraph again and note the word " systematically " .
I rather doubt that history nor the courts would judge anyone to harshly for taking whatever action was necessary in such a far-fetched scenario , but that facts are that such was not the scenario .
There was only the realization that , despite abundant intelligence that would have pointed the way , the intelligence and law enforcement arms of our government failed badly in the days leading up to 9/11 .
With this realization came the almost paranoid conviction that " they will hit us again " and the panic-driven actions of a powerful few to prevent that at any cost .
The subsequent list of failures to defend , and insults to , The Constitution are well documented and far too many to list here , but the do most certainly , include the illegal interception of the private communications of U.S. citizens. Seriously , put down the neo-con fanboy kool-aid , stop watching Fox News , and see for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you need to expand your knowledge.
"The Dark Side", by Jane Mayer would be a good start, though I doubt highly that you will expend the effort, because it would threaten your narrow and comfortable view of the world.
Your assumption that the Bush administration did not wipe it's ass with The Constitution of the United States deserves all the derision it is likely to get here on /., for it is utterly without supporting facts.
Indeed, more than one U.S. citizen was detained and denied their rights as citizens with nothing more than the disingenuous process of a handful of lawyers drafting documents telling the President he could do pretty much anything he wanted when it came to "terrorists".
Add to these few, (most of which, BTW, are probably quite guilty of the crimes they were suspected of), the thousands of other so-called "enemy combatants" who have also been denied their rights under U.S. and international law and you have an episode in U.S. history that is cause for national shame.
Ours is a nation of laws.
Those laws, and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings, recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws.
No, not one.
And before you dream up some Jack Bauer hypothetical, ticking-clock scenario, read the first sentence in the paragraph again and note the word "systematically".
I rather doubt that history nor the courts would judge anyone to harshly for taking whatever action was necessary in such a far-fetched scenario, but that facts are that such was not the scenario.
There was only the realization that, despite abundant intelligence that would have pointed the way, the intelligence and law enforcement arms of our government failed badly in the days leading up to 9/11.
With this realization came the almost paranoid conviction that "they will hit us again" and the panic-driven actions of a powerful few to prevent that at any cost.
The subsequent list of failures to defend, and insults to, The Constitution are well documented and far too many to list here, but the do most certainly, include the illegal interception of the private communications of U.S. citizens. Seriously, put down the neo-con fanboy kool-aid, stop watching Fox News, and see for yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741365</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1247937120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror.</i></p><p>Explain to me again how violating the Constitution increases "the national security of the nation"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror.Explain to me again how violating the Constitution increases " the national security of the nation " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and possibly also showed him examples of things the NSA has intercepted via the wiretapping that has in some way benefited the national security of the nation or helped in the war on terror.Explain to me again how violating the Constitution increases "the national security of the nation"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740199</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247927040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually years ago an engineer-turned-whistle blower at AT&amp;T in San Fran took photo's of a rack in a locked room within a central-office (switching station) which showed several high-end Sun boxes with a large device which he was asked to help install...the device was a fiber tap. He was asked by upper management at AT&amp;T to assist a "contractor" who was installing the device (the contractor did not do a good job of hiding the fact he was NSA).</p><p>They have been watching - at least a small portion of people living in America - for a decade or more.</p><p>I wish I had a link for you, but this was back in the days of hacking BBS's when directories of community uploaded community information was replicated nightly over the phone. I'm sure now that the WWW is around those photo's would have been online a matter of hours before they were ordered to be removed by similar "contractors".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually years ago an engineer-turned-whistle blower at AT&amp;T in San Fran took photo 's of a rack in a locked room within a central-office ( switching station ) which showed several high-end Sun boxes with a large device which he was asked to help install...the device was a fiber tap .
He was asked by upper management at AT&amp;T to assist a " contractor " who was installing the device ( the contractor did not do a good job of hiding the fact he was NSA ) .They have been watching - at least a small portion of people living in America - for a decade or more.I wish I had a link for you , but this was back in the days of hacking BBS 's when directories of community uploaded community information was replicated nightly over the phone .
I 'm sure now that the WWW is around those photo 's would have been online a matter of hours before they were ordered to be removed by similar " contractors " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually years ago an engineer-turned-whistle blower at AT&amp;T in San Fran took photo's of a rack in a locked room within a central-office (switching station) which showed several high-end Sun boxes with a large device which he was asked to help install...the device was a fiber tap.
He was asked by upper management at AT&amp;T to assist a "contractor" who was installing the device (the contractor did not do a good job of hiding the fact he was NSA).They have been watching - at least a small portion of people living in America - for a decade or more.I wish I had a link for you, but this was back in the days of hacking BBS's when directories of community uploaded community information was replicated nightly over the phone.
I'm sure now that the WWW is around those photo's would have been online a matter of hours before they were ordered to be removed by similar "contractors".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739433</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>tnok85</author>
	<datestamp>1247914320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>Ok, perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong.</strong> (George W. Bush != John McCain)</p></div><p>

Obama did not have to defeat McCain - or whatever Republican got the nomination, for that matter - he only needed to defeat Bush.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong .
( George W. Bush ! = John McCain ) Obama did not have to defeat McCain - or whatever Republican got the nomination , for that matter - he only needed to defeat Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ok, perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong.
(George W. Bush != John McCain)

Obama did not have to defeat McCain - or whatever Republican got the nomination, for that matter - he only needed to defeat Bush.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?</p></div><p>That is a gross misrepresentation of my position. My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass, and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good, but one of <strong>evil</strong>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not a big fan of "dreaming the impossible dream?"</p></div><p>I'm a realist, which means that while I might like to alter the current power structure to the point where it would be essentially unrecognizable, feed the hungry and save the whales, I know that the Republicans and Democrats are both essentially concerned about taking and holding power for themselves, not with actually making a difference.</p><p>Further, I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large <em>direct</em> difference. The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy, in which he is typically forced to follow policy, but in <em>attitude</em>. First Lady Michelle Obama's installation of an <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/first-ladys-organic-garden-concerns-chemical-companies-2009-04-09.html" title="thehill.com">organic garden</a> [thehill.com] at the white house reminds me of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/white-house-solar-panels\_n\_160575.html" title="huffingtonpost.com">past events</a> [huffingtonpost.com] in a way that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about here.</p><p>Let me just reiterate: Obama is not an idiot. He never believed that amendment would pass. You have been duped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what , your position is that a good ( but futile ) deed does not count in a person 's favor ? That is a gross misrepresentation of my position .
My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass , and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good , but one of evil.Not a big fan of " dreaming the impossible dream ?
" I 'm a realist , which means that while I might like to alter the current power structure to the point where it would be essentially unrecognizable , feed the hungry and save the whales , I know that the Republicans and Democrats are both essentially concerned about taking and holding power for themselves , not with actually making a difference.Further , I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference .
The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy , in which he is typically forced to follow policy , but in attitude .
First Lady Michelle Obama 's installation of an organic garden [ thehill.com ] at the white house reminds me of past events [ huffingtonpost.com ] in a way that perfectly illustrates what I 'm talking about here.Let me just reiterate : Obama is not an idiot .
He never believed that amendment would pass .
You have been duped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?That is a gross misrepresentation of my position.
My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass, and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good, but one of evil.Not a big fan of "dreaming the impossible dream?
"I'm a realist, which means that while I might like to alter the current power structure to the point where it would be essentially unrecognizable, feed the hungry and save the whales, I know that the Republicans and Democrats are both essentially concerned about taking and holding power for themselves, not with actually making a difference.Further, I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference.
The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy, in which he is typically forced to follow policy, but in attitude.
First Lady Michelle Obama's installation of an organic garden [thehill.com] at the white house reminds me of past events [huffingtonpost.com] in a way that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about here.Let me just reiterate: Obama is not an idiot.
He never believed that amendment would pass.
You have been duped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739757</id>
	<title>Your daily instructions are ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247920560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bash Bush.</p><p>We will contact you again tomorrow for your next assignment but you should assume that<br>tomorrow you will do the same as today, Bash Bush.</p><p>Signed,</p><p>MoveOn.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bash Bush.We will contact you again tomorrow for your next assignment but you should assume thattomorrow you will do the same as today , Bash Bush.Signed,MoveOn.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bash Bush.We will contact you again tomorrow for your next assignment but you should assume thattomorrow you will do the same as today, Bash Bush.Signed,MoveOn.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739283</id>
	<title>The third rail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247912100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's <i>social</i> security, according to the old Washington, DC saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's social security , according to the old Washington , DC saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's social security, according to the old Washington, DC saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28745809</id>
	<title>If only they'd debug their software</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1247941860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm way beyond the tinfoil skullcaps stage.  It really doesn't matter to me if the feds want to park a block away in black vans deciphering my screen's radio haze.  Good luck to them, and best wishes at the world's dullest job, but if they need to plant bugs the least they could do is debug their @#$\%ing software.  You expect that kind of crap from Microsoft &mdash; Bill Gates' entire fortune isn't worth the cost of a single nuclear aircraft carrier, after all, so he can't really afford QA.  From the feds, though, you kinda expect a higher standard.  A black ops budget can afford a few world-class, genius-level systems debuggers, wooden cha think?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm way beyond the tinfoil skullcaps stage .
It really does n't matter to me if the feds want to park a block away in black vans deciphering my screen 's radio haze .
Good luck to them , and best wishes at the world 's dullest job , but if they need to plant bugs the least they could do is debug their @ # $ \ % ing software .
You expect that kind of crap from Microsoft    Bill Gates ' entire fortune is n't worth the cost of a single nuclear aircraft carrier , after all , so he ca n't really afford QA .
From the feds , though , you kinda expect a higher standard .
A black ops budget can afford a few world-class , genius-level systems debuggers , wooden cha think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm way beyond the tinfoil skullcaps stage.
It really doesn't matter to me if the feds want to park a block away in black vans deciphering my screen's radio haze.
Good luck to them, and best wishes at the world's dullest job, but if they need to plant bugs the least they could do is debug their @#$\%ing software.
You expect that kind of crap from Microsoft — Bill Gates' entire fortune isn't worth the cost of a single nuclear aircraft carrier, after all, so he can't really afford QA.
From the feds, though, you kinda expect a higher standard.
A black ops budget can afford a few world-class, genius-level systems debuggers, wooden cha think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741087</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247934780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct.  In addition, the equipment in "the room" had nothing to do with spying on Americans.  In fact, it was to secure POPs from public connections to DoD networks (for instance, where NIPRNet &amp; DSN connected to the Internet &amp; PSTN).  But that's boring, so a more exciting story must be concocted by folks like the TFA's writer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
In addition , the equipment in " the room " had nothing to do with spying on Americans .
In fact , it was to secure POPs from public connections to DoD networks ( for instance , where NIPRNet &amp; DSN connected to the Internet &amp; PSTN ) .
But that 's boring , so a more exciting story must be concocted by folks like the TFA 's writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
In addition, the equipment in "the room" had nothing to do with spying on Americans.
In fact, it was to secure POPs from public connections to DoD networks (for instance, where NIPRNet &amp; DSN connected to the Internet &amp; PSTN).
But that's boring, so a more exciting story must be concocted by folks like the TFA's writer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742901</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1247949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps. </p></div><p>It's definitely natural to look to the President to lead the way on this (or not), but it seems like people generally leave out the role of Congress. I'm no expert, but shouldn't congressional oversight be a major player (if not THE major player) in matters like this? I know the DoJ falls under the Executive branch, but Congress has appointed special investigators in the past, IIRC.</p><p>In any case, Congress definitely has a role to play. As the warrant-less domestic wiretapping was known for some time under Pres. Bush, and continues under Pres. Obama, I'm more likely to place blame on Democrats in the Legislature. I expect today's surviving Republicans to both stick to party lines and put national security ahead of constitutionality. More importantly, I know that they don't wield significant power at present.</p><p>Democrats are also prone to the security over constitutionality choice, of course. I don't have a party line behind this post. For both parties, political climate is a huge influence. I just think it's worth remembering that Congress has duties in government beyond passing laws and setting the budget; that's what all the committees are there for.</p><p>If we put all blame and expectations on Bush and now Obama, we make it too easy for Congress to not press important issues. It's part of the President's job to take blame and criticism, since they represent the entire country and can never expect to please everyone. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are individually much more answerable to us, theoretically anyway.</p><p>The bottom line is that arguing about Bush or Obama on Slashdot just wastes time and space in the discussion (this article is about the press, isn't it?). Writing your Senator or Representative, on the other hand, is a much better use of your time, if only to have the opportunity to gain insight into the canned response you will get back from their offices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no such flip .
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps .
It 's definitely natural to look to the President to lead the way on this ( or not ) , but it seems like people generally leave out the role of Congress .
I 'm no expert , but should n't congressional oversight be a major player ( if not THE major player ) in matters like this ?
I know the DoJ falls under the Executive branch , but Congress has appointed special investigators in the past , IIRC.In any case , Congress definitely has a role to play .
As the warrant-less domestic wiretapping was known for some time under Pres .
Bush , and continues under Pres .
Obama , I 'm more likely to place blame on Democrats in the Legislature .
I expect today 's surviving Republicans to both stick to party lines and put national security ahead of constitutionality .
More importantly , I know that they do n't wield significant power at present.Democrats are also prone to the security over constitutionality choice , of course .
I do n't have a party line behind this post .
For both parties , political climate is a huge influence .
I just think it 's worth remembering that Congress has duties in government beyond passing laws and setting the budget ; that 's what all the committees are there for.If we put all blame and expectations on Bush and now Obama , we make it too easy for Congress to not press important issues .
It 's part of the President 's job to take blame and criticism , since they represent the entire country and can never expect to please everyone .
Members of Congress , on the other hand , are individually much more answerable to us , theoretically anyway.The bottom line is that arguing about Bush or Obama on Slashdot just wastes time and space in the discussion ( this article is about the press , is n't it ? ) .
Writing your Senator or Representative , on the other hand , is a much better use of your time , if only to have the opportunity to gain insight into the canned response you will get back from their offices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no such flip.
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps.
It's definitely natural to look to the President to lead the way on this (or not), but it seems like people generally leave out the role of Congress.
I'm no expert, but shouldn't congressional oversight be a major player (if not THE major player) in matters like this?
I know the DoJ falls under the Executive branch, but Congress has appointed special investigators in the past, IIRC.In any case, Congress definitely has a role to play.
As the warrant-less domestic wiretapping was known for some time under Pres.
Bush, and continues under Pres.
Obama, I'm more likely to place blame on Democrats in the Legislature.
I expect today's surviving Republicans to both stick to party lines and put national security ahead of constitutionality.
More importantly, I know that they don't wield significant power at present.Democrats are also prone to the security over constitutionality choice, of course.
I don't have a party line behind this post.
For both parties, political climate is a huge influence.
I just think it's worth remembering that Congress has duties in government beyond passing laws and setting the budget; that's what all the committees are there for.If we put all blame and expectations on Bush and now Obama, we make it too easy for Congress to not press important issues.
It's part of the President's job to take blame and criticism, since they represent the entire country and can never expect to please everyone.
Members of Congress, on the other hand, are individually much more answerable to us, theoretically anyway.The bottom line is that arguing about Bush or Obama on Slashdot just wastes time and space in the discussion (this article is about the press, isn't it?).
Writing your Senator or Representative, on the other hand, is a much better use of your time, if only to have the opportunity to gain insight into the canned response you will get back from their offices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28752365</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL - I find it funny when an Obamaite is shocked... SHOCKED... when it turns out "The One" is just another snake-in-the-grass lying prick of a politician.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL - I find it funny when an Obamaite is shocked... SHOCKED... when it turns out " The One " is just another snake-in-the-grass lying prick of a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL - I find it funny when an Obamaite is shocked... SHOCKED... when it turns out "The One" is just another snake-in-the-grass lying prick of a politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743197</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>plnix0</author>
	<datestamp>1247909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His was point was that it was "safe" for Obama to vote the amendment, since it wasn't going to pass anyway. Obama got the best of both worlds: the amendment didn't pass, and politically he looked good because he voted for it. This is a well known feature of how Congress operates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His was point was that it was " safe " for Obama to vote the amendment , since it was n't going to pass anyway .
Obama got the best of both worlds : the amendment did n't pass , and politically he looked good because he voted for it .
This is a well known feature of how Congress operates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His was point was that it was "safe" for Obama to vote the amendment, since it wasn't going to pass anyway.
Obama got the best of both worlds: the amendment didn't pass, and politically he looked good because he voted for it.
This is a well known feature of how Congress operates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28744555</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247925060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them. Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?</p></div><p>Sure they did. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos\%C3\%A9\_Padilla\_(prisoner)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jose Padilla was one of them.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration was not , to my knowledge , grabbing Americans off the street and " disappearing " them .
Was this in fact the case , outside this guy 's fevered dreams ? Sure they did .
Jose Padilla was one of them .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them.
Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?Sure they did.
Jose Padilla was one of them.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739371</id>
	<title>PBS Nova did a show that mentioned Folsom</title>
	<author>billmarrs</author>
	<datestamp>1247913420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was called "The Spy Factory".<br>Here's a transcript (search for "Folsom" 4/5ths down the page):<br><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3602\_spyfactory.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3602\_spyfactory.html</a> [pbs.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was called " The Spy Factory " .Here 's a transcript ( search for " Folsom " 4/5ths down the page ) : http : //www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3602 \ _spyfactory.html [ pbs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was called "The Spy Factory".Here's a transcript (search for "Folsom" 4/5ths down the page):http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3602\_spyfactory.html [pbs.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743901</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247915820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>specifically, the main lawyer was John Yoo. That nut job I think is now at stanford. The man should be expelled from the country. He is a "constitutional" scholar, except I'm not sure he ever read it. He wrote some of the original memos finding legal basis for torture, invasion of privacy and due process revocation. Frankly, I don't see how the man is asian. His father must have been hitler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>specifically , the main lawyer was John Yoo .
That nut job I think is now at stanford .
The man should be expelled from the country .
He is a " constitutional " scholar , except I 'm not sure he ever read it .
He wrote some of the original memos finding legal basis for torture , invasion of privacy and due process revocation .
Frankly , I do n't see how the man is asian .
His father must have been hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>specifically, the main lawyer was John Yoo.
That nut job I think is now at stanford.
The man should be expelled from the country.
He is a "constitutional" scholar, except I'm not sure he ever read it.
He wrote some of the original memos finding legal basis for torture, invasion of privacy and due process revocation.
Frankly, I don't see how the man is asian.
His father must have been hitler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</id>
	<title>Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247912760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently, even President Obama doesn't want to hear complaints about the warrantless wiretaps. The Computerworld story provides a convenient link titled "<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135575/Obama\_administration\_defends\_Bush\_wiretapping" title="computerworld.com">Obama administration defends Bush wiretapping</a> [computerworld.com]"<blockquote><div><p>While campaigning against President George W. Bush, Barack Obama had pledged that there would be "no more wiretapping of American citizens," but Obama's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.</p></div></blockquote><p> <strong>Ok, perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong.</strong> (George W. Bush != John McCain)


<br> <br>Seth</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , even President Obama does n't want to hear complaints about the warrantless wiretaps .
The Computerworld story provides a convenient link titled " Obama administration defends Bush wiretapping [ computerworld.com ] " While campaigning against President George W. Bush , Barack Obama had pledged that there would be " no more wiretapping of American citizens , " but Obama 's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor 's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping .
Ok , perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong .
( George W. Bush ! = John McCain ) Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, even President Obama doesn't want to hear complaints about the warrantless wiretaps.
The Computerworld story provides a convenient link titled "Obama administration defends Bush wiretapping [computerworld.com]"While campaigning against President George W. Bush, Barack Obama had pledged that there would be "no more wiretapping of American citizens," but Obama's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.
Ok, perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong.
(George W. Bush != John McCain)


 Seth
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743119</id>
	<title>Old news, but still not known</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1247908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read "The Puzzle Palace", the first book by James Bamford (and then you can read the rest of them). He's made a career of exposing the NSA. This first book was written at a time when congress critters would not even admit publicly that the NSA existed. Bamford provides a history of eavesdropping and spying by the USA and shows that illegal listening has been going on ever since there has been anything at all to listen to.<br>For example, I recall that the first Western Union offices, those that were the terminations of the Transatlantic cables, and others in NYC, had secret government offices right next door where the cables were spliced and terminated for us to spy on transmissions as soon as they arrived.<br>Do you recall an item in the news about 15 or so years ago regarding a backdoor in Windows NT? Some security expert in, I think from  memory, one of the major gov research campuses (Los Alamos or Livermore) was quoted as saying in a security overview seminar, rather casually, that there was a backdoor to the mil-spec security in NT, and that the government had the keys. Having read that book, this made complete sense to me.</p><p>The fact that this is "same as it ever was" does not mean that we should not be aware of it. It matters a great deal. My opinion is that some of this access is necessary "for a free and functioning democracy" in this world of ours. We want to know if some extremist asshole (no matter what the persuasion) is planning to set off a nuke anywhere. But much of the rest of it can be exploiting us, it can be used by people against their political enemies or for their individual profits, for purposes that has nothing to do with the well-being of the world. And we can keep an eye on which is which only if we know it's going on in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read " The Puzzle Palace " , the first book by James Bamford ( and then you can read the rest of them ) .
He 's made a career of exposing the NSA .
This first book was written at a time when congress critters would not even admit publicly that the NSA existed .
Bamford provides a history of eavesdropping and spying by the USA and shows that illegal listening has been going on ever since there has been anything at all to listen to.For example , I recall that the first Western Union offices , those that were the terminations of the Transatlantic cables , and others in NYC , had secret government offices right next door where the cables were spliced and terminated for us to spy on transmissions as soon as they arrived.Do you recall an item in the news about 15 or so years ago regarding a backdoor in Windows NT ?
Some security expert in , I think from memory , one of the major gov research campuses ( Los Alamos or Livermore ) was quoted as saying in a security overview seminar , rather casually , that there was a backdoor to the mil-spec security in NT , and that the government had the keys .
Having read that book , this made complete sense to me.The fact that this is " same as it ever was " does not mean that we should not be aware of it .
It matters a great deal .
My opinion is that some of this access is necessary " for a free and functioning democracy " in this world of ours .
We want to know if some extremist asshole ( no matter what the persuasion ) is planning to set off a nuke anywhere .
But much of the rest of it can be exploiting us , it can be used by people against their political enemies or for their individual profits , for purposes that has nothing to do with the well-being of the world .
And we can keep an eye on which is which only if we know it 's going on in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read "The Puzzle Palace", the first book by James Bamford (and then you can read the rest of them).
He's made a career of exposing the NSA.
This first book was written at a time when congress critters would not even admit publicly that the NSA existed.
Bamford provides a history of eavesdropping and spying by the USA and shows that illegal listening has been going on ever since there has been anything at all to listen to.For example, I recall that the first Western Union offices, those that were the terminations of the Transatlantic cables, and others in NYC, had secret government offices right next door where the cables were spliced and terminated for us to spy on transmissions as soon as they arrived.Do you recall an item in the news about 15 or so years ago regarding a backdoor in Windows NT?
Some security expert in, I think from  memory, one of the major gov research campuses (Los Alamos or Livermore) was quoted as saying in a security overview seminar, rather casually, that there was a backdoor to the mil-spec security in NT, and that the government had the keys.
Having read that book, this made complete sense to me.The fact that this is "same as it ever was" does not mean that we should not be aware of it.
It matters a great deal.
My opinion is that some of this access is necessary "for a free and functioning democracy" in this world of ours.
We want to know if some extremist asshole (no matter what the persuasion) is planning to set off a nuke anywhere.
But much of the rest of it can be exploiting us, it can be used by people against their political enemies or for their individual profits, for purposes that has nothing to do with the well-being of the world.
And we can keep an eye on which is which only if we know it's going on in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742473</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247946060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, and apparently he didn't feel it was that important since he still voted the bill through with the immunity intact.

<a href="http://www.votesmart.org/voting\_category.php?can\_id=9490&amp;type=category&amp;category=13" title="votesmart.org">http://www.votesmart.org/voting\_category.php?can\_id=9490&amp;type=category&amp;category=13</a> [votesmart.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , and apparently he did n't feel it was that important since he still voted the bill through with the immunity intact .
http : //www.votesmart.org/voting \ _category.php ? can \ _id = 9490&amp;type = category&amp;category = 13 [ votesmart.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, and apparently he didn't feel it was that important since he still voted the bill through with the immunity intact.
http://www.votesmart.org/voting\_category.php?can\_id=9490&amp;type=category&amp;category=13 [votesmart.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos&#195;&#169;\_Padilla\_(prisoner)" This was an American citizen grabbed off the street and "disappeared."  </p><p>We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed...  I'm more conservative than liberal, I voted for Bush both times, but I am not a fan of ignoring the foundation of American government, the Constitution of the United States of America.  The Bush administration vastly overstepped the powers given to the Executive Branch of the federal government in the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos     \ _Padilla \ _ ( prisoner ) " This was an American citizen grabbed off the street and " disappeared .
" We know all about this guy * now * , but we did n't when he was first grabbed... I 'm more conservative than liberal , I voted for Bush both times , but I am not a fan of ignoring the foundation of American government , the Constitution of the United States of America .
The Bush administration vastly overstepped the powers given to the Executive Branch of the federal government in the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JosÃ©\_Padilla\_(prisoner)" This was an American citizen grabbed off the street and "disappeared.
"  We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed...  I'm more conservative than liberal, I voted for Bush both times, but I am not a fan of ignoring the foundation of American government, the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Bush administration vastly overstepped the powers given to the Executive Branch of the federal government in the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742635</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1247947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Further, I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference. The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy, in which he is typically forced to follow policy, but in attitude. First Lady Michelle Obama's installation of an organic garden at the white house reminds me of past events in a way that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about here.</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree, and think it's for the best. If I don't agree with the current president's ideals, I certainly don't want him to advance them too far on his own. He'll have to sway the country and congress first.</p><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?</p></div></blockquote><p>That is a gross misrepresentation of my position. My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass, and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good, but one of evil.</p></div></blockquote><p>A <i>gross</i> misstatement? Really? Obama knew the amendment wasn't going to pass, but he put it out there anyway. That's the good but futile deed. That specific amendment didn't pass, as expected, but maybe it helped inform the final bill, which had gotten better in some ways. Better enough for Obama to vote for it, anyway, and if you want to call that vote evil, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the earlier act of good, which you seem to be saying.</p><p>It's like, the final vote got Obama 5 "evil" points, but the amendment got him 1 "good" point. The net result is 4 "evil" points, which means he was less evil than what could have been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference .
The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy , in which he is typically forced to follow policy , but in attitude .
First Lady Michelle Obama 's installation of an organic garden at the white house reminds me of past events in a way that perfectly illustrates what I 'm talking about here.I agree , and think it 's for the best .
If I do n't agree with the current president 's ideals , I certainly do n't want him to advance them too far on his own .
He 'll have to sway the country and congress first.So , what , your position is that a good ( but futile ) deed does not count in a person 's favor ? That is a gross misrepresentation of my position .
My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass , and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good , but one of evil.A gross misstatement ?
Really ? Obama knew the amendment was n't going to pass , but he put it out there anyway .
That 's the good but futile deed .
That specific amendment did n't pass , as expected , but maybe it helped inform the final bill , which had gotten better in some ways .
Better enough for Obama to vote for it , anyway , and if you want to call that vote evil , that 's fine , but it does n't invalidate the earlier act of good , which you seem to be saying.It 's like , the final vote got Obama 5 " evil " points , but the amendment got him 1 " good " point .
The net result is 4 " evil " points , which means he was less evil than what could have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference.
The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy, in which he is typically forced to follow policy, but in attitude.
First Lady Michelle Obama's installation of an organic garden at the white house reminds me of past events in a way that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about here.I agree, and think it's for the best.
If I don't agree with the current president's ideals, I certainly don't want him to advance them too far on his own.
He'll have to sway the country and congress first.So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?That is a gross misrepresentation of my position.
My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass, and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good, but one of evil.A gross misstatement?
Really? Obama knew the amendment wasn't going to pass, but he put it out there anyway.
That's the good but futile deed.
That specific amendment didn't pass, as expected, but maybe it helped inform the final bill, which had gotten better in some ways.
Better enough for Obama to vote for it, anyway, and if you want to call that vote evil, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the earlier act of good, which you seem to be saying.It's like, the final vote got Obama 5 "evil" points, but the amendment got him 1 "good" point.
The net result is 4 "evil" points, which means he was less evil than what could have been.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741663</id>
	<title>Nobody interested?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247939760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not. If someone contacts you ("you" being a member of the press) with information that just might be covered by secrecy/espionage laws, you'd be insane to look at it. The government could come down on you harder than the person who actually, stole, copied, or otherwise originally obtained the documents. Even if you have no idea what the status of that info is, the feds take the position that "you should have known better".
</p><p>In fact, the person who originally made off with said information may be in a better negotiating position to defend himself. The gov't is scared sh*tless that such people might have other information that might be released to the public or, worse yet, make it into the public record through a trial. So he can negotiate a "get out of jail free" card. You, the press, cannot.
</p><p>There's only one solution: <a href="http://wikileaks.org/" title="wikileaks.org">Wikileaks</a> [wikileaks.org]. Eventually, the gov't is going to realize that, giving the press <b>some</b> ability to publish such documentation would be better for all. At least, they'd have some ability to negotiate a few redactions of stuff that ws actually sensitive. Rather than just sitting on an entire story because its embarrassing. Until then, if you've got your hands on some interesting stuff, just post it and let the NSA wish that, in a better world, they could have negotiated.
</p><p>Meanwhile, you kids keep your damned black helicopters off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not .
If someone contacts you ( " you " being a member of the press ) with information that just might be covered by secrecy/espionage laws , you 'd be insane to look at it .
The government could come down on you harder than the person who actually , stole , copied , or otherwise originally obtained the documents .
Even if you have no idea what the status of that info is , the feds take the position that " you should have known better " .
In fact , the person who originally made off with said information may be in a better negotiating position to defend himself .
The gov't is scared sh * tless that such people might have other information that might be released to the public or , worse yet , make it into the public record through a trial .
So he can negotiate a " get out of jail free " card .
You , the press , can not .
There 's only one solution : Wikileaks [ wikileaks.org ] .
Eventually , the gov't is going to realize that , giving the press some ability to publish such documentation would be better for all .
At least , they 'd have some ability to negotiate a few redactions of stuff that ws actually sensitive .
Rather than just sitting on an entire story because its embarrassing .
Until then , if you 've got your hands on some interesting stuff , just post it and let the NSA wish that , in a better world , they could have negotiated .
Meanwhile , you kids keep your damned black helicopters off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not.
If someone contacts you ("you" being a member of the press) with information that just might be covered by secrecy/espionage laws, you'd be insane to look at it.
The government could come down on you harder than the person who actually, stole, copied, or otherwise originally obtained the documents.
Even if you have no idea what the status of that info is, the feds take the position that "you should have known better".
In fact, the person who originally made off with said information may be in a better negotiating position to defend himself.
The gov't is scared sh*tless that such people might have other information that might be released to the public or, worse yet, make it into the public record through a trial.
So he can negotiate a "get out of jail free" card.
You, the press, cannot.
There's only one solution: Wikileaks [wikileaks.org].
Eventually, the gov't is going to realize that, giving the press some ability to publish such documentation would be better for all.
At least, they'd have some ability to negotiate a few redactions of stuff that ws actually sensitive.
Rather than just sitting on an entire story because its embarrassing.
Until then, if you've got your hands on some interesting stuff, just post it and let the NSA wish that, in a better world, they could have negotiated.
Meanwhile, you kids keep your damned black helicopters off my lawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743289</id>
	<title>Re:Not *even*?</title>
	<author>plnix0</author>
	<datestamp>1247910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odd word choice there. One would think the President of the United States of America would be the most obvious person who doesn't want to hear complaints about warrantless wiretaps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd word choice there .
One would think the President of the United States of America would be the most obvious person who does n't want to hear complaints about warrantless wiretaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd word choice there.
One would think the President of the United States of America would be the most obvious person who doesn't want to hear complaints about warrantless wiretaps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740101</id>
	<title>The psychological need for power...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247925960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"While campaigning against President George W. Bush, Barack Obama had pledged that there would be "no more wiretapping of American citizens," but Obama's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping."</i></p><p>The psychological need of a minority of people who seek power over other people, is independent of which group they join to work together to gain power over people. Therefore it is no surprise people who seek power over others will back the moves made by other previous people in power as they made their moves to gain ever more ways to control a population. Its not about parties its about power.</p><p>Ironically political power tends to differentiate into two power bases opposed to each other as joining other smaller groups is less likely to lead to power. Therefore the people who seek power over others tend to follow the two most powerful, yet opposed groups, as each person wants power for themselves. As a result, countries tend over time to oscillate between these two main power groups, after their population get tired of the relentless grabs for power each side makes and all the personal gain that grab for power brings them and their loyal friends.</p><p>This same pattern, driven by the relentless need for power exists throughout history and in so many countries. (Sometimes one of the sides gains such power they can suppress (and even kill off) opposing groups so the oscillation stalls for a while, but history shows eventually new groups emerge in opposition to the group in power).</p><p>The rest of us who don't seek power, unfortunately get caught up in this endless struggle for who wants to be in power and we even get dragged into wars and can even die in our millions all to decide which of the groups gains power, with both sides trying to move the population behind them with ideas of fear to convince the population to fear the opposing power group side while also selling concepts of a desire for a better life if you follow their side. Yet ultimately power is for the benefit of the people in power. After all, the very act of seeking power over someone else is to decide how they must live their life and ultimately that power gives personal gain for the people in power over others.</p><p>Ironically the only winning move is not to join a side but keep both power groups in balance able to distill out the most extreme moves. Democracy tenses to give this more than other political systems as its stochastically sampling their extremes over time. But one thing it cannot stop is the relentless grab for ever more power and its here we have a growing problem.</p><p>Ever improving information technology presents a growing danger we are just starting to see. The ever better information gathering technology gives ever greater power to ever more micro manage everyone else's lives (and that gives ever more ways to earn money from exploiting that power over everyones lives) and people who seek power are not going to stop technology that gives them what they want the most. Ever more power.</p><p>Unfortunately most people don't comprehend just how driven the people who do seek power are in their goal for ever more power simply because most people are not so driven to seek power themselves, but its even worse that this. The fight for power over others is completely relentless because if anyone in the power hierarchy fails to take a move for more power, others will take that move gaining extra power for themselves and will then be able to use that extra power to climb higher having move influence. Therefore the most driven seek to the top in any power hierarchy. Its therefore no surprise they then seek to exploit ever more technology that gives them what the way, which is power. Ironically the one thing they all fear is the loss of power so they are determined to hold onto power themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While campaigning against President George W. Bush , Barack Obama had pledged that there would be " no more wiretapping of American citizens , " but Obama 's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor 's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping .
" The psychological need of a minority of people who seek power over other people , is independent of which group they join to work together to gain power over people .
Therefore it is no surprise people who seek power over others will back the moves made by other previous people in power as they made their moves to gain ever more ways to control a population .
Its not about parties its about power.Ironically political power tends to differentiate into two power bases opposed to each other as joining other smaller groups is less likely to lead to power .
Therefore the people who seek power over others tend to follow the two most powerful , yet opposed groups , as each person wants power for themselves .
As a result , countries tend over time to oscillate between these two main power groups , after their population get tired of the relentless grabs for power each side makes and all the personal gain that grab for power brings them and their loyal friends.This same pattern , driven by the relentless need for power exists throughout history and in so many countries .
( Sometimes one of the sides gains such power they can suppress ( and even kill off ) opposing groups so the oscillation stalls for a while , but history shows eventually new groups emerge in opposition to the group in power ) .The rest of us who do n't seek power , unfortunately get caught up in this endless struggle for who wants to be in power and we even get dragged into wars and can even die in our millions all to decide which of the groups gains power , with both sides trying to move the population behind them with ideas of fear to convince the population to fear the opposing power group side while also selling concepts of a desire for a better life if you follow their side .
Yet ultimately power is for the benefit of the people in power .
After all , the very act of seeking power over someone else is to decide how they must live their life and ultimately that power gives personal gain for the people in power over others.Ironically the only winning move is not to join a side but keep both power groups in balance able to distill out the most extreme moves .
Democracy tenses to give this more than other political systems as its stochastically sampling their extremes over time .
But one thing it can not stop is the relentless grab for ever more power and its here we have a growing problem.Ever improving information technology presents a growing danger we are just starting to see .
The ever better information gathering technology gives ever greater power to ever more micro manage everyone else 's lives ( and that gives ever more ways to earn money from exploiting that power over everyones lives ) and people who seek power are not going to stop technology that gives them what they want the most .
Ever more power.Unfortunately most people do n't comprehend just how driven the people who do seek power are in their goal for ever more power simply because most people are not so driven to seek power themselves , but its even worse that this .
The fight for power over others is completely relentless because if anyone in the power hierarchy fails to take a move for more power , others will take that move gaining extra power for themselves and will then be able to use that extra power to climb higher having move influence .
Therefore the most driven seek to the top in any power hierarchy .
Its therefore no surprise they then seek to exploit ever more technology that gives them what the way , which is power .
Ironically the one thing they all fear is the loss of power so they are determined to hold onto power themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While campaigning against President George W. Bush, Barack Obama had pledged that there would be "no more wiretapping of American citizens," but Obama's administration has continued to use many of his predecessor's arguments when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.
"The psychological need of a minority of people who seek power over other people, is independent of which group they join to work together to gain power over people.
Therefore it is no surprise people who seek power over others will back the moves made by other previous people in power as they made their moves to gain ever more ways to control a population.
Its not about parties its about power.Ironically political power tends to differentiate into two power bases opposed to each other as joining other smaller groups is less likely to lead to power.
Therefore the people who seek power over others tend to follow the two most powerful, yet opposed groups, as each person wants power for themselves.
As a result, countries tend over time to oscillate between these two main power groups, after their population get tired of the relentless grabs for power each side makes and all the personal gain that grab for power brings them and their loyal friends.This same pattern, driven by the relentless need for power exists throughout history and in so many countries.
(Sometimes one of the sides gains such power they can suppress (and even kill off) opposing groups so the oscillation stalls for a while, but history shows eventually new groups emerge in opposition to the group in power).The rest of us who don't seek power, unfortunately get caught up in this endless struggle for who wants to be in power and we even get dragged into wars and can even die in our millions all to decide which of the groups gains power, with both sides trying to move the population behind them with ideas of fear to convince the population to fear the opposing power group side while also selling concepts of a desire for a better life if you follow their side.
Yet ultimately power is for the benefit of the people in power.
After all, the very act of seeking power over someone else is to decide how they must live their life and ultimately that power gives personal gain for the people in power over others.Ironically the only winning move is not to join a side but keep both power groups in balance able to distill out the most extreme moves.
Democracy tenses to give this more than other political systems as its stochastically sampling their extremes over time.
But one thing it cannot stop is the relentless grab for ever more power and its here we have a growing problem.Ever improving information technology presents a growing danger we are just starting to see.
The ever better information gathering technology gives ever greater power to ever more micro manage everyone else's lives (and that gives ever more ways to earn money from exploiting that power over everyones lives) and people who seek power are not going to stop technology that gives them what they want the most.
Ever more power.Unfortunately most people don't comprehend just how driven the people who do seek power are in their goal for ever more power simply because most people are not so driven to seek power themselves, but its even worse that this.
The fight for power over others is completely relentless because if anyone in the power hierarchy fails to take a move for more power, others will take that move gaining extra power for themselves and will then be able to use that extra power to climb higher having move influence.
Therefore the most driven seek to the top in any power hierarchy.
Its therefore no surprise they then seek to exploit ever more technology that gives them what the way, which is power.
Ironically the one thing they all fear is the loss of power so they are determined to hold onto power themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742965</id>
	<title>Mainstream media won't cover their flaws.</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1247950680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is journalism's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things, regardless of popular interest.  These stories aren't important because of commercial market response.  Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.</p><p>The contacts mainstream media covets aren't worth much to begin with.  Being a stenographer to power isn't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups, lies, and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations.  The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, and the NYT carried David Barstow's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as "analysts" before and during the Iraq war.</p><p>Barstow couldn't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism.  <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/8/pentagons\_pundits\_ny\_times\_reporter\_david" title="democracynow.org">Democracy Now! invited him on the air</a> [democracynow.org] for what became an exclusive interview:</p><blockquote><div><p> <strong>AMY GOODMAN:</strong> I think what's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it's the lack of reporting on this by the networks. Of course, you know, that is your subject here, how the networks use them. How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks' use of these pundits?</p><p> <strong>DAVID BARSTOW:</strong> You know, to be honest with you, I haven't received many invitations--in fact, any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can't say I'm hugely shocked by that.</p><p>On the other hand, while there's been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had--sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere. And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.</p><p>So it's been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere.</p></div> </blockquote><p>To date there has been no serious expose of NYT's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.  We know they're capable of such an act: they did it for Jayson Blair's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person.  Back then there was a full color spread about Blair, his stories, and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience (CSPAN carried it).  But back in 2004, <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0527-09.htm" title="commondreams.org">Goodman put the NYT's Iraq run-up lies in perspective</a> [commondreams.org] as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is journalism 's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things , regardless of popular interest .
These stories are n't important because of commercial market response .
Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.The contacts mainstream media covets are n't worth much to begin with .
Being a stenographer to power is n't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups , lies , and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations .
The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon , and the NYT carried David Barstow 's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as " analysts " before and during the Iraq war.Barstow could n't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism .
Democracy Now !
invited him on the air [ democracynow.org ] for what became an exclusive interview : AMY GOODMAN : I think what 's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done ; it 's the lack of reporting on this by the networks .
Of course , you know , that is your subject here , how the networks use them .
How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks ' use of these pundits ?
DAVID BARSTOW : You know , to be honest with you , I have n't received many invitations--in fact , any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs .
I ca n't say I 'm hugely shocked by that.On the other hand , while there 's been kind of deafening silence , as you put it , on the network side of this , the stories have had--sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere .
And to this day , I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world , where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.So it 's been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions , one being silence from the networks and the cable programs , and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere .
To date there has been no serious expose of NYT 's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion .
We know they 're capable of such an act : they did it for Jayson Blair 's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person .
Back then there was a full color spread about Blair , his stories , and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience ( CSPAN carried it ) .
But back in 2004 , Goodman put the NYT 's Iraq run-up lies in perspective [ commondreams.org ] as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is journalism's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things, regardless of popular interest.
These stories aren't important because of commercial market response.
Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.The contacts mainstream media covets aren't worth much to begin with.
Being a stenographer to power isn't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups, lies, and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations.
The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, and the NYT carried David Barstow's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as "analysts" before and during the Iraq war.Barstow couldn't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism.
Democracy Now!
invited him on the air [democracynow.org] for what became an exclusive interview: AMY GOODMAN: I think what's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it's the lack of reporting on this by the networks.
Of course, you know, that is your subject here, how the networks use them.
How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks' use of these pundits?
DAVID BARSTOW: You know, to be honest with you, I haven't received many invitations--in fact, any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs.
I can't say I'm hugely shocked by that.On the other hand, while there's been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had--sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere.
And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.So it's been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere.
To date there has been no serious expose of NYT's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
We know they're capable of such an act: they did it for Jayson Blair's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person.
Back then there was a full color spread about Blair, his stories, and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience (CSPAN carried it).
But back in 2004, Goodman put the NYT's Iraq run-up lies in perspective [commondreams.org] as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742593</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity. Now your saying he's evil for voting to strip the immunity. You seem to be a little hard to please.</p></div><p>I know I shouldn't feed AC trolls, but I guess I've gone defensive. I said <em>no such thing</em>. I said his act of voting for the <em>bill</em> was an act of evil, not an act of good. I was responding to a comment which implied that he was trying to do good, by voting for both the bill and the amendment which would modify it. I explained that he knew that the amendment would not pass, and so there <em>was</em> no attempt to do good, only a deliberate vote for evil.</p><p>You are either a clever troll who has succeeded in garnering a response you do not deserve, or a big fucking idiot. There's no third way. Voting for the bill is an act of evil. Voting for the amendment is simply misdirection. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/23/21433/261" title="dailykos.com">Lying about his intentions</a> [dailykos.com] is an act of evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity .
Now your saying he 's evil for voting to strip the immunity .
You seem to be a little hard to please.I know I should n't feed AC trolls , but I guess I 've gone defensive .
I said no such thing .
I said his act of voting for the bill was an act of evil , not an act of good .
I was responding to a comment which implied that he was trying to do good , by voting for both the bill and the amendment which would modify it .
I explained that he knew that the amendment would not pass , and so there was no attempt to do good , only a deliberate vote for evil.You are either a clever troll who has succeeded in garnering a response you do not deserve , or a big fucking idiot .
There 's no third way .
Voting for the bill is an act of evil .
Voting for the amendment is simply misdirection .
Lying about his intentions [ dailykos.com ] is an act of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First you claimed he voted FOR giving the Telecoms immunity.
Now your saying he's evil for voting to strip the immunity.
You seem to be a little hard to please.I know I shouldn't feed AC trolls, but I guess I've gone defensive.
I said no such thing.
I said his act of voting for the bill was an act of evil, not an act of good.
I was responding to a comment which implied that he was trying to do good, by voting for both the bill and the amendment which would modify it.
I explained that he knew that the amendment would not pass, and so there was no attempt to do good, only a deliberate vote for evil.You are either a clever troll who has succeeded in garnering a response you do not deserve, or a big fucking idiot.
There's no third way.
Voting for the bill is an act of evil.
Voting for the amendment is simply misdirection.
Lying about his intentions [dailykos.com] is an act of evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743041</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ours is a nation of laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, we're a nation of men, not a nation of laws.  All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.  Theoretically, we're a nation of laws, but the difference between theory and practice...
</p><blockquote><div><p>Those laws, and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings, recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws. No, not one. [...]</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...is a lot bigger in practice than it is in theory.
</p><p>
By your own admission, ours is no longer a nation of laws.  Let's just admit it and stop pretending otherwise.  For better or worse, we're a nation of men, not a nation of laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ours is a nation of laws .
No , we 're a nation of men , not a nation of laws .
All animals are equal , but some animals are more equal than others .
Theoretically , we 're a nation of laws , but the difference between theory and practice.. . Those laws , and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings , recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws .
No , not one .
[ ... ] ...is a lot bigger in practice than it is in theory .
By your own admission , ours is no longer a nation of laws .
Let 's just admit it and stop pretending otherwise .
For better or worse , we 're a nation of men , not a nation of laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ours is a nation of laws.
No, we're a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Theoretically, we're a nation of laws, but the difference between theory and practice...
Those laws, and the principles of liberty and justice that are their underpinnings, recognize no exigency that justifies a government official systematically ignoring those laws.
No, not one.
[...] ...is a lot bigger in practice than it is in theory.
By your own admission, ours is no longer a nation of laws.
Let's just admit it and stop pretending otherwise.
For better or worse, we're a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</id>
	<title>I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Alaska Jack</author>
	<datestamp>1247914320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA:</p><p>"Secretly authorized in 2002, the program lets the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) monitor telephone conversations and e-mail messages of people inside the U.S. to identify suspected terrorists."</p><p>Hmm. I don't think this is accurate, in the sense that it implies that *intra-U.S.* calls were subject to monitoring. If I understand correctly, it was calls *coming in* to the United States, from individuals or organizations believed to have ties with terrorism.</p><p>I'm not certain about this though. If I'm wrong, feel free to set me straight.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - AJ</p><p>Addendum: As I read further, I see this guy is the kind who is going to have a lot of fans on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but I wonder. This, for example: "I was very worried. The Bush administration was capable of very crazy things and illegal things. I knew they were doing torture. And I knew they had taken into custody and jailed people who were citizens of the United States<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and just thrown them away in a brig with no trial and no charges. "</p><p>The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them. Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : " Secretly authorized in 2002 , the program lets the U.S. National Security Agency ( NSA ) monitor telephone conversations and e-mail messages of people inside the U.S. to identify suspected terrorists. " Hmm .
I do n't think this is accurate , in the sense that it implies that * intra-U.S. * calls were subject to monitoring .
If I understand correctly , it was calls * coming in * to the United States , from individuals or organizations believed to have ties with terrorism.I 'm not certain about this though .
If I 'm wrong , feel free to set me straight .
    - AJAddendum : As I read further , I see this guy is the kind who is going to have a lot of fans on /. , but I wonder .
This , for example : " I was very worried .
The Bush administration was capable of very crazy things and illegal things .
I knew they were doing torture .
And I knew they had taken into custody and jailed people who were citizens of the United States ... and just thrown them away in a brig with no trial and no charges .
" The Bush administration was not , to my knowledge , grabbing Americans off the street and " disappearing " them .
Was this in fact the case , outside this guy 's fevered dreams ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA:"Secretly authorized in 2002, the program lets the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) monitor telephone conversations and e-mail messages of people inside the U.S. to identify suspected terrorists."Hmm.
I don't think this is accurate, in the sense that it implies that *intra-U.S.* calls were subject to monitoring.
If I understand correctly, it was calls *coming in* to the United States, from individuals or organizations believed to have ties with terrorism.I'm not certain about this though.
If I'm wrong, feel free to set me straight.
    - AJAddendum: As I read further, I see this guy is the kind who is going to have a lot of fans on /., but I wonder.
This, for example: "I was very worried.
The Bush administration was capable of very crazy things and illegal things.
I knew they were doing torture.
And I knew they had taken into custody and jailed people who were citizens of the United States ... and just thrown them away in a brig with no trial and no charges.
"The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them.
Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28746821</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248005460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who's not a citizen of the USA, I'm curious: how would you feel (or have felt) if this guy had not been a US citizen?</p><p>And also: why?</p><p>I'm genuinely interested; I'm still trying to find out if people - decent, principled people for all I know, people who believe in liberty and justice for all and all that - genuinely believe that those 95\% of the world's population who happened to have been born in the wrong place simply don't deserve any rights. And if this is true, I'm still trying to find out why that is and how these people then reconcile that with their belief in liberty and justice, their decency, their principles.</p><p>I don't want to believe that a large number of US-Americans are callous bastards about this. In fact, I not only don't want to believe that, I DON'T believe it.</p><p>But I'm always wondering why people only ever seem to focus on the fact that someone was from the USA when something bad happens, as if it's someone's place of birth that matters and not the question of whether what was done to that person was right or not.</p><p>It's something I literally don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who 's not a citizen of the USA , I 'm curious : how would you feel ( or have felt ) if this guy had not been a US citizen ? And also : why ? I 'm genuinely interested ; I 'm still trying to find out if people - decent , principled people for all I know , people who believe in liberty and justice for all and all that - genuinely believe that those 95 \ % of the world 's population who happened to have been born in the wrong place simply do n't deserve any rights .
And if this is true , I 'm still trying to find out why that is and how these people then reconcile that with their belief in liberty and justice , their decency , their principles.I do n't want to believe that a large number of US-Americans are callous bastards about this .
In fact , I not only do n't want to believe that , I DO N'T believe it.But I 'm always wondering why people only ever seem to focus on the fact that someone was from the USA when something bad happens , as if it 's someone 's place of birth that matters and not the question of whether what was done to that person was right or not.It 's something I literally do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who's not a citizen of the USA, I'm curious: how would you feel (or have felt) if this guy had not been a US citizen?And also: why?I'm genuinely interested; I'm still trying to find out if people - decent, principled people for all I know, people who believe in liberty and justice for all and all that - genuinely believe that those 95\% of the world's population who happened to have been born in the wrong place simply don't deserve any rights.
And if this is true, I'm still trying to find out why that is and how these people then reconcile that with their belief in liberty and justice, their decency, their principles.I don't want to believe that a large number of US-Americans are callous bastards about this.
In fact, I not only don't want to believe that, I DON'T believe it.But I'm always wondering why people only ever seem to focus on the fact that someone was from the USA when something bad happens, as if it's someone's place of birth that matters and not the question of whether what was done to that person was right or not.It's something I literally don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739567</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>adfasdfsadfasdfsadfs</author>
	<datestamp>1247917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U\_qYGbieoMM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">lie promulgated by the Bush administration</a> [youtube.com]. The device <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT\_onepager.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">copied \_all\_ communication that traveled through this facility</a> [eff.org], domestic and foreign. There is good evidence also that this wasn't the only place were AT&amp;T, or other carriers, were imposing dragnet surveillance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a lie promulgated by the Bush administration [ youtube.com ] .
The device copied \ _all \ _ communication that traveled through this facility [ eff.org ] , domestic and foreign .
There is good evidence also that this was n't the only place were AT&amp;T , or other carriers , were imposing dragnet surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a lie promulgated by the Bush administration [youtube.com].
The device copied \_all\_ communication that traveled through this facility [eff.org], domestic and foreign.
There is good evidence also that this wasn't the only place were AT&amp;T, or other carriers, were imposing dragnet surveillance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740745</id>
	<title>It's only going to get worse.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1247931840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I do think there are benefits to this type of surveillance the risks for abuse are far too great. It's all too easy to take this sort of thing way too far, and unfortunately I think it's going to happen whether we like it or not. The government will simply be far more secretive about it. I think Obama is the sort of guy who will engage in these kinds of activities just as intensively as Bush, the difference is he'll be a lot more careful about keeping it quiet.</p><p>The real concern I have is how people have grown extremely tolerant of what the government is doing now that we have a democrat as president. People who were rabidly anti-Bush for engaging in these activities, among other things, now blindly adore Obama and everything he does. That's the real danger, to blindly follow any leader and embrace everything he does because you believe he's on your side. When there are so-called journalists out there comparing Obama to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4VZ8xCzOg&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">god</a> [youtube.com] I think there's cause for concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do think there are benefits to this type of surveillance the risks for abuse are far too great .
It 's all too easy to take this sort of thing way too far , and unfortunately I think it 's going to happen whether we like it or not .
The government will simply be far more secretive about it .
I think Obama is the sort of guy who will engage in these kinds of activities just as intensively as Bush , the difference is he 'll be a lot more careful about keeping it quiet.The real concern I have is how people have grown extremely tolerant of what the government is doing now that we have a democrat as president .
People who were rabidly anti-Bush for engaging in these activities , among other things , now blindly adore Obama and everything he does .
That 's the real danger , to blindly follow any leader and embrace everything he does because you believe he 's on your side .
When there are so-called journalists out there comparing Obama to god [ youtube.com ] I think there 's cause for concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do think there are benefits to this type of surveillance the risks for abuse are far too great.
It's all too easy to take this sort of thing way too far, and unfortunately I think it's going to happen whether we like it or not.
The government will simply be far more secretive about it.
I think Obama is the sort of guy who will engage in these kinds of activities just as intensively as Bush, the difference is he'll be a lot more careful about keeping it quiet.The real concern I have is how people have grown extremely tolerant of what the government is doing now that we have a democrat as president.
People who were rabidly anti-Bush for engaging in these activities, among other things, now blindly adore Obama and everything he does.
That's the real danger, to blindly follow any leader and embrace everything he does because you believe he's on your side.
When there are so-called journalists out there comparing Obama to god [youtube.com] I think there's cause for concern.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741241</id>
	<title>Citation Needed</title>
	<author>P0ltergeist333</author>
	<datestamp>1247936160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Objection! Citation needed, and suspiciously close to empty right wing rhetoric.  I think that it is much more likely that exposure of the illegal program would give operational details of legal, necessary programs. This would explain the actions of an obviously thoughtful man. Whatever the reason, he's still WRONG. The 4th amendment is non-negotiable and is VERY clear. I accept FISA as a necessary evil in cases of extreme national security (as defined in the Constitution; threat of invasion or rebellion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Objection !
Citation needed , and suspiciously close to empty right wing rhetoric .
I think that it is much more likely that exposure of the illegal program would give operational details of legal , necessary programs .
This would explain the actions of an obviously thoughtful man .
Whatever the reason , he 's still WRONG .
The 4th amendment is non-negotiable and is VERY clear .
I accept FISA as a necessary evil in cases of extreme national security ( as defined in the Constitution ; threat of invasion or rebellion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Objection!
Citation needed, and suspiciously close to empty right wing rhetoric.
I think that it is much more likely that exposure of the illegal program would give operational details of legal, necessary programs.
This would explain the actions of an obviously thoughtful man.
Whatever the reason, he's still WRONG.
The 4th amendment is non-negotiable and is VERY clear.
I accept FISA as a necessary evil in cases of extreme national security (as defined in the Constitution; threat of invasion or rebellion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742141</id>
	<title>QWEST Said No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GodJesusBuddhaAllah help me, but I have to give the snakes over at Qwerst some credit. They are the only arm of the FCC's oligopoly who refused to set-up the monitoring services on their equipment/property.
<br>
<br>
Strange things happen by random chance, I guess. Or maybe they thought it was a blatant trap/sting... they were new foreign owners taking over after a major scandal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GodJesusBuddhaAllah help me , but I have to give the snakes over at Qwerst some credit .
They are the only arm of the FCC 's oligopoly who refused to set-up the monitoring services on their equipment/property .
Strange things happen by random chance , I guess .
Or maybe they thought it was a blatant trap/sting... they were new foreign owners taking over after a major scandal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GodJesusBuddhaAllah help me, but I have to give the snakes over at Qwerst some credit.
They are the only arm of the FCC's oligopoly who refused to set-up the monitoring services on their equipment/property.
Strange things happen by random chance, I guess.
Or maybe they thought it was a blatant trap/sting... they were new foreign owners taking over after a major scandal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739445</id>
	<title>The worst part is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't the only place or type of issue where nobody wants to hear about it.<br>
In my experience it goes both ways, sometimes government agencies don't want to hear about illegal activity going on in the private sector either.<br>
Look at the Madoff scandal,  SEC didn't want to hear about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't the only place or type of issue where nobody wants to hear about it .
In my experience it goes both ways , sometimes government agencies do n't want to hear about illegal activity going on in the private sector either .
Look at the Madoff scandal , SEC did n't want to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't the only place or type of issue where nobody wants to hear about it.
In my experience it goes both ways, sometimes government agencies don't want to hear about illegal activity going on in the private sector either.
Look at the Madoff scandal,  SEC didn't want to hear about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739871</id>
	<title>thnx</title>
	<author>web-tasarim</author>
	<datestamp>1247922780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.jaluziperde.net/" title="jaluziperde.net" rel="nofollow">Perde</a> [jaluziperde.net]:thanks for informatin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perde [ jaluziperde.net ] : thanks for informatin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perde [jaluziperde.net]:thanks for informatin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743667</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1247913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard that "people who were citizens of the United States " just being disappeared happened, but the information wasn't even third hand.  It's possible that it's true.  If so, there's no evidence that it's stopped.  (How could there be?)</p><p>(OTOH, my "source" claimed that it was being done as a part of training "special forces".  There wasn't even an allegation that it was condoned at higher than a company level.  So even if it's true, it doesn't imply any approval by anyone from either the executive or the legislative branches, except in the sense that since the president is ex officio commander-in-chief all the military is in the executive branch.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that " people who were citizens of the United States " just being disappeared happened , but the information was n't even third hand .
It 's possible that it 's true .
If so , there 's no evidence that it 's stopped .
( How could there be ?
) ( OTOH , my " source " claimed that it was being done as a part of training " special forces " .
There was n't even an allegation that it was condoned at higher than a company level .
So even if it 's true , it does n't imply any approval by anyone from either the executive or the legislative branches , except in the sense that since the president is ex officio commander-in-chief all the military is in the executive branch .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that "people who were citizens of the United States " just being disappeared happened, but the information wasn't even third hand.
It's possible that it's true.
If so, there's no evidence that it's stopped.
(How could there be?
)(OTOH, my "source" claimed that it was being done as a part of training "special forces".
There wasn't even an allegation that it was condoned at higher than a company level.
So even if it's true, it doesn't imply any approval by anyone from either the executive or the legislative branches, except in the sense that since the president is ex officio commander-in-chief all the military is in the executive branch.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740089</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247925900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli government</p><p>www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/14/that-angry-commenter-on-your-blog-may-actually-be-working-for-the-israeli-government/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli governmentwww.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/14/that-angry-commenter-on-your-blog-may-actually-be-working-for-the-israeli-government/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli governmentwww.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/14/that-angry-commenter-on-your-blog-may-actually-be-working-for-the-israeli-government/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740335</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>WindowlessView</author>
	<datestamp>1247928300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results, he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results</i> </p><p>Obama is bright guy but, Blackberry aside, let's not kid ourselves that he understands technology any better than the normal user.  The national security apparatus is worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the government, military, and private sector.  You better believe they are skilled at scaring the shit out people, regardless of whether the threat is real or imagine nor the programs effective or not.  A lot jobs, prestige, and profit statements depend on that ability.</p><p>Precious few people in Washington or anywhere else want to take on the intelligence community.  There is very little political upside and a very dark downside.  Outside of a brief couple of years in the 70s with the Church Committee, etc., they get their way eventually.  And don't think for a second that in the back of their minds politicians, including presidents, don't fear there could be leaks about their girlfriends, "random" personal banking audits that turn up high priced hooker payments, a plane crash or a grassy knoll in their future if they step too far out of line.</p><p>With two wars, a collapsing economy, global competition, etc., it quite possible that even if Obama sees through the fear mongering he would conclude he doesn't want to deal with this crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results , he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results Obama is bright guy but , Blackberry aside , let 's not kid ourselves that he understands technology any better than the normal user .
The national security apparatus is worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the government , military , and private sector .
You better believe they are skilled at scaring the shit out people , regardless of whether the threat is real or imagine nor the programs effective or not .
A lot jobs , prestige , and profit statements depend on that ability.Precious few people in Washington or anywhere else want to take on the intelligence community .
There is very little political upside and a very dark downside .
Outside of a brief couple of years in the 70s with the Church Committee , etc. , they get their way eventually .
And do n't think for a second that in the back of their minds politicians , including presidents , do n't fear there could be leaks about their girlfriends , " random " personal banking audits that turn up high priced hooker payments , a plane crash or a grassy knoll in their future if they step too far out of line.With two wars , a collapsing economy , global competition , etc. , it quite possible that even if Obama sees through the fear mongering he would conclude he does n't want to deal with this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Having seen that this wiretapping is actually producing beneficial results, he would then be more inclined to keep it going so it can keep producing these results Obama is bright guy but, Blackberry aside, let's not kid ourselves that he understands technology any better than the normal user.
The national security apparatus is worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the government, military, and private sector.
You better believe they are skilled at scaring the shit out people, regardless of whether the threat is real or imagine nor the programs effective or not.
A lot jobs, prestige, and profit statements depend on that ability.Precious few people in Washington or anywhere else want to take on the intelligence community.
There is very little political upside and a very dark downside.
Outside of a brief couple of years in the 70s with the Church Committee, etc., they get their way eventually.
And don't think for a second that in the back of their minds politicians, including presidents, don't fear there could be leaks about their girlfriends, "random" personal banking audits that turn up high priced hooker payments, a plane crash or a grassy knoll in their future if they step too far out of line.With two wars, a collapsing economy, global competition, etc., it quite possible that even if Obama sees through the fear mongering he would conclude he doesn't want to deal with this crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28747529</id>
	<title>Re:The third rail</title>
	<author>Misterfixit</author>
	<datestamp>1248016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, the reporter, the source of information , the folks who post here, act surprised.  As if they had never ever heard of ANYthing like this before.

Hey, I've worked in all kinds of those areas before.  Back in the day when the C&amp;P Telephone Company -- to make it easier -- simply gave the FBI, CIA, Army Intelligence, et al, regular building passes and a whole room to themselves.

Listen up folks, especially those who are still wide-eyed and naive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the United States Government is capable of doing ANYthing.  We have the most corrupt, most oppressive and most secretive government in the world.  You think that half-pint worm over in North Korea is secretive?  Try NSA's S=Group or L-Group or A-Group or the CIA's entirely separate but equal NSA-like efforts world wide.

Now, what was the government's first mistake when they allowed this aging hippie into their secret world?  They didn't do a complete background investigation to discover that he was "suspicious" of the intentions of the US Government -- a gut feeling he had going all the way back to the first time he smoked some green and squeezed some bra-less unwashed tittles Up in Petaluma.  See, if they had found all that out, he wouldn't ever have gotten in the door and they would have had a nice robotic yes-man in his place.  I lived in denial for years and years until my faith unraveled sometime in the 1990's under Slick Willie and his gang.  Bushites were ever worse and now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well, now we have what we have.

Recommendation:  Buy lots of ammunition because it will be the universal money of the future.  Rate of exchange, one box of 30.06 soft points for a loaf of bread.

Call me ubeer cynical, but I used to trust the country and the government.  In the September, October and December of my years as an official hAcK0r and general nefarious character, I don't trust anyone anymore when they say "I'm with the US Government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , the reporter , the source of information , the folks who post here , act surprised .
As if they had never ever heard of ANYthing like this before .
Hey , I 've worked in all kinds of those areas before .
Back in the day when the C&amp;P Telephone Company -- to make it easier -- simply gave the FBI , CIA , Army Intelligence , et al , regular building passes and a whole room to themselves .
Listen up folks , especially those who are still wide-eyed and naive .. the United States Government is capable of doing ANYthing .
We have the most corrupt , most oppressive and most secretive government in the world .
You think that half-pint worm over in North Korea is secretive ?
Try NSA 's S = Group or L-Group or A-Group or the CIA 's entirely separate but equal NSA-like efforts world wide .
Now , what was the government 's first mistake when they allowed this aging hippie into their secret world ?
They did n't do a complete background investigation to discover that he was " suspicious " of the intentions of the US Government -- a gut feeling he had going all the way back to the first time he smoked some green and squeezed some bra-less unwashed tittles Up in Petaluma .
See , if they had found all that out , he would n't ever have gotten in the door and they would have had a nice robotic yes-man in his place .
I lived in denial for years and years until my faith unraveled sometime in the 1990 's under Slick Willie and his gang .
Bushites were ever worse and now .. well , now we have what we have .
Recommendation : Buy lots of ammunition because it will be the universal money of the future .
Rate of exchange , one box of 30.06 soft points for a loaf of bread .
Call me ubeer cynical , but I used to trust the country and the government .
In the September , October and December of my years as an official hAcK0r and general nefarious character , I do n't trust anyone anymore when they say " I 'm with the US Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, the reporter, the source of information , the folks who post here, act surprised.
As if they had never ever heard of ANYthing like this before.
Hey, I've worked in all kinds of those areas before.
Back in the day when the C&amp;P Telephone Company -- to make it easier -- simply gave the FBI, CIA, Army Intelligence, et al, regular building passes and a whole room to themselves.
Listen up folks, especially those who are still wide-eyed and naive .. the United States Government is capable of doing ANYthing.
We have the most corrupt, most oppressive and most secretive government in the world.
You think that half-pint worm over in North Korea is secretive?
Try NSA's S=Group or L-Group or A-Group or the CIA's entirely separate but equal NSA-like efforts world wide.
Now, what was the government's first mistake when they allowed this aging hippie into their secret world?
They didn't do a complete background investigation to discover that he was "suspicious" of the intentions of the US Government -- a gut feeling he had going all the way back to the first time he smoked some green and squeezed some bra-less unwashed tittles Up in Petaluma.
See, if they had found all that out, he wouldn't ever have gotten in the door and they would have had a nice robotic yes-man in his place.
I lived in denial for years and years until my faith unraveled sometime in the 1990's under Slick Willie and his gang.
Bushites were ever worse and now .. well, now we have what we have.
Recommendation:  Buy lots of ammunition because it will be the universal money of the future.
Rate of exchange, one box of 30.06 soft points for a loaf of bread.
Call me ubeer cynical, but I used to trust the country and the government.
In the September, October and December of my years as an official hAcK0r and general nefarious character, I don't trust anyone anymore when they say "I'm with the US Government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739629</id>
	<title>Domestic traffic too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">EFF.org</a> [eff.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The undisputed documents show that AT&amp;T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails, web browsing, and other Internet traffic to and from AT&amp;T customers, and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes <strong>both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&amp;T customers</strong>. As one expert observed, "this isn't a wiretap, it's a country-tap."</p></div><p>Of course, we may never know all the details thanks to Bush, Obama and all the other assholes that voted for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign\_Intelligence\_Surveillance\_Act\_of\_1978\_Amendments\_Act\_of\_2008#Provisions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">FISA2008</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li>Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.</li><li>Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists."</li></ul></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From EFF.org [ eff.org ] The undisputed documents show that AT&amp;T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails , web browsing , and other Internet traffic to and from AT&amp;T customers , and provides those copies to the NSA .
This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&amp;T customers .
As one expert observed , " this is n't a wiretap , it 's a country-tap .
" Of course , we may never know all the details thanks to Bush , Obama and all the other assholes that voted for FISA2008 [ wikipedia.org ] : Prohibits the individual states from investigating , sanctioning of , or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for " 'past or future cooperation ' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From EFF.org [eff.org] The undisputed documents show that AT&amp;T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails, web browsing, and other Internet traffic to and from AT&amp;T customers, and provides those copies to the NSA.
This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&amp;T customers.
As one expert observed, "this isn't a wiretap, it's a country-tap.
"Of course, we may never know all the details thanks to Bush, Obama and all the other assholes that voted for FISA2008 [wikipedia.org]: Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741713</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1247940120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them. Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?</p></div><p>Does it make you feel better that he has disappearing and torturing people in other countries instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration was not , to my knowledge , grabbing Americans off the street and " disappearing " them .
Was this in fact the case , outside this guy 's fevered dreams ? Does it make you feel better that he has disappearing and torturing people in other countries instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration was not, to my knowledge, grabbing Americans off the street and "disappearing" them.
Was this in fact the case, outside this guy's fevered dreams?Does it make you feel better that he has disappearing and torturing people in other countries instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739983</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>kkissane</author>
	<datestamp>1247924400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gave these orders? Some local commander who overstepped his/her bounds? or was this a national program?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gave these orders ?
Some local commander who overstepped his/her bounds ?
or was this a national program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gave these orders?
Some local commander who overstepped his/her bounds?
or was this a national program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739833</id>
	<title>and hardly anyone seems to be commenting here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247921940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So anyone have details of the system they used? What analysis they did? Anyone know where I can buy this book in the UK?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So anyone have details of the system they used ?
What analysis they did ?
Anyone know where I can buy this book in the UK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So anyone have details of the system they used?
What analysis they did?
Anyone know where I can buy this book in the UK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743591</id>
	<title>He voted for FISA</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1247913000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no surprise that he supports warrantless wiretaps.  He did by his actions while he was running for office, no matter what he SAID.</p><p>I suppose that he's better than his opposition would have been.  But there's no way to prove this, and that's definitely faint praise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no surprise that he supports warrantless wiretaps .
He did by his actions while he was running for office , no matter what he SAID.I suppose that he 's better than his opposition would have been .
But there 's no way to prove this , and that 's definitely faint praise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no surprise that he supports warrantless wiretaps.
He did by his actions while he was running for office, no matter what he SAID.I suppose that he's better than his opposition would have been.
But there's no way to prove this, and that's definitely faint praise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247926920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president (where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them)</p></div><p>There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps. How do I know? He voted for telecoms immunity. He had some bullshit excuse about it, but no excuse is possible. Believing Obama was ever against those wiretaps is fucking stupid. Check the voting record, understand that you have been duped, and <em>move on</em>.</p><p>Obama supported these wiretaps <em> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/BADF165O4N.DTL" title="sfgate.com">before</a> [sfgate.com] </em> becoming president:</p><blockquote><div><p>The law that Congress passed last summer, with the support of then-Sen. Barack Obama, authorized the wiretap program and sought to dismiss lawsuits against companies that had participated.</p><p>Believing politicians' campaign promises only makes YOU an idiot. It says nothing about them.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president ( where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them ) There was no such flip .
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps .
How do I know ?
He voted for telecoms immunity .
He had some bullshit excuse about it , but no excuse is possible .
Believing Obama was ever against those wiretaps is fucking stupid .
Check the voting record , understand that you have been duped , and move on.Obama supported these wiretaps before [ sfgate.com ] becoming president : The law that Congress passed last summer , with the support of then-Sen. Barack Obama , authorized the wiretap program and sought to dismiss lawsuits against companies that had participated.Believing politicians ' campaign promises only makes YOU an idiot .
It says nothing about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president (where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them)There was no such flip.
Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps.
How do I know?
He voted for telecoms immunity.
He had some bullshit excuse about it, but no excuse is possible.
Believing Obama was ever against those wiretaps is fucking stupid.
Check the voting record, understand that you have been duped, and move on.Obama supported these wiretaps  before [sfgate.com]  becoming president:The law that Congress passed last summer, with the support of then-Sen. Barack Obama, authorized the wiretap program and sought to dismiss lawsuits against companies that had participated.Believing politicians' campaign promises only makes YOU an idiot.
It says nothing about them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740627</id>
	<title>Re:Not even Barack Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the big deal about wiretapping. Does someone think that a human being will be listening to their conversation if they are tapped. The CIA would need 10s of millions of agents to do that! Conversations are obviously processed for key words like "bomb". So, if you're talking about a bomb you deserve to be personally listened to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the big deal about wiretapping .
Does someone think that a human being will be listening to their conversation if they are tapped .
The CIA would need 10s of millions of agents to do that !
Conversations are obviously processed for key words like " bomb " .
So , if you 're talking about a bomb you deserve to be personally listened to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the big deal about wiretapping.
Does someone think that a human being will be listening to their conversation if they are tapped.
The CIA would need 10s of millions of agents to do that!
Conversations are obviously processed for key words like "bomb".
So, if you're talking about a bomb you deserve to be personally listened to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739565</id>
	<title>'It's a paper's duty to print the news&amp;raise h</title>
	<author>D4C5CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Klein: I really was panicking because [...] the government knew everything and probably knew my name, but I didn't have any publicity.<br>
IDGNS: The media merit a full chapter (entitled: 'Going Public vs. Media Chickens'). What happened there?<br>
Klein: [...] They were the first entity I'd given all the documents to. Then they talked to the government about it, and it turned out they were talking to not only the NSA director, but the director of national intelligence</p></div></blockquote><p>
That much for the sad state of "the Fourth Estate, more important than them all" (Edmund Burke)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wilbur F. Storey, 1861</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Klein : I really was panicking because [ ... ] the government knew everything and probably knew my name , but I did n't have any publicity .
IDGNS : The media merit a full chapter ( entitled : 'Going Public vs. Media Chickens ' ) .
What happened there ?
Klein : [ ... ] They were the first entity I 'd given all the documents to .
Then they talked to the government about it , and it turned out they were talking to not only the NSA director , but the director of national intelligence That much for the sad state of " the Fourth Estate , more important than them all " ( Edmund Burke ) ...It is a newspaper 's duty to print the news and raise hell .
Wilbur F. Storey , 1861</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Klein: I really was panicking because [...] the government knew everything and probably knew my name, but I didn't have any publicity.
IDGNS: The media merit a full chapter (entitled: 'Going Public vs. Media Chickens').
What happened there?
Klein: [...] They were the first entity I'd given all the documents to.
Then they talked to the government about it, and it turned out they were talking to not only the NSA director, but the director of national intelligence
That much for the sad state of "the Fourth Estate, more important than them all" (Edmund Burke) ...It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell.
Wilbur F. Storey, 1861
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740757</id>
	<title>Re:of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247932020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There doesn't seem to be any real interest now, so there definitely wouldn't be any then, in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11. So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story?</p></div></blockquote><p>If US media actually reported stories like this one, I would read US newspapers. They don't, which is why anybody with a brain goes to overseas media like The Guardian, The Independent, or BBC News. Which, in turn, is why US newspapers are going bust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There does n't seem to be any real interest now , so there definitely would n't be any then , in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11 .
So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story ? If US media actually reported stories like this one , I would read US newspapers .
They do n't , which is why anybody with a brain goes to overseas media like The Guardian , The Independent , or BBC News .
Which , in turn , is why US newspapers are going bust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There doesn't seem to be any real interest now, so there definitely wouldn't be any then, in the with-us-or-against-us environment in the years immediately after 9/11.
So how would a newspaper or media outlet gain by breaking the story?If US media actually reported stories like this one, I would read US newspapers.
They don't, which is why anybody with a brain goes to overseas media like The Guardian, The Independent, or BBC News.
Which, in turn, is why US newspapers are going bust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740425</id>
	<title>Re:I question a key point from TFA</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1247929200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who didn't have proper ID in the months following 9/11. So yes, this was happening.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yuhuh.  And Jesse Macbeth supposedly took part in the murder and rape of entire Iraqi villages.  Of course, upon actual review of his record, it turns out he got booted out of the military before even completing basic training.  He wasn't the only one, either - there are multiple examples of people claiming to be soldiers in order to tell insane stories about all the horrible things they've done.  Not only are there at least 3 examples I can name off the top of my head, but those 3 are just the ones who managed to get enough media attention for everyone to hear about them.  There are tens of thousands of people doing similar things who <i>don't</i> make the news.</p><p>The moral of the story - don't believe everything you hear.  Lots of people seek attention by pretending to be something they're not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who did n't have proper ID in the months following 9/11 .
So yes , this was happening.Yuhuh .
And Jesse Macbeth supposedly took part in the murder and rape of entire Iraqi villages .
Of course , upon actual review of his record , it turns out he got booted out of the military before even completing basic training .
He was n't the only one , either - there are multiple examples of people claiming to be soldiers in order to tell insane stories about all the horrible things they 've done .
Not only are there at least 3 examples I can name off the top of my head , but those 3 are just the ones who managed to get enough media attention for everyone to hear about them .
There are tens of thousands of people doing similar things who do n't make the news.The moral of the story - do n't believe everything you hear .
Lots of people seek attention by pretending to be something they 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've spoken to a cop who was ordered to systematically search any Arabic persons and arrest any who didn't have proper ID in the months following 9/11.
So yes, this was happening.Yuhuh.
And Jesse Macbeth supposedly took part in the murder and rape of entire Iraqi villages.
Of course, upon actual review of his record, it turns out he got booted out of the military before even completing basic training.
He wasn't the only one, either - there are multiple examples of people claiming to be soldiers in order to tell insane stories about all the horrible things they've done.
Not only are there at least 3 examples I can name off the top of my head, but those 3 are just the ones who managed to get enough media attention for everyone to hear about them.
There are tens of thousands of people doing similar things who don't make the news.The moral of the story - don't believe everything you hear.
Lots of people seek attention by pretending to be something they're not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742299</id>
	<title>Re:Mis-information modded 'Informative'?</title>
	<author>witherstaff</author>
	<datestamp>1247944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dodd made a proposal to filibuster the immunity and the other <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/23/21433/261" title="dailykos.com">Dem candidates pledged support</a> [dailykos.com]. Then Clinton, Obama, etc forgot their pledge as no such filibuster occurred. Dodd was left standing in the cold (I joined his email list because of his stance on this issue). </p><p>I can't say Obama's vote on a failed amendment counts as positive at all as there would be no need for such an amendment if he had lived up to his pledge. Weaseling out of a promise of support and then doing a less than half hearted attempt at saving face is politics as normal,wheres the change?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dodd made a proposal to filibuster the immunity and the other Dem candidates pledged support [ dailykos.com ] .
Then Clinton , Obama , etc forgot their pledge as no such filibuster occurred .
Dodd was left standing in the cold ( I joined his email list because of his stance on this issue ) .
I ca n't say Obama 's vote on a failed amendment counts as positive at all as there would be no need for such an amendment if he had lived up to his pledge .
Weaseling out of a promise of support and then doing a less than half hearted attempt at saving face is politics as normal,wheres the change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dodd made a proposal to filibuster the immunity and the other Dem candidates pledged support [dailykos.com].
Then Clinton, Obama, etc forgot their pledge as no such filibuster occurred.
Dodd was left standing in the cold (I joined his email list because of his stance on this issue).
I can't say Obama's vote on a failed amendment counts as positive at all as there would be no need for such an amendment if he had lived up to his pledge.
Weaseling out of a promise of support and then doing a less than half hearted attempt at saving face is politics as normal,wheres the change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743665</id>
	<title>Re:of course they didn't want it</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, they're no longer a final check and balance of government, they are simply an extended propaganda arm and so should be ignored by one and all?</p><p>In other words, if they DON'T publish such things, they lose their current sorry status as info-tainment and become just more "reality" television (assuming that hasn't already happened).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , they 're no longer a final check and balance of government , they are simply an extended propaganda arm and so should be ignored by one and all ? In other words , if they DO N'T publish such things , they lose their current sorry status as info-tainment and become just more " reality " television ( assuming that has n't already happened ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, they're no longer a final check and balance of government, they are simply an extended propaganda arm and so should be ignored by one and all?In other words, if they DON'T publish such things, they lose their current sorry status as info-tainment and become just more "reality" television (assuming that hasn't already happened).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28745933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28747529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28752365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28744555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28746821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28749295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0146226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741141
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742871
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28745933
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741677
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28752365
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742107
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742299
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742421
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742245
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742515
--------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742593
---------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742739
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742635
--------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742961
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28749295
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743197
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742473
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28747529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28746821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28744555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0146226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28739563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28740757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28741773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28742965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0146226.28743665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
