<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_30_0149253</id>
	<title>FCC Mulling More Control For Electronic Media</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256904180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A recent Notice of Inquiry from the FCC is looking for opinions on how the "evolving electronic media landscape" affects kids, and <a href="http://gamepolitics.com/2009/10/29/fcc-noi-asks-comments-content-control">whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control</a> over such media. The <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-94A1.pdf">full NOI</a> (PDF) is available online. <i>"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house,' while today, media choices are far more widespread for children, including videogames, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A recent Notice of Inquiry from the FCC is looking for opinions on how the " evolving electronic media landscape " affects kids , and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such media .
The full NOI ( PDF ) is available online .
" FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago , parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house, ' while today , media choices are far more widespread for children , including videogames , which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A recent Notice of Inquiry from the FCC is looking for opinions on how the "evolving electronic media landscape" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such media.
The full NOI (PDF) is available online.
"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house,' while today, media choices are far more widespread for children, including videogames, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923883</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1256918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> They also ignore the reality of saturation marketing, not just targeted at children generally but specifically adjusted to each childs profile to more effectively control the decisions and to more accurately distort the child's future psychological growth to more profitably align with the highest bidders marketing dollars. </p><p> Consider the real underlying nature of that profession. Adults trained as psychologists who use their education and skills to manipulate vulnerable children so that they can be more profitably be monetized. Not only do those adults shameless manipulate children against the child's best interest, these adults take pride in their ability to, let's see, create peer pressure responses where children who do not adhere to the current marketing promotions are ostracized and punished by other children, where future unhealthy psychological conditions are imprinted upon the children so they are forced to attempt buy the way out of the unhappiness forced upon them by adults and of course to get tchildren to manipulate the choices of their parents. </p><p> Considering the motivation, nothing but greed, the unfair advantage of adults manipulating children and the inherent harm that results, it really it is a matter of marketing executives molesting the minds of the world's children, psychological pedophiles of the worst order, it really is nasty stuff. </p><p> As for porn on the Internet, the reality is the Internet is an adult network not meant for children, if anybody is serious about a child safe Internet that is has to be completely separate from the interactions between adults and specifically monitored, secured and built around the education system and from which all marketing executives are specifically banned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also ignore the reality of saturation marketing , not just targeted at children generally but specifically adjusted to each childs profile to more effectively control the decisions and to more accurately distort the child 's future psychological growth to more profitably align with the highest bidders marketing dollars .
Consider the real underlying nature of that profession .
Adults trained as psychologists who use their education and skills to manipulate vulnerable children so that they can be more profitably be monetized .
Not only do those adults shameless manipulate children against the child 's best interest , these adults take pride in their ability to , let 's see , create peer pressure responses where children who do not adhere to the current marketing promotions are ostracized and punished by other children , where future unhealthy psychological conditions are imprinted upon the children so they are forced to attempt buy the way out of the unhappiness forced upon them by adults and of course to get tchildren to manipulate the choices of their parents .
Considering the motivation , nothing but greed , the unfair advantage of adults manipulating children and the inherent harm that results , it really it is a matter of marketing executives molesting the minds of the world 's children , psychological pedophiles of the worst order , it really is nasty stuff .
As for porn on the Internet , the reality is the Internet is an adult network not meant for children , if anybody is serious about a child safe Internet that is has to be completely separate from the interactions between adults and specifically monitored , secured and built around the education system and from which all marketing executives are specifically banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They also ignore the reality of saturation marketing, not just targeted at children generally but specifically adjusted to each childs profile to more effectively control the decisions and to more accurately distort the child's future psychological growth to more profitably align with the highest bidders marketing dollars.
Consider the real underlying nature of that profession.
Adults trained as psychologists who use their education and skills to manipulate vulnerable children so that they can be more profitably be monetized.
Not only do those adults shameless manipulate children against the child's best interest, these adults take pride in their ability to, let's see, create peer pressure responses where children who do not adhere to the current marketing promotions are ostracized and punished by other children, where future unhealthy psychological conditions are imprinted upon the children so they are forced to attempt buy the way out of the unhappiness forced upon them by adults and of course to get tchildren to manipulate the choices of their parents.
Considering the motivation, nothing but greed, the unfair advantage of adults manipulating children and the inherent harm that results, it really it is a matter of marketing executives molesting the minds of the world's children, psychological pedophiles of the worst order, it really is nasty stuff.
As for porn on the Internet, the reality is the Internet is an adult network not meant for children, if anybody is serious about a child safe Internet that is has to be completely separate from the interactions between adults and specifically monitored, secured and built around the education system and from which all marketing executives are specifically banned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922925</id>
	<title>creators urging more control by so-called grownups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the innocents WILL be protected/salvaged.</p><p>mynuts won; to be censored post haste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the innocents WILL be protected/salvaged.mynuts won ; to be censored post haste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the innocents WILL be protected/salvaged.mynuts won; to be censored post haste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926877</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256930640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes did I learn? yes enough ideas without statistics I say</i></p><p>Yes, but consider that if you hadn't you'd have had time for learning how to use the Shift key, and how to punctuate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's always " protect the children " I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted ?
did I become a horrible person ?
no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers ?
yes did I learn ?
yes enough ideas without statistics I sayYes , but consider that if you had n't you 'd have had time for learning how to use the Shift key , and how to punctuate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted?
did I become a horrible person?
no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers?
yes did I learn?
yes enough ideas without statistics I sayYes, but consider that if you hadn't you'd have had time for learning how to use the Shift key, and how to punctuate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922579</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256910840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements. This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud."</i> <p>
Hmm...did they outlaw "kill the man with the ball" for today's kids, due to it causing self-esteem issues, or is the liability insurance too much these days in our litigious society?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements .
This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden , football or playing in the mud .
" Hmm...did they outlaw " kill the man with the ball " for today 's kids , due to it causing self-esteem issues , or is the liability insurance too much these days in our litigious society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements.
This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud.
" 
Hmm...did they outlaw "kill the man with the ball" for today's kids, due to it causing self-esteem issues, or is the liability insurance too much these days in our litigious society?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924409</id>
	<title>Re:How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>Sgt. B</author>
	<datestamp>1256920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This particular subject is The Electronic Media Landscape.  I understand what you mean but please consider how much 'media' is in a modern video game. If you want, just relate it to the movie and television industry, consider the cut scenes contained in games. These cut scenes are short films and would qualify as a form of electronic media even without considering the rest of the game content.   That is my guess.</p><p>The FCC are playing catch up. This concern didn't exist when the Media Bureau was created and they still do not cover internet broadcasts. If it's their job to regulate what is being broadcast (over television and Cable at the moment) how are they not responsible for things that can be watched that are broadcast over the internet?<br>.<br>Currently, the rating system for video games is handled by the ESRB and not the FCC. It does help to have some remarks on the box to quickly identify the recommended age and content type of the game for those who are not into the subject. But this is by no means a regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular subject is The Electronic Media Landscape .
I understand what you mean but please consider how much 'media ' is in a modern video game .
If you want , just relate it to the movie and television industry , consider the cut scenes contained in games .
These cut scenes are short films and would qualify as a form of electronic media even without considering the rest of the game content .
That is my guess.The FCC are playing catch up .
This concern did n't exist when the Media Bureau was created and they still do not cover internet broadcasts .
If it 's their job to regulate what is being broadcast ( over television and Cable at the moment ) how are they not responsible for things that can be watched that are broadcast over the internet ? .Currently , the rating system for video games is handled by the ESRB and not the FCC .
It does help to have some remarks on the box to quickly identify the recommended age and content type of the game for those who are not into the subject .
But this is by no means a regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular subject is The Electronic Media Landscape.
I understand what you mean but please consider how much 'media' is in a modern video game.
If you want, just relate it to the movie and television industry, consider the cut scenes contained in games.
These cut scenes are short films and would qualify as a form of electronic media even without considering the rest of the game content.
That is my guess.The FCC are playing catch up.
This concern didn't exist when the Media Bureau was created and they still do not cover internet broadcasts.
If it's their job to regulate what is being broadcast (over television and Cable at the moment) how are they not responsible for things that can be watched that are broadcast over the internet?.Currently, the rating system for video games is handled by the ESRB and not the FCC.
It does help to have some remarks on the box to quickly identify the recommended age and content type of the game for those who are not into the subject.
But this is by no means a regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922783</id>
	<title>How about zero control?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC shouldn't fine a network over an inadvertent nipple slip.</p><p>Mostly like the (somewhat broken) MPAA, there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.</p><p>I don't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto. But I certainly don't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid. Voluntary rating systems are the way to go. However, unlike the MPAA, the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC should n't fine a network over an inadvertent nipple slip.Mostly like the ( somewhat broken ) MPAA , there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.I do n't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto .
But I certainly do n't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid .
Voluntary rating systems are the way to go .
However , unlike the MPAA , the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC shouldn't fine a network over an inadvertent nipple slip.Mostly like the (somewhat broken) MPAA, there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.I don't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto.
But I certainly don't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid.
Voluntary rating systems are the way to go.
However, unlike the MPAA, the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922417</id>
	<title>The FCC is useless.</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1256909340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, they allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations without even blinking. When Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they took years to decide whether strong competition against terrestrial radio should be allowed (Clear Channel and the NAB lobbied against the merger hoping both Sirius and XM would fail). The FCC is useless and should not be given more power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson 's wardrobe malfunction , they allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations without even blinking .
When Sirius and XM wanted to merge , they took years to decide whether strong competition against terrestrial radio should be allowed ( Clear Channel and the NAB lobbied against the merger hoping both Sirius and XM would fail ) .
The FCC is useless and should not be given more power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, they allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations without even blinking.
When Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they took years to decide whether strong competition against terrestrial radio should be allowed (Clear Channel and the NAB lobbied against the merger hoping both Sirius and XM would fail).
The FCC is useless and should not be given more power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923153</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1256914620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly?  </p></div><p>That's easy, the answer is any content that puts this President (and his successors), or his policies,  in a negative light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As to " protecting the children from inappropriate content " , what " inappropriate content " are we protecting them from , exactly ?
That 's easy , the answer is any content that puts this President ( and his successors ) , or his policies , in a negative light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly?
That's easy, the answer is any content that puts this President (and his successors), or his policies,  in a negative light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931603</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about protecting the children at all.  It's a shell game.  Their aim is to grab power away from the private sector and sell it back to the highest bidder in the form of influence.  The FCC is full of shit.  The last people they care about are regular Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about protecting the children at all .
It 's a shell game .
Their aim is to grab power away from the private sector and sell it back to the highest bidder in the form of influence .
The FCC is full of shit .
The last people they care about are regular Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about protecting the children at all.
It's a shell game.
Their aim is to grab power away from the private sector and sell it back to the highest bidder in the form of influence.
The FCC is full of shit.
The last people they care about are regular Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925155</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1256923020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thanks to the internet, I don't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it's beautiful.. The internet brings that all to my living room. Oh and I can check email too."</p><p>Yes, thanks to the internet, all those things are now in YOUR HOME where YOU CONTROL them. Your anecdote didn't go, "...and then the internet reached out with its cabley tentacles, pinning me to the wall as it fixed my daughters head in place to ensure she saw the whole scene." Your story was "...and then I left my daughter alone with an obviously uncontrolled internet connection."</p><p>
&nbsp; At 7 years old she should have a WHITELIST of sites to visit. Her nightmares are your fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thanks to the internet , I do n't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it 's beautiful.. The internet brings that all to my living room .
Oh and I can check email too .
" Yes , thanks to the internet , all those things are now in YOUR HOME where YOU CONTROL them .
Your anecdote did n't go , " ...and then the internet reached out with its cabley tentacles , pinning me to the wall as it fixed my daughters head in place to ensure she saw the whole scene .
" Your story was " ...and then I left my daughter alone with an obviously uncontrolled internet connection .
"   At 7 years old she should have a WHITELIST of sites to visit .
Her nightmares are your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thanks to the internet, I don't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it's beautiful.. The internet brings that all to my living room.
Oh and I can check email too.
"Yes, thanks to the internet, all those things are now in YOUR HOME where YOU CONTROL them.
Your anecdote didn't go, "...and then the internet reached out with its cabley tentacles, pinning me to the wall as it fixed my daughters head in place to ensure she saw the whole scene.
" Your story was "...and then I left my daughter alone with an obviously uncontrolled internet connection.
"
  At 7 years old she should have a WHITELIST of sites to visit.
Her nightmares are your fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925631</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not About "Kids;" That's Just the Ruse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256924940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where were these true, Limbaugh-loving Americans when Bush was destroying our freedoms and spying on us?</p><p>idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where were these true , Limbaugh-loving Americans when Bush was destroying our freedoms and spying on us ? idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where were these true, Limbaugh-loving Americans when Bush was destroying our freedoms and spying on us?idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924417</id>
	<title>Re:Just say no to FCC censorship</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the FCC (and the Federal government in general; indeed, most of the world's governments) would like the internet to be like Murray Leinster <a href="http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200506/0743499107\_\_\_2.htm" title="baen.com">predicted</a> [baen.com] in 1946.</p><p>The link goes to the story itself, a very good sci-fi short story that comes the closest to any story I've seen to predicting the internet, even more than Asimov's "Multivac". But Leinster's story is based on the premise that an uncensored internet would be disasterous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the FCC ( and the Federal government in general ; indeed , most of the world 's governments ) would like the internet to be like Murray Leinster predicted [ baen.com ] in 1946.The link goes to the story itself , a very good sci-fi short story that comes the closest to any story I 've seen to predicting the internet , even more than Asimov 's " Multivac " .
But Leinster 's story is based on the premise that an uncensored internet would be disasterous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the FCC (and the Federal government in general; indeed, most of the world's governments) would like the internet to be like Murray Leinster predicted [baen.com] in 1946.The link goes to the story itself, a very good sci-fi short story that comes the closest to any story I've seen to predicting the internet, even more than Asimov's "Multivac".
But Leinster's story is based on the premise that an uncensored internet would be disasterous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922729</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine...</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1256911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"espite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time"."

And here I was thinking that exposing my son to things like Google Earth and science / nature related Internet sites was a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" espite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek , my daughter is not on the Internet and wo n't be for a while yet .
This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers , but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind , and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call " screen time " .
" And here I was thinking that exposing my son to things like Google Earth and science / nature related Internet sites was a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"espite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet.
This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".
"

And here I was thinking that exposing my son to things like Google Earth and science / nature related Internet sites was a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924763</id>
	<title>PANIC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see the usual cohort of libertarian slashdotters is in full freak out mode because of this. But if they bothered to they would see:
"The FCC also is asking commenters to "to discuss whether the Commission has the statutory authority to take any proposed actions and whether those actions would be consistent with the First Amendment.""

Posting as AC to preserve karma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the usual cohort of libertarian slashdotters is in full freak out mode because of this .
But if they bothered to they would see : " The FCC also is asking commenters to " to discuss whether the Commission has the statutory authority to take any proposed actions and whether those actions would be consistent with the First Amendment .
" " Posting as AC to preserve karma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the usual cohort of libertarian slashdotters is in full freak out mode because of this.
But if they bothered to they would see:
"The FCC also is asking commenters to "to discuss whether the Commission has the statutory authority to take any proposed actions and whether those actions would be consistent with the First Amendment.
""

Posting as AC to preserve karma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453</id>
	<title>Just say no to FCC censorship</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words).  If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.</p><p>Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday.  Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees, and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV ( no nudity , no curse words ) .
If you do n't like your children seeing such things , change the channel , do n't buy cable , install filtering software , do n't let the kids use the computer unless you 're there , and so on.Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday .
Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees , and stop having a fit if they see a naked body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words).
If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday.
Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees, and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922853</id>
	<title>Re:Just say no to FCC censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256912640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words).  If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.</p></div><p>I totally agree with this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday.  Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees,</p></div><p>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.</p><p>I think every parent should be able to determine when this needs to be discussed. Personally I don't think that 3 years old is appropriate. Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. Many adults don't for that matter.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.</p></div><p>Again, I agree with you. It is silly to teach children that this is somehow a bad  or "unnatural" thing. But it's also quite different from images of consenting adults (or anyone for that matter) having sex.</p><p>That being said, I have no objection to how you raise your children as long as you don't object to how I raise mine. Furthermore, I don't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general.  I agree with you and also strongly believe that parents need to take more responsibility for raising their children, after all the government didn't birth them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV ( no nudity , no curse words ) .
If you do n't like your children seeing such things , change the channel , do n't buy cable , install filtering software , do n't let the kids use the computer unless you 're there , and so on.I totally agree with this.Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday .
Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees,You 've lost me here .
We are talking about children , so why would anyone in their right mind " adopt a more-adult attitude " ?
Let kids be kids .
I think it 's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.I think every parent should be able to determine when this needs to be discussed .
Personally I do n't think that 3 years old is appropriate .
Younger kids do n't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge .
Many adults do n't for that matter.and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.Again , I agree with you .
It is silly to teach children that this is somehow a bad or " unnatural " thing .
But it 's also quite different from images of consenting adults ( or anyone for that matter ) having sex.That being said , I have no objection to how you raise your children as long as you do n't object to how I raise mine .
Furthermore , I do n't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general .
I agree with you and also strongly believe that parents need to take more responsibility for raising their children , after all the government did n't birth them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words).
If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.I totally agree with this.Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday.
Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees,You've lost me here.
We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"?
Let kids be kids.
I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.I think every parent should be able to determine when this needs to be discussed.
Personally I don't think that 3 years old is appropriate.
Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge.
Many adults don't for that matter.and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.Again, I agree with you.
It is silly to teach children that this is somehow a bad  or "unnatural" thing.
But it's also quite different from images of consenting adults (or anyone for that matter) having sex.That being said, I have no objection to how you raise your children as long as you don't object to how I raise mine.
Furthermore, I don't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general.
I agree with you and also strongly believe that parents need to take more responsibility for raising their children, after all the government didn't birth them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>Sgt. B</author>
	<datestamp>1256917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The sheer level of vulgarity in content is so different.   Porn isn't the only thing either.</p><p>I had a friend who's daughter searched for 'kitten' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats. Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.</p><p>There is some really disgusting stuff out there and it's all just 3 clicks away.  I've said it before, I wish there were some plan in place to allow parents more control so people who just don't care are not bothered with this subject.</p><p>Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you. Please close this tab and go back to watching porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The sheer level of vulgarity in content is so different .
Porn is n't the only thing either.I had a friend who 's daughter searched for 'kitten ' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats .
Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.There is some really disgusting stuff out there and it 's all just 3 clicks away .
I 've said it before , I wish there were some plan in place to allow parents more control so people who just do n't care are not bothered with this subject.Speaking of which , for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you .
Please close this tab and go back to watching porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The sheer level of vulgarity in content is so different.
Porn isn't the only thing either.I had a friend who's daughter searched for 'kitten' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats.
Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.There is some really disgusting stuff out there and it's all just 3 clicks away.
I've said it before, I wish there were some plan in place to allow parents more control so people who just don't care are not bothered with this subject.Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you.
Please close this tab and go back to watching porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922415</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same has been said about TV.<br>The same has been said about books.<br>etc.</p><p>Older generations always criticise change brought about by younger generations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same has been said about TV.The same has been said about books.etc.Older generations always criticise change brought about by younger generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same has been said about TV.The same has been said about books.etc.Older generations always criticise change brought about by younger generations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931433</id>
	<title>Burberry Handbags+ED Sunglass=Own fashion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256912580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We both must be about the same age - I'm 45.  It just kills me that we have to have "play dates" for my kids to play with other kids, and my kids don't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid.  We agree that today's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear, driven by the media.</p><p>Anyway, some things are different today.  My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad's Playboy magazines, which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job.  Dad's back then had it all - no poopy diapers, wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs, and who felt guilty if you didn't get enough sex...</p><p>Today, kids don't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex.  And, let's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com.  Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video.  Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.</p><p>I took advice I got here on slashdot, and use the free opendns.com DNS filter.  I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers.  OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings, only blocking phishing and hard-core porn.  These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up.  Instead of more government censorship, how about a program for training/educating parents, so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent, and free tools that already exist out there?  Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick.  Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter, not just how to use the DVR.  All parents know how to record Pokemon.  How many know how to protect their kids from googling "hot guys"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We both must be about the same age - I 'm 45 .
It just kills me that we have to have " play dates " for my kids to play with other kids , and my kids do n't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid .
We agree that today 's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear , driven by the media.Anyway , some things are different today .
My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad 's Playboy magazines , which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job .
Dad 's back then had it all - no poopy diapers , wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs , and who felt guilty if you did n't get enough sex...Today , kids do n't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex .
And , let 's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com .
Instead , eight-year girls type " hot guy " into Google , and get hard-core video .
Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f * cking a teenager.I took advice I got here on slashdot , and use the free opendns.com DNS filter .
I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers .
OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings , only blocking phishing and hard-core porn .
These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up .
Instead of more government censorship , how about a program for training/educating parents , so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent , and free tools that already exist out there ?
Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick .
Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter , not just how to use the DVR .
All parents know how to record Pokemon .
How many know how to protect their kids from googling " hot guys " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We both must be about the same age - I'm 45.
It just kills me that we have to have "play dates" for my kids to play with other kids, and my kids don't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid.
We agree that today's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear, driven by the media.Anyway, some things are different today.
My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad's Playboy magazines, which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job.
Dad's back then had it all - no poopy diapers, wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs, and who felt guilty if you didn't get enough sex...Today, kids don't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex.
And, let's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com.
Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video.
Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.I took advice I got here on slashdot, and use the free opendns.com DNS filter.
I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers.
OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings, only blocking phishing and hard-core porn.
These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up.
Instead of more government censorship, how about a program for training/educating parents, so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent, and free tools that already exist out there?
Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick.
Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter, not just how to use the DVR.
All parents know how to record Pokemon.
How many know how to protect their kids from googling "hot guys"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927359</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>wwfarch</author>
	<datestamp>1256933040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know the exact statistics but I do know that the "Stranger Danger" movement was one of the most damaging things that could have been done. A VAST majority of abductions, molestation, killing, etc... of children is done by people they know and trust (usually a family member).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the exact statistics but I do know that the " Stranger Danger " movement was one of the most damaging things that could have been done .
A VAST majority of abductions , molestation , killing , etc... of children is done by people they know and trust ( usually a family member ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the exact statistics but I do know that the "Stranger Danger" movement was one of the most damaging things that could have been done.
A VAST majority of abductions, molestation, killing, etc... of children is done by people they know and trust (usually a family member).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639</id>
	<title>How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government, for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames?</p><p>I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting.  If stuff is going out over the public airwaves, then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents, to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.</p><p>Videogames, last I checked, were not broadcast over the public airwaves.  They are bought and sold as private transactions.</p><p>And before anybody says "commerce clause". . .    I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content.  But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.</p><p>Caveat:  I am not a constitutional scholar.  (However, some people who apparently *are* constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of, or disregard for, these issues.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government , for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames ? I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting .
If stuff is going out over the public airwaves , then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents , to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.Videogames , last I checked , were not broadcast over the public airwaves .
They are bought and sold as private transactions.And before anybody says " commerce clause " .
. .
I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines , regardless of their content .
But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games , then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.Caveat : I am not a constitutional scholar .
( However , some people who apparently * are * constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of , or disregard for , these issues .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government, for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames?I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting.
If stuff is going out over the public airwaves, then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents, to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.Videogames, last I checked, were not broadcast over the public airwaves.
They are bought and sold as private transactions.And before anybody says "commerce clause".
. .
I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content.
But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.Caveat:  I am not a constitutional scholar.
(However, some people who apparently *are* constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of, or disregard for, these issues.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923255</id>
	<title>How to submit a comment</title>
	<author>Rabbitbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1256915160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standard: for international, attachments, lawyers.<br><a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action?name=09-194" title="fcc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action?name=09-194</a> [fcc.gov]</p><p>Express: for individuals. Note that the proceeding number is 09-194 and it's not in the list.<br><a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express" title="fcc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express</a> [fcc.gov]</p><p>You can talk about it all day long here, but until you submit a comment it doesn't matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standard : for international , attachments , lawyers.http : //fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action ? name = 09-194 [ fcc.gov ] Express : for individuals .
Note that the proceeding number is 09-194 and it 's not in the list.http : //fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express [ fcc.gov ] You can talk about it all day long here , but until you submit a comment it does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standard: for international, attachments, lawyers.http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action?name=09-194 [fcc.gov]Express: for individuals.
Note that the proceeding number is 09-194 and it's not in the list.http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express [fcc.gov]You can talk about it all day long here, but until you submit a comment it doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451</id>
	<title>Imagine...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds".  You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.</p><p>Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives.  Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet.  This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".</p><p>Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests.  I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed).  I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family.  This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.</p><p>As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly?  As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities.  Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life?  That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having.  So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible.  Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.</p><p>Make your own decisions for your own family.  Don't allow the government to do it for you.  This one's gotta go down.  The government has no place dictating this.</p><p>Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television".  Please.  As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the request for comments , and replace " electronic media " with " community playgrounds " .
You 'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.Personally , I have a 7-year-old daughter , and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives .
Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek , my daughter is not on the Internet and wo n't be for a while yet .
This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers , but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind , and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call " screen time " .Having said all that , this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter , because I feel it is in her best interests .
I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make , and I 'm a rather vocal proponent of " kill your television " ( at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed ) .
I am NOT , repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family .
This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.As to " protecting the children from inappropriate content " , what " inappropriate content " are we protecting them from , exactly ?
As far as I 'm concerned , the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict , because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it , and that 's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities .
Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life ?
That 's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having .
So if the FCC is looking to regulate this , they 've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible .
Bus has left the station , folks , and the FCC missed it.Make your own decisions for your own family .
Do n't allow the government to do it for you .
This one 's got ta go down .
The government has no place dictating this.Oh , and for you parents out there , I urge you to please consider " killing your television " .
Please. As a conscious and informed decision , not as a government mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds".
You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives.
Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet.
This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests.
I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed).
I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family.
This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly?
As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities.
Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life?
That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having.
So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible.
Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.Make your own decisions for your own family.
Don't allow the government to do it for you.
This one's gotta go down.
The government has no place dictating this.Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television".
Please.  As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926135</id>
	<title>FCC: Sit down. STFU. Put the dick back in yo mouth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256927580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let parents choose to be parents or let little Johny or Jane grow up to another attendance mark at your slave labor camps ("prison") you are heavily invested in anyway.</p><p>Your closet pillow biting buddies in D.C. have the audacity to speak up against censorship in China and what in the flying fuck are you trying to do? Go ahead and try your best to emulate the Great Firewall of China because even their crack teams of geeks working round the clock year round with a pistol pressed against the backs of their heads cannot find and keep all the cracks sealed. A new network with the same desired freedom will be born because that is what people want. Your efforts will fail as completely as the anti-piracy efforts of greedy corporations and organizations.</p><p>Fuck you very much indeed FCC, you worthless sacks of shit needed about as much as a fresh sack of shit thrown on a dinner table set with a meal.</p><p>Seriously, if you choose to empower a word so much by your own free choice and will just please take a chainsaw to your own worthless pencil neck or best yet take a pencil and gouge out your own eyes and pop your own eardrums and enjoy your totally censored fantasy world (Be careful of Blinkin's brail magazines). If the very thought of basic biological functions that come natural such as sex scare you, sew your snatch shut or make yourself a eunuch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let parents choose to be parents or let little Johny or Jane grow up to another attendance mark at your slave labor camps ( " prison " ) you are heavily invested in anyway.Your closet pillow biting buddies in D.C. have the audacity to speak up against censorship in China and what in the flying fuck are you trying to do ?
Go ahead and try your best to emulate the Great Firewall of China because even their crack teams of geeks working round the clock year round with a pistol pressed against the backs of their heads can not find and keep all the cracks sealed .
A new network with the same desired freedom will be born because that is what people want .
Your efforts will fail as completely as the anti-piracy efforts of greedy corporations and organizations.Fuck you very much indeed FCC , you worthless sacks of shit needed about as much as a fresh sack of shit thrown on a dinner table set with a meal.Seriously , if you choose to empower a word so much by your own free choice and will just please take a chainsaw to your own worthless pencil neck or best yet take a pencil and gouge out your own eyes and pop your own eardrums and enjoy your totally censored fantasy world ( Be careful of Blinkin 's brail magazines ) .
If the very thought of basic biological functions that come natural such as sex scare you , sew your snatch shut or make yourself a eunuch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let parents choose to be parents or let little Johny or Jane grow up to another attendance mark at your slave labor camps ("prison") you are heavily invested in anyway.Your closet pillow biting buddies in D.C. have the audacity to speak up against censorship in China and what in the flying fuck are you trying to do?
Go ahead and try your best to emulate the Great Firewall of China because even their crack teams of geeks working round the clock year round with a pistol pressed against the backs of their heads cannot find and keep all the cracks sealed.
A new network with the same desired freedom will be born because that is what people want.
Your efforts will fail as completely as the anti-piracy efforts of greedy corporations and organizations.Fuck you very much indeed FCC, you worthless sacks of shit needed about as much as a fresh sack of shit thrown on a dinner table set with a meal.Seriously, if you choose to empower a word so much by your own free choice and will just please take a chainsaw to your own worthless pencil neck or best yet take a pencil and gouge out your own eyes and pop your own eardrums and enjoy your totally censored fantasy world (Be careful of Blinkin's brail magazines).
If the very thought of basic biological functions that come natural such as sex scare you, sew your snatch shut or make yourself a eunuch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922647</id>
	<title>Unlikely</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1256911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC, and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers. I just don't see this happening.</p><p>The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture, yet the FCC doesn't seem to have any clue what it's supposed to be doing. They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers (ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves), while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them (censorship, this nonsense).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC , and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers .
I just do n't see this happening.The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture , yet the FCC does n't seem to have any clue what it 's supposed to be doing .
They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers ( ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves ) , while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them ( censorship , this nonsense ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC, and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers.
I just don't see this happening.The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture, yet the FCC doesn't seem to have any clue what it's supposed to be doing.
They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers (ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves), while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them (censorship, this nonsense).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923173</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256914680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person?</i></p><p>Well, you're here, aren't you?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's always " protect the children " I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted ?
did I become a horrible person ? Well , you 're here , are n't you ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted?
did I become a horrible person?Well, you're here, aren't you?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922549</id>
	<title>What happened to parents???</title>
	<author>sureshot007</author>
	<datestamp>1256910600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why aren't parents being held responsible for censoring their own children?  It's the parents the put the computer in their room in the first place.  Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are n't parents being held responsible for censoring their own children ?
It 's the parents the put the computer in their room in the first place .
Why should the government have to control what kids have access to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why aren't parents being held responsible for censoring their own children?
It's the parents the put the computer in their room in the first place.
Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925197</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1256923200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had a friend who's daughter searched for 'kitten' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats. Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.</p></div><p>Yes, please, we should elect you to run the coalition of angry people for our rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a friend who 's daughter searched for 'kitten ' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats .
Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.Yes , please , we should elect you to run the coalition of angry people for our rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a friend who's daughter searched for 'kitten' and found some sick site where they mutilate cats.
Several parents in different associations bombarded the host of the site and we got it shut down.Yes, please, we should elect you to run the coalition of angry people for our rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923943</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.</i></p><p>How is that different than TV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.How is that different than TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.How is that different than TV?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923285</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>Sgt. B</author>
	<datestamp>1256915280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when you were 8 it was much different and there was much less available. Today's internet is quite different.</p><p>I wish there was something better in place to allow parents easier control so the gov. doesn't need to get involved and people who just don't give a crap don't have to be bothered. Personally, I use OpenDNS but not all parents might know how to and it can't block everything.</p><p>From a parent's perspective, try to imagine having a 7 year old daughter who is having nightmares because she looked up 'kitten' while you were making dinner and she came across kitten mutilation and just watched someone butcher a live cat for fun. Some limits need to be put in place because there are really sick people out there.  'Click here to proceed' and 'you must be 18' just won't cut it.</p><p>Thanks to the internet, I don't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it's beautiful..  The internet brings that all to my living room.  Oh and I can check email too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when you were 8 it was much different and there was much less available .
Today 's internet is quite different.I wish there was something better in place to allow parents easier control so the gov .
does n't need to get involved and people who just do n't give a crap do n't have to be bothered .
Personally , I use OpenDNS but not all parents might know how to and it ca n't block everything.From a parent 's perspective , try to imagine having a 7 year old daughter who is having nightmares because she looked up 'kitten ' while you were making dinner and she came across kitten mutilation and just watched someone butcher a live cat for fun .
Some limits need to be put in place because there are really sick people out there .
'Click here to proceed ' and 'you must be 18 ' just wo n't cut it.Thanks to the internet , I do n't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it 's beautiful.. The internet brings that all to my living room .
Oh and I can check email too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when you were 8 it was much different and there was much less available.
Today's internet is quite different.I wish there was something better in place to allow parents easier control so the gov.
doesn't need to get involved and people who just don't give a crap don't have to be bothered.
Personally, I use OpenDNS but not all parents might know how to and it can't block everything.From a parent's perspective, try to imagine having a 7 year old daughter who is having nightmares because she looked up 'kitten' while you were making dinner and she came across kitten mutilation and just watched someone butcher a live cat for fun.
Some limits need to be put in place because there are really sick people out there.
'Click here to proceed' and 'you must be 18' just won't cut it.Thanks to the internet, I don't have to drive my kids to the red light district so they can play in the park across from prostitutes and sex shops while watching drug dealers sell drugs and having other kids show them how to sniff chemicals to get high or become bulimic because it's beautiful..  The internet brings that all to my living room.
Oh and I can check email too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922749</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256911920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More kids are killed by football and other physical activities than surfing on the net or videogaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More kids are killed by football and other physical activities than surfing on the net or videogaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More kids are killed by football and other physical activities than surfing on the net or videogaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922627</id>
	<title>Just a bet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a child's environment is controlled, you can choose to artificially make it whatever you want. For example, you can decide to educate your child in an environment similar to yours, removing all advances in communications beyond what existed when you were two years old.</p><p>Or, you could choose to remove all electric equipment. Or central heating. Or current water. It's an experiment bet.</p><p>You're betting your child will be better (happier?) if it grows up in an environment similar to what children in the early nineties had.</p><p>I'm betting mine will be happier being a member of his own generation, thus growing up with a direct connection to all information, good and bad; exactly as he'll have when he reaches an age when I'm not there to keep the artificial environment around him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a child 's environment is controlled , you can choose to artificially make it whatever you want .
For example , you can decide to educate your child in an environment similar to yours , removing all advances in communications beyond what existed when you were two years old.Or , you could choose to remove all electric equipment .
Or central heating .
Or current water .
It 's an experiment bet.You 're betting your child will be better ( happier ?
) if it grows up in an environment similar to what children in the early nineties had.I 'm betting mine will be happier being a member of his own generation , thus growing up with a direct connection to all information , good and bad ; exactly as he 'll have when he reaches an age when I 'm not there to keep the artificial environment around him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a child's environment is controlled, you can choose to artificially make it whatever you want.
For example, you can decide to educate your child in an environment similar to yours, removing all advances in communications beyond what existed when you were two years old.Or, you could choose to remove all electric equipment.
Or central heating.
Or current water.
It's an experiment bet.You're betting your child will be better (happier?
) if it grows up in an environment similar to what children in the early nineties had.I'm betting mine will be happier being a member of his own generation, thus growing up with a direct connection to all information, good and bad; exactly as he'll have when he reaches an age when I'm not there to keep the artificial environment around him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924847</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1256921940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>enough ideas without statistics I say</p></div><p>That's a nice idea, but I'd like to see some statistics that back it up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>enough ideas without statistics I sayThat 's a nice idea , but I 'd like to see some statistics that back it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>enough ideas without statistics I sayThat's a nice idea, but I'd like to see some statistics that back it up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925721</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1256925420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video. Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.</p></div><p>What should come up, pictures of asexual or gay guys that look like 15-year-old girls? That's not healthy either, and your girls are going to be in for a surprise, if they don't grow up as lesbians. As a father you should educate them about lube, not erect a screen of fantasy (with gaping holes) in front of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , eight-year girls type " hot guy " into Google , and get hard-core video .
Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f * cking a teenager.What should come up , pictures of asexual or gay guys that look like 15-year-old girls ?
That 's not healthy either , and your girls are going to be in for a surprise , if they do n't grow up as lesbians .
As a father you should educate them about lube , not erect a screen of fantasy ( with gaping holes ) in front of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video.
Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.What should come up, pictures of asexual or gay guys that look like 15-year-old girls?
That's not healthy either, and your girls are going to be in for a surprise, if they don't grow up as lesbians.
As a father you should educate them about lube, not erect a screen of fantasy (with gaping holes) in front of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926555</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1256929320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same age?  I'm 24 and I can relate to everything in the GP's post, except I had decent video games as well and was in middle school during AOL's prime.  Its not all lost, just depends on the parents, the kids, and the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same age ?
I 'm 24 and I can relate to everything in the GP 's post , except I had decent video games as well and was in middle school during AOL 's prime .
Its not all lost , just depends on the parents , the kids , and the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same age?
I'm 24 and I can relate to everything in the GP's post, except I had decent video games as well and was in middle school during AOL's prime.
Its not all lost, just depends on the parents, the kids, and the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922473</id>
	<title>Agreed</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1256909940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Growing up, I knew several families who restricted their kids from watching The Simpsons. I think those type of standards are sorely lacking thesedays and we should use them as positive examples to reassert control. Now they've got the twitters, these children are beginning to secretly rape themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Growing up , I knew several families who restricted their kids from watching The Simpsons .
I think those type of standards are sorely lacking thesedays and we should use them as positive examples to reassert control .
Now they 've got the twitters , these children are beginning to secretly rape themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Growing up, I knew several families who restricted their kids from watching The Simpsons.
I think those type of standards are sorely lacking thesedays and we should use them as positive examples to reassert control.
Now they've got the twitters, these children are beginning to secretly rape themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922351</id>
	<title>Quoting Eric Idle</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1256908560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you very much the FCC; fuck you very much for fining me. Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck: thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me. So fuck you very much the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free. Clear Channel's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so. He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo, so <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ajZ-5kTXk" title="youtube.com"> <b>fuck you all so very much.</b> </a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you very much the FCC ; fuck you very much for fining me .
Five thousand bucks a fuck so I 'm really out of luck : thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me .
So fuck you very much the FCC , for proving that free speech just is n't free .
Clear Channel 's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go .
Attorney General Ashcroft does n't like strong words and so .
He 's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo , so fuck you all so very much .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you very much the FCC; fuck you very much for fining me.
Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck: thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me.
So fuck you very much the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free.
Clear Channel's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go.
Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so.
He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo, so  fuck you all so very much.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923621</id>
	<title>Re:Just say no to FCC censorship</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1256916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. Many adults don't for that matter.</p></div></blockquote><p>Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sure there is some physical limit before which it's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they won't learn it as quickly. The brain is very flexable like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Younger kids do n't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge .
Many adults do n't for that matter.Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy .
Sure there is some physical limit before which it 's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they wo n't learn it as quickly .
The brain is very flexable like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge.
Many adults don't for that matter.Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Sure there is some physical limit before which it's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they won't learn it as quickly.
The brain is very flexable like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924725</id>
	<title>F*CK THE FCC</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1256921460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they need more power, they already control too much, I find this is just another way for them to go after certain cases and generate more legal revenue. I tend to think that a parent(s) know when their child has too much tv, so telling me they can sue the parents for allowing their kids to watch too much TV (a form of child abuse) is beyond what they should have the ability to do.</p><p>The FCC was needed way back when technology was being introduced to households, and most households were ignorant to too many facts and stats needed to make a proper assessment, but now we have multi-media outlets and internet and iphones.<br>To get the facts, we don't need a governing body to rule us...we can rule ourselves. The kids of today are light years brighter technology wise then yesterday's kids. They know how to use a microwave at the age of 8 (or so) without being stupid (unless the parents were stupid and the transfer is unavoidable). They know how to text and use cell phones at 10, and can carry one in school at 12,13, so that in any instance, they can contact authorities should they need.....yeah today's kids need less codling and more eye opening teachings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they need more power , they already control too much , I find this is just another way for them to go after certain cases and generate more legal revenue .
I tend to think that a parent ( s ) know when their child has too much tv , so telling me they can sue the parents for allowing their kids to watch too much TV ( a form of child abuse ) is beyond what they should have the ability to do.The FCC was needed way back when technology was being introduced to households , and most households were ignorant to too many facts and stats needed to make a proper assessment , but now we have multi-media outlets and internet and iphones.To get the facts , we do n't need a governing body to rule us...we can rule ourselves .
The kids of today are light years brighter technology wise then yesterday 's kids .
They know how to use a microwave at the age of 8 ( or so ) without being stupid ( unless the parents were stupid and the transfer is unavoidable ) .
They know how to text and use cell phones at 10 , and can carry one in school at 12,13 , so that in any instance , they can contact authorities should they need.....yeah today 's kids need less codling and more eye opening teachings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they need more power, they already control too much, I find this is just another way for them to go after certain cases and generate more legal revenue.
I tend to think that a parent(s) know when their child has too much tv, so telling me they can sue the parents for allowing their kids to watch too much TV (a form of child abuse) is beyond what they should have the ability to do.The FCC was needed way back when technology was being introduced to households, and most households were ignorant to too many facts and stats needed to make a proper assessment, but now we have multi-media outlets and internet and iphones.To get the facts, we don't need a governing body to rule us...we can rule ourselves.
The kids of today are light years brighter technology wise then yesterday's kids.
They know how to use a microwave at the age of 8 (or so) without being stupid (unless the parents were stupid and the transfer is unavoidable).
They know how to text and use cell phones at 10, and can carry one in school at 12,13, so that in any instance, they can contact authorities should they need.....yeah today's kids need less codling and more eye opening teachings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923113</id>
	<title>Re:How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1256914380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other's toes. Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other 's toes .
Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other's toes.
Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922669</id>
	<title>Putting opponents on the defensive</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1256911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a tried and true practice.</p><p>As such, they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible.  Children work very well.</p><p>The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics.  Look at the debates over health care, stimulus, and such.  Who do they put into the argument who doesn't have bearing on what you were addressing?  Children, the poor, the elderly, or the "insert favored group here".  All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a tried and true practice.As such , they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible .
Children work very well.The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics .
Look at the debates over health care , stimulus , and such .
Who do they put into the argument who does n't have bearing on what you were addressing ?
Children , the poor , the elderly , or the " insert favored group here " .
All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a tried and true practice.As such, they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible.
Children work very well.The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics.
Look at the debates over health care, stimulus, and such.
Who do they put into the argument who doesn't have bearing on what you were addressing?
Children, the poor, the elderly, or the "insert favored group here".
All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925923</id>
	<title>something is missing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the 'democrat' keyword for this piece? Oh, right...you aren't a news blog, you're a collection of mutual masturbators. Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the 'democrat ' keyword for this piece ?
Oh , right...you are n't a news blog , you 're a collection of mutual masturbators .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the 'democrat' keyword for this piece?
Oh, right...you aren't a news blog, you're a collection of mutual masturbators.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924105</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story. The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.</i><p><i>

To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40\% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment. Is that an acceptable statistic? Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60\% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid. How did I possibly survive!?!?". The answer is simple: you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation. That doesn't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40\% to 0.05\% is wasted effort though."</i> </p><p>
Err...the point of my anecdotal rant wasn't so much that only <b>I</b> survived due to the things I did. It was more that my entire generation, and generations before mine that did just fine without 24/7 instant communications, and did just fine playing outdoors all the time doing things that would be considered too dangerous for little Johnny and Susie to do today.</p><p>
My point is the mentality has changed so drastically, that our precious children are so helpless, and need overprotection...and now we're trying more and more to mandate it into LAW that affects not only kids behavior, but, also that of adults wanting to do adult things.</p><p>
I have a hard time believing that there are more child sex offenders, abductors or what have you out there today than in past years. Maybe a few more, but, not so many as to warrant the fear and overprotection measures out there today. I say it is more the instant communication, and the multitude of 24/7 news channels that have to have something to report that is sensational enough to gather large commercial watching crowds.</p><p>

But really, those things I listed I did as a kid, were NOT done alone...I had friends, lots of friends who were there doing that stuff with me. Most all kids my age were doing shit like that...it was known back then at "being a kid".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Regardless of the risks , the fact that you 're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story .
The kids that do n't make it are n't around to tell their story .
To put it into statistical perspective , lets exaggerate a bit ( ok , a lot : ) ) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40 \ % chance of resulting in death or dismemberment .
Is that an acceptable statistic ?
Absolutely not , yet you 'd still have 60 \ % of people sarcastically proclaiming " Hey I did all that stuff as a kid .
How did I possibly survive ! ? ! ? " .
The answer is simple : you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation .
That does n't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40 \ % to 0.05 \ % is wasted effort though .
" Err...the point of my anecdotal rant was n't so much that only I survived due to the things I did .
It was more that my entire generation , and generations before mine that did just fine without 24/7 instant communications , and did just fine playing outdoors all the time doing things that would be considered too dangerous for little Johnny and Susie to do today .
My point is the mentality has changed so drastically , that our precious children are so helpless , and need overprotection...and now we 're trying more and more to mandate it into LAW that affects not only kids behavior , but , also that of adults wanting to do adult things .
I have a hard time believing that there are more child sex offenders , abductors or what have you out there today than in past years .
Maybe a few more , but , not so many as to warrant the fear and overprotection measures out there today .
I say it is more the instant communication , and the multitude of 24/7 news channels that have to have something to report that is sensational enough to gather large commercial watching crowds .
But really , those things I listed I did as a kid , were NOT done alone...I had friends , lots of friends who were there doing that stuff with me .
Most all kids my age were doing shit like that...it was known back then at " being a kid " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story.
The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.
To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot :)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40\% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment.
Is that an acceptable statistic?
Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60\% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid.
How did I possibly survive!?!?".
The answer is simple: you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation.
That doesn't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40\% to 0.05\% is wasted effort though.
" 
Err...the point of my anecdotal rant wasn't so much that only I survived due to the things I did.
It was more that my entire generation, and generations before mine that did just fine without 24/7 instant communications, and did just fine playing outdoors all the time doing things that would be considered too dangerous for little Johnny and Susie to do today.
My point is the mentality has changed so drastically, that our precious children are so helpless, and need overprotection...and now we're trying more and more to mandate it into LAW that affects not only kids behavior, but, also that of adults wanting to do adult things.
I have a hard time believing that there are more child sex offenders, abductors or what have you out there today than in past years.
Maybe a few more, but, not so many as to warrant the fear and overprotection measures out there today.
I say it is more the instant communication, and the multitude of 24/7 news channels that have to have something to report that is sensational enough to gather large commercial watching crowds.
But really, those things I listed I did as a kid, were NOT done alone...I had friends, lots of friends who were there doing that stuff with me.
Most all kids my age were doing shit like that...it was known back then at "being a kid".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923629</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1256917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BREAKING: "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about their children having only a small vocabulary,' while today, word choices are far more widespread for children, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.'"</p><p>FCC is looking for opinions on how our "evolving language" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such language. FCC is creating a new language, "newspeak," which will allow parents to rest at ease that their children are not being exposed to language and thought that could corrupt their minds. The full NOI (PDF) is available online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BREAKING : " FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago , parents worried about their children having only a small vocabulary, ' while today , word choices are far more widespread for children , which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids .
' " FCC is looking for opinions on how our " evolving language " affects kids , and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such language .
FCC is creating a new language , " newspeak , " which will allow parents to rest at ease that their children are not being exposed to language and thought that could corrupt their minds .
The full NOI ( PDF ) is available online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BREAKING: "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about their children having only a small vocabulary,' while today, word choices are far more widespread for children, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.
'"FCC is looking for opinions on how our "evolving language" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such language.
FCC is creating a new language, "newspeak," which will allow parents to rest at ease that their children are not being exposed to language and thought that could corrupt their minds.
The full NOI (PDF) is available online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931821</id>
	<title>Re:Opinions?</title>
	<author>Rabbitbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1256919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because you can't read. It was listed in the proceeding, But I went ahead and made it easy for you.</p><p>You sure you're really of the caliber to comment?</p><p><a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424369&amp;cid=29923255" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424369&amp;cid=29923255</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you ca n't read .
It was listed in the proceeding , But I went ahead and made it easy for you.You sure you 're really of the caliber to comment ? http : //games.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1424369&amp;cid = 29923255 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you can't read.
It was listed in the proceeding, But I went ahead and made it easy for you.You sure you're really of the caliber to comment?http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424369&amp;cid=29923255 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929061</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1256898060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is  a great post! Here is what your parents and grandparents went through when they were growing up. Then they had you!</p><p>First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.</p><p>They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.</p><p>Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints</p><p>We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.</p><p>As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.</p><p>Riding in the back of a pick-up on a warm day was always a special treat.</p><p>We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.</p><p>We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.</p><p>We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because we were usually ouside PLAYING!</p><p>We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on.</p><p>No one was able to reach us all day. Still, we were O.K.</p><p>We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.</p><p>We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 199 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms.</p><p>We had FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!</p><p>We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.</p><p>We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.</p><p>We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.</p><p>We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!</p><p>Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!</p><p>The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!</p><p>This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! Our generation went to the moon.</p><p>The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.</p><p>We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a great post !
Here is what your parents and grandparents went through when they were growing up .
Then they had you ! First , we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.They took aspirin , ate blue cheese dressing , tuna from a can , and did n't get tested for diabetes.Then after that trauma , our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paintsWe had no childproof lids on medicine bottles , doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes , we had no helmets , not to mention , the risks we took hitchhiking.As children , we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.Riding in the back of a pick-up on a warm day was always a special treat.We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.We shared one soft drink with four friends , from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.We ate cupcakes , white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it , but we were n't overweight because we were usually ouside PLAYING ! We would leave home in the morning and play all day , as long as we were back when the street lights came on.No one was able to reach us all day .
Still , we were O.K.We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill , only to find out we forgot the brakes .
After running into the bushes a few times , we learned to solve the problem.We did not have Playstations , Nintendo 's , X-boxes , no video games at all , no 199 channels on cable , no video tape movies , no surround sound , no cell phones , no personal computers , no Internet or Internet chat rooms.We had FRIENDS and we went outside and found them ! We fell out of trees , got cut , broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt , and the worms did not live in us forever.We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays , made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen , we did not put out very many eyes.We rode bikes or walked to a friend 's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell , or just walked in and talked to them ! Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team .
Those who did n't had to learn to deal with disappointment .
Imagine that !
! The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of .
They actually sided with the law ! This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers , problem solvers and inventors ever !
Our generation went to the moon.The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.We had freedom , failure , success and responsibility , and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is  a great post!
Here is what your parents and grandparents went through when they were growing up.
Then they had you!First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paintsWe had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.Riding in the back of a pick-up on a warm day was always a special treat.We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because we were usually ouside PLAYING!We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on.No one was able to reach us all day.
Still, we were O.K.We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 199 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms.We had FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.
Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Imagine that!
!The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
Our generation went to the moon.The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924253</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1256919600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe your parents didn't love you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe your parents did n't love you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe your parents didn't love you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</id>
	<title>Physical activity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.</p><p>Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements. This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements .
This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden , football or playing in the mud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.Earlier there was the option to stay in and be bored or go out and face the elements.
This day you go out on the net and there is no need for a garden, football or playing in the mud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923027</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>INT\_QRK</author>
	<datestamp>1256913900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Nanny state. The "useful idiots" who voted this crowd in are getting what they deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nanny state .
The " useful idiots " who voted this crowd in are getting what they deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nanny state.
The "useful idiots" who voted this crowd in are getting what they deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929023</id>
	<title>Mod parent +1 Absolutely Wrong</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1256897760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With greater visibility on your post, others can realize the folly of your statements... This subject absolutely *does* pertain to me. Parenting is rough, but there is plenty that you can do to help your kids deal with the internet, and there is plenty other folks are doing to help *you* deal with your kids on the internet.
<br> <br>
The internet is not a happy place, accept that and adjust your children's use of it. Let me put this as clearly as I can: It is not your job to police the internet for other people, however objectionable you find it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With greater visibility on your post , others can realize the folly of your statements... This subject absolutely * does * pertain to me .
Parenting is rough , but there is plenty that you can do to help your kids deal with the internet , and there is plenty other folks are doing to help * you * deal with your kids on the internet .
The internet is not a happy place , accept that and adjust your children 's use of it .
Let me put this as clearly as I can : It is not your job to police the internet for other people , however objectionable you find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With greater visibility on your post, others can realize the folly of your statements... This subject absolutely *does* pertain to me.
Parenting is rough, but there is plenty that you can do to help your kids deal with the internet, and there is plenty other folks are doing to help *you* deal with your kids on the internet.
The internet is not a happy place, accept that and adjust your children's use of it.
Let me put this as clearly as I can: It is not your job to police the internet for other people, however objectionable you find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922905</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>cheshiremoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256912940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hasn't the internet been changing rapidly since you were a kid?  While porn has long been on the internet, there is a lot more Adult content online now besides porn.  Violent movies and games often have far less safe guards for restricting access to minors.  While I don't think that the government is capable of comprehensively  protecting kids from the evils of the internet, some guide lines for larger content providers would not be out of the order.  Parents need to be the responsible party and pay attention to what there kids are doing/seeing with all the content devices out there like consoles,  PCs, Cell Phones and now e-readers!  I have yet to hear about Sex-ting with calculators yet though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't the internet been changing rapidly since you were a kid ?
While porn has long been on the internet , there is a lot more Adult content online now besides porn .
Violent movies and games often have far less safe guards for restricting access to minors .
While I do n't think that the government is capable of comprehensively protecting kids from the evils of the internet , some guide lines for larger content providers would not be out of the order .
Parents need to be the responsible party and pay attention to what there kids are doing/seeing with all the content devices out there like consoles , PCs , Cell Phones and now e-readers !
I have yet to hear about Sex-ting with calculators yet though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't the internet been changing rapidly since you were a kid?
While porn has long been on the internet, there is a lot more Adult content online now besides porn.
Violent movies and games often have far less safe guards for restricting access to minors.
While I don't think that the government is capable of comprehensively  protecting kids from the evils of the internet, some guide lines for larger content providers would not be out of the order.
Parents need to be the responsible party and pay attention to what there kids are doing/seeing with all the content devices out there like consoles,  PCs, Cell Phones and now e-readers!
I have yet to hear about Sex-ting with calculators yet though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925289</id>
	<title>FCC vs. Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1256923500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet, paving the way for future content control regulations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet , paving the way for future content control regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet, paving the way for future content control regulations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256910660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes did I learn? yes enough ideas without statistics I say"</i> <p>
You think YOU had a dangerous childhood??</p><p>
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, my parents both worked, yet I came home to a house alone (when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school), I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids, roamed all over (again without tracking and cell phones), I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns, we 'stole' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps (and sometimes forts in the woods). Goodness, when we went to a mall, my parents would set up a meeting time and place, and we'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time, yes, I wondered around unsupervised?!?!? Yep, I dove off diving boards in swimming pools! I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time. I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking, bicycling, skateboarding....while never wearing a helment.</p><p>
Yep, it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty!! By today's scared standards of treating children, we should have all been killed by and accident, if not abducted, raped and killed first...and of course, our parents would have been arrested for child neglect.</p><p>
Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it 's always " protect the children " I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted ?
did I become a horrible person ?
no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers ?
yes did I learn ?
yes enough ideas without statistics I say " You think YOU had a dangerous childhood ? ?
Hell , I grew up with no cell phones , my parents both worked , yet I came home to a house alone ( when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school ) , I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids , roamed all over ( again without tracking and cell phones ) , I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns , we 'stole ' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps ( and sometimes forts in the woods ) .
Goodness , when we went to a mall , my parents would set up a meeting time and place , and we 'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time , yes , I wondered around unsupervised ? ! ? ! ?
Yep , I dove off diving boards in swimming pools !
I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time .
I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking , bicycling , skateboarding....while never wearing a helment .
Yep , it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty ! !
By today 's scared standards of treating children , we should have all been killed by and accident , if not abducted , raped and killed first...and of course , our parents would have been arrested for child neglect .
Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted?
did I become a horrible person?
no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers?
yes did I learn?
yes enough ideas without statistics I say" 
You think YOU had a dangerous childhood??
Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, my parents both worked, yet I came home to a house alone (when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school), I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids, roamed all over (again without tracking and cell phones), I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns, we 'stole' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps (and sometimes forts in the woods).
Goodness, when we went to a mall, my parents would set up a meeting time and place, and we'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time, yes, I wondered around unsupervised?!?!?
Yep, I dove off diving boards in swimming pools!
I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time.
I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking, bicycling, skateboarding....while never wearing a helment.
Yep, it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty!!
By today's scared standards of treating children, we should have all been killed by and accident, if not abducted, raped and killed first...and of course, our parents would have been arrested for child neglect.
Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922919</id>
	<title>That was then. This is now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256913180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before government control the internet for the kids was bad. Now it is good.</p><p>Anyone who can't see this obvious truth is clearly racist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before government control the internet for the kids was bad .
Now it is good.Anyone who ca n't see this obvious truth is clearly racist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before government control the internet for the kids was bad.
Now it is good.Anyone who can't see this obvious truth is clearly racist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923209</id>
	<title>ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>simple response<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. GET FUCKED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>simple response .. GET FUCKED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simple response .. GET FUCKED</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926901</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to parents???</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256930760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?</i></p><p>So the parents have more time for American Idol.  Next question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the government have to control what kids have access to ? So the parents have more time for American Idol .
Next question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?So the parents have more time for American Idol.
Next question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</id>
	<title>tired of this "control the internet for the kids"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's always "protect the children"

I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no
did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes
did I learn? yes

enough ideas without statistics I say</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's always " protect the children " I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted ?
did I become a horrible person ?
no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers ?
yes did I learn ?
yes enough ideas without statistics I say</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's always "protect the children"

I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted?
did I become a horrible person?
no
did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers?
yes
did I learn?
yes

enough ideas without statistics I say</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922737</id>
	<title>di34</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>volatile world o7 or make 7oud noises</htmltext>
<tokenext>volatile world o7 or make 7oud noises</tokentext>
<sentencetext>volatile world o7 or make 7oud noises</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925855</id>
	<title>Parents don't have to buy all the gadgets</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1256926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC should back down.  Leave the monitoring up to the parents.  If the parents are overwhelmed with too much to monitor, stop buying your kids every piece of electronics known to man.  The FCC doesn't need to regulate any more, in fact they need to regulate less.  Parents need to own up to more personal responsibility with their children/kids/family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC should back down .
Leave the monitoring up to the parents .
If the parents are overwhelmed with too much to monitor , stop buying your kids every piece of electronics known to man .
The FCC does n't need to regulate any more , in fact they need to regulate less .
Parents need to own up to more personal responsibility with their children/kids/family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC should back down.
Leave the monitoring up to the parents.
If the parents are overwhelmed with too much to monitor, stop buying your kids every piece of electronics known to man.
The FCC doesn't need to regulate any more, in fact they need to regulate less.
Parents need to own up to more personal responsibility with their children/kids/family.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924413</id>
	<title>responsibility is yours</title>
	<author>poptones</author>
	<datestamp>1256920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are SCADS of "plans" in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house. On the shiny side of that there's DNS solutions, filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.</p><p>Your right to raise your kids does not trump another's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another's right to express said perversions. Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are SCADS of " plans " in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid 's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house .
On the shiny side of that there 's DNS solutions , filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.Your right to raise your kids does not trump another 's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another 's right to express said perversions .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are SCADS of "plans" in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house.
On the shiny side of that there's DNS solutions, filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.Your right to raise your kids does not trump another's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another's right to express said perversions.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927317</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>wwfarch</author>
	<datestamp>1256932740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 25 and I had a very similar childhood to cayenne8's. Maybe I was strange for my age but from what I saw I don't really think so. I think the fear and paranoia is much more recent than you think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 25 and I had a very similar childhood to cayenne8 's .
Maybe I was strange for my age but from what I saw I do n't really think so .
I think the fear and paranoia is much more recent than you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 25 and I had a very similar childhood to cayenne8's.
Maybe I was strange for my age but from what I saw I don't really think so.
I think the fear and paranoia is much more recent than you think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923101</id>
	<title>It's Not About "Kids;" That's Just the Ruse</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1256914320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government said, "Y'know, we'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere, over all electronic media, really: restrict what is said, know the identities of who is saying it, get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say, citizens, can we do that?"  the answer would be a resounding, "Over Our Dead Body."</p><p>The "kids" thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government said , " Y'know , we 'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere , over all electronic media , really : restrict what is said , know the identities of who is saying it , get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say , citizens , can we do that ?
" the answer would be a resounding , " Over Our Dead Body .
" The " kids " thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government said, "Y'know, we'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere, over all electronic media, really: restrict what is said, know the identities of who is saying it, get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say, citizens, can we do that?
"  the answer would be a resounding, "Over Our Dead Body.
"The "kids" thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922755</id>
	<title>FDR's Thought Police</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1256911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been five years since I this piece was written at Mises, and five years since I posted a link to it from Slashdot, but it's still relevant and needs repeating:<p> <a href="http://mises.org/story/1496" title="mises.org">FDR's Thought Police: Still Alive, Still Censoring</a> [mises.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been five years since I this piece was written at Mises , and five years since I posted a link to it from Slashdot , but it 's still relevant and needs repeating : FDR 's Thought Police : Still Alive , Still Censoring [ mises.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been five years since I this piece was written at Mises, and five years since I posted a link to it from Slashdot, but it's still relevant and needs repeating: FDR's Thought Police: Still Alive, Still Censoring [mises.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924989</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1256922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you. Please close this tab and go back to watching porn."</p><p>What? Since when does having someone else crap out a badly copied, smaller version of you give you magical insight into raising children? If anything, the unreasoned, illogical, over-reactionary response most people have when faced with something that might someday have a small chance of doing even the slightest amount of damage to their children shows that an unbiased observer might have a more valid opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Speaking of which , for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you .
Please close this tab and go back to watching porn. " What ?
Since when does having someone else crap out a badly copied , smaller version of you give you magical insight into raising children ?
If anything , the unreasoned , illogical , over-reactionary response most people have when faced with something that might someday have a small chance of doing even the slightest amount of damage to their children shows that an unbiased observer might have a more valid opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you.
Please close this tab and go back to watching porn."What?
Since when does having someone else crap out a badly copied, smaller version of you give you magical insight into raising children?
If anything, the unreasoned, illogical, over-reactionary response most people have when faced with something that might someday have a small chance of doing even the slightest amount of damage to their children shows that an unbiased observer might have a more valid opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924183</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, [...] while never wearing a helment.</p></div><p>Same here to all the above.</p><p>I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids, but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail.  My father-in-law is convinced that there's a pedo behind every tree and that I'm stupid for not being more worried about it (yes: those were his words).  Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , I grew up with no cell phones , [ ... ] while never wearing a helment.Same here to all the above.I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids , but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail .
My father-in-law is convinced that there 's a pedo behind every tree and that I 'm stupid for not being more worried about it ( yes : those were his words ) .
Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, [...] while never wearing a helment.Same here to all the above.I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids, but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail.
My father-in-law is convinced that there's a pedo behind every tree and that I'm stupid for not being more worried about it (yes: those were his words).
Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926941</id>
	<title>Re:How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1256930940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And before anybody says "commerce clause". . . I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content. But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.</i></p><p>In the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made:  Wickard v. Filburn.</p><p>The Supreme Court decided that a man growing grain on his own farm to feed his own chickens constituted Interstate Commerce.</p><p>Their 'justification' was that since his grain was a substitute for wheat he could have bought on the open market, then his grain was affecting the overall demand of the nationally traded grain.</p><p>Pure and utter bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And before anybody says " commerce clause " .
. .
I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines , regardless of their content .
But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games , then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.In the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made : Wickard v. Filburn.The Supreme Court decided that a man growing grain on his own farm to feed his own chickens constituted Interstate Commerce.Their 'justification ' was that since his grain was a substitute for wheat he could have bought on the open market , then his grain was affecting the overall demand of the nationally traded grain.Pure and utter bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And before anybody says "commerce clause".
. .
I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content.
But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.In the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made:  Wickard v. Filburn.The Supreme Court decided that a man growing grain on his own farm to feed his own chickens constituted Interstate Commerce.Their 'justification' was that since his grain was a substitute for wheat he could have bought on the open market, then his grain was affecting the overall demand of the nationally traded grain.Pure and utter bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922411</id>
	<title>Opinions?</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256909220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I've been looking but I don't see anywhere on the FCC website to actually give them feedback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 've been looking but I do n't see anywhere on the FCC website to actually give them feedback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I've been looking but I don't see anywhere on the FCC website to actually give them feedback.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924197</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.</p></div><p>How much of that is due to video games like <i>Dance Dance Revolution</i> and <i>Wii Sports</i>, and how much of that is due to parents keeping their kids indoors due to media-charged fear of child molesters?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.How much of that is due to video games like Dance Dance Revolution and Wii Sports , and how much of that is due to parents keeping their kids indoors due to media-charged fear of child molesters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problem with video games and things like that is the lower level of physical activity among the young.How much of that is due to video games like Dance Dance Revolution and Wii Sports, and how much of that is due to parents keeping their kids indoors due to media-charged fear of child molesters?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922977</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1256913540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You were lucky.</p><p>When I was young we couldn't get cell phone service, dsl nor did we have bicycles and we lived in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.</p><p>Every night at midnight we'd have to get up out of the shoebox and lick the road clean with our tongues, then we'd go to work 24 hours at the mill for fourpence every six years . . . or was that "sixpence every four years"?</p><p>Try telling that to the FCC today. . . they won't believe you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You were lucky.When I was young we could n't get cell phone service , dsl nor did we have bicycles and we lived in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.Every night at midnight we 'd have to get up out of the shoebox and lick the road clean with our tongues , then we 'd go to work 24 hours at the mill for fourpence every six years .
. .
or was that " sixpence every four years " ? Try telling that to the FCC today .
. .
they wo n't believe you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were lucky.When I was young we couldn't get cell phone service, dsl nor did we have bicycles and we lived in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.Every night at midnight we'd have to get up out of the shoebox and lick the road clean with our tongues, then we'd go to work 24 hours at the mill for fourpence every six years .
. .
or was that "sixpence every four years"?Try telling that to the FCC today.
. .
they won't believe you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29928947</id>
	<title>Re:Physical activity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you spend too much time watching Penn &amp; Teller</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you spend too much time watching Penn &amp; Teller</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you spend too much time watching Penn &amp; Teller</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465</id>
	<title>Re:tired of this "control the internet for the kid</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1256916240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to justify the "think of the children" antics that politicians so love these days, but the "I survived just fine!" tirade always strikes me as amusing.</p><p>Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story.  The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.</p><p>To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40\% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment.  Is that an acceptable statistic?  Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60\% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid. How did I possibly survive!?!?".   The answer is simple: you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation.  That doesn't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40\% to 0.05\% is wasted effort though.</p><p>Now, that's not to say that the FCC is right here.  I'm just saying that there's a line somewhere between nanny state saying "no porn on the internet because it's bad for the kids" and giving all the kids dynamite at school because a few will still happen to grow up and proclaim that their survival is proof that the activity is safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to justify the " think of the children " antics that politicians so love these days , but the " I survived just fine !
" tirade always strikes me as amusing.Regardless of the risks , the fact that you 're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story .
The kids that do n't make it are n't around to tell their story.To put it into statistical perspective , lets exaggerate a bit ( ok , a lot : ) ) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40 \ % chance of resulting in death or dismemberment .
Is that an acceptable statistic ?
Absolutely not , yet you 'd still have 60 \ % of people sarcastically proclaiming " Hey I did all that stuff as a kid .
How did I possibly survive ! ? ! ? " .
The answer is simple : you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation .
That does n't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40 \ % to 0.05 \ % is wasted effort though.Now , that 's not to say that the FCC is right here .
I 'm just saying that there 's a line somewhere between nanny state saying " no porn on the internet because it 's bad for the kids " and giving all the kids dynamite at school because a few will still happen to grow up and proclaim that their survival is proof that the activity is safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to justify the "think of the children" antics that politicians so love these days, but the "I survived just fine!
" tirade always strikes me as amusing.Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story.
The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot :)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40\% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment.
Is that an acceptable statistic?
Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60\% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid.
How did I possibly survive!?!?".
The answer is simple: you survived because you were in the group that fell on that side of the equation.
That doesn't mean though that any legislation that drops that accident rate from 40\% to 0.05\% is wasted effort though.Now, that's not to say that the FCC is right here.
I'm just saying that there's a line somewhere between nanny state saying "no porn on the internet because it's bad for the kids" and giving all the kids dynamite at school because a few will still happen to grow up and proclaim that their survival is proof that the activity is safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924745</id>
	<title>Re:How can this be legal?</title>
	<author>el\_gato\_borracho</author>
	<datestamp>1256921580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have never liked the idea that the US federal government can regulate content of public airwaves.  By the same theory, it could regulate speech in newspapers that are delivered on public roads.  Oh, but there's that pesky First Amendment that explicitly forbids that.  Too bad the founders didn't know about electromagnetic waves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never liked the idea that the US federal government can regulate content of public airwaves .
By the same theory , it could regulate speech in newspapers that are delivered on public roads .
Oh , but there 's that pesky First Amendment that explicitly forbids that .
Too bad the founders did n't know about electromagnetic waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never liked the idea that the US federal government can regulate content of public airwaves.
By the same theory, it could regulate speech in newspapers that are delivered on public roads.
Oh, but there's that pesky First Amendment that explicitly forbids that.
Too bad the founders didn't know about electromagnetic waves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29928947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_0149253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29928947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924183
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922843
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29927317
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923651
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924989
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924413
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29929023
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925197
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923883
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29925155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29931821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_0149253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29922639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29923113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29924409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_0149253.29926941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
