<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_0310258</id>
	<title>Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257934260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>LegalReader writes <i>"An Illinois judge has decided that <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/web\_commenter\_to\_be\_unmasked\_to\_mom\_of\_criticized\_teen/">an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked</a>, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>LegalReader writes " An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked , even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16 ' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing ' comments has n't yet decided whether to sue over the posting .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059030</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. She's fishing. What if it were to turn out that it's her son or daughter or father or mother was posting the messages? Would she still press charges? A crime is a crime is a crime. If charges are to be pressed, then press the charges and then address the revealing of an anonymous posting. But don't play the "outing game" just to determine if she should try to sue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
She 's fishing .
What if it were to turn out that it 's her son or daughter or father or mother was posting the messages ?
Would she still press charges ?
A crime is a crime is a crime .
If charges are to be pressed , then press the charges and then address the revealing of an anonymous posting .
But do n't play the " outing game " just to determine if she should try to sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
She's fishing.
What if it were to turn out that it's her son or daughter or father or mother was posting the messages?
Would she still press charges?
A crime is a crime is a crime.
If charges are to be pressed, then press the charges and then address the revealing of an anonymous posting.
But don't play the "outing game" just to determine if she should try to sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063712</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>CarlDenny</author>
	<datestamp>1257105180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you just say anonymity should only be a right of whistleblowers (sure) and <i>Politicians?</i>

I mean, I can see the argument that maybe anonymity isn't a fundamental right.  But saying that only politicians should be protected is nuts.  By this "public position" logic, shouldn't anyone be protected if they don't want their boss to know they really like anime, or badmouthing people who make dancing cat videos?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you just say anonymity should only be a right of whistleblowers ( sure ) and Politicians ?
I mean , I can see the argument that maybe anonymity is n't a fundamental right .
But saying that only politicians should be protected is nuts .
By this " public position " logic , should n't anyone be protected if they do n't want their boss to know they really like anime , or badmouthing people who make dancing cat videos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you just say anonymity should only be a right of whistleblowers (sure) and Politicians?
I mean, I can see the argument that maybe anonymity isn't a fundamental right.
But saying that only politicians should be protected is nuts.
By this "public position" logic, shouldn't anyone be protected if they don't want their boss to know they really like anime, or badmouthing people who make dancing cat videos?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058480</id>
	<title>An attack against anonymity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the internet isn't going to end well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the internet is n't going to end well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the internet isn't going to end well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30066608</id>
	<title>Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>Thuktun</author>
	<datestamp>1257074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You omitted the part of the article before that bit.  Here's some more context:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The comments at the heart of the case came at the end of a series of posts between Hipcheck16 and Stone's son, who was concerned about online remarks the teen regarded as critical of his mother. At one point, the teen asked to know the poster's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.</p><p>Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"</p><p><a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/trustee-may-learn-identify-of-anonymous-internet-poster.html" title="chicagobreakingnews.com">source</a> [chicagobreakingnews.com]</p> </div><p>The teen appeared to be soliciting a visit, and the posted declined, then lobbed an insult back.  Wow, that's strong stuff.  As a parent, I'd be more pissed off about the things my kid was saying online than the relatively-amusing response it garnered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You omitted the part of the article before that bit .
Here 's some more context : The comments at the heart of the case came at the end of a series of posts between Hipcheck16 and Stone 's son , who was concerned about online remarks the teen regarded as critical of his mother .
At one point , the teen asked to know the poster 's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.Declining an invitation to pay a visit , Hipcheck16 posted a response that said , according to court documents , " Seems like you 're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before , or do they usually invite you to their house ?
" source [ chicagobreakingnews.com ] The teen appeared to be soliciting a visit , and the posted declined , then lobbed an insult back .
Wow , that 's strong stuff .
As a parent , I 'd be more pissed off about the things my kid was saying online than the relatively-amusing response it garnered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You omitted the part of the article before that bit.
Here's some more context:The comments at the heart of the case came at the end of a series of posts between Hipcheck16 and Stone's son, who was concerned about online remarks the teen regarded as critical of his mother.
At one point, the teen asked to know the poster's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?
"source [chicagobreakingnews.com] The teen appeared to be soliciting a visit, and the posted declined, then lobbed an insult back.
Wow, that's strong stuff.
As a parent, I'd be more pissed off about the things my kid was saying online than the relatively-amusing response it garnered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069456</id>
	<title>We need a new section...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your MOM Online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your MOM Online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your MOM Online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30062874</id>
	<title>Older Brother Thinks It's A Sad Day...</title>
	<author>buddahrock</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the October 5th 2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE:

"Gary Stone (the lawyer husband of Trustee Linda Stone), 1924 Beverly Lane, shared a letter from his son, Jordan, a college student, stating that it is a sad day in politics when the method of engaging a challenging voice is to alienate it and drive it from the system it seeks to improve."

This was a debate on adopting a recall method for elected officials in Buffalo Grove but could easily fit into the discussion here. Perhaps Jordan can have a chat with Mom and his younger brother Jed regarding the methods they're using to alienate and attack a challenging voice.

I'm certain Linda Stone's desire to know the identity of HipCheck16 has very little to do with what was written to her son, and has an awful lot to do with HipCheck16's questioning of her qualifications and merits all throughout the election.  If I lived in Buffalo Grove, I too would wonder what a PTO Mom and Reunion coordinator who didn't understand the Village budget could accomplish as a Trustee.  And if that same person happened to spearhead a fear campaign against Pit Bulls and have a trial lawyer husband, I might post my comments anonymously just to avoid the fallout.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the October 5th 2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE : " Gary Stone ( the lawyer husband of Trustee Linda Stone ) , 1924 Beverly Lane , shared a letter from his son , Jordan , a college student , stating that it is a sad day in politics when the method of engaging a challenging voice is to alienate it and drive it from the system it seeks to improve .
" This was a debate on adopting a recall method for elected officials in Buffalo Grove but could easily fit into the discussion here .
Perhaps Jordan can have a chat with Mom and his younger brother Jed regarding the methods they 're using to alienate and attack a challenging voice .
I 'm certain Linda Stone 's desire to know the identity of HipCheck16 has very little to do with what was written to her son , and has an awful lot to do with HipCheck16 's questioning of her qualifications and merits all throughout the election .
If I lived in Buffalo Grove , I too would wonder what a PTO Mom and Reunion coordinator who did n't understand the Village budget could accomplish as a Trustee .
And if that same person happened to spearhead a fear campaign against Pit Bulls and have a trial lawyer husband , I might post my comments anonymously just to avoid the fallout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the October 5th 2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE:

"Gary Stone (the lawyer husband of Trustee Linda Stone), 1924 Beverly Lane, shared a letter from his son, Jordan, a college student, stating that it is a sad day in politics when the method of engaging a challenging voice is to alienate it and drive it from the system it seeks to improve.
"

This was a debate on adopting a recall method for elected officials in Buffalo Grove but could easily fit into the discussion here.
Perhaps Jordan can have a chat with Mom and his younger brother Jed regarding the methods they're using to alienate and attack a challenging voice.
I'm certain Linda Stone's desire to know the identity of HipCheck16 has very little to do with what was written to her son, and has an awful lot to do with HipCheck16's questioning of her qualifications and merits all throughout the election.
If I lived in Buffalo Grove, I too would wonder what a PTO Mom and Reunion coordinator who didn't understand the Village budget could accomplish as a Trustee.
And if that same person happened to spearhead a fear campaign against Pit Bulls and have a trial lawyer husband, I might post my comments anonymously just to avoid the fallout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188</id>
	<title>What was the "deeply disturbing" comment?</title>
	<author>totally bogus dude</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.</p><p>But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From comments on some random website : There is no case , therefore no reason to reveal ID .
Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person , Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over .
A perfectly valid question .
It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general .
Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.But I have no verification if that 's correct , and if it is , whether it 's the whole story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID.
Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over.
A perfectly valid question.
It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general.
Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058714</id>
	<title>This will only help Scientology...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and other overly litigious organizations.<br> <br>It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate.<br> <br>If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them.<br> <br>And as we've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up.<br> <br>This is not a good thing.<br> <br>Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and other overly litigious organizations .
It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate .
If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them .
And as we 've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up .
This is not a good thing .
Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and other overly litigious organizations.
It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate.
If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them.
And as we've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up.
This is not a good thing.
Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063104</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257103020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Here I thought you'd be talking about someone squealing on a mobster, or speaking against the government.  Here, you seem to think that the government needs to be protected from the free media.   Thanks for your opinion, Mr. President, but the rest of us know that the Constitution is designed to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions , or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when , for instance , a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch .
Here I thought you 'd be talking about someone squealing on a mobster , or speaking against the government .
Here , you seem to think that the government needs to be protected from the free media .
Thanks for your opinion , Mr. President , but the rest of us know that the Constitution is designed to protect the people from the government , not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.
Here I thought you'd be talking about someone squealing on a mobster, or speaking against the government.
Here, you seem to think that the government needs to be protected from the free media.
Thanks for your opinion, Mr. President, but the rest of us know that the Constitution is designed to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059348</id>
	<title>Comments leading up to *the big one*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=284378" title="dailyherald.com" rel="nofollow">Daily Herald comments from 6 April</a> [dailyherald.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Hipcheck16<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:57 PM<br>Funny how the Herald can print a vague, pointless article about Johnson on the day before the election, but has chosen to ignore the VERY REAL transgressions of Lisa Stone, one of their endorsed candidates.</p><p>Why did they not report on Stone's illegally placed campaign signs and the fact that she was told to remove them by B.G. police? Why have they not investigated the "anonymous" phone calls from Stone supporters alleging that Mike Terson and Joanne Johnson have been running anti-Semitic campaigns? This is especially spurrious since Terson is Jewish and Johnson has relatives that are Jewish, friends that are Jewish, and she is endorsed by several local politicians who are Jewish.</p><p>I'm far more concerned about the Herald's lack of journalistic integrity than I am about Johnson's. They endorsed an unqualified candidate, and after watching Stone's abominable performance at the BG forum, they are desparately trying to divert our attention from their poor choice.</p><p>Maybe if you spent more time fixing the numerous typos in your ragsheet, your article would have some merit. But how can we trust a paper that is consistently filled with all kinds of mistakes</p></div></blockquote><p>And another:</p><blockquote><div><p>Hipcheck16<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 PM<br>FYI- If you get an automated call from the Buffalo Grove Citizen's Coalition, you can thank Lisa Stone's campaign cronies. Nothing like hiding behind anonymous, defamatory calls to try to get yourself elected, huh Lisa? The fact that you are UNQUALIFIED is no longer enough, now you have resorted to the lowest form of negative campaign tactics. Congratulations- you have completed the trifecta- UNQUALIFIED, DECEITFUL and DESPERATE.</p><p>You may get elected, but you have already been exposed as a fraud and you will fail miserably. Every time you open your mouth, you'll spew more ignorance that will become a running joke in the village. The board meetings will become the funniest program on television thanks to your ignorant blather. Your supporters will tune in each week to see which foot you'll put in your mouth. Don't forget to wear your Manolo Blahniks so ya look good. And do a few more hair flips- just like you did every 2 minutes at the forum, because that's so darn classy and appropriate for an elected official.</p><p>The citizens of Buffalo Grove deserve better than you- lets hope they don't believe your lies and vote for ANY CANDIDATE but you.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Daily Herald comments from 6 April [ dailyherald.com ] : Hipcheck16 : : Mon Apr 06 , 2009 4 : 57 PMFunny how the Herald can print a vague , pointless article about Johnson on the day before the election , but has chosen to ignore the VERY REAL transgressions of Lisa Stone , one of their endorsed candidates.Why did they not report on Stone 's illegally placed campaign signs and the fact that she was told to remove them by B.G .
police ? Why have they not investigated the " anonymous " phone calls from Stone supporters alleging that Mike Terson and Joanne Johnson have been running anti-Semitic campaigns ?
This is especially spurrious since Terson is Jewish and Johnson has relatives that are Jewish , friends that are Jewish , and she is endorsed by several local politicians who are Jewish.I 'm far more concerned about the Herald 's lack of journalistic integrity than I am about Johnson 's .
They endorsed an unqualified candidate , and after watching Stone 's abominable performance at the BG forum , they are desparately trying to divert our attention from their poor choice.Maybe if you spent more time fixing the numerous typos in your ragsheet , your article would have some merit .
But how can we trust a paper that is consistently filled with all kinds of mistakesAnd another : Hipcheck16 : : Mon Apr 06 , 2009 5 : 46 PMFYI- If you get an automated call from the Buffalo Grove Citizen 's Coalition , you can thank Lisa Stone 's campaign cronies .
Nothing like hiding behind anonymous , defamatory calls to try to get yourself elected , huh Lisa ?
The fact that you are UNQUALIFIED is no longer enough , now you have resorted to the lowest form of negative campaign tactics .
Congratulations- you have completed the trifecta- UNQUALIFIED , DECEITFUL and DESPERATE.You may get elected , but you have already been exposed as a fraud and you will fail miserably .
Every time you open your mouth , you 'll spew more ignorance that will become a running joke in the village .
The board meetings will become the funniest program on television thanks to your ignorant blather .
Your supporters will tune in each week to see which foot you 'll put in your mouth .
Do n't forget to wear your Manolo Blahniks so ya look good .
And do a few more hair flips- just like you did every 2 minutes at the forum , because that 's so darn classy and appropriate for an elected official.The citizens of Buffalo Grove deserve better than you- lets hope they do n't believe your lies and vote for ANY CANDIDATE but you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daily Herald comments from 6 April [dailyherald.com]:Hipcheck16 :: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:57 PMFunny how the Herald can print a vague, pointless article about Johnson on the day before the election, but has chosen to ignore the VERY REAL transgressions of Lisa Stone, one of their endorsed candidates.Why did they not report on Stone's illegally placed campaign signs and the fact that she was told to remove them by B.G.
police? Why have they not investigated the "anonymous" phone calls from Stone supporters alleging that Mike Terson and Joanne Johnson have been running anti-Semitic campaigns?
This is especially spurrious since Terson is Jewish and Johnson has relatives that are Jewish, friends that are Jewish, and she is endorsed by several local politicians who are Jewish.I'm far more concerned about the Herald's lack of journalistic integrity than I am about Johnson's.
They endorsed an unqualified candidate, and after watching Stone's abominable performance at the BG forum, they are desparately trying to divert our attention from their poor choice.Maybe if you spent more time fixing the numerous typos in your ragsheet, your article would have some merit.
But how can we trust a paper that is consistently filled with all kinds of mistakesAnd another:Hipcheck16 :: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 PMFYI- If you get an automated call from the Buffalo Grove Citizen's Coalition, you can thank Lisa Stone's campaign cronies.
Nothing like hiding behind anonymous, defamatory calls to try to get yourself elected, huh Lisa?
The fact that you are UNQUALIFIED is no longer enough, now you have resorted to the lowest form of negative campaign tactics.
Congratulations- you have completed the trifecta- UNQUALIFIED, DECEITFUL and DESPERATE.You may get elected, but you have already been exposed as a fraud and you will fail miserably.
Every time you open your mouth, you'll spew more ignorance that will become a running joke in the village.
The board meetings will become the funniest program on television thanks to your ignorant blather.
Your supporters will tune in each week to see which foot you'll put in your mouth.
Don't forget to wear your Manolo Blahniks so ya look good.
And do a few more hair flips- just like you did every 2 minutes at the forum, because that's so darn classy and appropriate for an elected official.The citizens of Buffalo Grove deserve better than you- lets hope they don't believe your lies and vote for ANY CANDIDATE but you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</id>
	<title>The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing. If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.<p>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is surely the correct decision .
In order to decide whether to sue , the mother needs to know who she might be suing .
If the poster is autistic , disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses , the mother might decide to leave well alone .
If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit , then there is no escape from legal proceedings.One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful .
The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions , or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when , for instance , a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch .
Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive , anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is surely the correct decision.
In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.
If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.
The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.
Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30066924</id>
	<title>EFF Has Already Been Here</title>
	<author>Wowlapalooza</author>
	<datestamp>1257076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but it seems to me that Cindy Cohn of the EFF has already laid the groundwork for dismissal of this kind of action in Ilinois:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...an lllinois court will apply a three part test to determine whether or not Doe's statements reasonably implies the existence of a provably false fact. <i>Hopewell v. Vitullo</i>. 299 Ill.App.3d 513, 518-19 (1998). Cohn. Decl., Exh. W. First the court will "consider whether the language of the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning, while bearing in mind that the first amendment protects overly loose, figurative, rhetorical, or hyperbolic language, which negates the impression that the statement actually presents facts." <i>Id.</i> Second, the
court will consider "whether the general tenor of the context in which the statement appears
negated the impression that the statement has factual content."<i> Id.</i>Third, the court will consider
"whether the statement is susceptible of being objectively verified as true or false." <i>Id</i></p> </div><p>This is from a Motion to Quash submitted by EFF, against the CEO of an Illinois company who, as plaintiff in a libel suit, was trying to "unmask" one of their anonymous critics on a Yahoo! message board . EFF ultimately prevailed, and the John Doe remained anonymous. See <a href="http://www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe</a> [eff.org] </p><ul> <li>First test: "Seems like you're very willing" obviously conveys a subjective opinion</li>
<li>Second test: general tenor is confrontational, emotional, rather than a cool, impassionate relating of fact</li>
<li>Third test: Arguably fails, since the "facts" alleged are actually susceptible to objective verification (although "willingness" <i>per se</i> is perhaps somewhat more subjective).</li></ul><p>

I believe, however (again, IANAL), that if <b>any</b> of the tests pass, then the underlying libel suit is "obviously without merit" and does not entitle the plaintiff to unmask the defendant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but it seems to me that Cindy Cohn of the EFF has already laid the groundwork for dismissal of this kind of action in Ilinois : ...an lllinois court will apply a three part test to determine whether or not Doe 's statements reasonably implies the existence of a provably false fact .
Hopewell v. Vitullo. 299 Ill.App.3d 513 , 518-19 ( 1998 ) .
Cohn. Decl. , Exh .
W. First the court will " consider whether the language of the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning , while bearing in mind that the first amendment protects overly loose , figurative , rhetorical , or hyperbolic language , which negates the impression that the statement actually presents facts .
" Id .
Second , the court will consider " whether the general tenor of the context in which the statement appears negated the impression that the statement has factual content .
" Id.Third , the court will consider " whether the statement is susceptible of being objectively verified as true or false .
" Id This is from a Motion to Quash submitted by EFF , against the CEO of an Illinois company who , as plaintiff in a libel suit , was trying to " unmask " one of their anonymous critics on a Yahoo !
message board .
EFF ultimately prevailed , and the John Doe remained anonymous .
See http : //www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe [ eff.org ] First test : " Seems like you 're very willing " obviously conveys a subjective opinion Second test : general tenor is confrontational , emotional , rather than a cool , impassionate relating of fact Third test : Arguably fails , since the " facts " alleged are actually susceptible to objective verification ( although " willingness " per se is perhaps somewhat more subjective ) .
I believe , however ( again , IANAL ) , that if any of the tests pass , then the underlying libel suit is " obviously without merit " and does not entitle the plaintiff to unmask the defendant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but it seems to me that Cindy Cohn of the EFF has already laid the groundwork for dismissal of this kind of action in Ilinois: ...an lllinois court will apply a three part test to determine whether or not Doe's statements reasonably implies the existence of a provably false fact.
Hopewell v. Vitullo. 299 Ill.App.3d 513, 518-19 (1998).
Cohn. Decl., Exh.
W. First the court will "consider whether the language of the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning, while bearing in mind that the first amendment protects overly loose, figurative, rhetorical, or hyperbolic language, which negates the impression that the statement actually presents facts.
" Id.
Second, the
court will consider "whether the general tenor of the context in which the statement appears
negated the impression that the statement has factual content.
" Id.Third, the court will consider
"whether the statement is susceptible of being objectively verified as true or false.
" Id This is from a Motion to Quash submitted by EFF, against the CEO of an Illinois company who, as plaintiff in a libel suit, was trying to "unmask" one of their anonymous critics on a Yahoo!
message board .
EFF ultimately prevailed, and the John Doe remained anonymous.
See http://www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe [eff.org]  First test: "Seems like you're very willing" obviously conveys a subjective opinion
Second test: general tenor is confrontational, emotional, rather than a cool, impassionate relating of fact
Third test: Arguably fails, since the "facts" alleged are actually susceptible to objective verification (although "willingness" per se is perhaps somewhat more subjective).
I believe, however (again, IANAL), that if any of the tests pass, then the underlying libel suit is "obviously without merit" and does not entitle the plaintiff to unmask the defendant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30068044</id>
	<title>Here it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a joke...<br>http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a joke...http : //www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a joke...http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059788</id>
	<title>from the</title>
	<author>lanes</author>
	<datestamp>1257089040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>buster-bluth dept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>buster-bluth dept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buster-bluth dept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30062538</id>
	<title>Re:TFA sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the citmedialaw post: "The law is clear that defamation law is not there to protect anyone from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mere vitriolic spewings of an anonymous coward."<br>Blimey, which websites have they been reading?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the citmedialaw post : " The law is clear that defamation law is not there to protect anyone from ... mere vitriolic spewings of an anonymous coward .
" Blimey , which websites have they been reading ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the citmedialaw post: "The law is clear that defamation law is not there to protect anyone from ... mere vitriolic spewings of an anonymous coward.
"Blimey, which websites have they been reading?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058746</id>
	<title>Re:Feeling left out?</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.</p><p>"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.</p><p>Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."</p><p> <a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu=" title="ananova.com">http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu=</a> [ananova.com] </p></div><p>Speaking as someone who spent a large number of years in the UK that's pretty funny. That will teach the ba***rds to ridicule American plugs not long ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some hot news for the rest of the world .
" Britons are among the ugliest people in the world , according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful ' people to join.Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted , reports the Daily Telegraph .
" http : //www.ananova.com/news/story/sm \ _3557668.html ? menu = [ ananova.com ] Speaking as someone who spent a large number of years in the UK that 's pretty funny .
That will teach the ba * * * rds to ridicule American plugs not long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.
"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph.
" http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu= [ananova.com] Speaking as someone who spent a large number of years in the UK that's pretty funny.
That will teach the ba***rds to ridicule American plugs not long ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058624</id>
	<title>all i want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059796</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.</p></div><p>Freedom of speech is only protected against government intrusion. Anyone else can "retaliate" against speech they don't like in any way that isn't illegal. The only way to protect speech against those people, then, is anonymity -- and protection from government removing that anonymity.</p><p>Even in cases like this where the person asking to unmask someone isn't "powerful" enough to be a real threat, the unmasking happens regardless of who <i>else</i> might want to retaliate. A mom might not like this kid saying terrible things, but if the kid also makes legitimate criticisms of the school board or his parents' employers under the same pseudonym, his identity is suddenly a matter of public record. It's far too easy to use something like this as a pretense for unmasking someone: If someone all it takes to shut up someone who has made legitimate criticisms for years is to find the one illegitimate one and sue over it, freedom of speech isn't worth much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.Freedom of speech is only protected against government intrusion .
Anyone else can " retaliate " against speech they do n't like in any way that is n't illegal .
The only way to protect speech against those people , then , is anonymity -- and protection from government removing that anonymity.Even in cases like this where the person asking to unmask someone is n't " powerful " enough to be a real threat , the unmasking happens regardless of who else might want to retaliate .
A mom might not like this kid saying terrible things , but if the kid also makes legitimate criticisms of the school board or his parents ' employers under the same pseudonym , his identity is suddenly a matter of public record .
It 's far too easy to use something like this as a pretense for unmasking someone : If someone all it takes to shut up someone who has made legitimate criticisms for years is to find the one illegitimate one and sue over it , freedom of speech is n't worth much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.Freedom of speech is only protected against government intrusion.
Anyone else can "retaliate" against speech they don't like in any way that isn't illegal.
The only way to protect speech against those people, then, is anonymity -- and protection from government removing that anonymity.Even in cases like this where the person asking to unmask someone isn't "powerful" enough to be a real threat, the unmasking happens regardless of who else might want to retaliate.
A mom might not like this kid saying terrible things, but if the kid also makes legitimate criticisms of the school board or his parents' employers under the same pseudonym, his identity is suddenly a matter of public record.
It's far too easy to use something like this as a pretense for unmasking someone: If someone all it takes to shut up someone who has made legitimate criticisms for years is to find the one illegitimate one and sue over it, freedom of speech isn't worth much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060578</id>
	<title>Maybe</title>
	<author>Zero\_Independent</author>
	<datestamp>1257092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe she just wants to beat him up? Haven't you ever wanted to hit someone on the internet for being stupid, but you couldn't because you didn't know where he lives? Maybe that's just what the internet needs. Someone to go around beating people up for being stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe she just wants to beat him up ?
Have n't you ever wanted to hit someone on the internet for being stupid , but you could n't because you did n't know where he lives ?
Maybe that 's just what the internet needs .
Someone to go around beating people up for being stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe she just wants to beat him up?
Haven't you ever wanted to hit someone on the internet for being stupid, but you couldn't because you didn't know where he lives?
Maybe that's just what the internet needs.
Someone to go around beating people up for being stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060264</id>
	<title>Anonymity or just a lousy corporation?</title>
	<author>bogidu</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although this post is causing quite a stir around issues of anonymity, how bout the main geek factor here?  Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla of ISP's is simply another way of throwing away your rights.  They cover their arses with AUP's &amp; TOS's and really couldn't care less about their customers individual rights or the Constitutional protections of American citizens.  Seems like it may be time to start utilizing guerrilla tactics in regards to all public posts made.</p><p>--</p><p>*this post made with stolen wifi and the computer used was destroyed afterward*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although this post is causing quite a stir around issues of anonymity , how bout the main geek factor here ?
Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla of ISP 's is simply another way of throwing away your rights .
They cover their arses with AUP 's &amp; TOS 's and really could n't care less about their customers individual rights or the Constitutional protections of American citizens .
Seems like it may be time to start utilizing guerrilla tactics in regards to all public posts made.-- * this post made with stolen wifi and the computer used was destroyed afterward *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although this post is causing quite a stir around issues of anonymity, how bout the main geek factor here?
Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla of ISP's is simply another way of throwing away your rights.
They cover their arses with AUP's &amp; TOS's and really couldn't care less about their customers individual rights or the Constitutional protections of American citizens.
Seems like it may be time to start utilizing guerrilla tactics in regards to all public posts made.--*this post made with stolen wifi and the computer used was destroyed afterward*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063612</id>
	<title>Re:Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1257104820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>She's a bureaucrat, of course she doesn't have anything better to do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>She 's a bureaucrat , of course she does n't have anything better to do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She's a bureaucrat, of course she doesn't have anything better to do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816</id>
	<title>Re:Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257082740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.</p></div><p>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.</p><p>The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation .
- The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16 .
This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary .
And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing ' is this woman 's attitude and the fact that she does n't have anything better to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation.
- The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16.
This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary.
And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30065200</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, wait just a second there buddy.</p><p>Opposes vicious dog breeds. How many more children do you need mauled to death to make you realize pitbulls are dangerous? Yeah, I know with the right owner they can be lovable and fun, but let's face it: the majority of pit owners are trash. When you have an overwhelmingly large group of irresponsible owners with dangerous, ill-trained animals, innocent people will get hurt.</p><p>Opposes marijuana. Sorry bro, but not everyone wants to frolic in your drug-addled fantasies about getting high non-stop every day. Drugs ruin lives, and if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have rehab clinics. The only difference between marijuana and any other drug is that it can't kill you, but that's not to say it can't ruin your life. How many people started with weed before moving on to more powerful drugs? It IS a gateway drug. It gives you a safe taste of what's out there and then you'll want the harder stuff that will get you higher and last longer. If you think that isn't true, talk to a recovering addict.</p><p>I don't know about you, but as a father I'd like to keep dangerous dogs and illegal drugs away from my children. You should think about the well-being of other people than yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , wait just a second there buddy.Opposes vicious dog breeds .
How many more children do you need mauled to death to make you realize pitbulls are dangerous ?
Yeah , I know with the right owner they can be lovable and fun , but let 's face it : the majority of pit owners are trash .
When you have an overwhelmingly large group of irresponsible owners with dangerous , ill-trained animals , innocent people will get hurt.Opposes marijuana .
Sorry bro , but not everyone wants to frolic in your drug-addled fantasies about getting high non-stop every day .
Drugs ruin lives , and if that was n't the case we would n't have rehab clinics .
The only difference between marijuana and any other drug is that it ca n't kill you , but that 's not to say it ca n't ruin your life .
How many people started with weed before moving on to more powerful drugs ?
It IS a gateway drug .
It gives you a safe taste of what 's out there and then you 'll want the harder stuff that will get you higher and last longer .
If you think that is n't true , talk to a recovering addict.I do n't know about you , but as a father I 'd like to keep dangerous dogs and illegal drugs away from my children .
You should think about the well-being of other people than yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, wait just a second there buddy.Opposes vicious dog breeds.
How many more children do you need mauled to death to make you realize pitbulls are dangerous?
Yeah, I know with the right owner they can be lovable and fun, but let's face it: the majority of pit owners are trash.
When you have an overwhelmingly large group of irresponsible owners with dangerous, ill-trained animals, innocent people will get hurt.Opposes marijuana.
Sorry bro, but not everyone wants to frolic in your drug-addled fantasies about getting high non-stop every day.
Drugs ruin lives, and if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have rehab clinics.
The only difference between marijuana and any other drug is that it can't kill you, but that's not to say it can't ruin your life.
How many people started with weed before moving on to more powerful drugs?
It IS a gateway drug.
It gives you a safe taste of what's out there and then you'll want the harder stuff that will get you higher and last longer.
If you think that isn't true, talk to a recovering addict.I don't know about you, but as a father I'd like to keep dangerous dogs and illegal drugs away from my children.
You should think about the well-being of other people than yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058866</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257083160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no. Your wrong. Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech. This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions, such as in politics may get you killed. The fact is, while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses, the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable. The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone.  As well, a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically trace every single thing you have ever said. If they found you had liberal views and wanted to to regulate corporations they may not hire you. Here technically no law was broken but you are being punished by speech. As long as the option for anonymity does not exist, free speech does not existant on any topic of any real world importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no .
Your wrong .
Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech .
This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions , such as in politics may get you killed .
The fact is , while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses , the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable .
The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone .
As well , a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically trace every single thing you have ever said .
If they found you had liberal views and wanted to to regulate corporations they may not hire you .
Here technically no law was broken but you are being punished by speech .
As long as the option for anonymity does not exist , free speech does not existant on any topic of any real world importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no.
Your wrong.
Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech.
This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions, such as in politics may get you killed.
The fact is, while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses, the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable.
The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone.
As well, a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically trace every single thing you have ever said.
If they found you had liberal views and wanted to to regulate corporations they may not hire you.
Here technically no law was broken but you are being punished by speech.
As long as the option for anonymity does not exist, free speech does not existant on any topic of any real world importance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064728</id>
	<title>Re:When will some people learn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will people learn that it doesn't matter if some random kide sends you a message? I've seen all kind of crap in my time, half of it directed at me, but I'm not dumb enough to take it seriously. Sometimes, it's not the bully's fault, but the "victim"'s fault for being too sensitive.</p><p>Sure, you shouldn't go around "SCREW YOU"ing random people, but it shouldn't be punishable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will people learn that it does n't matter if some random kide sends you a message ?
I 've seen all kind of crap in my time , half of it directed at me , but I 'm not dumb enough to take it seriously .
Sometimes , it 's not the bully 's fault , but the " victim " 's fault for being too sensitive.Sure , you should n't go around " SCREW YOU " ing random people , but it should n't be punishable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will people learn that it doesn't matter if some random kide sends you a message?
I've seen all kind of crap in my time, half of it directed at me, but I'm not dumb enough to take it seriously.
Sometimes, it's not the bully's fault, but the "victim"'s fault for being too sensitive.Sure, you shouldn't go around "SCREW YOU"ing random people, but it shouldn't be punishable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069798</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect, it really seems like you're the one who doesn't understand the legal system. It's all about "money" my ass. You've never heard of equitable relief or injunctive relief?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect , it really seems like you 're the one who does n't understand the legal system .
It 's all about " money " my ass .
You 've never heard of equitable relief or injunctive relief ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect, it really seems like you're the one who doesn't understand the legal system.
It's all about "money" my ass.
You've never heard of equitable relief or injunctive relief?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061806</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we care?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1257097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are you saying that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not in fact a US centric website? Or are you just stupid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are you saying that / .
is not in fact a US centric website ?
Or are you just stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are you saying that /.
is not in fact a US centric website?
Or are you just stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059096</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257085140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to protection from extra-legal reprecussions, I would include quasi-legal such as what amounts to a SLAPP suit. That is, the judge should consider whether a potential lawsuit could have any merit.</p><p>However, in this case, It looks like the judge made the right decision. Following the link in TFA, it's clear that the offending comments had nothing to do with legitimate political discussion and were clearly intended to be hurtful and offensive.</p><p>When I first saw the headline, it sounded like the implementation of a suggestion I saw here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. That is, that the poster's comments would be revealed to HIS mother so he could be properly ashamed of his actions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to protection from extra-legal reprecussions , I would include quasi-legal such as what amounts to a SLAPP suit .
That is , the judge should consider whether a potential lawsuit could have any merit.However , in this case , It looks like the judge made the right decision .
Following the link in TFA , it 's clear that the offending comments had nothing to do with legitimate political discussion and were clearly intended to be hurtful and offensive.When I first saw the headline , it sounded like the implementation of a suggestion I saw here on / .
That is , that the poster 's comments would be revealed to HIS mother so he could be properly ashamed of his actions : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to protection from extra-legal reprecussions, I would include quasi-legal such as what amounts to a SLAPP suit.
That is, the judge should consider whether a potential lawsuit could have any merit.However, in this case, It looks like the judge made the right decision.
Following the link in TFA, it's clear that the offending comments had nothing to do with legitimate political discussion and were clearly intended to be hurtful and offensive.When I first saw the headline, it sounded like the implementation of a suggestion I saw here on /.
That is, that the poster's comments would be revealed to HIS mother so he could be properly ashamed of his actions :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058720</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.</p></div><p>Sorry, but you're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works.  She wants to know if he has any money, if it would be monetarily profitable to sue.  Its an investment decision.  If he/she is "judgement-proof" or "rich enough", she won't bother.  If "mother" can ruin their life simply by filing suit, "mother" will.  The justice system is all about money...</p><p>Guarantee step #2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.</p><p>In a way, its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow, because either she'll discover theres no point in suing, or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account.  Or, if he/she gets blackmailed, there is now a legal trail showing mother did it.  An effective way to win the battle and lose the war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the poster is autistic , disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses , the mother might decide to leave well alone.Sorry , but you 're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works .
She wants to know if he has any money , if it would be monetarily profitable to sue .
Its an investment decision .
If he/she is " judgement-proof " or " rich enough " , she wo n't bother .
If " mother " can ruin their life simply by filing suit , " mother " will .
The justice system is all about money...Guarantee step # 2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.In a way , its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow , because either she 'll discover theres no point in suing , or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt , because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account .
Or , if he/she gets blackmailed , there is now a legal trail showing mother did it .
An effective way to win the battle and lose the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.Sorry, but you're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works.
She wants to know if he has any money, if it would be monetarily profitable to sue.
Its an investment decision.
If he/she is "judgement-proof" or "rich enough", she won't bother.
If "mother" can ruin their life simply by filing suit, "mother" will.
The justice system is all about money...Guarantee step #2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.In a way, its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow, because either she'll discover theres no point in suing, or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account.
Or, if he/she gets blackmailed, there is now a legal trail showing mother did it.
An effective way to win the battle and lose the war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058684</id>
	<title>It's all in the details...</title>
	<author>avatar\_charlie</author>
	<datestamp>1257081480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself; but rather, decided on a case-by-case basis with other, more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors.
<br> <br>
In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story. There could be additional comments that were libelous, or simply hateful and abusive. In the US (your jurisdiction may vary) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures. (In other words, if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question, the level of protection is lesser; on the other hand, if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece, then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater.)
<br> <br>
In short, the internet is not, nor should it be, an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse. By the same token, where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed "abusive" to the supporters of those figures, the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.
<br> <br>
All that said, if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to "Hey don't attack my mom" followed by "you're an idiot", then if I were the judge, I'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights. If we have the full context here, this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself ; but rather , decided on a case-by-case basis with other , more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors .
In this case , TFA does n't get into the specific nature of the comments made ; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details , but we still do n't have the fullest possible context to this story .
There could be additional comments that were libelous , or simply hateful and abusive .
In the US ( your jurisdiction may vary ) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures .
( In other words , if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question , the level of protection is lesser ; on the other hand , if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece , then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater .
) In short , the internet is not , nor should it be , an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse .
By the same token , where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed " abusive " to the supporters of those figures , the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law .
All that said , if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to " Hey do n't attack my mom " followed by " you 're an idiot " , then if I were the judge , I 'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights .
If we have the full context here , this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself; but rather, decided on a case-by-case basis with other, more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors.
In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story.
There could be additional comments that were libelous, or simply hateful and abusive.
In the US (your jurisdiction may vary) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures.
(In other words, if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question, the level of protection is lesser; on the other hand, if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece, then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater.
)
 
In short, the internet is not, nor should it be, an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse.
By the same token, where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed "abusive" to the supporters of those figures, the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.
All that said, if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to "Hey don't attack my mom" followed by "you're an idiot", then if I were the judge, I'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights.
If we have the full context here, this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30068402</id>
	<title>Re:Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1257086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some <b>anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual</b> is a big issue.</p></div><p>Am I the only one hoping that her son stumbles across 4chan? Oh, the shenanigans that would ensue!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.Am I the only one hoping that her son stumbles across 4chan ?
Oh , the shenanigans that would ensue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.Am I the only one hoping that her son stumbles across 4chan?
Oh, the shenanigans that would ensue!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058838</id>
	<title>Re:Feeling left out?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised.</p><p>First there were the Celtic-Britons.  Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s).  Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s).  A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000).  And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s).  You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised.First there were the Celtic-Britons .
Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls ( 100-300s ) .
Then another infusion of Angles , Saxons , and Jutes ( 500s ) .
A steady invasion of Vikings ( Danelaw-800-1000 ) .
And finally Norman-French ( 1100-1200s ) .
You 'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised.First there were the Celtic-Britons.
Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s).
Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s).
A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000).
And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s).
You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059318</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Machupo</author>
	<datestamp>1257086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that the judge should include an analysis of the anonymous poster's financial portfolio as well?  I'm sure that would be a lot more helpful to this woman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that the judge should include an analysis of the anonymous poster 's financial portfolio as well ?
I 'm sure that would be a lot more helpful to this woman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that the judge should include an analysis of the anonymous poster's financial portfolio as well?
I'm sure that would be a lot more helpful to this woman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058796</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only as US-centric as you interpret it to be.</p><p>If you can't find anything in that story that could pertain to your life, perhaps you're just lacking in the creative thinking department.</p><p>Or, perhaps you don't believe that anything not pertaining to your life is worth discussing?</p><p>Or, perhaps, maybe, possibly, there are American citizens (who only could find this article not worth whining about) who don't actually reside in the U.S.? Or work unconventional hours?</p><p>There are plenty of reasons to think a story isn't worth the front page, but bitching about the country of incidence based on the time of day is pretty lame...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only as US-centric as you interpret it to be.If you ca n't find anything in that story that could pertain to your life , perhaps you 're just lacking in the creative thinking department.Or , perhaps you do n't believe that anything not pertaining to your life is worth discussing ? Or , perhaps , maybe , possibly , there are American citizens ( who only could find this article not worth whining about ) who do n't actually reside in the U.S. ?
Or work unconventional hours ? There are plenty of reasons to think a story is n't worth the front page , but bitching about the country of incidence based on the time of day is pretty lame.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only as US-centric as you interpret it to be.If you can't find anything in that story that could pertain to your life, perhaps you're just lacking in the creative thinking department.Or, perhaps you don't believe that anything not pertaining to your life is worth discussing?Or, perhaps, maybe, possibly, there are American citizens (who only could find this article not worth whining about) who don't actually reside in the U.S.?
Or work unconventional hours?There are plenty of reasons to think a story isn't worth the front page, but bitching about the country of incidence based on the time of day is pretty lame...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30078894</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1258020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, yeah..  especially if this account (also by Hipcheck16) is accurate:</p><blockquote><div><p>Hey Daily Herald - why don't you investigate whose campaign has been anonymously calling residents and stating that two of the other candidates are running anti-Semitic campaigns?</p><p>Interestingly, the callers weren't smart enough to realize that one of the candidates they accuse of being anti-Semitic is actually JEWISH, and the other is not Jewish, but has a JEWISH brother-in-law, several close friends who are JEWISH and the endorsement of at least 5 local elected officials, including Sid Mathias and David Stolman, who are also JEWISH? Does that seem like someone who would be anti-Semitic?</p><p>How low does a candidate have to sink to win this election? As if tearfully pandering for votes at Dominick's last Saturday and accusing other candidates and their children of stealing signs aren't enough, they now have to resort to the most vile and disgusting- and untrue- allegations that could ever be raised in a political campaign. Even if she gets elected, her true nature has now been revealed.</p><p>People who live in glass houses should not throw Stones. Only desperate and unqualified candidates do that. But that's been an issue throughout this election, hasn't it?</p></div></blockquote><p>How puzzling that she's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , yeah.. especially if this account ( also by Hipcheck16 ) is accurate : Hey Daily Herald - why do n't you investigate whose campaign has been anonymously calling residents and stating that two of the other candidates are running anti-Semitic campaigns ? Interestingly , the callers were n't smart enough to realize that one of the candidates they accuse of being anti-Semitic is actually JEWISH , and the other is not Jewish , but has a JEWISH brother-in-law , several close friends who are JEWISH and the endorsement of at least 5 local elected officials , including Sid Mathias and David Stolman , who are also JEWISH ?
Does that seem like someone who would be anti-Semitic ? How low does a candidate have to sink to win this election ?
As if tearfully pandering for votes at Dominick 's last Saturday and accusing other candidates and their children of stealing signs are n't enough , they now have to resort to the most vile and disgusting- and untrue- allegations that could ever be raised in a political campaign .
Even if she gets elected , her true nature has now been revealed.People who live in glass houses should not throw Stones .
Only desperate and unqualified candidates do that .
But that 's been an issue throughout this election , has n't it ? How puzzling that she 's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, yeah..  especially if this account (also by Hipcheck16) is accurate:Hey Daily Herald - why don't you investigate whose campaign has been anonymously calling residents and stating that two of the other candidates are running anti-Semitic campaigns?Interestingly, the callers weren't smart enough to realize that one of the candidates they accuse of being anti-Semitic is actually JEWISH, and the other is not Jewish, but has a JEWISH brother-in-law, several close friends who are JEWISH and the endorsement of at least 5 local elected officials, including Sid Mathias and David Stolman, who are also JEWISH?
Does that seem like someone who would be anti-Semitic?How low does a candidate have to sink to win this election?
As if tearfully pandering for votes at Dominick's last Saturday and accusing other candidates and their children of stealing signs aren't enough, they now have to resort to the most vile and disgusting- and untrue- allegations that could ever be raised in a political campaign.
Even if she gets elected, her true nature has now been revealed.People who live in glass houses should not throw Stones.
Only desperate and unqualified candidates do that.
But that's been an issue throughout this election, hasn't it?How puzzling that she's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059330</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we care?</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1257087000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you should just get off the US internet and use your own internet for a while.  Duh!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should just get off the US internet and use your own internet for a while .
Duh ! : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should just get off the US internet and use your own internet for a while.
Duh! :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063986</id>
	<title>Re:Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and we have our winning post of the thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and we have our winning post of the thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and we have our winning post of the thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060356</id>
	<title>Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1257091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, cut the "think of the children" crap, even 12 year olds say far worse things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , cut the " think of the children " crap , even 12 year olds say far worse things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, cut the "think of the children" crap, even 12 year olds say far worse things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059068</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US.  Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?</p></div><p>You could always trot on over to slashdot.uk</p><p>Oh wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US .
Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day ? You could always trot on over to slashdot.ukOh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US.
Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?You could always trot on over to slashdot.ukOh wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063172</id>
	<title>Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1257103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the mother allowing her son to participate in an adult forum?  Why is the news site allowing under age posters on their site?  I find it odd that both the parent aren't being held equally responsible for exposing the minor to adult language in an adult forum especially in light that the discussion is political and those always get heated.  People say offensive and rude remarks in the heat of political discourse.  If this anonymous poster went over the line where does that place Fox News pundits who disparaging remarks about people continually.</p><p>I think it's a huge stretch to label that remark as lewd, or rather more lewd than what that minor is legally exposed to on television, news, or entertainment media.  I do believe in being responsible for ones actions and words, however, this seems (similar to Palin and Letterman) to continue a current trend where ordinary people are at risk for criticizing political figures and their representatives or constituents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the mother allowing her son to participate in an adult forum ?
Why is the news site allowing under age posters on their site ?
I find it odd that both the parent are n't being held equally responsible for exposing the minor to adult language in an adult forum especially in light that the discussion is political and those always get heated .
People say offensive and rude remarks in the heat of political discourse .
If this anonymous poster went over the line where does that place Fox News pundits who disparaging remarks about people continually.I think it 's a huge stretch to label that remark as lewd , or rather more lewd than what that minor is legally exposed to on television , news , or entertainment media .
I do believe in being responsible for ones actions and words , however , this seems ( similar to Palin and Letterman ) to continue a current trend where ordinary people are at risk for criticizing political figures and their representatives or constituents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the mother allowing her son to participate in an adult forum?
Why is the news site allowing under age posters on their site?
I find it odd that both the parent aren't being held equally responsible for exposing the minor to adult language in an adult forum especially in light that the discussion is political and those always get heated.
People say offensive and rude remarks in the heat of political discourse.
If this anonymous poster went over the line where does that place Fox News pundits who disparaging remarks about people continually.I think it's a huge stretch to label that remark as lewd, or rather more lewd than what that minor is legally exposed to on television, news, or entertainment media.
I do believe in being responsible for ones actions and words, however, this seems (similar to Palin and Letterman) to continue a current trend where ordinary people are at risk for criticizing political figures and their representatives or constituents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058136</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can always drop a civil suit. Personally I don't think a judge should be ruling on this until a suit is brought, otherwise can I just get a judge to unmask the identity of anyone online who says something mean about me so I can figure out if it's worth suing them or not? If the suit has merit then a Judge should have no problem with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always drop a civil suit .
Personally I do n't think a judge should be ruling on this until a suit is brought , otherwise can I just get a judge to unmask the identity of anyone online who says something mean about me so I can figure out if it 's worth suing them or not ?
If the suit has merit then a Judge should have no problem with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always drop a civil suit.
Personally I don't think a judge should be ruling on this until a suit is brought, otherwise can I just get a judge to unmask the identity of anyone online who says something mean about me so I can figure out if it's worth suing them or not?
If the suit has merit then a Judge should have no problem with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30084368</id>
	<title>Why didn't the newspaper resist ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258145160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my view the local newspaper is hardly resisting the plaintiff, they could have done a better job.</p><p>If it was posted on a blog instead of newspaper website, plaintiffs would have to drag Google or WordPress to court. I guess that would be <b>much</b> harder than dragging the friendly small local newspaper to court.</p><p>See <a href="http://is.gd/4Prqo" title="is.gd" rel="nofollow">blogger resisting search</a> [is.gd] somewhere in Asia... it is still simmering there though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my view the local newspaper is hardly resisting the plaintiff , they could have done a better job.If it was posted on a blog instead of newspaper website , plaintiffs would have to drag Google or WordPress to court .
I guess that would be much harder than dragging the friendly small local newspaper to court.See blogger resisting search [ is.gd ] somewhere in Asia... it is still simmering there though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my view the local newspaper is hardly resisting the plaintiff, they could have done a better job.If it was posted on a blog instead of newspaper website, plaintiffs would have to drag Google or WordPress to court.
I guess that would be much harder than dragging the friendly small local newspaper to court.See blogger resisting search [is.gd] somewhere in Asia... it is still simmering there though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059184</id>
	<title>Re:Feeling left out?</title>
	<author>jareth-0205</author>
	<datestamp>1257085920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."</p></div></blockquote><p>Heh, perhaps we're all just more successful and don't need to apply to dating websites...?</p><p>Urgh, can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted , reports the Daily Telegraph .
" Heh , perhaps we 're all just more successful and do n't need to apply to dating websites... ? Urgh , can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph.
"Heh, perhaps we're all just more successful and don't need to apply to dating websites...?Urgh, can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059012</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we care?</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1257084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a US based site, with it's webmasters who are US citizens.
The FAQ has a section on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a US based site , with it 's webmasters who are US citizens .
The FAQ has a section on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a US based site, with it's webmasters who are US citizens.
The FAQ has a section on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</id>
	<title>Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really should click more...</p><p><i>Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"</i></p><p><i>The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.</i></p><p><i>Stone said the comments crossed the line.</i></p><p><i>"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said. "There was no joke, there was no punch line."</i></p><p><i>Stephen Tyma, an attorney representing Stone, said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate, but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.</i></p><p>Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck' - if he did \_not\_ know the child was a minor</p><p>If he \_did\_ know Stone's son was a minor, knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really should click more...Declining an invitation to pay a visit , Hipcheck16 posted a response that said , according to court documents , " Seems like you 're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before , or do they usually invite you to their house ?
" The post then continues with references to the boy 's " mommy , " saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election , according to court records.Stone said the comments crossed the line .
" I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that , " she said .
" There was no joke , there was no punch line .
" Stephen Tyma , an attorney representing Stone , said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate , but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck ' - if he did \ _not \ _ know the child was a minorIf he \ _did \ _ know Stone 's son was a minor , knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really should click more...Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?
"The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.Stone said the comments crossed the line.
"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said.
"There was no joke, there was no punch line.
"Stephen Tyma, an attorney representing Stone, said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate, but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck' - if he did \_not\_ know the child was a minorIf he \_did\_ know Stone's son was a minor, knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058462</id>
	<title>Re:When will some people learn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is anonymity... and then there is anonymity...  if you have a little smarts and a little know-how you can be almost impossible to track without prior knowledge of when the posting is going to take place or much more security than a newspaper site uses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is anonymity... and then there is anonymity... if you have a little smarts and a little know-how you can be almost impossible to track without prior knowledge of when the posting is going to take place or much more security than a newspaper site uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is anonymity... and then there is anonymity...  if you have a little smarts and a little know-how you can be almost impossible to track without prior knowledge of when the posting is going to take place or much more security than a newspaper site uses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058388</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity</p></div><p>The right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is intrinsic and by implying that somehow it replaces a need for anonymity is a ridiculous straw-man argument. On the contrary we should ensure there is always a channel for anonymous communication since eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymityThe right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ) .
It is intrinsic and by implying that somehow it replaces a need for anonymity is a ridiculous straw-man argument .
On the contrary we should ensure there is always a channel for anonymous communication since eventually , and inevitably , any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know , it could be your rights on the firing line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymityThe right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It is intrinsic and by implying that somehow it replaces a need for anonymity is a ridiculous straw-man argument.
On the contrary we should ensure there is always a channel for anonymous communication since eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060806</id>
	<title>Watch out Slashdot!</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1257093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're next! I'll get all you slimy coward names! MWAHAHA!</p><p>By the way, have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're next !
I 'll get all you slimy coward names !
MWAHAHA ! By the way , have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're next!
I'll get all you slimy coward names!
MWAHAHA!By the way, have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30076334</id>
	<title>Re:Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1258054380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.</p><p>The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.</p></div><p>No, the thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is that the court is letting her get away with it.  If she isn't suing, or "hasn't decided to sue yet", then getting his information only serves the purpose of harassment.  If the post in question was truly not protected free speech, there should be a legal case (whether civil or criminal) prior to discovery.  This sets a dangerous precedent for anyone wishing to criticize politicians anonymously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing ' is this woman 's attitude and the fact that she does n't have anything better to do.No , the thing that is 'deeply disturbing ' is that the court is letting her get away with it .
If she is n't suing , or " has n't decided to sue yet " , then getting his information only serves the purpose of harassment .
If the post in question was truly not protected free speech , there should be a legal case ( whether civil or criminal ) prior to discovery .
This sets a dangerous precedent for anyone wishing to criticize politicians anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.No, the thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is that the court is letting her get away with it.
If she isn't suing, or "hasn't decided to sue yet", then getting his information only serves the purpose of harassment.
If the post in question was truly not protected free speech, there should be a legal case (whether civil or criminal) prior to discovery.
This sets a dangerous precedent for anyone wishing to criticize politicians anonymously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060320</id>
	<title>Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"</p></div></blockquote><p>This is the internet. Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.</p><p>People who feel otherwise, should leave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Declining an invitation to pay a visit , Hipcheck16 posted a response that said , according to court documents , " Seems like you 're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before , or do they usually invite you to their house ?
" This is the internet .
Around these parts , statements like that barely qualify as impertinent , let alone lewd.People who feel otherwise , should leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?
"This is the internet.
Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.People who feel otherwise, should leave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494</id>
	<title>Just Playing Politics</title>
	<author>Intractable</author>
	<datestamp>1257079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation .
- The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16 .
This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary .
And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation &amp; political reputation.
- The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16.
This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary.
And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069324</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>adamdoyle</author>
	<datestamp>1257096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you don't know the size of the wallet of a John Doe... if the John Doe can't afford to pay you if he wins, then you've just spent time and money on legal fees in return for NOTHING.<p><div class="quote"><p>You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, <b>laywers get their fees</b>, everyone goes home.</p></div><p>Yeah that's the problem - you introduce many extra hours/dollars in legal fees and the spare time of your own (which, if you have a job, amounts to even more monetary losses).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't know the size of the wallet of a John Doe... if the John Doe ca n't afford to pay you if he wins , then you 've just spent time and money on legal fees in return for NOTHING.You file a motion to dismiss , the defense agrees , laywers get their fees , everyone goes home.Yeah that 's the problem - you introduce many extra hours/dollars in legal fees and the spare time of your own ( which , if you have a job , amounts to even more monetary losses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't know the size of the wallet of a John Doe... if the John Doe can't afford to pay you if he wins, then you've just spent time and money on legal fees in return for NOTHING.You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.Yeah that's the problem - you introduce many extra hours/dollars in legal fees and the spare time of your own (which, if you have a job, amounts to even more monetary losses).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328</id>
	<title>Feeling left out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.</p><p>"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.</p><p>Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."</p><p><a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu=" title="ananova.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu=</a> [ananova.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some hot news for the rest of the world .
" Britons are among the ugliest people in the world , according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful ' people to join.Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted , reports the Daily Telegraph .
" http : //www.ananova.com/news/story/sm \ _3557668.html ? menu = [ ananova.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.
"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph.
"http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm\_3557668.html?menu= [ananova.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046</id>
	<title>Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse? I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.</p><p>It appears that his mom still dresses him.<br><a href="http://electlisastone.com/images/stone\_family.jpg" title="electlisastone.com" rel="nofollow">http://electlisastone.com/images/stone\_family.jpg</a> [electlisastone.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma 's boy and deserved the online abuse ?
I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.It appears that his mom still dresses him.http : //electlisastone.com/images/stone \ _family.jpg [ electlisastone.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse?
I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.It appears that his mom still dresses him.http://electlisastone.com/images/stone\_family.jpg [electlisastone.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064602</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1257108360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UDHR can go fuck itself. <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1233622386.shtml" title="volokh.com">http://volokh.com/posts/1233622386.shtml</a> [volokh.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UDHR can go fuck itself .
http : //volokh.com/posts/1233622386.shtml [ volokh.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UDHR can go fuck itself.
http://volokh.com/posts/1233622386.shtml [volokh.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060148</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it seems that she's not alone. This was the most disturbing comment that I saw on the original page:</p><p>"&ldquo;Freedom of speech&rdquo; is most frequently used by racists and criminals to deceive others. It&rsquo;s an outmoded concept and it needs to go. There is no reason in today&rsquo;s civilized world why anyone should need to say anything that isn&rsquo;t supported by the majority of the public and the body of science. We have passed the point where legitimate thinking is suppressed without understanding, so the only thinking that would be suppressed is broken criminal thinking that should be suppressed. The Constitution is no longer a model for a &ldquo;more perfect union&rdquo; - We have the More Perfect Union right here - right now - and the Constitution is now just a hindrance. People do not need the right to own murder weapons or spout racist nonsense. It needs to go."</p><p>Unbelievable. I had to respond (post 15)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it seems that she 's not alone .
This was the most disturbing comment that I saw on the original page : "    Freedom of speech    is most frequently used by racists and criminals to deceive others .
It    s an outmoded concept and it needs to go .
There is no reason in today    s civilized world why anyone should need to say anything that isn    t supported by the majority of the public and the body of science .
We have passed the point where legitimate thinking is suppressed without understanding , so the only thinking that would be suppressed is broken criminal thinking that should be suppressed .
The Constitution is no longer a model for a    more perfect union    - We have the More Perfect Union right here - right now - and the Constitution is now just a hindrance .
People do not need the right to own murder weapons or spout racist nonsense .
It needs to go. " Unbelievable .
I had to respond ( post 15 ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it seems that she's not alone.
This was the most disturbing comment that I saw on the original page:"“Freedom of speech” is most frequently used by racists and criminals to deceive others.
It’s an outmoded concept and it needs to go.
There is no reason in today’s civilized world why anyone should need to say anything that isn’t supported by the majority of the public and the body of science.
We have passed the point where legitimate thinking is suppressed without understanding, so the only thinking that would be suppressed is broken criminal thinking that should be suppressed.
The Constitution is no longer a model for a “more perfect union” - We have the More Perfect Union right here - right now - and the Constitution is now just a hindrance.
People do not need the right to own murder weapons or spout racist nonsense.
It needs to go."Unbelievable.
I had to respond (post 15)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059338</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions"</p><p>Why just extra-legal repercussions? There have been many occasions through the centuries and plenty in recent years even where the legal system in the US has been abused to cause undeserved harm to someone. Plenty of times people have been bankrupted or given a bad name through the legal system when they were in fact not wrong. A good example is someone accused of rape but who is innocent, those people often take physical and verbal abuse to the point they have to change their identity and move away from their family in friends even after being proven completely innocent.</p><p>No, the fact is, even legal (but still equally wrong) repercussions can be just as damaging, hence the importance of anonymity. Anyone pushing for political change in China or Iran can attest to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions " Why just extra-legal repercussions ?
There have been many occasions through the centuries and plenty in recent years even where the legal system in the US has been abused to cause undeserved harm to someone .
Plenty of times people have been bankrupted or given a bad name through the legal system when they were in fact not wrong .
A good example is someone accused of rape but who is innocent , those people often take physical and verbal abuse to the point they have to change their identity and move away from their family in friends even after being proven completely innocent.No , the fact is , even legal ( but still equally wrong ) repercussions can be just as damaging , hence the importance of anonymity .
Anyone pushing for political change in China or Iran can attest to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions"Why just extra-legal repercussions?
There have been many occasions through the centuries and plenty in recent years even where the legal system in the US has been abused to cause undeserved harm to someone.
Plenty of times people have been bankrupted or given a bad name through the legal system when they were in fact not wrong.
A good example is someone accused of rape but who is innocent, those people often take physical and verbal abuse to the point they have to change their identity and move away from their family in friends even after being proven completely innocent.No, the fact is, even legal (but still equally wrong) repercussions can be just as damaging, hence the importance of anonymity.
Anyone pushing for political change in China or Iran can attest to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.</p> </div><p>No, she doesn't.  You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.</p></div><p>No, there is an escape - you drop the case.  It's not hard.  You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.</p><p>PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is surely the correct decision .
In order to decide whether to sue , the mother needs to know who she might be suing .
No , she does n't .
You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name .
If the poster is autistic , disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses , the mother might decide to leave well alone .
If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit , then there is no escape from legal proceedings.No , there is an escape - you drop the case .
It 's not hard .
You file a motion to dismiss , the defense agrees , laywers get their fees , everyone goes home.PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is surely the correct decision.
In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
No, she doesn't.
You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.
If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.No, there is an escape - you drop the case.
It's not hard.
You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060704</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, have to know if there's money to be made.</p><blockquote><div><p>One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It doesn't, actually. Freedom of speech means that the Government can't imprison me for saying something they don't like (but they <em>can</em> send an assassin after me if they <em>really</em> dislike me, altought this is one of the areas where Russians are far ahead). Anyone else - employers, businessmen, Rober Murdoch - can use their power to harass me, or simply refuse to do business with me or anyone who will.</p><p>The only way to have freedom of speech is to hide your identity in such a way as to make it impossible for the powerful to target you. If you don't have the freedom to say something offensive, you don't have freedom to say anything - because <em>everything</em> is offensive to <em>someone</em>.</p><p>This is why I run a Tor and Freenet nodes. Might not be much, but it's the best I can do to help others be anonymous.</p><blockquote><div><p>Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Exactly! Only the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander\_Hamilton" title="wikipedia.org">foulest</a> [wikipedia.org]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Madison" title="wikipedia.org">of</a> [wikipedia.org]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Jay" title="wikipedia.org">traitors</a> [wikipedia.org] would wish to publish their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist\_Papers" title="wikipedia.org">foul offensive drivel</a> [wikipedia.org] anonymously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is surely the correct decision .
In order to decide whether to sue , the mother needs to know who she might be suing .
Yeah , have to know if there 's money to be made.One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful .
It does n't , actually .
Freedom of speech means that the Government ca n't imprison me for saying something they do n't like ( but they can send an assassin after me if they really dislike me , altought this is one of the areas where Russians are far ahead ) .
Anyone else - employers , businessmen , Rober Murdoch - can use their power to harass me , or simply refuse to do business with me or anyone who will.The only way to have freedom of speech is to hide your identity in such a way as to make it impossible for the powerful to target you .
If you do n't have the freedom to say something offensive , you do n't have freedom to say anything - because everything is offensive to someone.This is why I run a Tor and Freenet nodes .
Might not be much , but it 's the best I can do to help others be anonymous.Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive , anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood .
Exactly ! Only the foulest [ wikipedia.org ] of [ wikipedia.org ] traitors [ wikipedia.org ] would wish to publish their foul offensive drivel [ wikipedia.org ] anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is surely the correct decision.
In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
Yeah, have to know if there's money to be made.One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful.
It doesn't, actually.
Freedom of speech means that the Government can't imprison me for saying something they don't like (but they can send an assassin after me if they really dislike me, altought this is one of the areas where Russians are far ahead).
Anyone else - employers, businessmen, Rober Murdoch - can use their power to harass me, or simply refuse to do business with me or anyone who will.The only way to have freedom of speech is to hide your identity in such a way as to make it impossible for the powerful to target you.
If you don't have the freedom to say something offensive, you don't have freedom to say anything - because everything is offensive to someone.This is why I run a Tor and Freenet nodes.
Might not be much, but it's the best I can do to help others be anonymous.Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
Exactly! Only the foulest [wikipedia.org]
of [wikipedia.org]
traitors [wikipedia.org] would wish to publish their foul offensive drivel [wikipedia.org] anonymously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058810</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1257082680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood."<br> <br>

Ummm... yeah dude, it does. Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we cannot say in public. There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately, like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, bellow "WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?!" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive , anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood .
" Ummm... yeah dude , it does .
Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we can not say in public .
There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately , like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket , bellow " WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT ? !
" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
" 

Ummm... yeah dude, it does.
Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we cannot say in public.
There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately, like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, bellow "WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?!
" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048</id>
	<title>TFA sucks</title>
	<author>the pickle</author>
	<datestamp>1257090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred" title="citmedialaw.org">http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred</a> [citmedialaw.org]</p><p>is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.</p><p>p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred [ citmedialaw.org ] is much better -- it 's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific " deeply disturbing " comments were .
Sometimes the hometown major newspaper is n't actually the best place to get articles , Slashdot.p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred [citmedialaw.org]is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were.
Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059642</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have pointed out, she should sue first and *then* get the name of the poster.  Then, if she decides that the person isn't worth suing (perhaps they're mentally ill or willing to settle amicably out of court), she can drop the civil lawsuit and it all goes away.  It is only if criminal charges were filed that she wouldn't be able to back out of it.</p><p>Freedom of speech using your name is important, but freedom of speech using a pseudonym or being completely anonymous is important also.  The First Amendment doesn't read "Congress shall make no law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... abridging the freedom of speech when the person uses their real name."  It reads (in part): "Congress shall make no law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... abridging the freedom of speech".  Anonymous speech is included in this.</p><p>Finally, this wasn't graffiti.  Graffiti implies writing done somewhere where writing wasn't wanted.  (On a store's wall, for example.)  This was posted to a newspaper's comments section.  In fact, the comments took place in an online conversation between "hipcheck16" and this woman's son.  Hipcheck16 did seem to make some bad insinuations, but if the woman took that much offense to them, she should file a lawsuit first and *then* get his identity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out , she should sue first and * then * get the name of the poster .
Then , if she decides that the person is n't worth suing ( perhaps they 're mentally ill or willing to settle amicably out of court ) , she can drop the civil lawsuit and it all goes away .
It is only if criminal charges were filed that she would n't be able to back out of it.Freedom of speech using your name is important , but freedom of speech using a pseudonym or being completely anonymous is important also .
The First Amendment does n't read " Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech when the person uses their real name .
" It reads ( in part ) : " Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech " .
Anonymous speech is included in this.Finally , this was n't graffiti .
Graffiti implies writing done somewhere where writing was n't wanted .
( On a store 's wall , for example .
) This was posted to a newspaper 's comments section .
In fact , the comments took place in an online conversation between " hipcheck16 " and this woman 's son .
Hipcheck16 did seem to make some bad insinuations , but if the woman took that much offense to them , she should file a lawsuit first and * then * get his identity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have pointed out, she should sue first and *then* get the name of the poster.
Then, if she decides that the person isn't worth suing (perhaps they're mentally ill or willing to settle amicably out of court), she can drop the civil lawsuit and it all goes away.
It is only if criminal charges were filed that she wouldn't be able to back out of it.Freedom of speech using your name is important, but freedom of speech using a pseudonym or being completely anonymous is important also.
The First Amendment doesn't read "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech when the person uses their real name.
"  It reads (in part): "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".
Anonymous speech is included in this.Finally, this wasn't graffiti.
Graffiti implies writing done somewhere where writing wasn't wanted.
(On a store's wall, for example.
)  This was posted to a newspaper's comments section.
In fact, the comments took place in an online conversation between "hipcheck16" and this woman's son.
Hipcheck16 did seem to make some bad insinuations, but if the woman took that much offense to them, she should file a lawsuit first and *then* get his identity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106</id>
	<title>Why do we care?</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1257074820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US.  Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US .
Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US.
Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058448</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>chr1z</author>
	<datestamp>1257078960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd comment, but then she'll get ME too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd comment , but then she 'll get ME too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd comment, but then she'll get ME too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069814</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1257101820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was no slam on autistic individuals. Judging by your reaction, it really appears that you thinks "autist" is an insult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no slam on autistic individuals .
Judging by your reaction , it really appears that you thinks " autist " is an insult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no slam on autistic individuals.
Judging by your reaction, it really appears that you thinks "autist" is an insult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061906</id>
	<title>Because that can ONLY mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the only reason to invite someone to your house, or to go to their house is sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the only reason to invite someone to your house , or to go to their house is sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the only reason to invite someone to your house, or to go to their house is sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064090</id>
	<title>Re:TFA sucks</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1257106380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Legal scholars" wrote:<br><br>"Lisa Stone, on the other hand, is even worse. She is lashing out like a crazy-white-lady mom..."?<br><br>Seems like the original article has more professionalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Legal scholars " wrote : " Lisa Stone , on the other hand , is even worse .
She is lashing out like a crazy-white-lady mom... " ? Seems like the original article has more professionalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Legal scholars" wrote:"Lisa Stone, on the other hand, is even worse.
She is lashing out like a crazy-white-lady mom..."?Seems like the original article has more professionalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236</id>
	<title>When will some people learn...</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online .
If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will .
Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she does n't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online.
If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will.
Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058428</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions. Responsibility means facing the consequences of the decisions you make. You can't have one without the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions .
Responsibility means facing the consequences of the decisions you make .
You ca n't have one without the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions.
Responsibility means facing the consequences of the decisions you make.
You can't have one without the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061672</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.</p></div><p>Am I to read from your words that anonymity in debates is OK when the position argued is rational and good, which by implication does not extend to positions that are irrational and evil, and the identities of proponents of the latter would be revealed, perhaps adjudicated by a panel of people the state recognises as 'good' so that they will protect the 'good' opinions and be able to fight against the 'evil' opinions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when , for instance , a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.Am I to read from your words that anonymity in debates is OK when the position argued is rational and good , which by implication does not extend to positions that are irrational and evil , and the identities of proponents of the latter would be revealed , perhaps adjudicated by a panel of people the state recognises as 'good ' so that they will protect the 'good ' opinions and be able to fight against the 'evil ' opinions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch.Am I to read from your words that anonymity in debates is OK when the position argued is rational and good, which by implication does not extend to positions that are irrational and evil, and the identities of proponents of the latter would be revealed, perhaps adjudicated by a panel of people the state recognises as 'good' so that they will protect the 'good' opinions and be able to fight against the 'evil' opinions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060594</id>
	<title>Re:NOT anonymous!</title>
	<author>WAG24601G</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward.</p></div></blockquote><p>Easy.  She's upstairs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward.Easy .
She 's upstairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward.Easy.
She's upstairs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058202</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i can't tell if you're being sarcastic; however, combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.</p><p>freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions, even if i don't agree with them.  if someone can't handle that, perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community, or under a tyrant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i ca n't tell if you 're being sarcastic ; however , combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions , even if i do n't agree with them .
if someone ca n't handle that , perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community , or under a tyrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i can't tell if you're being sarcastic; however, combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions, even if i don't agree with them.
if someone can't handle that, perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community, or under a tyrant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060570</id>
	<title>Why doesn't Glen Beck deny this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that he is the anonymous poster, but I think the public would feel better if Glenn can please tell us that he did not do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that he is the anonymous poster , but I think the public would feel better if Glenn can please tell us that he did not do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that he is the anonymous poster, but I think the public would feel better if Glenn can please tell us that he did not do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059336</id>
	<title>NOT anonymous!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257087000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he would actually be anonymous, you would not be able to "unmask" (what in unprofessional term) him!</p><p>That's the freakin' definition of the term!!</p><p>He was perhaps "masked". But his real identity was still known to the site. Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.</p><p>Also this explains, why they can know who his mom is, when he's supposed to be "anonymous". (Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he would actually be anonymous , you would not be able to " unmask " ( what in unprofessional term ) him ! That 's the freakin ' definition of the term !
! He was perhaps " masked " .
But his real identity was still known to the site .
Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.Also this explains , why they can know who his mom is , when he 's supposed to be " anonymous " .
( Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward .
: P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he would actually be anonymous, you would not be able to "unmask" (what in unprofessional term) him!That's the freakin' definition of the term!
!He was perhaps "masked".
But his real identity was still known to the site.
Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.Also this explains, why they can know who his mom is, when he's supposed to be "anonymous".
(Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward.
:P)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058922</id>
	<title>Re:The judge seems to be entirely right</title>
	<author>pilsner.urquell</author>
	<datestamp>1257083520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With rights come responsibility, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater nor be allowed own a weapon if convicted of an gun related offense.<br><br>This judge is probably right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With rights come responsibility , one can not yell fire in a crowded theater nor be allowed own a weapon if convicted of an gun related offense.This judge is probably right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With rights come responsibility, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater nor be allowed own a weapon if convicted of an gun related offense.This judge is probably right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059082</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>dvorakkeyboardrules</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>from her website, she's generally anti-freedom</p><p>opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuana</p><p>and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060" title="dailyherald.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060</a> [dailyherald.com] </p><p>What a bitch</p></div><p>
This post is a good example of the "Appeal to motive" fallacy. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal\_to\_motive" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal\_to\_motive</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
The AC's argument basically boils down to saying "This woman has wrong beliefs about Issues A, B, and C because of her bad philosophy, and therefore her belief about Issue D must also be wrong. Move along now."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from her website , she 's generally anti-freedomopposes freedom to own " vicious " dog breeds opposes freedom to use " dangerous pesticides " to kill mosquitoes opposes freedom to use marijuanaand , from her actions , seems like she 's kind of opposed to free speech .
However , most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http : //www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/ ? id = 280060 [ dailyherald.com ] What a bitch This post is a good example of the " Appeal to motive " fallacy .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal \ _to \ _motive [ wikipedia.org ] The AC 's argument basically boils down to saying " This woman has wrong beliefs about Issues A , B , and C because of her bad philosophy , and therefore her belief about Issue D must also be wrong .
Move along now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from her website, she's generally anti-freedomopposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuanaand, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech.
However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060 [dailyherald.com] What a bitch
This post is a good example of the "Appeal to motive" fallacy.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal\_to\_motive [wikipedia.org]
 
The AC's argument basically boils down to saying "This woman has wrong beliefs about Issues A, B, and C because of her bad philosophy, and therefore her belief about Issue D must also be wrong.
Move along now.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058968</id>
	<title>The world gets a little worse every day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.</p><p>It's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name. It's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.</p><p>As far as I know, hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet. This lady then overreacted, decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself, and here we are today.</p><p>For more info: http://randazza.wordpress.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.It 's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name .
It 's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.As far as I know , hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady 's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet .
This lady then overreacted , decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself , and here we are today.For more info : http : //randazza.wordpress.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.It's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name.
It's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.As far as I know, hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet.
This lady then overreacted, decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself, and here we are today.For more info: http://randazza.wordpress.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061660</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1257096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>from her website, she's generally anti-freedom</p></div></blockquote><p>So what are you doing to make her unelectable?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from her website , she 's generally anti-freedomSo what are you doing to make her unelectable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from her website, she's generally anti-freedomSo what are you doing to make her unelectable?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30098102</id>
	<title>Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment</title>
	<author>sonamchauhan</author>
	<datestamp>1258219500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you knowingly make lewd statements to a minor...</p><p>hey, what was I thinking? Yes, its the internet. Normal laws do not apply here!<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you knowingly make lewd statements to a minor...hey , what was I thinking ?
Yes , its the internet .
Normal laws do not apply here !
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you knowingly make lewd statements to a minor...hey, what was I thinking?
Yes, its the internet.
Normal laws do not apply here!
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from her website, she's generally anti-freedom</p><p>opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds<br>opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes<br>opposes freedom to use marijuana</p><p>and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060</p><p>What a bitch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from her website , she 's generally anti-freedomopposes freedom to own " vicious " dog breedsopposes freedom to use " dangerous pesticides " to kill mosquitoesopposes freedom to use marijuanaand , from her actions , seems like she 's kind of opposed to free speech .
However , most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http : //www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/ ? id = 280060What a bitch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from her website, she's generally anti-freedomopposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breedsopposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoesopposes freedom to use marijuanaand, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech.
However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060What a bitch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058612</id>
	<title>your</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOMMA</p><p>now sue me!</p><p>pff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOMMAnow sue me ! pff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOMMAnow sue me!pff</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30068402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30062538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30065200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30098102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30078894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30076334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30066608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0310258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30069798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30076334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30068402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30062538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30059082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30065200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30078894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30063172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30066608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30060320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30098102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30061906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0310258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30064728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0310258.30058462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
