<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_14_172214</id>
	<title>TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258222920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:the.rhornNO@SPAMgmail.com" rel="nofollow">ndogg</a> writes <i>"Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1438235/ACLU-Sues-DHS-Over-Unlawful-Searches-and-Detention?art\_pos=1">carrying large sums of money</a>.  The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/rules-changed-after-paul-aide-detained-at-airport/">its officers can only screen for unsafe materials</a>.  With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ndogg writes " Earlier this year , there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer , Steve Bierfeldt , being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money .
The ACLU sued on his behalf , and the TSA changed its rules , now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials .
With that , the ACLU dropped its suit .
' [ Ben Wizner , a staff lawyer for the ACLU , said ] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment , which prohibits unreasonable searches , strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes , not to help police enforce other laws .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money.
The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials.
With that, the ACLU dropped its suit.
'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099334</id>
	<title>Maybe it's just me</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1258226580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100812</id>
	<title>Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1258193520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flying domestically, yes.  Leaving the country will require you to declare to Customs any amount over $10,000 in cash or negotiable instruments.  I'm not sure what happens if you declare it.  I've never had the opportunity to fly internationally with $10,000+ before.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flying domestically , yes .
Leaving the country will require you to declare to Customs any amount over $ 10,000 in cash or negotiable instruments .
I 'm not sure what happens if you declare it .
I 've never had the opportunity to fly internationally with $ 10,000 + before .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flying domestically, yes.
Leaving the country will require you to declare to Customs any amount over $10,000 in cash or negotiable instruments.
I'm not sure what happens if you declare it.
I've never had the opportunity to fly internationally with $10,000+ before.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002</id>
	<title>three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1258230840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt! Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this. Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials. Listen to the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/audio-recording-aclu-client-steve-bierfeldts-detention-and-interrogation-tsa" title="aclu.org">audio</a> [aclu.org] he recorded on his iPhone. The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk. You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation. I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt !
Most people are sheep , and would n't even think of standing up to authority like this .
Of those who are n't sheep , very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it 's necessary to give people trials .
Listen to the audio [ aclu.org ] he recorded on his iPhone .
The TSA guys are cussing at him , and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk .
You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt 's voice , but he 's not backing down just because it 's a psychologically intimidating situation .
I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt!
Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this.
Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials.
Listen to the audio [aclu.org] he recorded on his iPhone.
The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk.
You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation.
I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30109828</id>
	<title>The TSA sucks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once was traveling with someone who walked through the checkpoint carrying a full 1 liter bottle in his hand.  The TSA people didn't even notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once was traveling with someone who walked through the checkpoint carrying a full 1 liter bottle in his hand .
The TSA people did n't even notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once was traveling with someone who walked through the checkpoint carrying a full 1 liter bottle in his hand.
The TSA people didn't even notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103272</id>
	<title>Re:B 'fing' S</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1258215600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should probably consider the fact that this article was written by the Washington Times, a newspaper which is literally falling apart as we speak, before you completely lose it over a poor choice of words on the part of the writer.</p><p>When Mr. Wizner spoke of the narrow exception, he isn't referring to an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather an exception to the general rule that searching someone's person without probable cause and a warrant is unreasonable. Remember, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Over time, we've decided as a society that limited random searches for the purpose of ensuring air travel security are reasonable, and therefore do not offend the Fourth Amendment.</p><p>In this way, the searches are analogous to DUI-checkpoint seizures, in which police officers are not required to demonstrate any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion before seizing every person that travels along a road to determine whether they've been drinking. Similarly, the ability to conduct these sorts of checkpoints while being "reasonable" is limited - for instance, police may not establish a drug interdiction checkpoint to look for traffickers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should probably consider the fact that this article was written by the Washington Times , a newspaper which is literally falling apart as we speak , before you completely lose it over a poor choice of words on the part of the writer.When Mr. Wizner spoke of the narrow exception , he is n't referring to an exception to the Fourth Amendment , but rather an exception to the general rule that searching someone 's person without probable cause and a warrant is unreasonable .
Remember , the Fourth Amendment only prohibits " unreasonable " searches and seizures .
Over time , we 've decided as a society that limited random searches for the purpose of ensuring air travel security are reasonable , and therefore do not offend the Fourth Amendment.In this way , the searches are analogous to DUI-checkpoint seizures , in which police officers are not required to demonstrate any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion before seizing every person that travels along a road to determine whether they 've been drinking .
Similarly , the ability to conduct these sorts of checkpoints while being " reasonable " is limited - for instance , police may not establish a drug interdiction checkpoint to look for traffickers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should probably consider the fact that this article was written by the Washington Times, a newspaper which is literally falling apart as we speak, before you completely lose it over a poor choice of words on the part of the writer.When Mr. Wizner spoke of the narrow exception, he isn't referring to an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather an exception to the general rule that searching someone's person without probable cause and a warrant is unreasonable.
Remember, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
Over time, we've decided as a society that limited random searches for the purpose of ensuring air travel security are reasonable, and therefore do not offend the Fourth Amendment.In this way, the searches are analogous to DUI-checkpoint seizures, in which police officers are not required to demonstrate any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion before seizing every person that travels along a road to determine whether they've been drinking.
Similarly, the ability to conduct these sorts of checkpoints while being "reasonable" is limited - for instance, police may not establish a drug interdiction checkpoint to look for traffickers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100222</id>
	<title>Re:Ok to carry drugs now?</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1258232280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they happen to find your drugs while looking for weapons, you're probably still going to jail since they actually found something illegal rather than "evidence" of illegal activities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they happen to find your drugs while looking for weapons , you 're probably still going to jail since they actually found something illegal rather than " evidence " of illegal activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they happen to find your drugs while looking for weapons, you're probably still going to jail since they actually found something illegal rather than "evidence" of illegal activities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102740</id>
	<title>Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258208640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this.  Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no.  It sounds like he actually doesn't know, which is quite worrying.  You'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that.  </p><p>
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights.  I would be very surprised if this is legal.  Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you.  If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100\% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).  </p><p>
Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this .
Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question ' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no .
It sounds like he actually does n't know , which is quite worrying .
You 'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that .
The most interesting thing , however , was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station ( which meant the DEA or FBI office ) , against his will , without being arrested and , most importantly , without being read his rights .
I would be very surprised if this is legal .
Even the police are n't allowed to do that : they can ask you to go with them ( and you are free to refuse ) , or they can arrest you .
If they arrest you , then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain ( i.e .
the arresting officer is 100 \ % responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility ) .
Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this.
Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no.
It sounds like he actually doesn't know, which is quite worrying.
You'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that.
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights.
I would be very surprised if this is legal.
Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you.
If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e.
the arresting officer is 100\% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).
Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100086</id>
	<title>Re:What if they find drugs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258231440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so sure !</p><p>Whether the 4th amendment applies or not is irrelevant. The 4th amendment just states that legislative power (The Congress) cannot pass into law any legislation that would allow unreasonable searches. However, in the case of airport searches, the mandate of the TSA is to prevent individuals from boarding aircrafts with potentially dangerous items/material.</p><p>So far so good. The TSA has some tools to detect any potential threat and/or will exercise their judgement to do just that. If they trigger a positive, they may possibly search you since the search is no longer "unreasonable".</p><p>The question is : what do they do if, while exercising their mandate, they find something that's illegal to possess (or any solid indication that you are carrying out illegal activities) ?</p><p>First of all, in *this* particular case, they most probably went beyond their mandate and should be charged with illegal detention. Not only was the principal not posing any threat to the aircraft, but he wasn't even doing anything illegal, *UNLESS* of course if the undisclosed recommendation to the TSA was indicating that carrying more than a certain amount of money was to be considered as an indication of a possible misdeed.</p><p>The question that arises now is : what happens if they figure out something illegal is taking place while not being a specific immediate danger to the well being of the aircraft and its passengers ? If TSA personel *does* have judiciary police power, then they may very well detain you on the ground that you have been caught red handed performing some illegal activity. If TSA personnel does NOT have judiciary power, they may simply relay to the proper jurisdiction the fact and let you go (just to have you caught on the other side of the door by - say - some DEA agents, airport police, the county Sheriff Department, or the FBI of you are committing a Federal Offense !). They may *actually* have to report the offense lest they be charged with accessory to the offense !</p><p>--Ivan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so sure ! Whether the 4th amendment applies or not is irrelevant .
The 4th amendment just states that legislative power ( The Congress ) can not pass into law any legislation that would allow unreasonable searches .
However , in the case of airport searches , the mandate of the TSA is to prevent individuals from boarding aircrafts with potentially dangerous items/material.So far so good .
The TSA has some tools to detect any potential threat and/or will exercise their judgement to do just that .
If they trigger a positive , they may possibly search you since the search is no longer " unreasonable " .The question is : what do they do if , while exercising their mandate , they find something that 's illegal to possess ( or any solid indication that you are carrying out illegal activities ) ? First of all , in * this * particular case , they most probably went beyond their mandate and should be charged with illegal detention .
Not only was the principal not posing any threat to the aircraft , but he was n't even doing anything illegal , * UNLESS * of course if the undisclosed recommendation to the TSA was indicating that carrying more than a certain amount of money was to be considered as an indication of a possible misdeed.The question that arises now is : what happens if they figure out something illegal is taking place while not being a specific immediate danger to the well being of the aircraft and its passengers ?
If TSA personel * does * have judiciary police power , then they may very well detain you on the ground that you have been caught red handed performing some illegal activity .
If TSA personnel does NOT have judiciary power , they may simply relay to the proper jurisdiction the fact and let you go ( just to have you caught on the other side of the door by - say - some DEA agents , airport police , the county Sheriff Department , or the FBI of you are committing a Federal Offense ! ) .
They may * actually * have to report the offense lest they be charged with accessory to the offense ! --Ivan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so sure !Whether the 4th amendment applies or not is irrelevant.
The 4th amendment just states that legislative power (The Congress) cannot pass into law any legislation that would allow unreasonable searches.
However, in the case of airport searches, the mandate of the TSA is to prevent individuals from boarding aircrafts with potentially dangerous items/material.So far so good.
The TSA has some tools to detect any potential threat and/or will exercise their judgement to do just that.
If they trigger a positive, they may possibly search you since the search is no longer "unreasonable".The question is : what do they do if, while exercising their mandate, they find something that's illegal to possess (or any solid indication that you are carrying out illegal activities) ?First of all, in *this* particular case, they most probably went beyond their mandate and should be charged with illegal detention.
Not only was the principal not posing any threat to the aircraft, but he wasn't even doing anything illegal, *UNLESS* of course if the undisclosed recommendation to the TSA was indicating that carrying more than a certain amount of money was to be considered as an indication of a possible misdeed.The question that arises now is : what happens if they figure out something illegal is taking place while not being a specific immediate danger to the well being of the aircraft and its passengers ?
If TSA personel *does* have judiciary police power, then they may very well detain you on the ground that you have been caught red handed performing some illegal activity.
If TSA personnel does NOT have judiciary power, they may simply relay to the proper jurisdiction the fact and let you go (just to have you caught on the other side of the door by - say - some DEA agents, airport police, the county Sheriff Department, or the FBI of you are committing a Federal Offense !).
They may *actually* have to report the offense lest they be charged with accessory to the offense !--Ivan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101710</id>
	<title>Re:Gray areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258200360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please don't make this "about the children" or "stop the Nazis."  It's about the TSA abusing their positions.
<p>
They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.
</p><p>
E<br>
P.S. I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't make this " about the children " or " stop the Nazis .
" It 's about the TSA abusing their positions .
They are not police , have no police powers , and are bullies and dragoons .
E P.S .
I 'm calling modified Godwin 's Law on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't make this "about the children" or "stop the Nazis.
"  It's about the TSA abusing their positions.
They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.
E
P.S.
I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30108436</id>
	<title>Re:Gray areas</title>
	<author>bugoff</author>
	<datestamp>1258276800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they do have badges! And what is really funny, they do not have to go through the same security protocols to get to their work positions. So they could carry in or OUT anything without anyone knowing. But there have been some busts of TSA agents steeling from luggage/baggage AND running drugs. So we know the abuse is happening, just not being reported often.
So how safe does this make you feel?
I only travel by private routes, no TSA or others to say how I go, or with what I carry.
If you want to be taken care of, and trust others to care of you, then believe everything you are told at the airlines! There are plenty of private aircraft for hire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they do have badges !
And what is really funny , they do not have to go through the same security protocols to get to their work positions .
So they could carry in or OUT anything without anyone knowing .
But there have been some busts of TSA agents steeling from luggage/baggage AND running drugs .
So we know the abuse is happening , just not being reported often .
So how safe does this make you feel ?
I only travel by private routes , no TSA or others to say how I go , or with what I carry .
If you want to be taken care of , and trust others to care of you , then believe everything you are told at the airlines !
There are plenty of private aircraft for hire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they do have badges!
And what is really funny, they do not have to go through the same security protocols to get to their work positions.
So they could carry in or OUT anything without anyone knowing.
But there have been some busts of TSA agents steeling from luggage/baggage AND running drugs.
So we know the abuse is happening, just not being reported often.
So how safe does this make you feel?
I only travel by private routes, no TSA or others to say how I go, or with what I carry.
If you want to be taken care of, and trust others to care of you, then believe everything you are told at the airlines!
There are plenty of private aircraft for hire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102898</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258210560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist</p></div><p>Yes, because Ron Paul advocates hard work, sound monetary policy, and personal responsibility; all of which are anathema to the liberal Democrats. In many ways Ron Paul represents the "original formula" of American Values; something that we have gotten away from beginning in the later half of the 20th century and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until today. Now, Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands, turned it hard left, and romped on the gas. Where will we end up? Nowhere we want to go that's for sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichristYes , because Ron Paul advocates hard work , sound monetary policy , and personal responsibility ; all of which are anathema to the liberal Democrats .
In many ways Ron Paul represents the " original formula " of American Values ; something that we have gotten away from beginning in the later half of the 20th century and continuing , almost uninterrupted , until today .
Now , Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands , turned it hard left , and romped on the gas .
Where will we end up ?
Nowhere we want to go that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichristYes, because Ron Paul advocates hard work, sound monetary policy, and personal responsibility; all of which are anathema to the liberal Democrats.
In many ways Ron Paul represents the "original formula" of American Values; something that we have gotten away from beginning in the later half of the 20th century and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until today.
Now, Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands, turned it hard left, and romped on the gas.
Where will we end up?
Nowhere we want to go that's for sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104464</id>
	<title>Re:Ok to carry drugs now?</title>
	<author>camusflage</author>
	<datestamp>1258228560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a word, no.</p><p>The directive means they can't go looking for evidence of crimes that are not primary in their mission. If, during the course of their search to make sure you're not carrying contraband onto an airplane (ie, dangerous shit like knitting needles) they find prima facie evidence of a crime (your coke, a severed head, "interesting" pictures involving a horse), they'll turn you over to local law enforcement.</p><p>All this means is that they're limited to investigating air safety. Unless they stumble across something that is clearly illegal (and $4300 cash is NOT that), they cannot do anything. Even if they do find something interesting, they cannot detain you, as they are not law enforcement. Those two things are what the ACLU fought for here. Even though they're a bunch of data-profiling dickwads (and that was why I stopped my sponsorship of them), they do get it right now and then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a word , no.The directive means they ca n't go looking for evidence of crimes that are not primary in their mission .
If , during the course of their search to make sure you 're not carrying contraband onto an airplane ( ie , dangerous shit like knitting needles ) they find prima facie evidence of a crime ( your coke , a severed head , " interesting " pictures involving a horse ) , they 'll turn you over to local law enforcement.All this means is that they 're limited to investigating air safety .
Unless they stumble across something that is clearly illegal ( and $ 4300 cash is NOT that ) , they can not do anything .
Even if they do find something interesting , they can not detain you , as they are not law enforcement .
Those two things are what the ACLU fought for here .
Even though they 're a bunch of data-profiling dickwads ( and that was why I stopped my sponsorship of them ) , they do get it right now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a word, no.The directive means they can't go looking for evidence of crimes that are not primary in their mission.
If, during the course of their search to make sure you're not carrying contraband onto an airplane (ie, dangerous shit like knitting needles) they find prima facie evidence of a crime (your coke, a severed head, "interesting" pictures involving a horse), they'll turn you over to local law enforcement.All this means is that they're limited to investigating air safety.
Unless they stumble across something that is clearly illegal (and $4300 cash is NOT that), they cannot do anything.
Even if they do find something interesting, they cannot detain you, as they are not law enforcement.
Those two things are what the ACLU fought for here.
Even though they're a bunch of data-profiling dickwads (and that was why I stopped my sponsorship of them), they do get it right now and then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574</id>
	<title>Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1258228200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if I put $1 million in suitcase, and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I put $ 1 million in suitcase , and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I put $1 million in suitcase, and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100084</id>
	<title>A temporary setback</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1258231440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next Republican president will expand TSA's authority to search for any and all contraband.  To think they're going to limit themselves is ludicrous.  Big Brother never says, "I don't want to look."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next Republican president will expand TSA 's authority to search for any and all contraband .
To think they 're going to limit themselves is ludicrous .
Big Brother never says , " I do n't want to look .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next Republican president will expand TSA's authority to search for any and all contraband.
To think they're going to limit themselves is ludicrous.
Big Brother never says, "I don't want to look.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099522</id>
	<title>What if they find drugs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258227900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens now if the TSA's screening finds drugs, or even worse, marijuana?</p><p>I used to fly with pot all the time, but these days it hasn't been worth it.  With this rule change it appears that it would be something not to really worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens now if the TSA 's screening finds drugs , or even worse , marijuana ? I used to fly with pot all the time , but these days it has n't been worth it .
With this rule change it appears that it would be something not to really worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens now if the TSA's screening finds drugs, or even worse, marijuana?I used to fly with pot all the time, but these days it hasn't been worth it.
With this rule change it appears that it would be something not to really worry about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550</id>
	<title>B 'fing' S</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258228080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment"<br>what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for?  You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?  Isn't this step one BIG step towards, "you have freedom of speech except that we have a *narrow exception* to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light" kind of crap?  How about, ' There are 171,476 words in the english language, you cannot use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech.  thats only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.06\% of the total words available so that is how we measure *narrow exception*</p><p>You know who I blame for this?  YOU(me).  When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS?  been a while huh?  wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim?  The only people they answer to is themselves.</p><p>yeah im anonymous, dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean.  and if your clueless, I dont mean mormons, jahova's, or the schwanz man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment " what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for ?
You can actually get 'narrow exceptions ' to the fundamental rights ?
Is n't this step one BIG step towards , " you have freedom of speech except that we have a * narrow exception * to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light " kind of crap ?
How about , ' There are 171,476 words in the english language , you can not use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech .
thats only .06 \ % of the total words available so that is how we measure * narrow exception * You know who I blame for this ?
YOU ( me ) . When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS ?
been a while huh ?
wonder why the Gov .
can pass anything they like on a whim ?
The only people they answer to is themselves.yeah im anonymous , dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean .
and if your clueless , I dont mean mormons , jahova 's , or the schwanz man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment"what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for?
You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?
Isn't this step one BIG step towards, "you have freedom of speech except that we have a *narrow exception* to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light" kind of crap?
How about, ' There are 171,476 words in the english language, you cannot use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech.
thats only .06\% of the total words available so that is how we measure *narrow exception*You know who I blame for this?
YOU(me).  When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS?
been a while huh?
wonder why the Gov.
can pass anything they like on a whim?
The only people they answer to is themselves.yeah im anonymous, dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean.
and if your clueless, I dont mean mormons, jahova's, or the schwanz man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30109596</id>
	<title>What is unsafe?</title>
	<author>Urinal Gum</author>
	<datestamp>1258284780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The decision sounds pretty vague.  What is unsafe?  I'd argue that water bottles and any other non-flammable substance is safe.  Lighters are fairly safe.  It seems like this doesn't help much, and things remain extraordinarily subjective.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cell phones are always unsafe, though: <a href="http://www.urinalgum.com/?p=112" title="urinalgum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.urinalgum.com/?p=112</a> [urinalgum.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decision sounds pretty vague .
What is unsafe ?
I 'd argue that water bottles and any other non-flammable substance is safe .
Lighters are fairly safe .
It seems like this does n't help much , and things remain extraordinarily subjective .
/cell phones are always unsafe , though : http : //www.urinalgum.com/ ? p = 112 [ urinalgum.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decision sounds pretty vague.
What is unsafe?
I'd argue that water bottles and any other non-flammable substance is safe.
Lighters are fairly safe.
It seems like this doesn't help much, and things remain extraordinarily subjective.
/cell phones are always unsafe, though: http://www.urinalgum.com/?p=112 [urinalgum.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104084</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258223940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The system basically worked here</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, the system generally works for anyone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw away on legal fees...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system basically worked hereYes , the system generally works for anyone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw away on legal fees.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system basically worked hereYes, the system generally works for anyone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw away on legal fees...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099872</id>
	<title>Only planes?</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1258229940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'</p></div><p>So, how is this any different from:</p><p><i>Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.</i></p><p>Just wondering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>' [ Ben Wizner , a staff lawyer for the ACLU , said ] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment , which prohibits unreasonable searches , strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes , not to help police enforce other laws .
'So , how is this any different from : Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment , which prohibits unreasonable searches , strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.Just wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.
'So, how is this any different from:Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.Just wondering.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102770</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes but that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.$0.25 coke from a vending machine was only 6.5 ounces.  Today's cokes are 12 ounces so the coke has actually gotten cheaper as a 12 ounce coke should cost $1.11 using your inflation calculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes but that . $ 0.25 coke from a vending machine was only 6.5 ounces .
Today 's cokes are 12 ounces so the coke has actually gotten cheaper as a 12 ounce coke should cost $ 1.11 using your inflation calculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes but that .$0.25 coke from a vending machine was only 6.5 ounces.
Today's cokes are 12 ounces so the coke has actually gotten cheaper as a 12 ounce coke should cost $1.11 using your inflation calculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101580</id>
	<title>Cash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our government and financial institutions have been making a concerted effort to eliminate cash from from our everyday use for a long time now. After all cash is to hard to track. In GOD we trust but you better have a receipt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our government and financial institutions have been making a concerted effort to eliminate cash from from our everyday use for a long time now .
After all cash is to hard to track .
In GOD we trust but you better have a receipt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our government and financial institutions have been making a concerted effort to eliminate cash from from our everyday use for a long time now.
After all cash is to hard to track.
In GOD we trust but you better have a receipt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101800</id>
	<title>Liquid or Gel?</title>
	<author>Whomp-Ass</author>
	<datestamp>1258200900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people are confused about what's defined as a liquid or gel, Baird said.

"If you can pour it, pump it, squeeze it, spread it, smear it, spray it or spill it, it's considered a liquid or gel."</p></div><p>According to this, then, the heart, brain, and liver are liquids?
<br> <br>
Furthermore, don't people contain more than 3Oz of expl...Fluids?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people are confused about what 's defined as a liquid or gel , Baird said .
" If you can pour it , pump it , squeeze it , spread it , smear it , spray it or spill it , it 's considered a liquid or gel .
" According to this , then , the heart , brain , and liver are liquids ?
Furthermore , do n't people contain more than 3Oz of expl...Fluids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people are confused about what's defined as a liquid or gel, Baird said.
"If you can pour it, pump it, squeeze it, spread it, smear it, spray it or spill it, it's considered a liquid or gel.
"According to this, then, the heart, brain, and liver are liquids?
Furthermore, don't people contain more than 3Oz of expl...Fluids?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104262</id>
	<title>This infuriates me</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1258225800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to know why the TSA agents and the police are not fired.</p><p>Listen to the audio.  They're idiots.  "I don't have to let you go through MY checkpoint."</p><p>What a bunch of jerks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to know why the TSA agents and the police are not fired.Listen to the audio .
They 're idiots .
" I do n't have to let you go through MY checkpoint .
" What a bunch of jerks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to know why the TSA agents and the police are not fired.Listen to the audio.
They're idiots.
"I don't have to let you go through MY checkpoint.
"What a bunch of jerks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1258192620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing. And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will <i>not</i> be able to use the system to address their grievances.
</p><p>
I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265. I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar. (Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain \% of their money for lobbying.)
</p><p>
What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties. Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system basically worked here , the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance .
Let 's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse .
Yes , but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11 , we 've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you 're describing .
And let 's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances .
I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $ 100 every July 1 to the ACLU , PO box 96265 , Washington , DC 20090-6265 .
I hope everyone here who 's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar .
( Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain \ % of their money for lobbying .
) What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they 're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats , they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case 's legal importance for civil liberties .
Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist , but they took this case because it was a good , important case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance.
Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.
Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing.
And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances.
I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265.
I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar.
(Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain \% of their money for lobbying.
)

What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties.
Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102272</id>
	<title>squeezed little people</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1258204500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seizing up on ca $4300 as "large amounts" of cash??!  Jeez, that is worse than the airports in some murderous 3rd world dictatorships I've been in, that like to grab $$$.  Oh, yeah, I forgot, we're the biggest banana ("republic").<br>
<br>
With credit cards and banks becoming so unreasonable, this type of cash restriction is dangerous to the economic recovery, freezing or jeopardizing a most vulnerable segment of the population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seizing up on ca $ 4300 as " large amounts " of cash ? ? !
Jeez , that is worse than the airports in some murderous 3rd world dictatorships I 've been in , that like to grab $ $ $ .
Oh , yeah , I forgot , we 're the biggest banana ( " republic " ) .
With credit cards and banks becoming so unreasonable , this type of cash restriction is dangerous to the economic recovery , freezing or jeopardizing a most vulnerable segment of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seizing up on ca $4300 as "large amounts" of cash??!
Jeez, that is worse than the airports in some murderous 3rd world dictatorships I've been in, that like to grab $$$.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, we're the biggest banana ("republic").
With credit cards and banks becoming so unreasonable, this type of cash restriction is dangerous to the economic recovery, freezing or jeopardizing a most vulnerable segment of the population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762</id>
	<title>Gray areas</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258229160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do, mostly, still feel that way. But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that aren't related to their screening duties. For example, if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I wouldn't want them to take any additional steps, however.</p><p>Basically with regards to police matters they shouldn't do anything a private citizen wouldn't be expected to do in a similar situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do , mostly , still feel that way .
But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that are n't related to their screening duties .
For example , if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo , and a child who looked like that went through the security line , I 'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I would n't want them to take any additional steps , however.Basically with regards to police matters they should n't do anything a private citizen would n't be expected to do in a similar situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do, mostly, still feel that way.
But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that aren't related to their screening duties.
For example, if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I wouldn't want them to take any additional steps, however.Basically with regards to police matters they shouldn't do anything a private citizen wouldn't be expected to do in a similar situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104766</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258277160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger's bag, or some narcotics in their checked luggage, they have to ignore it and let them through now?
</p><p>
It doesn't pose any danger to aircraft security.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger 's bag , or some narcotics in their checked luggage , they have to ignore it and let them through now ?
It does n't pose any danger to aircraft security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger's bag, or some narcotics in their checked luggage, they have to ignore it and let them through now?
It doesn't pose any danger to aircraft security.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102596</id>
	<title>Re:Ok to carry drugs now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258207200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the very last line of TFA:</p><p>"The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the very last line of TFA : " The new directives do n't affect a situation where a TSA officer , in the performance of a regular screening , comes across evidence of illegal activity , such as a bag of illicit drugs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the very last line of TFA:"The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103812</id>
	<title>Re:Gray areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258220400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police</i> <br>
<br>
They can still do that, because the situation you describe doesn't involve a search. The child is in plain sight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo , and a child who looked like that went through the security line , I 'd want them to inform the police They can still do that , because the situation you describe does n't involve a search .
The child is in plain sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police 

They can still do that, because the situation you describe doesn't involve a search.
The child is in plain sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099824</id>
	<title>Re:B 'fing' S</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know who I blame for this?  YOU(me).  When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS?  been a while huh?  wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim?  The only people they answer to is themselves.</p></div><p>April 15th, July 4th, and September 12th.  But it wasn't really a riot, and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who I blame for this ?
YOU ( me ) . When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS ?
been a while huh ?
wonder why the Gov .
can pass anything they like on a whim ?
The only people they answer to is themselves.April 15th , July 4th , and September 12th .
But it was n't really a riot , and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who I blame for this?
YOU(me).  When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS?
been a while huh?
wonder why the Gov.
can pass anything they like on a whim?
The only people they answer to is themselves.April 15th, July 4th, and September 12th.
But it wasn't really a riot, and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100428</id>
	<title>Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends - are you white? If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs. After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends - are you white ?
If you are n't , kiss that money goodbye unless you can * prove * that it was n't from selling drugs .
After all , it 'll be covered in cocaine residue ( like any other US currency ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends - are you white?
If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs.
After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30106938</id>
	<title>Re:Interpretation, not exception</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1258311660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".</i></p><p>Such as looking for proof of prescription drugs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment .
It 's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an " unreasonable search and seizure " , but looking for anything else is " unreasonable " .Such as looking for proof of prescription drugs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment.
It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".Such as looking for proof of prescription drugs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101532</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258198860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The system basically worked here</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Umm, it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked. If you consider the ACLU as part of the "system", consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place. The "system" is erring ever more on the "side" of the government. Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like. But then again, I remember $0.25 cokes from vending machines, which is strange, considering the government claims only 2-3\% inflation since the 80's... at 3\% compounded, a can of coke should cost you $0.60 today. Yet strangely a 12-pack at the supermarket will set you back around $11 ($0.91/can) and at least $1 from a vending machine. Ahhh, how wonderful it is that people don't notice creeping things like inflation, or erosion of civil liberties, for that matter. Governments lie. Period. This is not new, Plato even justified it. Please do enjoy your "recovery" in the meantime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system basically worked here       Umm , it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked .
If you consider the ACLU as part of the " system " , consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place .
The " system " is erring ever more on the " side " of the government .
Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like .
But then again , I remember $ 0.25 cokes from vending machines , which is strange , considering the government claims only 2-3 \ % inflation since the 80 's... at 3 \ % compounded , a can of coke should cost you $ 0.60 today .
Yet strangely a 12-pack at the supermarket will set you back around $ 11 ( $ 0.91/can ) and at least $ 1 from a vending machine .
Ahhh , how wonderful it is that people do n't notice creeping things like inflation , or erosion of civil liberties , for that matter .
Governments lie .
Period. This is not new , Plato even justified it .
Please do enjoy your " recovery " in the meantime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system basically worked here
      Umm, it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked.
If you consider the ACLU as part of the "system", consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place.
The "system" is erring ever more on the "side" of the government.
Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like.
But then again, I remember $0.25 cokes from vending machines, which is strange, considering the government claims only 2-3\% inflation since the 80's... at 3\% compounded, a can of coke should cost you $0.60 today.
Yet strangely a 12-pack at the supermarket will set you back around $11 ($0.91/can) and at least $1 from a vending machine.
Ahhh, how wonderful it is that people don't notice creeping things like inflation, or erosion of civil liberties, for that matter.
Governments lie.
Period. This is not new, Plato even justified it.
Please do enjoy your "recovery" in the meantime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612</id>
	<title>Ok to carry drugs now?</title>
	<author>Oyjord</author>
	<datestamp>1258228440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."</p><p>Hmm.  Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas?  I'm tired of carrying it...up there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment , which prohibits unreasonable searches , strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes , not to help police enforce other laws. " Hmm .
Does this means it 's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas ?
I 'm tired of carrying it...up there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."Hmm.
Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas?
I'm tired of carrying it...up there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100558</id>
	<title>Re:Only planes?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258191360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives.  It's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked (ironically) without the security line at the airport.  The ACLU won't win that fight, and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world, anyway.  Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.</p><p>Ahh well.  There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping:  Airport security is an excellent date screener.  Everyone past the perimeter either has a job (possibly crappy, but they're employed nonetheless) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day's travel.  That doesn't weed out all of the riff raff, but it certainly cuts it down a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives .
It 's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked ( ironically ) without the security line at the airport .
The ACLU wo n't win that fight , and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world , anyway .
Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.Ahh well .
There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping : Airport security is an excellent date screener .
Everyone past the perimeter either has a job ( possibly crappy , but they 're employed nonetheless ) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day 's travel .
That does n't weed out all of the riff raff , but it certainly cuts it down a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives.
It's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked (ironically) without the security line at the airport.
The ACLU won't win that fight, and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world, anyway.
Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.Ahh well.
There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping:  Airport security is an excellent date screener.
Everyone past the perimeter either has a job (possibly crappy, but they're employed nonetheless) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day's travel.
That doesn't weed out all of the riff raff, but it certainly cuts it down a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102902</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>waferbuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258210620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the system worked as designed.  The offended party (a person who is arguably a VIP) was treated as an average person, and obtained a clandestine audio recording of his treatment.  This audio recording was egregious enough to prompt the ACLU to proceed.
<br> <br>
Now, let's take my niece as an example.  She's not a frequent flyer, isn't used to being in a position of power, isn't used to dealing with abusive uniformed persons, and wouldn't have a clue that the TSA wasn't allowed to treat her like an object.
 <br> <br>
The average person would have had no recourse.  This type of abuse happens every day.  There are websites for frequent flyers which are full of horror stories of travelers undergoing much worse.
<br> <br>
The system worked in that a VIP was able to get resolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the system worked as designed .
The offended party ( a person who is arguably a VIP ) was treated as an average person , and obtained a clandestine audio recording of his treatment .
This audio recording was egregious enough to prompt the ACLU to proceed .
Now , let 's take my niece as an example .
She 's not a frequent flyer , is n't used to being in a position of power , is n't used to dealing with abusive uniformed persons , and would n't have a clue that the TSA was n't allowed to treat her like an object .
The average person would have had no recourse .
This type of abuse happens every day .
There are websites for frequent flyers which are full of horror stories of travelers undergoing much worse .
The system worked in that a VIP was able to get resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the system worked as designed.
The offended party (a person who is arguably a VIP) was treated as an average person, and obtained a clandestine audio recording of his treatment.
This audio recording was egregious enough to prompt the ACLU to proceed.
Now, let's take my niece as an example.
She's not a frequent flyer, isn't used to being in a position of power, isn't used to dealing with abusive uniformed persons, and wouldn't have a clue that the TSA wasn't allowed to treat her like an object.
The average person would have had no recourse.
This type of abuse happens every day.
There are websites for frequent flyers which are full of horror stories of travelers undergoing much worse.
The system worked in that a VIP was able to get resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30105858</id>
	<title>Re:B 'fing' S</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1258303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?</p></div><p>The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions ' to the fundamental rights ? The Second Amendment does n't give you the right to shout " FIRE !
" in a crowded theatre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "FIRE!
" in a crowded theatre.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104222</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258225320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU</p></div></blockquote><p>In 2003, as I saw rights being taken away left and right, I decided it was time to support the ACLU and fight back for our rights.  Over the year, the ACLU sent me lots of e-mail to let me know what they were doing...</p><p>In short, tons and tons and tons of lawsuits defending every tiny grey area of abortion, several about someone getting offended at seeing a cross in a public space, and next to nothing else...  and sadly, I REALLY mean that.  Over that same time period, I saw that the EFF was doing more and more fighting of cases against the government spying via the internet, and later even taking a major role in the warrantless phone wiretapping case.  It was a no-brainer that, while the EFF appears to be a substantially smaller organization, my money would be infinitely better spent with them, than the ACLU.</p><p>Really, what bothered me most about the ACLU was the two-faced nature of it.  If you visit their website, they trumpet their fights against imposing government restrictions, and only briefly mention some involvement in defending abortion rights.  But as soon as you donate, and start getting the newsletter, it becomes clear the overwhelming focus has become every last little abortion case they can possibly get their hands on.  It's really not the ACLU we thought we all knew.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $ 100 every July 1 to the ACLUIn 2003 , as I saw rights being taken away left and right , I decided it was time to support the ACLU and fight back for our rights .
Over the year , the ACLU sent me lots of e-mail to let me know what they were doing...In short , tons and tons and tons of lawsuits defending every tiny grey area of abortion , several about someone getting offended at seeing a cross in a public space , and next to nothing else... and sadly , I REALLY mean that .
Over that same time period , I saw that the EFF was doing more and more fighting of cases against the government spying via the internet , and later even taking a major role in the warrantless phone wiretapping case .
It was a no-brainer that , while the EFF appears to be a substantially smaller organization , my money would be infinitely better spent with them , than the ACLU.Really , what bothered me most about the ACLU was the two-faced nature of it .
If you visit their website , they trumpet their fights against imposing government restrictions , and only briefly mention some involvement in defending abortion rights .
But as soon as you donate , and start getting the newsletter , it becomes clear the overwhelming focus has become every last little abortion case they can possibly get their hands on .
It 's really not the ACLU we thought we all knew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLUIn 2003, as I saw rights being taken away left and right, I decided it was time to support the ACLU and fight back for our rights.
Over the year, the ACLU sent me lots of e-mail to let me know what they were doing...In short, tons and tons and tons of lawsuits defending every tiny grey area of abortion, several about someone getting offended at seeing a cross in a public space, and next to nothing else...  and sadly, I REALLY mean that.
Over that same time period, I saw that the EFF was doing more and more fighting of cases against the government spying via the internet, and later even taking a major role in the warrantless phone wiretapping case.
It was a no-brainer that, while the EFF appears to be a substantially smaller organization, my money would be infinitely better spent with them, than the ACLU.Really, what bothered me most about the ACLU was the two-faced nature of it.
If you visit their website, they trumpet their fights against imposing government restrictions, and only briefly mention some involvement in defending abortion rights.
But as soon as you donate, and start getting the newsletter, it becomes clear the overwhelming focus has become every last little abortion case they can possibly get their hands on.
It's really not the ACLU we thought we all knew.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099504</id>
	<title>What other laws?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258227840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't illegal to carry cash... so what are these "other" laws the TSA screeners are trying to enforce?</p><p>You do have to declare large amounts of cash when you go across the border, but this was a domestic flight. No disclosure needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't illegal to carry cash... so what are these " other " laws the TSA screeners are trying to enforce ? You do have to declare large amounts of cash when you go across the border , but this was a domestic flight .
No disclosure needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't illegal to carry cash... so what are these "other" laws the TSA screeners are trying to enforce?You do have to declare large amounts of cash when you go across the border, but this was a domestic flight.
No disclosure needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100042</id>
	<title>Re:Ok to carry drugs now?</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1258231140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would give up on using that crap.<p>
But then I don't know your folks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would give up on using that crap .
But then I do n't know your folks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would give up on using that crap.
But then I don't know your folks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30112320</id>
	<title>Re:Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That must be why they keep printing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be why they keep printing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be why they keep printing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103376</id>
	<title>If you want to have a warm winter,Start here.</title>
	<author>coolforsale132</author>
	<datestamp>1258216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God. Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God .
Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.
Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100196</id>
	<title>Impact on computer searches?</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1258232100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security"</p></div><p>Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : The new rules , issued in September and October , tell officers " screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security " Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security"Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100836</id>
	<title>Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt</title>
	<author>denbesten</author>
	<datestamp>1258193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people [...] wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this.</p></div><p>And most people don't work for someone who's job it is to change the way that authority behaves.  This is a powerful ace that Steve had up his sleeve.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people [ ... ] would n't even think of standing up to authority like this.And most people do n't work for someone who 's job it is to change the way that authority behaves .
This is a powerful ace that Steve had up his sleeve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people [...] wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this.And most people don't work for someone who's job it is to change the way that authority behaves.
This is a powerful ace that Steve had up his sleeve.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102546</id>
	<title>Re:Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networ</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258206840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cash may be close to anonymous (it's not; it can be traced in various ways, it's just more effort than it's worth for small amounts) but you're certainly wrong that governments hate it.  Cash is backed by the government.  Every time you accept it, you are making a small investment in the government's reputation.  By exchanging something of real value (e.g. food) for cash, you are saying 'I trust the government's guarantee that this money can be exchanged for something of value'.  This acceptance is the main reason that governments have power.  This is one of the reason why groups like the Mafia prefer trade in favours, backed by their organisation, rather than money backed by a government.  The other is that it's even harder to trace (and tax) informal exchanges.  </p><p>
If you mow my lawn and I fix your computer then, under most tax laws, we are both liable to pay tax on the equivalent monetary value of the payment we received (i.e. you pay tax on the value of having your computer fixed, I pay tax on the value of having my lawn mowed) but proving that these services were performed as part of a trade is almost impossible and certainly neither of us would think to declare them on our tax returns.  We would both be committing tax evasion by not doing so, but it is effectively impossible to prove.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cash may be close to anonymous ( it 's not ; it can be traced in various ways , it 's just more effort than it 's worth for small amounts ) but you 're certainly wrong that governments hate it .
Cash is backed by the government .
Every time you accept it , you are making a small investment in the government 's reputation .
By exchanging something of real value ( e.g .
food ) for cash , you are saying 'I trust the government 's guarantee that this money can be exchanged for something of value' .
This acceptance is the main reason that governments have power .
This is one of the reason why groups like the Mafia prefer trade in favours , backed by their organisation , rather than money backed by a government .
The other is that it 's even harder to trace ( and tax ) informal exchanges .
If you mow my lawn and I fix your computer then , under most tax laws , we are both liable to pay tax on the equivalent monetary value of the payment we received ( i.e .
you pay tax on the value of having your computer fixed , I pay tax on the value of having my lawn mowed ) but proving that these services were performed as part of a trade is almost impossible and certainly neither of us would think to declare them on our tax returns .
We would both be committing tax evasion by not doing so , but it is effectively impossible to prove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cash may be close to anonymous (it's not; it can be traced in various ways, it's just more effort than it's worth for small amounts) but you're certainly wrong that governments hate it.
Cash is backed by the government.
Every time you accept it, you are making a small investment in the government's reputation.
By exchanging something of real value (e.g.
food) for cash, you are saying 'I trust the government's guarantee that this money can be exchanged for something of value'.
This acceptance is the main reason that governments have power.
This is one of the reason why groups like the Mafia prefer trade in favours, backed by their organisation, rather than money backed by a government.
The other is that it's even harder to trace (and tax) informal exchanges.
If you mow my lawn and I fix your computer then, under most tax laws, we are both liable to pay tax on the equivalent monetary value of the payment we received (i.e.
you pay tax on the value of having your computer fixed, I pay tax on the value of having my lawn mowed) but proving that these services were performed as part of a trade is almost impossible and certainly neither of us would think to declare them on our tax returns.
We would both be committing tax evasion by not doing so, but it is effectively impossible to prove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910</id>
	<title>Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1258230300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance.  Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system basically worked here , the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance .
Let 's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance.
Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100274</id>
	<title>Everyone who thinks that this changes things...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258189440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is an idiot.^^</p><p>Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions."(TM)*),<br>and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".</p><p>Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law? Are they drunk?</p><p>On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...? ^^<br>\_\_\_<br>* Trademark of FOX News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is an idiot. ^ ^ Because now , suddenly money is an " unsafe material " ( could be fake , could be to pay " terrorists " , could be a bomb inside , " I 'm just asking questions .
" ( TM ) * ) ,and therefore it is " by definition reasonable " .Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that do n't care for the rules of society ( laws ) , by creating yet another law ?
Are they drunk ? On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them... ?
^ ^ \ _ \ _ \ _ * Trademark of FOX News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is an idiot.^^Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions.
"(TM)*),and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law?
Are they drunk?On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...?
^^\_\_\_* Trademark of FOX News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099714</id>
	<title>Interpretation, not exception</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1258228980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions ' to the fundamental rights ? No , it 's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment .
It 's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an " unreasonable search and seizure " , but looking for anything else is " unreasonable " .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment.
It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600</id>
	<title>Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258228320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity.  Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity .
Ca n't tax it , track it and control it unless it is electronic , and traceable .
That is why they hate cash so much .
The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious .
You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government does n't think you should have or fund terrorists .
Cash must be stamped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity.
Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable.
That is why they hate cash so much.
The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious.
You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists.
Cash must be stamped out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30105858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30112320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30106938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30108436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_172214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30112320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30106938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30105858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30101710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30108436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30103812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_172214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30099612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30104464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30102596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_172214.30100042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
